Hi 3WD:
> About this quote...
>
> > "The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that
> > you can talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot
> > directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control
> > biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society
> > and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between society
> > and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun."
.
> .... an observation.
> I think you have properly interpreted Pirsig's quote. But I wonder if
> this is not another case of Pirsig stretching a relationship beyond its
> useful limits. I think we would all agree that "kill it" (limited to
> "eating" and cases of protecting reproduction and offsprings) is a
> fundamental and basic law of biology. I think we would all also agree that
> "kill it" outside of these very limited and strict biological limits is a
> perversion, is what forever societies have called a "crime." Now the
> problem I see with this is that this perversion is a social one, not a
> biological one. In other words we do not see "kill it" for other than
> limited biological means appear until the social level emerges and begins
> to dominate the lower levels. So IMHO the "policeman or a soldier and his
> gun" are social patterns of value which are trying to control a SOCIAL
> PATTERN OF VALUES, A SOCIAL PERVERSION of a moral, necessary, and good
> biological pattern. But this perversion is not at the biological level at
> all, but is purely a conflict of values at the social level.That societies
> have found and continue to find it useful to solve social problems by
> killing the biology does not make it necessarily the best, most moral, way
> to solve them. In fact to continue to think of A SOCIAL PROBLEM as a
> BIOLOGICAL PROBLEM is completely misguided and may well contribute to,
> rather than help solve the problem.
I think you're mistaken in saying that biological killing is limited to
"eating and protecting reproduction and offspring." A quick search on
Google of "animal aggression" reveals that those who study animals
conclude that aggressive behavior, defined as "intent to inflict personal
injury on a member of its species," is not a perversion but fundamental
characteristic of animal life.
For instance, Jane Goodall who studied chimps is quoted: "Suddenly I
found that under certain circumstances they could be just as brutal as
humans. . . The intercommunity attacks and the cannibalism were a
different kind of violence altogether (compared to common in-group
aggressive displays and fights where little actual damage occurs.)
In some species, males will kill their own kind over territory and for
mates. Some even kill their own offspring. So "natural" killing does
indeed occur outside the limits you impose.
That's why I think your conclusion is mistaken. To intend to inflict
physical injury on a member of one's own species is rooted in biological
behavior and must be controlled by society for society to survive. Recall
Pirsig's warning about aggression: "Intellectuals must find biological
behavior, no matter what is ethnic connection, and limit or destroy
destructive biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness, the
way a doctor destroys germs, before those patterns destroy civilization
itself."
It's ironic that today someone is willing to use germs to destroy our
civilization.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST