From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 18:30:06 GMT
Sam and all MOQers opposed to genocide:
Sam Norton said to dmb:
I genuinely do want to know how and why the standard MoQ assesses genocide
as wrong. It seems to me that the standard MoQ cannot do it,... Perhaps
'ethnocide' would be a better description, as doubtless the MoQ would see
the loss of biological patterns as wasteful, and therefore wrong etc. But I
see no way in which the MoQ would see, for example, the extermination of the
Native American population as a wrong in and of itself. It would be seen as
a wrong because it caused the loss of intellectual patterns (but if those
patterns could be otherwise preserved, eg in books, that loss is mitigated)
and it would be seen as a wrong because it (may) lead to a loss of potential
DQ. But there is no wrong in and of itself in killing people. People do not
have moral status in the MoQ, and therefore there is no bar to removing
them, if the wider context justifies it. ...I don't believe this is a
ridiculous point. I think it is closely parallel to the time in ZMM when
Pirsig is at Benares and debating the morality of Hiroshima. It would be
good if you could defend the MoQ (or say how I've misunderstood it).
dmb says:
My plan for later today or tommorrow is to post some ideas in the "ON
TRANSCENDENCE" thread, ideas that get at the issues we've been exploring as
a group in several threads. I think one of the central reasons for your
questions in this thread is that you don't really see the distinction
between the little self and the big Self, between ego consciousness and
one's ultimate identity. I think this same confusion is at the center of our
disagreements about theism and mysticism too. I hope I can get it all across
clearly and I hope others find it as exciting and as clarifying as I did. In
the mean time, let me say just a few things about "ethnocide" and other
morally outrageous acts...
Its hard to imagine that your curiosity is sincere, Sam. Doesn't Pirsig
explicitly address the issue of genocide in his criticisms of pragmatism?
Does he not explicitly pit the genocidal giant against the intellectual
principles that protect human rights? I've pointed all this out before. In
order to even pose the question, one first has to strip intellectual values
of their content and meaning. Hitler's genocidal mania was anti-intellectual
above all, as Pirsig describes it. It was the social level Victorian mind
that believed, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". And its the social
level giant that "doesn't mind losing a few bodies" in order to preserve
itself. The intellectual level, not just the capactity for abstract thought
but the values it produces, are very much aimed at putting the breaks upon
this murderous giant. Pirsig marks the beginning of intellect's dominance in
society as a reaction to the senseless violence of WW1. See? Putting the
intellect on top is all about NOT KILLING. Rights and Democracy free the
intellect from social control, but let us not forget that life and liberty
are our most basic human rights. Over and over and over, he makes this
point. This is why I doubt the sincerity of your questions. I don't mean to
be cruel, Sam, but how could you miss this point?
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 14 2004 - 06:43:37 GMT