From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 29 2005 - 15:39:20 GMT
Dear Wim,
> I hope you understand that I am a little disappointed by this discussion
> with you. You react to my e-mails as if you feel cornered and want to get
> out with sharp replies. It's only an intellectual game! No biological or
> social pattern of value anywhere in sight that is being threatened if you
> admit that you may have taken a wrong turn sometime back in our discussion.
> (If you want to maintain that terrorism belongs to the biological level,
> your definition 'life at the biological level depends on killing to
> survive' seems a mistake.) Where is our common light that only shines out
> through different windows?
I hope you're not suggesting, Wim, that if I don't agree with you that I'm
lacking integrity. It seems to me we can disagree without impugning one
another's motives. If not, there's little point in continuing our
discussion.
> You rhetorically asked 7 Jan 2005 12:17:00 -0500:
> 'Why is it so hard to make this distinction [between a terrorist using a
> gun or a bomb with the intention of creating an islamist society and a
> soldier using a gun or a bomb with the intention of protecting a democratic
> society]? Perhaps you can enlighten me?'
>
> Did you wilfully or mistakenly oversee that I asked (emphasis added):
> 'Can you explain to me how you distinguish between a terrorist using a gun
> or a bomb with the intention of creating an islamist society and a soldier
> using a gun or a bomb with the intention of protecting a democratic society
> USING YOUR DEFINITION?'
>
> Of course I can easily make a distinction between people wanting to create
> an islamist society with guns and bombs and people wanting to protect my
> society in the same way. It is in the different quality of the societies
> they support.
Then you have answered my question. Since we were talking about terrorism
vs. the Allied forces (tyranny vs. freedom) I assumed that the different
quality of the societies in question was a given. My mistake.
> The point is that I can't make a distinction between the two
> using your definition, so I can't see that the difference amounts to a
> difference in level (biological versus social).
As Pirsig points out (the soldier and policeman with his gun), it is
necessary for a society to fight a biological assault on its values by
adopting biological methods, i.e., to meet force with force. I don't
understand why this point is so hard to comprehend.
> Should I really spell out
> every word to make you admit that you see my point? You don't have to agree
> if the social and/or intellectual patterns of value you participate in
> don't allow. I already suggested a way out: simply say (like) David B. that
> you consider Pirsig's annotations in 'Lila's Child' superfluous and that
> you prefer 'Lila', a MoQ without definitions of the levels.
I don't see a conflict between the LC and Lila. As for Lila not giving a
definition of the biological level, consider this:
"When biological quality and Dynamic Quality are confused the result isn't
an increase in Dynamic Quality. It's an extremely destructive form of
degeneracy of the sort seen in the Manson murders, the Jonestown madness,
and the increase of crime and drug addiction throughout the country."
(Lila, 24)
If that isn't clear description of biological level moral values, I give
up.
> If you go on in this way, you are running into all kinds of problems.
> Terrorism, defined as 'ruling/attaining ends by creating fear' (a
> definition which you didn't question) does not fully fit your definition of
> 'life depending on killing to survive' (maiming can be enough to create
> fear).
The biological value of killing is an integral part of the human
biological makeup as a life form which I thought we were discussing, not
plants, mushrooms, and the like. I hadn't thought of "maiming" since I
know of no physical conflict where the fear of maiming alone caused one or
the other side to surrender. Perhaps you can cite some examples.
>'Terrorism' is not a living organism or species. Quite a lot of
> living organisms and species (whom you wouldn't want to exclude from a
> definition of the second level) do not depend on killing to survive.
Correct. But in the context of our discussion involving human beings, I
think we can exclude life forms that live off of minerals.
> Quite
> a few democratic governments (partly) depend on creating fear to attain
> ends. If one underestimates the role of persuasion in democratically
> governing people (like you seem to do), every social security system is
> based on terrorism according to this definition: 'transferring earned
> income to the unearned under threat of violence'.
Yes, to preserve a society both carrots and sticks are necessary as you
have rightly pointed out. The threat of jail hangs over every taxpayer.
The foundation of government power is legalized terrorism.
> You wrote:
> 'I agree that laws backed by force are necessary for a society to function.
> But laws established by force or threat of force, i.e. extortion rather
> than persuasion are the stuff of tyrannies.'
> What is the difference between 'backing' a law by force and 'establishing'
> one by force (if that really is the line you draw between tyranny and more
> enlightened rule)? What role do you see for persuasion in
> backing/establishing laws (e.g. tax laws) in the USA and in general?
The difference is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.
Persuasion should be used in establishing laws and changing laws. Backing
laws, i.e. obedience to law, is the role of the courts backed by police
under limits imposed by a constitution.
Do you wish to continue our discussion under your impression that I'm just
playing games? Or shall this be our last?
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Sat Jan 29 2005 - 15:37:22 GMT