From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2005 - 21:59:23 GMT
Dear Platt,
Well, the turnout at the elections in Iraq was at least comparable to that
at elections in the Netherlands and the number of people killed by bombs
didn't break a day record... Sunnites will still feel unrepresented and
resent being ruled by Kurds and Shiites (with help of Americans, British
etc.). No big change to be expected until the new government asks foreign
troops to leave, but a little step forward at least.
I wrote 28 Jan 2005 23:48:50 +0100:
'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?
...
Did you wilfully or mistakenly oversee ... "USING YOUR DEFINITION?"
...
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 ...'
You replied 29 Jan 2005 10:39:20 -0500:
'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.
...
Do you wish to continue our discussion under your impression that I'm just
playing games? Or shall this be our last?'
As I wrote: 'YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE ...'
It is not your disagreeing in itself that made me think that you either
intended or were unable to agree. It was the arguments you used. You kept
repeating the same arguments, essentially 2 or 3 quotes from Pirsig in
'Lila', despite lots of arguments from me and others showing the
untenability of the idea that terrorism belongs BY DEFINITION to a lower MoQ
level than state violence (or at least violence abroad by the US army).
I did not not accuse you of 'just playing games', I wrote that we are
discussing, i.e. interacting at the intellectual level, which from the
social or biological perspective is hardly relevant, in other words: 'only
an intellectual game'.
I do see progress in our discussion, though.
The main step towards agreement I see in your 29 Jan 2005 10:39:20 -0500
post is:
'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.'
So, if you maintain that islamist terrorism belongs at the biological level
and define terrorism as including setting sanctions on law-breaking (a
phenomenon that probably belongs at the social level according to you), the
only difference between the biological and social levels in this context
according to you is the legal status of the phenomena belonging to the
social level. Is that correct?
If yes, what if two legal systems contradict? And how many (governmental or
non-governmental) terrorists must agree about what's legal and what not to
make their agreement into a legal system? Maybe we should define legality by
the democratic process in which rules come about, (involving everyone
affected by them)? But then every non-democratic government would belong to
the biological level.
Do you agree with that conclusion?
You know that I prefer to consider terrorists as people striving for a low
quality social pattern of value rather than for a biological pattern of
value. By simply translating 'biological' for 'low quality social' and vice
versa, we CAN have a meaningful discussion however. In my experience at
least. I do agree that legality is a measure of social quality, even if I
wouldn't immediately call something 'biological' if it is illegal.
So we agree that both carrots and sticks are necessary to preserve a
society. We also agree, that by broadening the meaning of terrorism to
include the wielding of any stick every government (i.e. every system to
preserve a society) can be considered partly based on terrorism. Do you
agree that every government is also partly based on waving carrots and on
persuading its subjects that they are best served by treating its
interference in their lives as 'legal'? If yes, what proportions of
carrot/persuasion and stick do you see in your and my government and would
you want in your ideal government?
As for an example of terrorists who maimed rather than killed, I think of
Liberia (or was it Sierra Leone?) where a couple of years ago rebels
terrorized people by chopping of limbs, ears and other extremities.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 -
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 : Mon Jan 31 2005 - 22:33:55 GMT