From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 18:04:52 GMT
Hi Wim,
> In your 10 Feb 2003 11:00:10 -0000 e-mail, you come very close to agreeing
> that war against Iraq at this moment is undesirable. Only 'hope' prevents
> you from agreeing
My understanding of the situation is not without ambiguities, qualms and
second, third and fourth thoughts. I could be reading this situation
completely wrongly. I don't have a conclusive answer. I just think that the
status quo (including any variant on extended inspections) is insupportable,
for all sorts of reasons (including Christian ones) and the choice as I see
it is between letting Hussein out of his cage or military intervention. I
don't see either course of action as clearly correct, hence my discussion of
the Fall. We're in a mess of our own making.
You raised a few issues which I would like to respond to.
>
> You wanted to keep 'metaphysical interrogation' out of this thread in
order
> to prevent me from explaining (in this thread) patterns of value to you
and
> criticizing your abuse of the terms 'social' and 'biological' in this
> context. So I'll restrict myself to saying that your inability to phrase
> your arguments in MoQ terms doesn't prove the superiority of Christian
> language, only that you are better at home in it. It may fit you better,
> which is hardly surprising for an Anglican priest.
Fair comments. I'd be very happy to have another go at re-training my mind
in the non-reification of patterns. (I've felt less compulsion since last
autumn though.) Do you think that a Christian doctrine like the Fall can be
rephrased in MoQish?
> I am a pacifist, but not a principled one. I don't argue from principles
any
> more since I experienced the value of seeking divine guidance (allowing
> God/DQ to work through me by identifying less with static patterns of
value,
> including principles). Being pacifist means to me never having experienced
> being guided to use violence and not being able to imagine being guided to
> using violence. Being forced, by remaining identification with static
> patterns of value, yes; being guided, by the lure of DQ, no.
So actually any form of description of your nature ("being pacifist") is
mistaken, because necessarily static? You are simply yourself, not to be put
in a box, or kept within a mythos/logos pattern?
> Your 'hypothetical example' of supposing that I am an US police officer
> guarding a children's hospital that's being attacked by terrorists,
cornered
> in a position in which using my gun is the only option left apart from
being
> killed, ... <snip>..... but I might find
> a way out ONLY if I don't identify with that pattern of value, if I refuse
> to assign it any morality of the highest kind that I know, religious
> morality.
I think this is where one of the 'lacunae' (ie logical gaps) comes in the
MoQ. Pirsig himself acknowledges it, I believe. How do you judge if an
action is driven by DQ or by degeneracy? Pirsig suggests something along the
lines of 'a hundred years later'. There is only the necessity to act, or, if
you cannot act, to judge. My hypothetical example is indeed open to the
challenges you make, yet the reference to Todd Beamer is not - and that is a
situation which I would not have thought it difficult to identify with.
Perhaps it is wrong to try and draw principles out from such situations -
yet that is the necessary development of Quality in our lives, would you not
agree? In other words, our openness, receptivity to and perception of
Quality is something that can be developed and cultivated. At least, that is
what I believe (this touches on our differences re: static/dynamic
religion).
> I do not condemn those who do use violence when forced by strong static
> patterns of value. I just try
> 1) to show them the options they have to avoid it (to break those
patterns),
> even if they are hardly there, primarily by example (I don't like telling
> them what they should do), and
> 2) to suggest them to 'open up' to DQ in a vocabulary that appeals to
them.
> Thus I try to contribute to the 'migration' of those static patterns of
> value towards Dynamic Quality, which I identify with a vision of a world
> without violence. A vision that is unrealistic as a goal, I agree, but
> nevertheless a moon worth pointing at (like the old testament prophets
> did).
I disagree that such a vision is unrealistic as a goal, indeed the whole
framework of the Fall, as I described it, is predicated on a vision against
which to assess whether an action should be undertaken or not.
> You must see the parallel of my position with yours:
> 'the traditional Christian view accepts the inevitability of personal
sin -
> indeed, it makes it central and says that it is a dangerous illusion to
> think that you can be free of it'.
> Just substitute 'identification with static patterns of value' for
'personal
> sin'. According to me a true Christian view nevertheless recognizes the
> value of striving to become more free, of striving to 'be perfect like
your
> Father in heaven is perfect'. A Christian should do 'more than what's
usual'
> (which indeed may at times mean first doing what's usual, 'putting to
sleep'
> static patterns of value, and only then doing something extra).
> You distinguish between 'justified, but still sin' and 'righteous'.
> I distinguished between 'excusable' and 'morally justified'.
I don't think there is a clear parallel here, but perhaps that's because
I've got the MoQ wrong. Unless you add in an 'exclusive' to your
description, I see no sin in identification with static patterns of value -
it depends on what they are static patterns *of*. Static does not mean
inherently bad or low value - it just means a stable pattern, as I
understand it. I understand the 'be perfect' teaching as to do with
submission to God and I do not equate God with Dynamic Quality. (Possibly
with Quality, but I'd hesitate even there; I am sometimes tempted to equate
DQ with the Holy Spirit, but that requires a thorough-going Trinitarian
framework, ie Son = SQ, Spirit = DQ, Father = Q, and I haven't worked that
through.) Are Quakers Trinitarian? To be honest I hadn't actually mentally
grouped them under 'Christian' (as opposed to Christian - influenced). I
guess it all depends on how you define 'Christian' - and I don't think there
actually is a stable 'essence' of Christianity, so that's a bit of a blind
alley.
> Do you agree that Christianity should not be in the business of providing
> excuses to politicians to start war (they're able to make plenty up
> themselves), but of pointing to a course of action that is really morally
> justified?
Yes, but a morally justified course of action might be military action.
> Do you agree that given the core of Christian teaching, which is
> summarized in the Sermon on the Mount, Christians should point to
> non-violent action to end the oppression of the Iraqis as the only really
> morally justified course of action, difficult as that may seem?
It's debatable whether the Sermon on the Mount is 'the core of Christian
teaching', although it's clearly a *part* of the core. Christianity does not
entail non-violence, as I understand it, as I explained before. Jesus did
not seek to impose sanctions upon the money changers in the temple, he
grabbed a whip and drove them out.
> That non-violent action would -in my vision- include non-recognition of
the
> Iraqi regime and non-cooperation with Iraqi officials (rather than
sanctions
> forcing them to do what we want them to do, even if these may be difficult
> to distinguish, except by the way they are motivated).
>
I like the idea of 'ignoring' the Iraqi regime. I would agree with you that
the real way forward is through a much more deeply creative engagement with
these issues on the part of the ruling powers. Perhaps this is where my lack
of faith shows itself - I think our present situation is too late for that.
> If you consider the key question to be whether 'what would happen after
the
> war' ('a significant benefit to the people of Iraq') justifies 'the
> suffering consequent to war', it seems obvious that the only people who
can
> make a choice when both the benefits and the costs are uncertain are the
> Iraqi's themselves.... They allowed Saddam Hussein to suppress the revolt
again
> with conventional and chemical weapons.
Fairish point. There is a fair bit of coverage of the Iraqi exiles in the
British press, possibly because many are based in London. The anti-war
protesters were unable to obtain an Iraqi national to speak at the march in
London because they are on record as saying that they would like to get rid
of Saddam. One and a half million Afghan girls are now receiving an
education thanks to the last undertaking of the American military.
> Another key question (given the uncertainty of the balance of benefits and
> costs to the Iraqi people) seems to me what will be the effect on the
> 'international order'....
> The result of a U.S. led small coalition going to war against Iraq without
a
> clear Security Council backing may indeed be 'an American empire, de jure
or
> de facto'....
> I think it would be a step back. What do you think?
I would love to see a stable and enforced framework of internation law,
possibly even a world government. It's not here yet. In the meantime we have
the UN. The UN has sought to enforce its will against the Hussein regime
through repeated resolutions, and has now made explicit that Iraq is in
material breach of those resolutions, providing a 'final opportunity' to
comply, on pain of 'serious consequences' (1441). Seems to me that if the UN
does not act to enforce its will then that would represent a severe
degrading of the international law framework, giving comfort to nefarious
elements everywhere. That is why the UN needs to provide an explicit mandate
for US led forces to take military action against the Hussein regime. If
that does not happen, then I think it is debatable whether the UN would be
more harmed by US action or non-action. I would also argue that the US
already has sufficient warrant in international law for any action that it
takes, but that's a debatable point.
BTW I think the argument that enforcement of UN resolutions is inconsistent
(referring to Israel) is legally mistaken. As I understand it the
resolutions relating to Israel are under Chapter 6, and therefore have the
status of recommendations, those relating to Iraq are under Chapter 7, and
are therefore obligatory.
As for whether an American Empire is desirable... I let my tongue (my
typing) run away with me a little. Certainly I can think of worse fates than
living in an American Empire - living in Iraq under the Hussein regime for
example - but Empires are not intrinsically good things in themselves. I
have this vague sense that there were various Classical debates, in Athens
and Rome, about whether Empire was compatible with democracy and
republicanism, which concluded that they were not. Something more to worry
about.
I am scared by the way I see the world going. I will be more scared if the
UN goes in a French direction, rather than a US direction.
With friendly greetings to you too,
Sam
The actual outlook is very dark, and any serious thought should start from
that fact. (George Orwell)
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 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 16 2003 - 18:02:57 GMT