From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jul 23 2005 - 02:53:10 BST
Hi Ant,
Glad to hear you and the Pirsigs are none the worse for wear after
the 7/21 attempted bombings. I trust Paul and any other MOQers who
live and work in London are suffering no more than the jitters, at
this point.
Ant:
> I know you have used this phrase of “biological terrorists” for quite a
> while but as far as the MOQ is concerned I think it only allows a socially
> driven terrorist (e.g. on the grounds of religion) or an intellectual one
> (on the grounds of injustices). And even with the latter, there starts the
> further issue of one person’s terrorist being another person’s freedom
> fighter.
predictable response 7-22-05:
I don't believe that for a minute. Muslim terrorists have no concept of
political freedom. Furthermore, as far as the MOQ is concerned,
"biological terrorist" is an appropriate description. From Lila, Chapter
24:
and predictable quotation 7-22-05:
"Phaedrus had had no answer at the time, but he had one now. 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."
msh 7-22-05:
This simplistic response, supported by the usual out-of-context
quote, has been shown to be full of holes at least a half-dozen times
in the year I've been contributing to this list. This mindless
repetition of discredited ideas is exactly why the Carousel of Faux
Philosophy was invented. It (repetition of discredited ideas) is a
way of injecting political dogma into cyberspace, just as it is used
in radio and television broadcasts, such as Limbaugh's and
O'Reilley's, to inject same into the public airwaves. Such shows
carefully screen participants to filter out intelligent dissent.
Once in a while, however, a guest or caller representing intelligent
dissent slips through the filter. What happens then is evasion,
disparagement, and ad hominem attack, followed by a quick power-down
of microphone. Then comes a commercial, a beat, and the mindless
repetition of discredited ideas continues unabated. Anyone who looks
will see the same dynamic in play here, in this very thread, as well
as in many others. The difference is that, here, for now, no one can
power-down someone else's mike. Truth is able to get through, and
Quality is served.
I will be happy to discuss LILA-24, in detail, with anyone who has
carefully read that chapter and who is willing to engage in honest
discussion. The most important concept in LILA-24, I think, is that
the MOQ does not claim a single code of morality, but FIVE of them.
Just start a thread called LILA-24, and I'll be there.
ant 7-22-05:
> One of the people who received a doctorate in Liverpool on the same day as
> myself earlier this month was John Hume who was an Irish politician who
> convinced Sinn Fein (the political arm of the IRA) to give up the armed
> campaign against the British occupation of Ireland and, instead talk.
> (Hume received a Nobel peace prize for this political work, btw). As Hume
> made clear in his acceptance speech for his PhD, armed violence only
> divides people further while dialogue brings them closer. Your labelling,
> therefore, of other human beings as simply “biological terrorists” is
> therefore not helpful especially when keeping in mind my supervisor’s
> (Prof. Stephen Clark) observation that nearly all so-called terrorist
> atrocities in this world are caused – somewhere down the line – due to a
> serious injustice.
unsupported, insulting assertion 7-22-05:
Your professor sounds like an apologist for killers, blaming someone other
than the perpetrators of crime. As for engaging biological criminals in
dialogue, I repeat what Pirsig wrote:
msh 7-22-05:
On the contrary, Professor Clark sounds like a rational person. The
first thing any rational person does when attempting to understand
low-quality human activity is to examine possible causes. This is
not apologizing for such activity. If one wishes to eliminate
terrorism there are two obvious first steps: The first is to stop
participating in it; the second is to ascertain the causes of the
terrorism that remains.
And now, surprise, the same misconstrued quote is repeated. But I
think we can skip the mindless repetition. I'm sure it will be
posted again, somewhere, in a day or two.
a suggestion 7-22-05:
For those looking for "root causes" of the terrorist attacks in London, I
suggest a careful re-reading of Chapter 24 of Lila and to contemplate
deeply the following passage:
msh 7-22-05:
Contemplating a single out-of-context passage will add little of
value to this thread, but careful re-reading of Chapter 24 might.
I repeat my offer to discuss all of LILA-24 with anyone who is
willing to engage in serious discussion. Just start a thread called
LILA-24, and have your book at hand.
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
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 Jul 23 2005 - 09:49:53 BST