From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 00:36:38 BST
Platt and Mark H,
Firstly, Mark (and Marsha V in a private post) thank you for your concern
about the recent events in London. Not that I really expected a reply from
Platt so soon to my last post to him but here goes...
Ant McWatt stated on July 21st:
>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.
Platt responded July 22nd:
I don't believe that for a minute. Muslim terrorists have no concept of
political freedom.
Ant McWatt comments:
For a start, I think the term “Muslim terrorist” is a
contradiction-in-terms. A genuine Muslim would never engage in such acts of
terror. Secondly, it is also feasible that the terrorists who recently
struck in London and Egypt believed (incorrectly) that they were acting to
defend certain political freedoms. Again, you seem to be dehumanising
people which is a sure road to war and terrorism rather than global peace
and stability. Whatever their actions, these terrorists (like any other
criminal) remain intellectual and social beings capable of responding to
Dynamic Quality. To believe otherwise is to leave the MOQ and enter the
realm of small minded parochialism and prejudice (actually, the latter
sounds a bit like a Rush Limbaugh show, doesn’t it?)
Platt stated July 22nd:
Furthermore, as far as the MOQ is concerned, "biological terrorist" is an
appropriate description. From Lila, Chapter 24:
"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."
Ant McWatt comments:
No, the term "biological terrorist" is completely inappropriate in an MOQ
context. Firstly, I can't see "biological terrorist" in this paragraph or
anywhere else in Pirsig’s writings. If you would like to term Bush and
Blair "biological terrorists" I would possibly sympathise with this
point-of-view but would still insist that such a term is outside the remit
of the MOQ. Biological cells can not - in themselves - be terrorist or
otherwise. If you think they can be, I would like you to suggest the
biological test that can indicate terrorist biological cells from
non-terrorist ones. And if you can suggest such a test, I think that would
just indicate that you are some kind of nut.
Ant McWatt stated on July 21st:
>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.
Platt responded July 22nd:
Your professor sounds like an apologist for killers, blaming someone other
than the perpetrators of crime.
Ant McWatt comments:
Firstly, I would like to quote Mark Heyman’s excellent reply to you from
July 22nd:
“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.”
I would also add here that - if anything - the MOQ tells us through the
example of the brujo that negative behaviour on the surface needs to be
analysed to see exactly how justified the reasons for it are rather than
just simply written off as criminal. Moreover, to bring about the first
step to eliminate terrorism that Mark talks about, pressure must be applied
by US and UK citizens to the Bush and Blair governments to stop the latter
engaging in the terrorist acts that they are causing in Iraq and elsewhere.
To ascertain the second step requires reading the work of such writers such
as John Pilger and Noam Chomsky (and yes, to repeat what I realised when the
latter gave a lecture at Liverpool last year – Chomsky is a great man of
integrity and intelligence and only the blinkered and the prejudiced could
think otherwise).
Platt stated July 22nd:
As for engaging biological criminals in dialogue, I repeat what Pirsig
wrote:
"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."
Ant McWatt comments:
In this paragraph Pirsig is talking about certain things which have high
biological value (such as drugs and sex) that if allowed to go unchecked by
social forces (such as the police and the army) can undermine social level
stability. And just because social forces should be used to directly
control biological patterns (rather than intellectually led laws) it does
not entail that terrorism is a biological crime. As I noted above and in my
previous post, terrorism – as understood in the MOQ framework - can only be
a socially or an intellectually motivated act.
Ant McWatt stated on July 21st:
>Considering the Pirsigs and myself were in central London only two days
>ago, I would appreciate it with you being a supporter of the US-UK
>occupation of Iraq, to carefully keep in mind what I’ve said to you above.
>Next time, the Pirsigs and myself might not be so lucky.
Platt stated July 22nd:
I know. Blaming the terrorist attacks in London on the liberation of Iraq
was the first thing out of the mouth of George Galloway and the Socialist
Workers Party.
Ant McWatt comments:
No surprise there as Galloway obviously has a better understanding of
reality than the Republican senators he made fools out of.
Platt stated July 22nd:
That you share [Galloway’s] views is not surprising.
Ant McWatt comments:
As you know, I always side with high quality intellectual statements so yes,
there is no disagreement with your comment here.
Platt stated July 22nd:
But I am surprised you would argue that case on the grounds that next time
the
Pirsigs and you may not be so lucky-- an obvious "argumentum ad
misericordiam" [i.e. the latter is an appeal to pity for the
non-philosophologists out there].
Ant McWatt comments:
No appeal to pity on my half here, just a statement of fact. While Iraq is
illegally occupied by US and UK forces that puts the innocent citizens in
these countries (i.e. the majority who are against the occupation) at risk
from reprisal attacks. At the very least if you really believe that the
occupation of Iraq is a moral act you should travel to Iraq yourself (as a
mercenary) to fight and get your own head shot off rather than mine or the
majority against the occupation. Still, I guess you'd prefer that
(relatively naïve) boys and girls (often not even out of their teens) to
wage your war in the same way the older people behind 9-11 and the recent
attacks in London used younger people to undertake their despicable acts.
Platt stated July 22nd:
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:
"In the battle of society against biology, the new twentieth-century
intellectuals have taken biology's side. Society can handle biology alone
by means of prisons and guns and police and the military. But when the
intellectuals in control of society take biology's side against society
then society is caught in a cross fire from which it has no protection."
Ant McWatt comments:
I would suggest those looking for "root causes" of the terrorist attacks in
London should first examine those using up a disproportionate amount of the
world’s oil and work back from there. I’ll give you a clue to start you
off: Halliburton.
Finally, though your understanding of the MOQ - in theory - is often
excellent, I think for its practical applications, you need to read more
quality texts on world politics rather than, for instance, the relatively
low quality sources found on much of the Internet. (I notice people such as
yourself are quoting Wikipedia on MOQ Discuss even though the entries on
Wikipedia can be written by any uninformed idiot). You are very fortunate
enough to have numerous high quality references from Mark Heyman and Arlo
Besinger from over the last year so I suggest you read and analyse these
before posting your superficial right-wing propaganda and
Fox-Limbaugh-O'Reilley falsehoods on this website. As noted to you before,
the latter only lowers the intellectual quality of this discussion group
and, in a wider context, undermines global stability and world peace.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
“Your knowledge of the educational field is ten times mine, so I doubt if I
can contribute much to a discussion of its proper role in a moral society. I
read your historical material on the subject with interest and thank you for
it.”
(Platt Holden to Arlo Besinger, July 23rd 2005)
_________________________________________________________________
Winks & nudges are here - download MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
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 Jul 24 2005 - 05:14:52 BST