From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 04:44:16 BST
Hi All,
Khaled, I too welcome a voice that is non-Western. All too often, we are
unexposed to cultural views that are outside our own cultural mythos. My
biggest argument for diversity is that it sheds an exposing light on
ideological solidifications.
I, too, disagree with the terminology "biological terrorists", but I find it
wrong because of a conflation that I'd like to explain, namely it conflates
"actions" with "individuals" and entangles the two in a word-association that
supports American hegemony.
What I mean is that the so-called "terrorists" aren't "biological", any more
than an American soldier is "biological". What IS biological are the actions of
the individuals. A "suicide bomber" may be driven by intellectual or social
goals, but he chooses a "biological" means to achieve this end. The American
army may be driven by intellectual or social goals, but also uses biological
means to achieve this end.
Pirsig's description that Platt quotes indicates that his view is that
"biological violence" must be met with "biological violence". Crime is met with
a "policeman and his gun". But we wouldn't call the policeman a "biological
enforcer", would we?
The second trouble is that Pirsig's use of "biological" to describe crime was
precisely because the "criminal" will destroy "society". When individuals move
only to satisfy their biological urges, society, a higher moral evolution, has
its entire existence threatened. That is, the reversion to "biological
violence" was morally justified when society is threatened. But... wasn't
Iraq's society threatened? Why don't their individuals have moral recourse to
"biological violence"? Why do WE, but not THEM? And how, exactly, was American
society threatened by Iraq, that justified the use of biological violence
(sometimes in the form of illegal napalm) against its citizens?
A criminal, in Pirsig's analogy, was motivated only by biological motives. The
criminal is not working against a perceived aggressive threat to what he
considers "moral society". Remember that Washington, was in England's eyes a
"criminal" to be met with "biological violence". But Washington "won", and so
he is revered as a Freedom Fighter, not as a "biological terrorist".
Right now, Platt has hit "reply" and is preparing to type how I feel that
Washington and the person who flew the plane into the WTC are moral
equivalents. I don't. Washington never sanctioned the murder of non-combatants
(that I know of). My point is only that by conflating "biological violence"
with the totality of the individual, one misuses Pirsig to presuppose the
individual is motivated only by satisfying biological urges. The so-called
"terrorists" are obviously motivated by something more than this.
And this is why, to me, Pirsig's description of meeting "biological crime" with
"a gun" doesn't hold true in this situation. We can kill and drop napalm and
bombs until we are blue in the face, and we won't have met the real problem,
because the real problem is not "biological". Only the actions are. And while I
condemn "biological violence" on both sides, I do so because I know that
neither side will "win" this through recourse to "biological violence".
The social and intellectual conflicts the underlie the recourse to biological
violence must be dealt with... by both sides. Until that is done, both sides
will keep on killing, keep on thinking of the "other" as a "germ", and make use
of propaganda that labels the other as a nothing more than "biological threat".
Just my two cents...
Arlo
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 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 04:52:04 BST