From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 05:16:07 BST
Hi Platt,
[Arlo said]
My biggest argument for diversity is that it sheds an exposing light on
ideological solidifications.
[Platt]
I'm sure you're not suggesting that all cultural views are equally worthy.
[Arlo]
I'm suggesting that no "culture" has a monopoly on high-Quality views, and that
exposure to other cultural perspectives can help us see things our own cultural
lens filters out. Such as Pirsig becoming aware of the "green flash". Or his
description of Eastern cultures that are not so "I"-centric.
[Platt]
Do you object to Pirsig's use of "biological crime?"
[Arlo]
No. Had he referred to the individuals as "biological criminals" then I would
object. "Physical force" is a biological pattern, not the individual who makes
use of it. In short, "crime" is an action, and so I have no problem calling it
"biological" (when it is).
[Arlo previously]
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?
[Platt]
No. We call him a social enforcer against biological crime. Talking crime to
death doesn't work. You have to stop it by using whatever means are necessary.
[Arlo]
Just a question (one I freely admit is a non-sequitar :-)). Do you think
"talking abstinence works?" Why? Isn't that "talking" against a "biological
Quality pattern"?
At any rate, the point is that NEITHER the policeman or the criminal are
"biological". They both USE biological violence. One has social justification,
one does not.
[Platt]
Pirsig made no excuses for criminal behavior. He didn't say crime was justified
because of poverty, rage, or frustration. The problem, he said, was leniency in
attacking crime, brought on by liberal intellectuals of the sixties who blamed
criminal behavior on the "cruel and corrupt social system."
[Arlo]
Because, as I've said, criminal behavior was defined as behavior that pursued
biological quality to the threat of social quality. It had no other motivation.
It had no social or ideological component. It was simply biological urges to
steal, rape, take drugs, commit murder, and whatnot. Using biological violence
against this makes perfect sense.
But the "terrorists" are not "criminals pursuing only biological quality". They
are being motivated by social and (possibly, as I've just responded to Bo)
intellectual patterns. You can't shoot kill these with a gun.
And if WE are going to condemn THEM killing our non-combattants, then we must
also condemn US killing THEIR non-combattants. Flying a plane into a tower is a
horrible, evil action, that deserves to be scorned. But dropping a bomb on a
village inhabited by people who had NOTHING to do with that is also a horrible,
evil action that deserves to be scorned.
As was selling the Iraqis guns to kill Iranians, and the Iranians guns to kill
Iraqis, all to keep the region destabilized and protect the price of oil.
Immorality is immorality. Your problem is that you refuse to believe America is
capable of it. The reduction of Iraqis to "biological" and the US to "social"
is part of that.
[Platt]
IMO he could say the same about liberal intellectuals of today who blame
terrorism on everything but the terrorists. Tony Blair, who I think you will
agree is no dummy, put it bluntly and truthfully: "Their cause is not founded
on an injustice. It is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such it
can't be moderated."
[Arlo]
Religious fanatacism is surely a threat to intellectual freedom, and drives
threats to other religion's social patterns, whether it is Islamic or Christian
or Buddhism (well, I'd actually pay to see that one :-)). But here you freely
admit it is a "social level" conflict. Islamic fundamentalism with American
capitalism.
That it is a social-social conflict is what I've been saying all along.
By the way, that reminds me of a joke. What do you call a "conservative
intellectual"? An oxymoron. ;-)
[Platt]
P.S. I've sent posts to the MD about health services and education in our
ongoing discussion about the MOQ Moral Society, but they haven't shown up on my
computer. Did you get them, or should I resend?.
[Arlo]
Horse assures me all posts that get sent will eventually post. I had a few long
delayed as well. But you can resend if you'd like, it might make it through
quicker.
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 : Fri Jul 29 2005 - 06:25:45 BST