From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 17:17:42 BST
Hi Erin,
[Erin asked]
But maybe where I am misunderstanding you is that you don't have a problem to
reducing the soldier/terrorist to one level you just have a problem reducing
them to that particular level?.....so saying social terrorist or intellectual
terrorist makes more sense to you?
[Arlo]
No, and thanks for asking me to clarify. An individual can be viewed on the
biological, social or intellectual level. It is impossible to reduce any
individual to any one level.
[Erin]
So can't you say that having sex, taking drugs, etc. are the actions of the
individual? Not sure what distinction you are pointing to between the
"biological actions" and the "biological force".
[Arlo]
I'm not sure I was pointing to a distinction. And that they are the "actions of
the individual" is exactly what I had said. The terms I was using were only to
emphasize that Pirsig justifies "biological force" (physical violence) to
combat actions in pursuit of biological Quality that threaten society. It is
meeting biological with biological.
[Erin]
See again looking at all three patterns in the individual was why I wrote that
post...it reminded me of the conversation I had with DMB when I was trying to
do the same thing with Lila. So if Lila CONSISTENTLY uses biological actions
to stem a threat she sees as injurious to her social/intellectual patterns she
is called the biologcial character. If somebody CONSISTENTLY uses violent
actions calling them biological isn't off (as long as you recognize the role of
the other levels.) Now I don't think all soldiers are biologically
dominated....I think some are and some aren't.
[Arlo]
The difference, as I see it, is that Lila was pursuing biological Quality. The
"soldier" and the "terrorist" are not. They are pursuing social Quality. They
are resorting to biological violence, yes, but they are not driven by
biologicla Quality. As was Lila.
The "criminal", as discussed by Pirsig, IS pursuing biological Quality, as was
Lila. But I still would not call him/her a "biological criminal". You, and MSH
in a recent post, use the word "biological dominant" to describe someone, like
the criminal and Lila. I am okay with this, because it does emphasize their
actions, and not reduce them to one level.
However, I wouldn't call the soldier or the "terrorist" "biologically dominant".
Both I WOULD call "socially dominant".
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 - 19:54:36 BST