From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 02:15:06 BST
Hi Platt,
[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.
[Platt]
I would suggest "high quality" and cultural perspectives do no necessarily go
together, a less "I" centric Eastern view being a case in point..
[Arlo]
Why is a less centric "I" a lower Quality perspective?
Do you feel that your "high Quality" views are NOT cultural perspectives?
Wouldn't you say that exposure to "our" cultural perspectives can expose other
cultures to "high Quality" perspectives they may not have developed?
Pirsig had this to say about Western, dialectial reason: "And now he began to
see for the first time the unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained
power to understand and rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, had lost.
He had built empires of scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of
nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams of power and wealth...but
for this he had exchanged an empire of understanding of equal magnitude: an
understanding of what it is to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it."
I'm assuming Pirsig considers the Eastern perspective more representative of
being "a part of the world". His entire treatise, ZMM and then the MOQ, came
directly out of being exposed to another cultural perspective, both
historically (in the case of Ancient Greek) and personally (in the case of his
travels East, and studies in India). He may not have agreed with every
alternate cultural perspective, but exposure to the high Quality ones led to
ZMM.
[Platt previously]
Do you object to Pirsig's use of "biological crime?"
[Arlo previously]
No. Had he referred to the individuals as "biological criminals" then I would
object.
[Platt]
Seems to me that biological crime is what criminals do.
[Arlo]
Certainly. But that does not make them nothing more than "biological beings".
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
I hope your not suggesting that the problem of black crime that Pirsig used as
context was because blacks simply have "biological urges." That goes everything
you've said about "social causes" of crime.
[Arlo]
No. That the criminal element in question was not responding to social level
deterrents of biological behaviors. The criminals valued biological Quality
over a social Quality they did not invest in. We invested in the social
Quality, and thus their behavior was a threat.
As Pirsig points out, "everyone" has biological urges. What keeps most of us
from acting on them is the threat of "the policeman" and a valuation of the
social fabric. But sometimes, this threat doesn't work. Why? Ignorance?
Stupidity? A devaluation of the social fabric?
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
So we were wrong to bomb Germany and Japan in WW II?
[Arlo]
When we targetted non-combattants, we were certainly wrong. Answer me, why is
killing American citizens revulsive to you, but killing foreign citizens
perfectly moral?
[Arlo]
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.
[Platt]
How does it make sense to protect the price of oil by destabilizing the
region?
[Arlo]
Because it prevents a strong nationalist state from developing that could bump
out US oil interests. But even without the oil aspect, our behavior was
immoral.
[Arlo]
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]
Your problem is you refuse to believe there's a moral difference between
fighting to preserve a biological level worldview of force and an
intellectual level worldview of freedom and individual rights.
[Arlo]
When the US starts fighting for this reason, let me know. I'd be glad to offer
my support.
[Platt]
By the way, that reminds me of a joke. Q. What do you call a ship load of
liberal professors headed to China? A: A good start.
[Arlo]
Hehe... :-)
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 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 03:09:16 BST