From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 23:06:18 BST
Hi Wim and Sam, and all,
On 30 Jul 2005 at 8:17, Wim Nusselder wrote:
wim to sam:
In your interpretation of terrorism you do NOT refer to conflicts BETWEEN
levels (as postulated), BUT to a conflict WITHIN the social level (between
societies) that can only be described from a higher, intellectual
perspective. (From within the social level being part of a social system defines your
experience. You can only experience 'in' and 'out', whether something fits
the social patterns or or not. You can only compare contributions of
different social systems to 'the evolution of life', i.e. biological
quality, by participating in an intellectual pattern of value that reflects
the social level and the biological level.)
From that intellectual perspective you refer NOT to a CONFLICT between the
social and the biological level (in which a particular type of society has
better chances of beating biology than another type), BUT to the
CONTRIBUTION of society to biological quality.
msh 7-30-04:
I think this is correct. And I think something very important
follows: No society which has not resolved its own Bio-Soc conflicts
has any Int-moral right to force its Soc patterns on another society,
UNLESS the aggression can be intellectually justified as preventing
the destruction of the aggressor's social system.
wim:
For me terrorism is essentially a conflict between between intellectual
patterns of value, between sets of ideas about the 'value of' different
types of societies. (NB 'value' here understood in SOMical terms.)
msh 7-30-05:
I agree with this, adding only that the physical conflict, the brute
violence of terrorism on BOTH sides, occurs at the biological level,
even though the meta-conflict is intellectual.
wim:
Terrorists consider the value of a specific type of society to be so
low, that destroying it is legitimate, even if the chances that a
better society rising from its ashes are small.
msh 7-30-05:
This, I'm afraid, is insufficient. It reflects a certain level of
indoctrination on your part that I thought you had avoided, judging
by your comments above. The terrorists involved in the recent
attacks on NYC, Washington, Madrid and London are clearly responding
to more that their perceived "low-value" of western cultures. If
they are attacking western culture then why not go after easy targets
like Stockholm and Copenhagen?
All evidence, including statements from the attackers themselves,
indicates that their actions are merely the current end-point of
reaction to western aggression against Muslims that has been going on
since the Crusades. The modern reasons are obvious, and have been
clearly stated: Western support of brutal tyrannies in the mideast,
US support of Israel in its on-going brutal oppression of
Palestinians, the US led attack on Afghanistan, and the US-UK led
invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, your comment immediately above, to the extent that is
true, applies equally well to western "terrorists" in their ongoing
destruction of culturally variant societies.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
These were Blair's bombs, and he ought not be allowed to evade
culpability with yet another unctuous speech about "our way of life",
which his own rapacious violence in other countries has despoiled.
-- John Pilger
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 31 2005 - 11:40:15 BST