From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 22:15:02 GMT
Dear David B.,
For once I agree with you! I.e. when you wrote 16 Feb 2003 17:18:42 -0700:
'war is an ancient social level tendency, the antics of the "Giant", as
pirsig puts it. War is the giant's immune system, the superorganism
protecting itself, or expanding itself. The UN and international law are all
about controlling this ancient tendency. Its all about intellect guiding
tradition, the third being guided by the fourth level. I think its
interesting to view this situation in Iraq with this shift in mind.' (Apart
from reservations about the reification of the third and fourth levels. As a
metaphor -valid within limits- it's acceptable to me.)
With 'I think the Bush Administration is trying to turn the UN into an
instrument of American Empire.' you overstep the bounds of that metaphor,
however, if you mean to say that the Bush Administration is enacting 'the
giant's immune system'. For me the Bush Administration simply represents one
intellectual pattern of values and (a non-instrumentalized) UN and
international law another one. For me (but I may be wrong) the first
intellectual pattern of values is degenarate, but not to the extent that it
represents a falling back on a social pattern of values. It is just a lower
quality intellectual pattern of values. I agree however, that DQ points
towards (induces a shift towards) 'a stable and enforced framework of
internation law, possibly even a world government' (democratic of course or
even -more radically guaranteeing the flourishing of individuals-
sociocratic; see www.sociocracy.biz).
You end with:
'Wouldn't it be nice if every cultural/linguistic group had its own nation
with undisputed borders. Wouldn't it be nice if every one of these stable
homes was a free and open democracy. Wouldn't it be grand if all the elected
leaders took international law and organizations seriously, sent the best
and brightest to represent their people in those legal bodies, and the
biggest army in the world wore blue helmuts? Its not that far fetched.'
I doubt the wisdom of the suggestion that nations should be
culturally/linguistically homogeneous. That will too easily invoke the Giant
(social patterns of value). Nations should find their stability in a
specific way of coping with diversity or -if they have no such specific way
to base a common identity on- only on geographic distinctions (who lives
where and what's the most practical way of grouping people given natural
geographic obstacles to communication and favorable circumstances for higher
population density). For the rest I agree.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Feb 20 2003 - 22:18:33 GMT