From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 01:55:59 BST
Hi Platt, Ian and MSH
On 9 Aug 2005 at 10:00, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> > As for
> > Bio/Chem attacks I'd be more worried about our own products of bio-weapons
> > getting out or a contagious disease being brought in from abroad.
>
> I worry not only about bio/chem attacks (such as Saddam employed) but also
> nuke attacks. Do you think the terrorists would hesitate to kill thousands
> at a clip if they had the means and the opportunity?
Good God. First it's Bio/Chem attacks, now you're dragging out the 'oh my god we could
be nuked at any minute' nonsense. What sort of a paranoid world do you live in Platt.
This is reds under the bed stuff.
And perhaps if you feel this is a real threat then maybe you'd agree that a good way to
prevent this would be not to sell others the means and technology to do such a thing.
Better still, stop interfering in their politics, murdering their children and invading their
countries in order to maintain control of oil and then telling them it's for their own good.
Then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to perform these terrorist acts.
>
> > > I agree with Pirsig:
> > > "Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its ethnic
> > > connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological patterns with
> > > complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs, before
> > > those biological patterns destroy civilization itself."
>
> > As usual you've placed the above out of context but even so, the way a
> > doctor destroys germs has nothing to do with destroying the patient. I
> > don't know how you do things where you live but if I go to the doctor with
> > an illness I expect to get antibiotics or similar not a bullet in the head!
> > Your methods are exactly that. I can't see anywhere in the above, or
> > anywhere else in Lila, where Pirsig supports destriction of all patterns in
> > order to suppress or destroy biological patterns. There's more subtlety
> > involved than you seem to realise.
>
> From Pirsig: "In the battle of society against biology, the new twentieth-
> century intellectuals have taken biology's side. Society can handle
> biology alone by means of prisons and guns and police and the military.
> But when the intellectuals in control of society take biology's side
> against society then society is caught in a cross fire from which it has
> no protection." (Lila, 24)
>
> Last time I looked, the police and the military aren't doctors. It seems
> liberals have a really tough time facing up to what Pirsig says in Chapter
> 24 about "biological crimes."
>
Pirsig makes quite a thing about the doctor analogy doesn't he, which is where we
started the conversation. The quote you usually use is:
"Intellectuals must find biological behavior,no matter what its ethnic connection,and limit
or destroy destructive biological patterns with complete moral ruthlessness,the way a
doctor destroys germs,before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself."
which is where Pirsig moves on.
As I said earlier there is no mention of destroying the patient. It is only the biological
PATTERNS that need to be destroyed or limited and there are a number of way of doing
this without killing all the patterns and DQ. Pirsig does not go on to say "and in order to
destroy these germs the doctor must destroy all the other patterns and DQ as well".
Substitute 'harmful biological patterns' for germs.
How does a doctor destroy harmful biological patterns? This is the crux of the argument.
Does he destroy the patient (all patterns and DQ) or ONLY the harmful biological
patterns?
As Mark says, the doctor destroying germs is a figure of speech. Human beings are not
just biological patterns they are all patterns and DQ. You'd have thought Pirsig would be
aware of this wouldn't you? And being aware of this, if he'd have wanted to extend the
figure of speech to include all patterns and DQ he'd have done it. As he doesn't do this
then I can only conclude that it was intentional.
In other words, this is not a charter to kill people but only those biological patterns that
casue harm.
Perhaps conservatives have a tough time facing up to this.
> > > Your Prime Minister seems to understand this. As for the Muslim community
> > > working to stop terrorism, they have shown little inclination to do so.
> > > If they were serious about ending it, terrorism would cease to be a
> > > threat.
> >
> > It seems to me that in the UK the Muslim community for the most part abhors
> > the terrorist attacks as much as everyone else. To suggest otherwise is
> > pure bigotry. Where I live there's a large Muslim community and those that
> > I've talked to are angry that Islam is being used in this way. Perhaps you
> > need to get out and about a bit more and talk to the people you're so fond
> > of slandering.
>
> If they abhor terrorism so much, why don't they declare war on it?
Perhaps because their entire social structure isn't based on militaristic metaphors.
> Their silence in the public square is deafening, not to mention their lack of
> activity in seeking out and turning over to the police the terrorists
> among them.
Have you never heard of Sir Iqbal Sacranie?
Cheers
Horse
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 Aug 11 2005 - 06:23:05 BST