From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 07:51:30 BST
Hi Mark,
> msh 7-30-05:
> Ok, I see your point. Let's agree that actions can be evaluated as
> B- D, S-D, I-D, and we'll forget about individuals.
<snip>
> msh 08-10-05:
> I think an important aspect of purely biological behavior is a lack
> of concern for anyone other than self, with the possible exception of
> the protection of one's offspring. I say possible because a case can
> be made that protecting one's biological offspring is protecting
> one's own gene pool, and therefore is also self-centered.
I think this is misleading, because I'm not sure it's -possible- for
biological behaviour to exhibit concern for "others", by definition. But
"others" can easily be - at the biological level - the larger group or clan
(up to about 150 people/apes). So:
>
> So, I'd say the B-D response to the possibility of alien attack would
> be seeking food and shelter for oneself, rather than working together
> with others for communal food, shelter, and protection.
If a group of neighbours got together to seek food and shelter etc, is that
still B-D? I would say it probably is. My qualms are that you are wanting to
bring in a moral criticism of B-D acts, as part of the definition, which I'm
not sure is viable. Some B-D acts are immoral, some are neutral, some are
moral. I think we need a classification of B-D which doesn't equate them
with the immoral.
> Then S-D would be passing of laws to insure that inter-galactic
> travel is highly regulated, as well as deployment of defensive or
> offensive societal forces against the perceived threat.
>
> The I-D individual, the Intellectual, will attempt to verify that the
> S-D perceived threat is real. If the threat is non-existent, or
> exaggerated for BD-SD purposes, the I-D individual will work to
> reveal this fact. If the threat is genuine and not exaggerated, the
> I-D individual will work with others within the limits of her society
> to shape the highest quality course of action.
>
> Ok?
Pretty much, yeah.
> msh 08-10-05:
> Will, this will be problematic, I think. What you are saying is that
> you want to reserve the right to believe what you really, really want
> to believe, regardless of evidence and argument to the contrary. Of
> course, no one can take that right from you, but this is not an
> honest form of philosophical investigation. What's wrong with simply
> conceding the point, then opening the case again, later, when and if
> evidence in support of your position becomes available?
What's the difference between 'conceding the point' (your language) and
agreeing 'that, on the evidence so far, the higher quality arguments go one
way not another'? Because I can't see the difference, so I'm wondering what
you're disputing.
> msh 08-10-05:
> Ok, as long as you promise to be reasonable and smart. I don't care
> whether or not you're humble.
<grin>
>
> Here's the quote used a hundred times a year to justify the "kill 'em
> all like germs" theory of social defense:
>
> "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."
>
> For now, let's leave this quote out of context and analyze it for
> meaning, on its own. The first clause tells us that I-D individuals
> (not BD-SD individuals)
Erk. I thought we had agreed to abandon talk of I-D individuals? and talk
about I-D acts instead?
But translating...
> must determine what is and what is not a
> threat to society. The third clause makes it clear that, once a
> possible threat is verified as genuine, the I-D individual has TWO
> options: limiting or destroying the threat, which means working with
> others within the Social Level to incarcerate or kill the threatening
> biological patterns.
= The options for I-D behaviour are 1. limiting or 2. destroying... ?
I would agree that I-D behaviour is that geared to a) understanding the
nature of the threat, and b) if it is B-D behaviour forming the threat, to
support and strengthen the social forms which 'incarcerate or kill' the
biological patterns. OK?
> Now, since the biological patterns we're concerned with here are
> human beings, and since human beings contain ideas, and it's wrong
> for Society to destroy ideas, it's wrong for Society to kill human
> beings when they are no immediate threat to Society. That is,
> "killing 'em all like germs" when they are no longer an immediate
> threat would be highly immoral behavior, according to the principles
> of the Metaphysics of Quality.
The killing of a human being is always and in every case an immoral act. It
is only justified (ie the higher Quality option) if the alternative is a
greater number of human deaths. I think that's Pirsig's position in
substance.
> Finally, it's important to keep in mind that the fourth clause of the
> quote ("the way a doctor destroys germs") is a figure of speech, not
> a blueprint for threat-control in a moral society. The MOQ says
> quite clearly that human beings are not germs, so it is impossible to
> see how any "kill 'em all like germs" theory of threat-control can be
> derived from the Metaphysics of Quality.
OK.
Would you like to do the same for this passage, please (from near the end of
24):
"Blacks have no right to violate social codes and call it 'racism' when
someone tries to stop them, if those codes are not racist codes. That is
slander. The fight to sustain social codes isn't a war of black vs whites or
Hispanics vs blacks, or poor people vs rich people or even stupid people
against intelligent people, or any other of all the other possible cultural
configurations. It's a war of biology vs society.
It's a war of _biological_ blacks and _biological_ whites against _social_
blacks and _social_ whites. Genetic patterns just confuse the matter. And
this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society, has to
know whose side it is on, and support that side, never undercut it. Where
biological values are undermining social values, intellectuals must identify
_social_ behaviour, no matter what it's ethnic connection, and support it
all the way without restraint. Intellectuals must find _biological_
behaviour, no matter what its ethinic 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."
Ta
Sam
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 - 10:00:08 BST