From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 10:57:25 BST
Hi Mark,
These transferred from the genius thread.
>
>> msh before:
>> Well, remain calm. You are being terrified by actions, not ideas.
> <snip>
>
> msh 08-10-05:
> You snipped the most important part of my response, which explained
> why you need not be terrified by mere ideas. So... maybe you should
> re-read and respond.
Ah, but I had hoped to make clear a difference of view underlying your
presentation. So let's unsnip:
msh:
Well, remain calm. You are being terrified by actions, not ideas.
And, in the case you suggest, you are referring to actions stemming
from very low-quality ideas, just as the US reaction to 9/11 flowed
from ideas of equal low-quality.
When I say ideas take precedence over society I mean, as does Pirsig,
that it is immoral for societies to suppress or destroy ideas. If
the ideas of the 9/11 attackers, and thousands (and now millions)
like them around the world, had not been systematically suppressed by
the USG and its subsidiary commercial information systems, if these
ideas and grievances had been openly discussed and analysed and
addressed in the many years prior to the start of the attacks against
US interests at home and abroad, there is a very real possibility
that the attacks would never have happened in the first place. What
we are seeing is blowback from 100 years of western interference
around the globe.
Sam:
I see this as an example of 'is it OK to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre?'
(classic example of a possible restriction on free speech). It seems to me
that saying it is OK for an idea to destroy society is an equivalent, ie
very dangerous, sort of comment. It's all very well when discussing things
in the abstract, but it seems irresponsible not to look at practical
consequences (if they can be perceived reasonably clearly).
So in this present example, it seems to me that there is a strong
ideological component providing justification for what the Qutbists are
doing. They are acting in defence of an idea (Islam) which, they believe, is
of higher quality than the West. I don't see anything in Pirsig which says
that they are wrong - which is why I quoted that second passage from Lila 24
(it wasn't just to show Pirsigs - *dangerous* - use of language).
More widely, your view seems to be that 'if only we were virtuous, then they
wouldn't hate us'. I don't think that's true. (That is, I think blowback is
certainly part of the explanation, but not the whole.)
> sam 08-10-05:
> Seems to me that entering the arena of rational discussion is itself an
> acceptance of an idea, and what we are facing is precisely an ideology
> which
> rejects that - and takes violent steps, precisely in pursuit of a set of
> ideas. Or do you think that the Qutbists are operating at the social
> level?
>
> msh 08-05-05:
> I see no reason to say that Islamic terrorists are operating at a
> lower level than the Christian (read American and British neo-con)
> terrorists who have, so far, killed 100,000 innocents in their
> illegal and, I will argue, MOQ-immoral invasion and occupation of
> Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you? I thought our "Understanding Power"
> thread had relieved you of that misconception. I'm a little
> discouraged, and disappointed.
Then let's return to it. I had the impression it was unfinished in any case
(although whether that was because I unsubscribed for a bit or not I'm not
sure. I may have missed a response from you if it was delayed by a couple of
weeks).
Perhaps if we get some of the language sorted out, we could precisely
explore the differences between the various actions. I would find that
useful. (But roughly, I would be happy to accept an equivalence between US
use of Napalm and 9/11; I'm not happy to extend that equivalence to the
whole conflict)
> sam continues 08-10-05:
> In which case, I think I have every justification for being frightened of
> the idea that it is legitimate for an idea to kill a society. That's
> exactly
> what's at issue, so it seems to me, and what justifies the ideologists in
> their terrorist acts.
>
> msh 08-10-05:
> An idea without action cannot destroy anything.
Then propaganda is benign and of no importance. Why worry about it?
> A free and open and
> honest evaluation of all ideas, prior to action, can be the
> difference between extinction and survival. Besides...
>
> Which ideology? Which terrorists attacks? I think our conversation
> is breaking down here because you assume a "patriotic" distinction
> between them and us, and I see no such distinction.
Let's not jump the gun :o) If we go through the above then we can establish
what counts as 'terrorist' and what counts as 'patriotic'.
In so far as 'patriotic' means believing that there is something about the
West which a) is being attacked and b) is worth defending, then yes, I'm a
patriot. But I don't see the West as being anywhere near morally perfect,
nor do I see this as a conflict between the West and Islam. I *do* see it as
a conflict between the West and *part* of Islam, though (as well as many
other aspects).
Cheers
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 - 13:30:11 BST