From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 19:02:15 BST
Hi Sam (Paul mentioned) and all,
On 11 Aug 2005 at 7:51, Sam Norton wrote:
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.
sam 08-11-05:
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:
msh 08-10-05:
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.
sam 08-11-05:
If a group of neighbours got together to seek food and shelter etc,
is that still B-D? I would say it probably is.
msh 08-11-05:
I think I'd disagree here, as planning and working together seems
social to me. But I think this is a minor disagreement without much
impact here.
sam 08-11-05:
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.
msh 08-11-05:
Ok, that makes sense. I don't want to suggest that all B-D acts are
immoral (I didn't think I was), so let's clarify. Would you agree
that intellectual evaluation of any B-D behavior will reveal whether
or not the behavior is immoral, that is, if left unchecked, such
behavior will result in the destruction of society?
msh 08-10-05:
Then S-D action 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.
Then I-D action, the Intellectual process, 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 activity will
work to reveal this fact. If the threat is genuine and not
exaggerated, then I-D activity will determine and support whatever S-
D activity is required to shape the highest quality course of action.
Ok?
sam 08-11-05:
Pretty much, yeah.
msh 08-11-05:
Great. And I take your point about my slipping back into talk of
individuals rather that acts. I've amended the two paragraphs above
to speak of actions not individuals.
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?
msh 08-11-05:
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 8-11-05:
A concession is a point scored. It's like Paul suggested, when I
kick a goal I want to see the score change. : -) But I can live
with your wording, above.
msh 08-10-05:
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)
sam 08-11-05:
Erk. I thought we had agreed to abandon talk of I-D individuals? and
talk about I-D acts instead? But translating...
msh 08-11-05:
Sorry. You're right. I was also sloppy in saying "the first
clause." Let me rephrase:
The first three clauses tell us that I-D activity 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, Society,
informed by the Intellectual process, has TWO options: limiting or
destroying the threat, which means people working together within the
Social Level to incarcerate (or otherwise render harmless) or kill
the threatening biological patterns.
sam 8-11-05:
= 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?
msh 08-11-05:
Ok. This pretty much matches my rephrasing, above.
msh continued 08-10-05:
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.
sam 08-11-05:
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.
msh 08-11-05:
Fair enough. Can we agree that an incarcerated person is not a
threat to Society? And, FTR, my use of the word "immediate" above
follows directly from Pirsig's stand on capital punishment: a
defenseless human being cannot be a threat, immediate or otherwise.
BTW, this might be a good place to see if we can agree that no
innocent life is any more valuable than any other. I seem to recall,
from the Understanding Power thread, that you conceded this point,
though you weren't exactly comfortable with it. I thought that
concession on your part was rather commendable, so I hope I'm not
wrong.
msh continued 08-10-05:
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.
sam 08-11-05:
OK.
Would you like to do the same for this passage, please (from near the
end of 24):
msh 08-11-05:
Sure. I've pasted the passage into my next Lila-24 post. Before we
move on, however, is it safe to say we are in agreement about the
meaning of the passage analyzed above? That it in no way authorizes
Society to kill all perceived threats like germs, unless such threats
are intellectually verified as real and immediate?
Thanks,
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 "It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." —General Douglas MacArthur 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 - 19:10:29 BST