From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 13:23:49 BST
Dear all,
I find it ironic, but not wholly surprising, that it is the priest who must
play the part of Voltaire in this forum. Voltaire said: "Monsieur l'abbé, I
detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you
to continue to write." (Voltaire to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770)
I've been touching on related issues to this in my discussion with MSH, but
as this is such an important issue, Ithought it deserved a more explicit
statement. I'd like to articulate why, from my perspective, it would be
profoundly immoral to exclude Platt from MD.
Let us leave aside whether we agree or not with Platt's political
perspective. Some of what he says I agree with, some I disagree with, some I
find shocking. But the important thing, from my point of view, is that it is
wrong to reduce Platt to his political views (or, to part of his political
views, which seems to be what is going on).
Hence, in my discussion with MSH, the importance of the distinction between
acts and persons. We can detest particular acts, or political perspectives,
as strongly as we wish. We can denounce them as wittily or effectively as we
can, we can try to repudiate them or show their irrationality - all of that
is necessary and right and, for as long as political discussion is not
excluded from MD, part of what I enjoy.
But we cross what I think is the most important threshold when we identify
the person with the viewpoint. In other words, a human being is always more
than their viewpoint.
What is being proposed is an act of violence: the forcible suppression of
the voice of a member of this community.
It is an act against the human being, not an act against their perspective.
And that act of violence is of the same character as other forms of
exclusionary violence. When the other does not accede to our will, then the
will strengthens, and the desire to dominate flourishes, and what starts
with an exclusion from polite society ends up being the gulag. All that
changes is the scale and the amount of force being used. The principles
involved are the same.
The path of non-violence begins with our relations with those whom we know.
Discussing world politics is safe and abstract. Our own egoes are rarely at
stake. But if we cannot pursue peace with those with whom we violently
disagree, our cries for peace between those whom we do not know have no
credibility.
Where I find this process most disturbing is that it is predicated precisely
on the MD forum being a social pattern. It is one that would produce a
hierarchy of understanding - a Prophet; a high priest; sacred texts;
acceptable interpretations. And along with that, the roles of the heretic
and scapegoat, where those who are left reinforce their sense of group
identity and solidarity by the generating and expulsion of the scapegoat,
the sacrificial victim who provides the rationale for righteous violence. In
precisely the same way that George W Bush does in relation to al-Qaeda.
Why is that it requires the priest to point out how far from the values of
the MoQ we have come?
Well, perhaps the answer to that is that the MoQ isn't as clear on this as
we have been led to believe. Perhaps the MoQ does in fact justify cleansing
people like germs - in which case, those who seek his removal are seeking to
cleanse MD, and are acting in accordance with the values of the MoQ.
But then that would simply prove Platt's point.
And it would render the MoQ abhorrent to me.
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 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 16:50:14 BST