From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Aug 26 2005 - 23:50:06 BST
C.L.
> On 8/26/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> > C.L.
> >
> > > Ideas cannot be defended or
> > > won with weapons of the physical world, only the ideological realm can
> > > accomplish this.
> >
> > So the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII, and the Korean War did not
> > successfully defend ideas with weapons?
>
> It's obvious that the wars continue, evidenced by all of our
> positions. Who wins? Who wins here? The weapons won ground but did
> not defeat the ideologies they were against. I work with a guy who
> once told me that the Civil War is still being fought today and when I
> stopped to consider it, I had to agree.
Yes, ideologies were defeated unless you think being ruled by British
monarchs, owning others as slaves, or being enslaved yourself by the
Germans, Japanese or North Koreans would be better than living in a
democratic republic with guaranteed individual rights.
> I take it then you disagree entirely with Pirsig?
>
> Pretty much, yes, when it comes to Chapter 24 or where ever you keep
> pulling this stuff up from. I do disagree about the hierarchy of
> levels. I am not convinced that the levels laid out are all that
> useful, nor do I see how to realistically separate
> motivation/desire/choice into the levels. I've admired Pirsig for
> many years, for ZMM, for the quality idea, which is non-hierarchical
> in its outlook.
Well, at least we know where you stand in regards to the "stuff" in the
MOQ.
> > "The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that
> > you can talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot
> > directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control
> > biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society
> > and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between society
> > and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." (Lila,
> > 24)
>
> One person's crime is another's revolutionary war. I would change
> that to read: The instrument of conversation between the dominant
> forces in society and the subordinate has always been a policeman or a
> soldier and his gun. And that does not make it an ordained god given right
> to set the hierarchy up in the first place, let alone kill to defend it.
> Who put any man in charge of any other man? Pirsig did not argue that in
> ZMM.
No, but he argued for it in Lila. It's hard to believe that you would
welcome someone into your home who you knew wanted to kill you and your
family and consider his act as morally equal to your resistance.
Platt
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 27 2005 - 02:23:12 BST