From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 29 2005 - 03:12:18 BST
[Arlo previously]
The point is that Zealots can find any singular verse and make it a War Cry. Eh?
[Platt]
So why did you ask me to provide a passage from the Koran? As you say,
anyone can find something in religious texts to support his point of view.
[Arlo]
Which proves your original claim was wrong; that Islam condones killing and
Christianity doesn't. I notice you had no comment when I put your "proof" into
its actual full context.
[Platt previously]
Maybe you should ask yourself how Christians managed to accomplish cooshy,
comfortable lives. Maybe something to do with the Puritan ethic and hard
work?
[Arlo previously]
More likely superior military strength that allowed the conquering of the
Americas, ... Maybe you should read up on the history of foreign
involvement in the Middle East before you do now do a "Muslims are just
lazy" argument.
[Platt]
Maybe you should ask how White European Males acquired superior military
strength.
[Arlo]
One of the higher Quality explanations I've found is "Guns, Germs and Steel".
Have you read it (before I comment on it)?
[Platt]
Do you see any difference between Bin Laden, Pat Robertson and a Boston
radio announcer?
[Arlo]
Certainly. But zealotism and fear are universal, not restricted to Islam. My
point before as to what would American Christian Fundamentalism be like were
New York to be suddenly beseiged like Fallujah stands. I bet you'd hear a hell
of lot more "kill them infidels" voices arising from the landscape.
[Platt]
As for killing like germs, I get down on my knees every
day and thank God for those who risked their lives to kill America's
enemies like germs and won victories for this great county.
[Arlo]
I have several friends serving, one is hopefully as I type this on his way to
Germany (military debriefing) after months in this hell. I'm sure he
appreciates your prayers. But time will tell whether this military action stops
terrorism or simply creates more. Given what fuels it (and it ain't "they hate
us for our freedom"), my guess is on the latter. But I hope and pray everyday I
am wrong.
[Platt]
"It's moral for a society to prevent a criminal from destroying it by killing
him if that is necessary." (LC, Note 136)
[Arlo]
What about all the Iraqi citizens, who had nothing whatsoever to do with this?
Was their being killed morally justified in your book? Or do you write them off
as "collateral damage", and not think twice about it morality? Seems we
"killed" a hell of lot more people than "criminals" who had the power to
"destroy American society".
[Platt previously]
What "truth" do you believe?
[Arlo previously]
That its the journey that's important, not the transcript.
[Platt]
So all that you write in these conversations you consider a journey, not a
reflection of your true belief? Maybe you're just playing Devil's
Advocate?
[Arlo]
I just don't feel that what I write reflects a Universal Truth That Transcends
Time and Is True For Everyone, Everywhere and Beyond. It reflects only me, at
this point in time and in this particular culture.
So whether or not I use "polar" or "Cartesian" coordinates at any given point in
my journey is not Absolute Truth. What matters is the journey.
[Platt previously]
I take it then you join with postmodernists who claim it's true there is no
truth?
[Arlo previously]
I thought you've read Pirsig? Funny.
[Platt]
I read Pirsig. He says it's possible for more than one set of truths to
exists -- a statement he asserts as true. No matter how you phrase it, any
statement about truth admits to a general truth.
[Arlo]
That paradox is at the core of our symbolic representations is the/an important
lesson. Again I am reminded of Magritte's The False Mirror. Next to Gericault's
Shipwreck it is one of my personal favorites and hangs on my wall.
[Platt]
Or as Roger Scruton said about postmodernists: "The man who tells you
truth doesn't exist is asking you not to believe him. So don't."
[Arlo]
Postmodernism is a fairly large field, but of my readings I can tell you that
most believe not that truth "doesn't exist", but that it is intrinsically
context-bound. The coordinate example Pirsig gives is pure postmodernism.
Neither is true, and yet both are. Neither transcend human experience (just
like the "ghost" talk about gravity in ZMM). But no postmodernist I know would
go sailing without using a coordinate system. They just wouldn't tackle a
Aboriginee and tell him "See these polar coordinates. They are Truth!".
Postmodernism also challenges the notion that what we perceive is a
mirror-representation of "the landscape". Pirsig nails this too when he talks
about the "figure sorting sand" in ZMM. Most postmodernists I know believe
culture (including the dominant symbolic representation- language- it embeds)
to be selective and distoritive of the landscape. Pirsig echoes this too in
LILA many times over. But no postmodernist I know denies that the landscape can
be beautiful, or is unimportant, or unworthy of adoration. They just wouldn't
tackle and Aborignee and tell her "See my landscape. It is Truth!".
Arlo
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 : Mon Aug 29 2005 - 09:10:08 BST