From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 13:12:15 GMT
Hi Sam,
>> I don't think that all versions of Christianity or Islam operate at the
>> intellectual level. Militant Fundamentalist Islam specifically does not
>> operate at the intellectual level. To me this "war on terrorism" would be
>> better explained in such terms.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that fundamentalisms are unintellectual. I think
> they are pathologically low quality, but they are still on the intellectual
> level, to my way of thinking (ie they are ideological).
I guess I should have said that Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual instead
of un-intellectual. The rejecting of intellect is done on the intellectual
level since they have a reason for rejecting it. It's just that as you say
it is a very low quality reason.
Intellectual values for Islamic militants include blind submission and
sacrifice to society (confused with God) and hatred of America as a
religious duty. These are intellectual rather than social for them because
they are not only copied but explicitly taught.
>I think this is the
> touchstone of a problem with the MoQ, as presented in Lila, and as it is of
> great and increasing importance in our world, if the MoQ has anything to say
> it ought to be able to say something about this.
>
It does say something. It says that societies that foster intellectual
freedom are better than ones that don't.
>> A war of terrorism cannot be won. Terrorism is only a tactic. We are at
>> war (figuratively is not literally) with an ideology that denies reason
> and
>> it's products such as liberty, democracy, and equality.
>
> I would deny that 'liberty, democracy and equality' are products of
> 'reason'. I think they're wonderful things, but surely they are built on
> perceptions of value? In fact, this emphasis on 'reason' is part of the
> problem with the West, as I see it, and underlies the reaction and hostility
> of other cultures. It is part of general Western arrogance to say that
> opposition is 'anti-reason' or 'unthinking'.
>
Again, I was too loose with language. "liberty, democracy and equality" are
intellectual values that are demanded by reason (as always, based on some
set of metaphysical assumptions (which you may call some mythology? I think
that if you do, you are using the word in an unusual way.)) These "wonderful
things" are required for the intellectual level to flourish.
>> If we do successfully impose universal suffrage, religious freedom, and
>> democracy on Fundamentalist Militant Muslims, such an imposition of our
>> values would be moral because our values are better than theirs. (It's
> sad
>> that we are so reluctant to make such a claim.) What is immoral is the
>> Militant Islam's attempt to impose social control over intellect.
>
> Do you think it is possible to 'impose' democracy? I suspect that it isn't -
> you can only remove the factors which prevent it.
>And what if - through
> incompetence in different spheres - such an 'imposition' fails - is the last
> consequence not the worst?
I think you are right. Democracy does not need to be imposed, just allowed
to happen.
>Can you give instances of,
> eg, Bin Laden's 'attempt to impose social control over intellect'? I don't
> deny it, I just couldn't think of an example.
>
Look to what the Taliban did when they came to power in Afghanistan for
examples of the sort of social control over intellect that Bib Laden and his
likes would like.
Regards,
Steve
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 Mar 29 2003 - 13:11:50 GMT