RE: MD "biological" crime

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 22 2004 - 21:11:14 BST

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: MD "biological" crime"

    Alicia, Platt, Mark H and all MOQers:

    Alicia D asked:
    There's been talk about the relationships between social and biological
    levels and the need for police/force to control 'biological crime'. but i
    don't think i understand what that means. laws lie entirely within the
    social level so in what ways does the breaking of those laws cross over into
    biology?

    dmb says:
    Welcome to the forum. Your question is addressed directly in chapter 24 of
    Lila. That's where Pirsig spells out the difference between common criminals
    and Galileos, between "biological" crimes and a genuine struggle with social
    oppression. There he explains that we can see the difference "by carefully
    distinguishing those moral issues that are social-biological from those that
    are intellectual-social and making sure there is no encroachment either way.

    What's at issue here isn't just a clash of society and biology but a clash
    of two entirely different CODES of morals in which society is the middle
    term." And so its not that "laws cross over into biology" but rather the
    laws and morals of the social level are designed to mollify and control
    biology. But it is an entirely different matter when society tries to
    control the dynamic contrarian, as in the case of the Zuni Brujo, or when it
    tries to control intellect, as in the case of Galileo.

    AD asked:
    is all crime biological?

    msh replied:
    In the strictest sense of the MoQ, yes, all crime is biological, IMO. But,
    remember, this has nothing to do with whether or not the "crime" is
    recognized as such by any given society...

    dmb chimes in too:
    I disagree for reasons explained above, among others. To be more precise,
    when the laws of society are disregarded in favor non-biological reasons it
    is not a biological crime. Societies can not evolve without someone being
    the first the break the old rules and the case of the Brujo Pirsig says just
    that. Its also considered immoral for a soceity to repress intellect so
    that, on a good day, even a police officer can be arrested and charged with
    a crime for doing so. Not that such a thing is common, but there are laws
    that protect the Galileos of the world and violating them is a crime. Or
    take the case of terrorism. Here we have real world examples of people
    overcoming the will to survive in order to further social goals. Those goals
    might not be my cup of tea, but it seems clear to me that biological
    pleasure is not really the motive. (Yea, I know. 72 virgins and all that.
    Let's say ghost nookie doesn't count.) Another example hits closer to home.
    Literally. Throughout my entire adult lifetime the religious right has
    conducted a low-grade war of terror. Gay bars and medical clinics where
    abortions are preformed have been bombed, set on fire and shot up. Abortion
    doctors have been shot and gay people have been beaten to death. If all
    these acts where gathered up from every corner of the country and the last
    20 years were compressed into a more perceptible span of time, say six
    months or a year, it would look like what it really is; a war against
    secular society. And these crimes are motived by social values, particularly
    church morals. That's crime. That's terrorism. And its not biological.

    Platt Holden asserted:
    Most biological forms attain their ends (survival) by terrorizing, stealing
    or lying, or a combination thereof. Terrorism is the preferred tactic of
    most animals who must kill other animals to survive.
     
    AD replied:
    You've anthropomorphicized a lot here. ...animals don't murder or terrorize,
    they kill to eat, just as we don't call eating a chicken terrorism. And
    stealing only has meaning when property is valued...obviously social.

    dmb adds:
    Right. Good point, AD. Using Platt's "logic", I don't eat grilled steak
    because its tasty and nutritious, I eat it to assert my political will over
    the other cows. There are many reasons to kill; to defend one's home, self,
    society, to eat, to execute criminals, to make money, to hide a secret, to
    cure a disease or advance a cause. Terrorism is rightly considered a crime,
    but it is a political act. We don't have to agree with the cause to agree
    that it is motivated by social level goals.

    Thanks,
    dmb

    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 May 22 2004 - 21:15:24 BST