From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 19:25:22 BST
Platt:
While I agree with your responses from an American
common-sense point of view, I was trying to look at the
situation from an imaginary Wahabi point of view that
is sympathetic to hatred of the West. (Know your enemy
in effect.)
If we assume the MoQ can be just as valid outside of a
western-style mind, then what does that look like? We
are all pretty much discussing things in a very western
way, after all. Does that make sense?
> Mel:
> > We in the US regard the fall of the towers as a low quality event
> > and it certainly is a tragedy by any HUMAN sense, but if we were
> > to look at the event from a Wahabi-madrasa trained imam's
> > perspective, the intellectual planning that went into making this
> > happen is amazing.
>
> A lot less amazing than making airplanes and towers "happen."
From the point of view of a poor people who feel a sense of
insignificance coupled with resentment, to strike against
what they viewed as an unassailable Giant might to their eyes
be truly amazing...logic is less needed here than imagination.
> > These folks would look at Americanism as a social strangulation
> > that offends their social purity and dominates them pulling their
> > young away from high-quality Wahibism.
>
> Fine. But hardly an excuse for targeting innocent civilians for murder do
> you think?
>
Defense of you own way of life, as a society, is almost always a
reason to kill or to act in any way needed to guarantee its
continuance. WAR!
> > Please tell me I am wrong, (show me please) but it looks like we
> > may have an honest to goodness disagreement over whose view
> > of Quality will truly stamp the future lives in many areas of the
world.
>
> Maybe terrorism will win the day in the long run. But in MOQ terms, it
> would mean a backward step on the evolutionary journey, from the dominance
> of intellect to dominance of social values, brought about by a resort to
> biological level crimes.
>
Terrorism is a badly sold misnomer. It really should be called
COWARDISM instead. If you look at it the tactic is similar to the
19th century Thugs (an Indian sect worshipping Kali) who snuck
up behind innocents and killed them as an offering to their dark god.
Criminal thugery has no quality, it is as you've pointed out, little more
than an uncontrolled biological expression of selfishness trying to
dominate a society they cannot accept, in the case of Islamic fundees.
However, when a large enough number of authority figures in a
society preach/encourage/order their controlled biological units
to act in such a manner against another society it begins to look
more like two societies in conflict. (As you know I am wary of any
dealing in the aggregate as a possible misleading step.) But there
is an implied question.
At what point is this considered a social level action rather than a
loose collection of individuals? When do we hold that the society
is responsible for the actions, as it is now a social movement?
Can MoQ be used to help analyse the situation to know when to
act and how? We might find that warfare is not always the answer
in response, but if it is an answer at a particular time, then we don't
want to misunderstand that either.
Right and Wrong in warfare is not a matter of strong or weak
countries fighting, but rather the reasons why. That is where I was
trying to get to, my lack of articulation not withstanding.
We may wish to live on the dynamic quality end of evolution, but
the realities of our world still will require that we occasionally
crawl through the defecation of others' chosen evolutionary
levels.
How do we do this?
Your thoughts?
thanks--mel
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 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 19:56:59 BST