From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 12:44:46 BST
Mel:
> 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.)
It's impossible for me to put myself in the shoes of a Wahabi who hates
the
West so much that she will gladly blow herself up in the process of
targeting and killing innocent civilians.
> 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?
Yes. The MOQ applies universally. Discussing things in "western way"
begins with language and proceeds from there through our cultural
"spectacles" that provide us with all sorts of presumptions of how to
interpret experience.
> 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.
OK. I think I see what you're driving at. From the point of view of an
isolated savage, a mirror is amazing.
> 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!
Pirsig seems to agree: "Biological quality is necessary to the survival of
life. But when it threatens to dominate and destroy society, biological
quality becomes evil itself, the "Great Satan" of twentieth-century
Western
culture. One reason why fundamentalist Moslem cultures have become so
fanatic in their hatred of the West is that it has released the biological
forces of evil that Islam has fought for centuries to control." (Lila, 24)
The question I would raise is why it's been more difficult for Islam to
control biological forces than in the West.
> Terrorism is a badly sold misnomer. It really should be called
> COWARDISM instead.
If I am blindfolded on my knees and threatened with decapitation while
still fully aware, I'd be terrified. I can't think of a better word to
describe the situation.
> 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.
It's biological for sure. That's why I don't hesitate to label such thugs
"germs."
> 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?
Excellent question. How many people are required to become a "society?"
It's a similar question to what constitutes "rape?" When her hand is on my
knee? When it touches my thigh? When it grabs my crotch? When it unzips my
fly? When? I have no answer.
> 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.
I turn to Pirsig's observation in this situation: ."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)
> 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.
Sad, but true.
> How do we do this?
Fight fire with fire, secure in the knowledge we're fighting to protect
and
preserve intellect's demands at a higher level of evolution for democracy,
free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc.
What think you?
Best,
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 : Fri Jul 16 2004 - 12:48:04 BST