From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 17:29:11 BST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
> 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.)
Platt:>
> 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.
Interesting trick of language using the She in this instance.
While it is nornally mildly interesting and a bit more dynamic
in terms of shaking us out of the normal static pattern of out
language (thinking), but in this instance it is jarring.
Somehow I don't think many Saudi Arabian females will ever
get the dubious opportunity. As Gene Simmons pointed out
in their society even a dog can go to obedience classes, but
their women don't even get that opportunity. Harsh, but it has
a grain of truth.
---------------------------------
mel:
> > 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!
>
Platt:
> 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.
>
I think there may be two historical reasons for this. One is a
perceptual problem of ours and the other is a still active
dynamic within they Islamic world.
The perceptual problem of ours is much the same one as we
had in dealing with the Native Americans. We presume that a
similar appearance in people living together as far as their
cultural expression makes them like us in terms of having a
shared culture. However, both the Amerind and the Arab are
more like the Scots were through most of their history. It was
not their shared culture that affected them most, but their
differences at the smaller unit that was significant.
With the Indians it was their bear clan or snake clan or other
'totemic' allegance, with the Arab it is the extended village/tribe
that hold their allegance, with the Scot it was the Clans. Still
today in Scotland, Canada, and Australia - even a few places in
the Carolinas, the McDonalds and the Campbells do not want
to interact over historical grudges. Most of America has
forgotten this. Imams in the Arab world still work on this division.
The dynamic in Arab society was started with the Ottomans
using the 'divide and conquer' tactics to set everyone they ruled
against each other, by focusing them on nursing grudges. A
divided populace is less productive, but is easier managed.
Where the Ottoman ruled, this is still largely true; in the Balkans,
in the Levant, in the Caucusis... The British re-enforced it where
they ruled subsequently. After centuries of forced divisiveness
we assume without justification they will behave like whole
societies. Nope! Againt the Imams each want their own little
kingdom of followers in the loose society writ large. Money
and power.
-----------------------------------------------
mel:
> > Terrorism is a badly sold misnomer. It really should be called
> > COWARDISM instead.
>
>Platt:
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.
>
The other 'X' millions are not wearing the blindfold, but they are the
target of the Coward who is holding the sword. He doesn't even
dignify you (the victim) as the actual target of the crime he is commiting.
He assigns you no dynamic value, no quality, you are just an empty
shell of a symbol for him to masturbate his cause on. (Yes it is a very
offensive description, but it approaches the spirit of the act.)
On the level of language we tend to name a movement or a coherent
school of though by something the members express in their behavior
or doctrine or intent. Usually this dignifies the group.
Quakerism
Vegetarianism
Liberalism
Catholicism
Environmentalism
I object to dignifying Cowardly Criminals by allowing the name
to be taken by the effect they try to create on victims. A man who robs
you at gun point is equally terrifying if you believe you are going to die.
He would be in some ways a better being morally, because he is
dealing with you AS you and his agenda specifically depends on
you for what is in your wallet.
In the big western square states we would refer to any man who acts
in such a manner as a COWARD, so maybe I am just trapped by my
own background.
>
> What think you?
In the immortal word of Bobbalooie "Dis is what me tinks Quicksdraw..."
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 : Fri Jul 16 2004 - 18:48:36 BST