From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 15:13:03 GMT
Hi Platt,
This comes your way *after* coffee today...
> Yes. Terrorists are biological "tools" of a radical element in Muslim
> society. As Pirsig says, you meet biological force with force.
I am suspiscious of this wording, because the substitution, "US soldiers are
biological "tools" of the US Government". What this implies to me, is that all
humans can be considered "biological tools" of their respective social
patterns, "tools" that are used in differing capacities (violence, building,
farming, etc).
Instead, I tend to look at individuals and their particular Quality decisions.
"Terrorists" are engaging in this activity because of some personal decision,
not as blind pawns of static social patterns. If they are, then how are "we"
not?
If we see them as individuals, we must ask, on what Quality are they basing
their personal decisions? Is it bioligical quality? Social? Intellectual? I
can't imagine that it's biological. As I've said, on the biological level it is
completely UN-quality. Social? We keep referring to this as a battle of
"freedom versus tyranny", yet who would become a suicide bomber to fight for
his right to exist as a slave under tyranny? No one, and so the freedom v.
tyranny has a ring of propaganda to it (to me).
But maybe it is not even so much a clash of static social patterns, as it is a
clash of Intellectual patterns (hegemony and realpolitik on our side,
self-determination and a resistance to hegemony on theirs). This would
certainly explain why only the "free" countries that have pursued imperialism
in this geographic region are cited in their leaders' speeches, and why the US
has been targetted the most.
Of course, it is social in many ways. One is, of course, that both sides are
using the "preserve society" rhetoric to enlist the biological force necessary.
But I don't think its honest to say that both sides are fighting to preserve
their "society", it appears to me to be more "right" to say they are fighting
over the Intellectual question of hegemony.
See what coffee does to me? ;-)
You said initially:
> > > Physical violence (murder) threatens the social fabric. Totalitarian
> > > societies depend on physical violence, i.e., biological terrorism, to
survive
You said later:
> Yes. Societies are threatened both internally and externally by biological
> forces. Regardless of the source, to survive a society must meet force
> with force.
So it seems to me that "totalitarian societies" are not the only societies to
depend on physical violence to survive. They all do, albeit to varying degrees
perhaps, yes?
I had asked:
> > Also, how is the US's historical behavior in Chile (for one specific
> > example), NOT a counter example of our society using biological force to
> > ensure the survivial of totalitarian social patterns? Does our use of
> > biological force, what many in Chile and across the globe see as
> > "terrorism", not count?
You responded:
> Last time I looked, Chile was a democratic republic. Is that a problem?
Of course I am referring to Allende. Here is a link to a very interesting CNN
article. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/
From this report... "declassified report required by the U.S. Congress on its
Web site Wednesday that admits CIA support for a kidnapping attempt of Chile's
army chief in October 1970, as part of a plot to prevent the congressional
confirmation of Marxist leader Salvador Allende as president." Remembering that
Allende was *DEMOCRATICALLY* elected , and the US became invested in his
overthrow when he announced the socialization of Chilean fruit production (as
well as copper and banking), which everyone in Chile was for, but hurt US
business interests in the area. This may be a simplification, but it certainly
is right on target. Instead of their democratically elected, but marxist,
leader, we gave Chile Pinochet, a murderous dictator, but who was kind to US
business interests.
How is this NOT terrorism? How would you respond if another country, say China,
did to us exactly what we did to Chile? I bet you'd see it as terrorism then,
right?
> Whole-heartedly agree. "Flow" describes what it's like to be influenced by
> DQ. I think Csikszentmihalyi, Maslow and Pirsig make a great team. If
> everyone absorbed and tried to live by what this trio say, many problems
> would be eliminated.
Interesting, but I'd offer the russian psychologist Vygotsky (and Bahktin, as
well) in place of Maslow. But I do find, as you say, that Flow aligns fairly
nicely with DQ. I think someone else mentioned flow a while back, David Morey??
Maybe we should spin this off to another thread sometime...
> Yes. I would simply add that a society has the moral right to defend
> itself from biological forces threatened or initiated against it from
> within or without. Agree?
Agree. I just think we need to be careful about not labeling every threat as
"biological" to justify a morally justified defense. In the present discussion,
I am not seeing the conflict as one of biological versus social patterns.
And I would add that the Intellectual should be used to determine in a perceived
biological threat (alcohol or sex, for example) is an actual threat to the
social patterns or not. Looking to Germany, for example, I could argue that
repressive laws governing the consumption of beer are not necessary for the
survival of social patterns, Germany has been around for quite a while even
though it is "legal" for its citizens to walk down the street with a bottle of
beer.
Arlo
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 Dec 11 2004 - 15:22:17 GMT