From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 23:01:04 GMT
Hi Wim,
Wim wrote 23 Dec 2004 10:09:02 +0100:
> 'You should know from our earlier exchanges that I do not consider crime in
> general and terrorism in particular a biological pattern of value. It is
> not genetically hardwired.' You replied 19 Jan 2005 11:48:36 -0500 (without
> referring to the second part): 'I go along with Pirsig on terrorism having
> its roots in biological patterns.'
>
> The quote you give from Lila chapter 24 refers to more ordinary criminality
> than the terrorism we were discussing (even if he characterizes it as 'a
> reversion to rule by terror, violence and gang death'). It is a matter of
> interpretation whether his explanation of that kind of criminality is
> applicable to the kind of Islamist terrorism we see now. Moreover: my
> argument for not considering (most) crime and terrorism biological patterns
> of value ('it is not genetically hardwired') is also based on what Pirsig
> wrote: In his annotation (nr. 3?) to a discussion about the distinctions
> between the levels in Lila's Child he writes: 'Life is matter that has been
> configured by DNA. The distinction is very sharp.' and : 'In the MOQ all
> organisms are objective. They exist in the material world. All societies
> are subjective. They exist in the mental world. Again, the distinction is
> very sharp. For example, the "President of the U.S." is a social pattern.
> No objective scientific instrument can distinguish a President of the U.S.
> from anyone else.'
No problem in comparing terrorism to biological behavior as life at the
biological level depends on killing to survive. This is a "hard-wired"
reality that applies to humans as well as animals. Societies were devised
to channel this biological value of killing for purposes of preserving
social and intellectual values, not to rely on it to destroy those values
as criminal terrorists do.
> You apparently prefer the MoQ of 'Lila', without sharp definitions and
> boundaries of levels. I prefer the MoQ of Pirsig in 'Lila's Child'. I do
> not always consider his definitions the best possible ones. Standing on the
> shoulders of a giant, we can make small improvements... I you want to stick
> to 'Lila', that is the end of our discussion. If you agree to take into
> account 'Lila's Child' and do some interpretation and discuss possible
> improvements, I ask would want to ask you whether you can describe an
> objective scientific instrument that can distinguish between terrorism
> intended to produce Islamist rule (the Islamist 'jihad') and a foreign
> policy that includes large scale bombardments of countries intended to
> produce freedom, let's call it 'Bush's jihad for freedom'.
I can distinguish between those who employ biological behavior to attain
their ends and a society which employs a soldier with his gun to combat
such behavior -- a soldier who, as Pirsig states, is "the instrument of
conversation between society and biology."
> I wrote 23 Dec:
> 'Social security systems (starting historically from the solidarity within
> extented families and developing through solidarity within for instance
> religious communities to national level systems and international disaster
> relief) have also always been present as instruments of conversation
> between (potential) criminals and (healthy) societies trying to contain
> them. Pirsig doesn't mention whether his frustrated professor tried that.'
> You replied 19 Jan: 'His frustrated professor said he "tried everything"
> which one can presume included carrots although not specifically stated. .'
>
> Does that -according to you- prove the point that sticks are the only means
> of communication between higher and lower quality patterns of value and
> that carrots are irrelevant??
No. It doesn't prove anything except that when the professor tried
everything it's reasonable to assume that in his particular experience,
carrots were tried and failed. But that singular perspective suggests
taking a look at the results of a national welfare program such as former
President Johnson's "Great Society" and examine the results. According to
Joe Klein, a leftist pundit for "Time" magazine:
"Johnson's slovenly idealism came at the end of a great liberal pendulum
swing. His attempt to throw money at urban problems created all sorts of
unintended consequences. It hastened a new culture of poverty, subsidizing
the collapse of poor families, reinforcing a plague of out-of-wedlock
births and soaring crime rates."
I think when a liberal along with many others admits to the failures of a
national welfare system, one can reasonably conclude that it probably
won't work any better on a world-wide basis.
> I wrote 23 Dec:
> 'It would be strange if someone like you, so much opposed to a strong
> government within the USA (feeling it hampers freedom and democracy there),
> would promote foreign occupation as THE means to create democracy and free
> markets.' You replied 19 Jan: 'You call it "occupation". I call it
> "liberation". As Pirsig rightfully explains, force must be met with force.'
>
> Most Iraqis now experience it as "occupation".
We shall see how most Iraqis view their liberation from Saddam when they
have an opportunity to vote this Sunday.
> My point -which you did't answer yet- was about the
> seeming inconsistency between your appreciation of the USA government using
> violence in and without USA territory. How can violence serve freedom and
> democracy when applied to Iraqis and hamper them when applied to Americans?
> Or stated otherwise: How can a government serving a society and using a
> stick against threats to that society (as seen from the perspective of that
> society) distinguish between a threat from below (lower quality patterns of
> value) and a threat from above (higher quality patterns of value)? It needs
> some kind of definition of 'lower' and 'higher' and just a reference to a
> quote from 'Lila' won't help...
Every society must fight both internal and external criminal violence to
survive. I'm puzzled by your questioning this apparent reality.
> I don't see rapid disintegration of solidarity in the Netherlands. Forces
> to reduce social security here result from economic depression rather than
> from Muslim (and other) immigration. I agree that income transfer doesn't
> elimate poverty created by a market system that favours the have's over the
> have-not's. Some of the difference in opportunities between have's and
> have-not's can be compensated by more effort by the have-not's, but not
> all. (And no, other government interference cannot eliminate such poverty
> either. Like you I'm not in favour of too much government regulation of the
> economy.) What income transfer CAN do, is keep the have-not's from taking
> in criminal ways what they can't get with more constructive effort.
Where I come from, transferring earned income to the unearned under threat
of violence is called extortion. That's society bowing to biological
physical force. Better I think to encourage people to assume
responsibility for their own welfare by getting educated so as to become a
productive members of society.
> How
> much income transfer that requires may differ between societies. In the
> Netherlands income may be less effort-related than in the USA, because the
> Dutch value income security somewhat higher than Americans. As for
> pragmatic results: how about the much higher prison population in the USA
> that fails to eliminate criminality? Maybe we need less prisions because we
> have more social security?
Again, Great Society programs didn't reduce our prison population, raising
questions about your proposed "spread-the wealth" solution.
I'll be interested in seeing how the Netherlands (and the rest of Europe)
copes with their increasing Muslim populations. From what I read, the
stresses and strains are getting worse rather than better.
With best regards,
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 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 22:59:04 GMT