From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 07:35:46 BST
Hi Mark, Platt, Ant, anyone interested.
Mark challenged anyone to a discussion on Lila 24. The specific context was
Platt's use of a passage from that chapter stating: "Phaedrus had had no
answer at the time, but he had one now. 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."
Ant and Mark objected to Platt's use of this passage to justify talk of
'biological terrorism', by which Platt meant (I interpret) human actions
motivated by pre-social values. I suspect Platt particularly had in mind the
biological pleasures associated with (some) Muslim conceptions of the
afterlife.
Now it seems to me that Platt's understanding of Pirsig's words from Lila 24
are defensible, at least in terms of the MoQ (I'm not intending to defend
everything that Platt said).
Let me give a summary of how I read Lila 24 - having just re-read it - and
say why. I imagine others will chip in with their interpretations and then,
perhaps, we might move a little forward in our mutual comprehension.
~~~
The MoQ postulates five moral conflicts: those between each level (Chaos -
In, In - Org, Org - Soc, Soc - Int) and static/dynamic.
The Social level is essential for containing the Organic level; there is no
'natural goodness' - unless that natural goodness was responsible for
creating societies which repress biological desires - and therefore the
conceptual weight, if not the mythology, of 'Original Sin', has Quality (a
deeply conservative thought IMHO).
The great mistake of the twentieth century was made by intellectuals who
didn't perceive the need to support society in its struggle against biology,
causing the 'crossfire from which society had no escape'. The roots of this
lie in SOM thinking which sees intellect as 'value-free'. [Sam adds at this
point: yet another argument in favour of a eudaimonic understanding of
intellect.]
In contrast, the MoQ asserts that "the fundamental purpose of knowledge is
to Dynamically improve and preserve society". Intellectuals must identify
those conflicts which are between society and biology, and *ruthlessly*
support society. The history of late twentieth century US culture (ie 'an
intellectual, social and economic rust-belt') is a consequence of
intellectual failure in that regard.
Furthermore, the role of the intellectual is to sift and classify different
cultures according to their Quality, ie 'their contribution to the evolution
of life'.
~~~
So it seems to me that the live question, to which appeal to Lila 24 might
be made, is how to classify the recent terrorist acts. Are they an example
of a conflict between biology and society, in which case Platt's description
of them as 'biological terrorists' would be accurate?
(NB Let's leave aside, pro tem, the question of whether a human being can be
classed as 'biological' - I think it's a metaphorical use of the language
referring to a human being motivated by biological values, and as RMP sees
fit to use it in Lila24, I don't see why we can't.)
So we need to explore the motivations of those who enact or support these
terrorist acts. It seems to me that such an analysis is complex, and isn't
simply about the biological motivations. But nor do I agree with Ant that
'as far as the MOQ is concerned I think it only allows a socially driven
terrorist (e.g. on the grounds of religion) or an intellectual one (on the
grounds of injustices). And even with the latter, there starts the further
issue of one person's terrorist being another person's freedom fighter' -
unless Ant is defining terrorist as someone motivated by those two levels,
which might need defending.
~~~
For what it's worth, my own view is that the terrorist acts use elements of
each of the conflicts, and that the most important one is between societies,
and that the key issue is which is the better society - which society best
contributes to the evolution of life?
So I think that with the bombers themselves, there may well be biological
motivations (not just sex) - so 'biological terrorist' doesn't seem too far
out.
I think that the people supporting the bombers are more socially and
intellectually driven; that there is a coherent critique of the West
embedded in their ideology; and that therefore the main battle with them is
on the level of social institutions and ideas (and virtues). Qutb, when he
was in the States in the 60's, was shocked to see churches hosting dances -
this was an inexplicable celebration of biological values in a holy context,
and played a large part in his analysing the US as decadent and evil. As RMP
put it "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." (Written before the
invasion of Iraq, thus indirectly pointing out that the present hatred of
the West isn't rooted in the last few years - it goes back centuries, and is
much more fundamental).
And on the most fundamental question of all - which is the highest Quality
system of social organisation? - for all its faults I'm with the West. This
conflict is only going to get harder and harder, and the West's military
superiority is not going to achieve much by itself. Is it possible to have a
society that is stable and sustainable, but which is also relaxed about
sexual questions? I think it is; the terrorists think not.
Criticising the West is all very well, and very necessary, and an essential
part of why the West is open to DQ (and therefore of high Quality). But
confronted with an existential challenge which asserts that a Taliban-style
system is more moral, I must demur. Is a society which educates its
daughters, which doesn't execute homosexuals, which allows for free and open
discussion - however flawed and skewed by corporate interests - better than
one that doesn't? Yes, and it's worth fighting for.
Sam
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 26 2005 - 09:07:19 BST