From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 18:44:39 BST
You said : What I mean is that the so-called "terrorists" aren't "biological", any more
than an American soldier is "biological". What IS biological are the actions
of the individuals.
This reminds me of the problem I had with DMB about saying Lila was "nowhere intellectually". (although I haven't heard Platt say that they don't exist on the intellectual level ...not yet anyways). Lila was said to be the biological character of the book because she is the character dominated by biological values. That part I didn't really have a problem but I did have a problem with DMB's assertion that she didn't exist intellectually.
So I am curious at how is sayng a solider/terrorist is biological different than saying Lila is the biological character (which there didn't seem to be any problem with).
Erin
Ant McWatt <antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: Platt,
Thanks for spending some time on this issue of “biological terrorism”. The
quotes you provided today from chapter 24 of LILA are fair enough as far as
they go, but as I said before, these paragraphs are primarily referring to
criminals within a particular society (where there is some agreement
concerning what constitutes criminal behaviour) rather than referring to
inter-societal conflicts which require more analysis of what constitutes
criminality.
Arlo is in his post – also from today - expressed this point better than I
did:
“I find it wrong because… it conflates "actions" with "individuals" and
entangles the two in a word-association that supports American hegemony.
What I mean is that the so-called "terrorists" aren't "biological", any more
than an American soldier is "biological". What IS biological are the actions
of the individuals. A "suicide bomber" may be driven by intellectual or
social goals, but he chooses a "biological" means to achieve this end. The
American army may be driven by intellectual or social goals, but also uses
biological means to achieve this end.”
“Pirsig's description that Platt quotes indicates that his view is that
"biological violence" must be met with "biological violence". Crime is met
with a "policeman and his gun". But we wouldn't call the policeman a
"biological enforcer", would we?”
Ant McWatt comments:
Of course we wouldn’t because a police force is a social level institution.
Similarly, a terrorist fighting on religious grounds can be regarded as a
social level “terrorist” while a terrorist fighting on grounds of justice or
freedom is an intellectual “terrorist”. The MOQ indicates that the latter
is more moral or, at least, less immoral.
Arlo continues July 28th:
“The second trouble is that Pirsig's use of "biological" to describe crime
was precisely because the "criminal" will destroy "society". When
individuals move only to satisfy their biological urges, society, a higher
moral evolution, has its entire existence threatened. That is, the reversion
to "biological violence" was morally justified when society is threatened.
But... wasn't Iraq's society threatened? Why don't their individuals have
moral recourse to "biological violence"? Why do WE, but not THEM? And how,
exactly, was American society threatened by Iraq, that justified the use of
biological violence (sometimes in the form of illegal napalm) against its
citizens?”
Ant McWatt comments:
Yes, I think if the United States had been invaded by Iraq there would have
been a case for the use of biological violence by the States and its allies.
However, it wasn’t and, as the reasons provided (establishing democracy)
for the occupation weren’t the real underlying one (i.e. OIL), the US and UK
armed forces have no business being there. Most political commentators
acknowledge that if the Iraqi politicians voted to throw out the Americans
and the British or voted to nationalise their oil industry (so no foreign
power could profit from it), they would be ignored.
Best wishes,
Anthony
.
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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
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 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 19:21:17 BST