From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 20:46:47 BST
Hi Ant,
Pirsig:
> “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 McWatt comments:
>
> Firstly, I think Pirsig’s paragraph here is 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. As some Muslim cultures perceive Blair and Bush as war
> criminals while the latter’s capitalist culture perceives certain
> Fundamentalist Muslims as criminals (who would be considered as freedom
> fighters within their own culture), there is little point in referring to
> such paragraphs from LILA to justify behaviour for either side. Both sides
> just see the other side as deviant and justify their subsequent behaviour
> accordingly.
I think Pirsig's "battle of society against biology" applies to all
societies in all times. Otherwise, his theory of moral levels with the
higher being more moral than the lower collapses into pile of
inconsequential intellectual debris. Furthermore, it's clear that the
battle of society against biology is generic, that is, in your words,
"inter-societal". Pirsig writes:
"A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological
values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a
culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social
values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (Lila, 24)
It's obvious Pirsig is making societal comparisons based on social forces
vs.biological crimes. And by the way, If you're looking for a moral
justification to remove Saddam, there it is. And who says there are no
absolutes. :-)
> Actually - in this context - I agree with both sides and think – ideally –
> that all the extreme elements of the parties involved need to be removed
> from the global scene politically. I think this would be the best way to
> facilitate world peace and harmony. The most rational option to achieve
> this entails argument and debate because either side – being cultures
> rather than individual criminals - are not going to be beaten militarily.
The individual criminals (terrorists) in the Muslim culture can and should
be beaten. Many spokesmen for the Muslim culture agree.
> P.S. Platt, many thanks for your kind words in your July 25th post to me.
> Horse, Dave Buchanan, Gavin, Paul Turner and myself did toast you in a
> Liverpool pub even though we disagree with you politically.
For that, I'm greatly flattered and appreciative. The conference in
Liverpool with "Bob" marked another milestone in the saga of the MOQ,
milestones such as Diana's beginning this site and Horse picking it up,
the compilation and publication of "Lila's Child" by Dan Glover, and your
PhD thesis. We may have our bloody disagreements, but you guys are the
best!
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 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 20:57:10 BST