From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 00:19:58 BST
Hi Sam and Mark
Just wanted to make a couple of comments on some aspects of your discussion. Hope
you don't mind.
On 11 Aug 2005 at 11:02, Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
> sam 8-11-05:
> = The options for I-D behaviour are 1. limiting or 2. destroying... ?
> I would agree that I-D behaviour is that geared to a) understanding
> the nature of the threat, and b) if it is B-D behaviour forming the
> threat, to support and strengthen the social forms which 'incarcerate
> or kill' the biological patterns. OK?
>
> msh 08-11-05:
> Ok. This pretty much matches my rephrasing, above.
How does one incarcerate a biological pattern of value? A biological pattern of value is
only one part of the totality of patterns that create human life.
>
> msh continued 08-10-05:
> Now, since the biological patterns we're concerned with here are
> human beings, and since human beings contain ideas, and it's wrong
> for Society to destroy ideas, it's wrong for Society to kill human
> beings when they are no immediate threat to Society. That is,
> "killing 'em all like germs" when they are no longer an immediate
> threat would be highly immoral behavior, according to the principles
> of the Metaphysics of Quality.
I think in the above you're making a similar mistake to Platt in equating a biological
pattern with a human being. Biological patterns are common to all (most?) life but may
manifest behaviour differently when mediated by social and intellectual patterns. Human
beings are created by all patterns and response to DQ. It is the degree to which each
level exists within a human being and the ability to respond to DQ that creates particular
behaviours. So if the biological level is dominant and precipitates behaviour which
poses a threat to society then action needs to be taken to reduce that dominance and/or
contain the threat which it poses.
>
> sam 08-11-05:
> The killing of a human being is always and in every case an immoral
> act. It is only justified (ie the higher Quality option) if the
> alternative is a greater number of human deaths. I think that's
> Pirsig's position in substance.
>
> msh 08-11-05:
> Fair enough. Can we agree that an incarcerated person is not a
> threat to Society? And, FTR, my use of the word "immediate" above
> follows directly from Pirsig's stand on capital punishment: a
> defenseless human being cannot be a threat, immediate or otherwise.
I'm not entirely sure that Sam's correct in the above. This argument can be used to
justify all sorts of actions. Deterrence instead of Justice for example. A minor point
maybe but possibly worth considering.
>
> BTW, this might be a good place to see if we can agree that no
> innocent life is any more valuable than any other. I seem to recall,
> from the Understanding Power thread, that you conceded this point,
> though you weren't exactly comfortable with it. I thought that
> concession on your part was rather commendable, so I hope I'm not
> wrong.
>
> msh continued 08-10-05:
> Finally, it's important to keep in mind that the fourth clause of
> the quote ("the way a doctor destroys germs") is a figure of speech,
> not a blueprint for threat-control in a moral society. The MOQ says
> quite clearly that human beings are not germs, so it is impossible
> to see how any "kill 'em all like germs" theory of threat-control
> can be derived from the Metaphysics of Quality.
Yes. Killing germs and killing people are worlds apart. A doctor _saves_ a patient by
destroying or reducing the threat posed by harmful biological patterns (germs, cancer
etc.). Another (possibly) useful analogy is that of immunisation - prevention being better
than cure.
>
> sam 08-11-05:
> OK.
>
> Would you like to do the same for this passage, please (from near the
> end of 24):
>
> msh 08-11-05:
> Sure. I've pasted the passage into my next Lila-24 post. Before we
> move on, however, is it safe to say we are in agreement about the
> meaning of the passage analyzed above? That it in no way authorizes
> Society to kill all perceived threats like germs, unless such threats
> are intellectually verified as real and immediate?
Cheers
Horse
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 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 09:06:09 BST