Hi Horse:
> On 10 Oct 2001 at 12:42, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > Horse, rather than attempt to rebut each of your arguments (for there is
> > no persuading one who has his mind made up), I will contest just one
> > passage in your recent post because it specifically involves an
> > interpretation of the MOQ in which you deny the biological level of crime.
>
> So let me get this straight then. You haven't made up your mind and you're still
> flexible about how the MoQ illuminates recent events? But because I don't agree
> with your (incorrect) interpretation then I'm the one who is stubborn. Is that about
> right?
No. I am just as stubborn as you in interpreting the MOQ. But since you
wish to continue the debate, I'm game.
> Platt, what your argument boils down to is this:
>
> Crime is biological value.
> Terrorism is a crime.
> Terrorists are criminals.
> Terrorists are germs
> Criminals are germs.
> Germs must be destroyed.
> Ergo Criminals must be destroyed.
No. Terrorists must be destroyed. They act like deadly germs.
> Having looked all through the quotes that you have picked from Lila I fail to see
> anything that says it's OK to bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age. The bombs
> and missiles currently raining down on innocent Afghani's is not justified by
> anything in Lila. Most of those being killed are starving people who have already
> been damaged more than any American ever has. This is not a war but a
> slaughter of innocent civilians.
War kills innocent civilians. That's why the attack on the U.S. that
slaughtered 6,000 innocent civilians was an act of war. As for the MOQ
position on the morality of war, I suggest you reread chapter 13 where
Pirsig writes about the U.S. Civil War saying, "everyone knew innocent
people would be murdered" and that "the North was right in pursuing
that war because a nation is a higher form of evolution than a human
body, and the principle of human equality is an even higher form than a
nation." If you think the MOQ takes the pacifist position that war is
immoral, you’re wrong.
> Let me pick up on the quotes you use and your comments:
>
> > Now let's look at the evidence that supports my contention that,
> > according to the MOQ, criminal behavior stems from the biological level
> > and is morally on a par with the behavior of animals, bugs and germs.
>
> Does this include white collar crime? Fraud is a crime I believe and
> embezzlement. Perjury is another crime. Are these and a whole stack of other
> crimes 'Biological'. People who commit these crimes are criminals and according
> to your reasoning should be mercilessly oblterated.
Yes, the basis for white collar crime is biological greed as you point out
below. Perjury is based on biological disguise and trickery. All
criminals should be mercilessly prosecuted under the law, and those
who initiate deadly force--the rapists, murderers and torturers--should
be obliterated from further contact with the social level, either by locking
them up permanently or, if it caught in the act of doing their criminal
deeds and refusing to surrender, given a one way ticket to Valhalla.
> > PIRSIG:
> > "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." (24)
> >
> > Under the SOM intellectual pattern, Pirsig's statement is ridiculous.
> > There is no such thing as "biological crime." There is only social crime
> > caused inevitably by some form of social injustice--child neglect, lack
> > of opportunity, racism, sexism--you name it, SOM always finds an
> > excuse (as in the case of excusing terrorism because of Western
> > arrogance, neglect, bombing--whatever). But under the MOQ
> > intellectual pattern, we get a whole new view (a new set of spectacles)
> > of the nature of crime. Again and again Pirsig says crime is a conflict
> > between biological and social levels.
>
> Or Social and Intellectual levels as well. Do you accept the idea of International
> Law? The Geneva convention is as much Intellectual patterns of Value as it is
> Social patterns of Value and exists to control behaviour that stems from biological
> patterns of value amongst other things. You have made far too simplistic a case
> out of what Pirsig says Platt and in so doing lost the point of it..
When in doubt, accuse your opponent of being simplistic. Laws
designed to control crime are social patterns of value. That's what
societies were set up for. Note that Pirsig doesn't say crime is behavior
stemming from biological patterns like you do, but says simply
"biological crime," equating it with biological patterns. It's the behavior
itself that is biological, not the causes of the behavior.
> > PIRSIG:
> > "What's coming out of the urban slums . . . (is) a reversion to rule by
> > terror, violence and gang death--the old biological might-makes-right
> > morality of prehistoric brigandage that primitive societies were set up
> > to overcome." (24)
> >
> > Note the emphasis again on "biological" and "rule by terror," as if Pirsig
> > had the likes of Bin Laden and his merry men in mind when he wrote
> > those words.
>
> Or the CIA for that matter when they trained and funded the Mujahadein/Taliban!
An example of American society fighting Communist criminals
(invasion of Afghanistan). War sometimes creates strange bedfellows--
like Italy lining up with Germany in WW II.
> There's a great quote in Lila that you failed to show Platt:
>
> "Biological quality is necessary to the survival of life. But when it
> threatens to dominate and destroy society, biological quality
> becomes evil itself, the "Great Satan" of twentieth century
> Western culture. 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."
> Chapter 24 - Lila
>
> So why aren't you right behind the Taliban Platt? They are doing exactly what you
> say they should be doing. Ruthlessly destroying those that show any tendency
> toward biological value. In fact if you want to take it to a logical conclusion they
> were acting extremely morally in supporting Bin Laden and the attack on the
> WTC. After all it is the west that has caused the emergence of the values the
> Taliban abhor and suppress.
>
> Your reasoning would appear to be:
> Islam has spent centuries controlling Biological forces of evil
> The West unleashes these biological forces evil
> Islam recognises this
> We kill them
>
> Hmm! Civilised behaviour???
Yes, I pondered that passage many times and concluded that Pirsig is
simply wrong in assigning the blame for Moslem hatred of the West on
our release of biological forces of evil. What they really hate is our
release of the intellectual forces of freedom that threaten their
fundamentalist social religious forces. Elsewhere in LILA, Pirsig uses
the phrase, ". . . like talking to some religious nut." (30), a wonderfully
accurate description of the terrorists and their supporters.
But, if Pirsig is right, then yes, Islam is morally correct in attacking the
West to stamp out what they perceive are threats to their society, just
as the South attacked the North in our Civil War because their society
was threatened. When attacked, a society has the right to defend itself,
and thus we arrive at the present situation. The real question is, who is
more moral, the West or fundamentalist Islam? The MOQ answer is
obvious.
> > PIRSIG:
> > "Thus, throughout this century we have seen over and over again that
> > intellectuals weren't blaming crime on man’s biological nature, but on
> > the social patterns that had repressed this biological nature. At every
> > opportunity, it seems, they derided, denounced, weakened and
> > undercut these Victorian social patterns of repression in the believe
> > that this would be the cure of man's criminal tendencies." (22)
> >
> > The MOQ clearly blames crime on man's "biological nature." That the
> > terrorists used a social value (religious belief) to overcome biological
> > nature (suicide) makes their crimes doubly horrendous.
>
> The MoQ says that biological patterns of Value give rise to many crimes that are
> biological in nature - rape, murder, torture etc. Those crimes that involve money
> are not identical as money is to a great extent social value. Insider dealing is a
> crime and involves stocks and shares - more social value with a smattering of
> inlellect. You could say that much of it is driven by greed - biological value.
> Complexity builds and it fails to be as simplistic as you wish it to be. Crime and
> criminal behaviour is not entirely Biological.
Well, there's no doubt about rape, murder, torture, etc. Surely it isn't too
difficult for you or anybody else to identify potentially deadly behavior
when they see it. Anyway, it's man’s "biological nature," that causes
crime, not "biological patters of value that give rise to many crimes of a
biological nature." It's the "sympathy of intellectuals toward
lawlessness" Pirsig is focusing on, a sympathy I fear you may share.
You seem to want to shift the responsibility for criminal behavior from
the individual criminal to some environmental biological cause, like
poverty, or drugs, or whatever--any excuse for not holding the individual
(or group acting as criminals) responsible for their acts. I don't see the
MOQ supporting the "it's not my fault" or theory of crime so dear to
liberals.
> > PIRSIG:
> > "In the battle of society against biology, the new twentieth-century
> > intellectuals have take biology's side. Society can handle biology alone
> > by means of prisons and guns and police and the military. But when
> > the intellectuals in control of society take biology's side against society,
> > then society is caught in the cross fire from which it has no protection."
> > (24)
> >
> > An SOM pattern would never consider that soldiers fighting humans
> > are fighting biological forces. Note that the MOQ, however, puts human
> > aggressors in the same biological category as deadly germs--both
> > being assaults on social values and both bent on killing.
>
> Oops I must've missed that one. What you refer to above is biological value but
> you are are reasoning poorly. Because a germ is biological value and intellectuals
> have taken biologys side regarding human behaviour, this does not equate
> humans to germs. If this was the case we would have to incarcerate germs for
> criminal behaviour. As far as I'm aware the police and army don't often get called
> in to treat a cold or a dose of the clap! Their purpose is to restrain the behaviours
> in HUMANS caused by harmful and/or destructive biological patterns of value.
> They are not treating germs or germ behaviours. Once again, people are not
> germs and no matter how many times you repeat this mantra and interpret Pirsig
> incorrectly IT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
Aren't you stretching it a bit, Horse? Nobody is saying people are literally germs.
What I (and Pirsig) am saying is that criminals act like germs and
should be treated accordingly. I know you can tell the difference
between a fact, a metaphor and a simile, so it puzzles me why you
keep insisting that germs and people are in fact identical. (You have to
enjoy the irony of germ-like terrorists threatening to use germ warfare.)
> > PIRSIG:
> > "There had always been a battle here between intense legions of the
> > most Dynamic and most moral on one side, confronting the most
> > biological and least moral at the other; between A-class people and F-
> > class people." (24)
> >
> > The notion of F-class "biological" people is anathema to SOM types
> > who, having no way to distinguish between good and bad (morals are
> > subjective), say that human behavior is be judged on the basis of a
> > cultural context. Pirsig, by contrast, says if your behave like an animal
> > by initiating physical force on others, you should be judged as such
> > regardless of context. What do we do with dangerous animals? We kill
> > them or confine them.
>
> Becasue it is IMPOSSIBLE to reason with them becasue they do not possess the
> faculties required. It may be extremely difficult to reason with some humans
> (George Bush JR. and Osama Bin Laden to name but 2) but it is not impossible.
> It may also come as a surprise to you that the notion of Good and Bad exist
> outside of the MoQ and not always as 'just what you like' but often as moral
> absolutes - which is why we have laws aginst murder, rape etc. But the MoQ
> gives an infinitely better means of explaining Good and Bad.
Would you care to get into a discussion as to what constitutes good
and bad outside the MOQ? Would you care to explain why we have
laws against murder, rape, etc. if it isn’t to protect society? Are you
falling back on religious dogma for your moral guidance? Or your
culture? What are the moral absolutes of which you speak? BTW, is
your socialist prime minister also extremely difficult to reason with?
> > If Pirsig had seen the planes hit the Trade Center towers from his hotel
> > window, he might have described what occurred using the same
> > language--patterns of biology at war with society. (Note it isn't a war of
> > cultures as some suggest.) Luckily, America has representatives in
> > power who have not succumbed to SOM's moral impotence and are
> > still capable of identifying unmitigated evil when they see it, i.e., when
> > (in Pirsig’s phrase) "biological quality becomes evil itself."
>
> Didn't you say somewhere that we should stick to what Pirsig DOES say rather
> than what we would like him to say:
>
> On 11 Oct 2001 at 13:32, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > Hi Wim Nusselder:
> <SNIP>
> > But if we are looking for what Pirsig says about the
> > levels, then it seems to me we are limited pretty much to what he says,
> > not what we would like him to say.
>
> And now you do that very thing.
Mea culpa. I did, however, modify it by pointing out what he might have said. In
other words I admitted up front to taking liberties with his voice, which
is more than I can say for some people. (-:
> > PIRSIG:
> > "Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its ethnic
> > connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological patterns with
> > complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs, before
> > those biological patterns destroy civilization itself." (24)
> >
> > If this doesn't reduce human beings who commit crimes (terrorists) to
> > the level of germs, then you and I differ in understanding what words
> > mean. Far from negating the entire concept of the MOQ as you claim, it
> > is an essential feature of the MOQ structure to place terrorists at the
> > biological level.
>
> We obviously do then because no matter how hard I stare at the words or twist
> their meaning (Pirsig saying what we want him to say) I cannot see Pirsig telling
> me that humans are germs.
> What he does say - and I agree with him 100% - is that __destructive__
> BIOLOGICAL PATTERNS OF VALUE (in other words those values that cause
> destructive types of behaviour) must be limited or destroyed. There is no mention
> at all or whatsoever of Pirsig telling me to kill another human being. You are
> inventing meaning to suit your own purposes by deliberately twisting what Pirsig
> says. It's there, you've quoted it:
>
> "... limit or destroy destructive biological patterns with complete moral
> ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs..."
>
> read it over and over again. Destroy the patterns of value ***** NOT ***** the
> humans in which those patterns reside. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
> THEY ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.
> THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.
Hey, no need to shout. I would point out once again that you want to
shift the blame for criminal behavior from the criminal to the patterns
that "cause destructive types of behavior." As for Pirsig not "telling me
to kill another human being," he says in the Civil War example cited
above that under certain circumstances you go right ahead and kill
somebody. It's moral to do so. For example, if a person resorts to his
biological nature and invades my home, threatening to murder, rape, or
torture me or my family I will, at the risk of my own life, gladly blow his
head off , serene in the knowledge that the morality of the MOQ fully
justifies my act. You seem to subscribe to the notion that life is the
most precious value there is and nothing ever excuses the taking of it
by another. I have news for you. There are higher values in this world
than human life, or the millions who died to protect freedom from the
threats of totalitarian regimes in recent history might just have well
surrendered. In Chapter 3, Pirsig says: "Of all the contributions
America has made to the history of the world, the idea of freedom from
a social hierarchy has been the greatest. It was fought for in the
American Revolution and confirmed in the Civil War. To this day it's still
the most powerful, compelling ideal holding the whole nation together."
Note his references to war, i.e., killing human beings (including
civilians). So your claims that Pirsig doesn't mention killing another
human being and that he is against war are just plain wrong.
> > I agree with the moral values expressed in the MOQ and believe we
> > have a moral obligation to go after the terrorists with "complete moral
> > ruthlessness" and squash them and their supporters like bugs before
> > their "biological savagery" destroys civilization.
>
> The MoQ and Pirsig say that we must limit or destroy the PATTERNS OF VALUE
> that cause those behaviours. Not the terrorists, not their mothers or their wives or
> their children or other innocent civilians in an insane lust for revenge. This is what
> Pirsig says and what he means - you have completely misinterpreted what he
> says. If you can show me a passage in Lila where Pirsig advocates the killing of
> innocent civilians in order to destroy the destructive patterns in others I would like
> to see it. Not your interpretation but an actual passage or quote.
Your repeat your mantra about patterns of value causing criminal
behavior. This is not what Pirsig says and not what he means. He says
crime is "biological behavior." Since you disagree, please explain what
biological patterns of value that cause crime must be reduced or
destroyed to lessen or stop crime, and cite where Pirsig identifies
those patterns. If you can't, you are reading into the MOQ what isn't
there.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST