Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 13:50:54 GMT

  • Next message: Erin: "MD Re: Is Morality relative?"

    > >"The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always
    > >been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." (Lila, 24)
    > >
    > >You don't need soldiers to control sex or alcohol and drug abuse. You need
    > >soldiers to kill those who threaten society with physical and
    > >psychological destruction by using biological patterns of physical
    > >violence.

    > I'm still not quite sure I follow your reasons. The police are certainly
    > used to "control" drug use and sex (prostitution, for example). And they
    > certainly use guns. The fact that we call them "officers" and not
    > "soldiers" is an arbitrary use of language, isn't it?

    No. Pirsig obviously makes a distinction between police and soldiers.
    Police fight internal biological threats to society; the military fights
    external threats.

    > Also, I don't see how terrorists are threatening to "destroy society" in
    > toto? I could see the argument being made that what they are threatening to
    > do is to destroy our static social patterns and replace them with others
    > (or somewhat more appropriately, to remove the impact of our static social
    > patterns from their static social patterns). But I have never felt that the
    > goal of terrorism was to destroy "society", and revert back to individuals
    > roaming the wilderness. They WANT society, just one different than exists
    > now, right? So they are not advocating destruction of the social layer from
    > human existence, or do you feel they are?

    They are dedicated to destroying our free society, replacing it with a
    totalitarian society.

    > But I'm not sure you answered my biggest question? How does participating
    > in terrorism increase biological quality? Every other "biological" level
    > issue I can think of (that society represses) is repressed simply because
    > if it weren't repressed its high biological quality would threaten the
    > social fabric. Without the social level repressing terrorism, are you
    > saying we'd all become suicide bombers because it has high biological
    > quality?

    Physical violence (murder) threatens the social fabric. Totalitarian
    societies depend on physical violence, i.e., biological terrorism, to

    > I may be missing something here, but I still think this is more of a
    > conflict of static social patterns than biological-social. Using your words
    > above... this is a conflict between opposing static social patterns, with
    > each side using physical and psychological destruction by using biological
    > patterns of physical violence. How do you disagree with this?
    Do you think all social patterns are morally equal, that a free society is
    as good as a totalitarian society? I hope not.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 14:07:52 GMT