Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 04:25:06 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?"

    Hi Dan,

    > "The litmus test for any "law" endeavor (which is a codeification of static
    > social pattens) should be whether or not it is (1) truly needed to protect
    > societal disintigration from biological level patterns, and if so, to
    > restrict,
    > but if not, to permit, and (2) to ensure that Intellectual value is not
    > sacrificed to preserve static social patterns, as it is immoral to stifle
    > Intellectual quality to preserve social quality, even if the threat is real."
    > Let me see if I have this correct. What the statement above means is that a
    > "law" is just and/or moral if it is determined that a biological level pattern

    > can only 1) protect society and 2) preserve a static social pattern as long
    > as it is on the intellectual level?

    I'd word it thus, "a law (codeified static social patterns) is moral when it
    prevents biological patterns from destroying social patterns. It is immoral
    when it preserves societal patterns by destroying Intellectual patterns". One
    job of the Intellectual patterns is to examine the validity of the biological
    threats to society. Those that are of no threat to society can not morally be
    eliminated (i.e., on the biological level the pursuit of biological quality is
    moral, so long as it does not destroy static social patterns.)

    > With this I find a lot of unknowing. I think that just about everything can
    > have some type of threat to society. Whether it's a pill or a computer.

    By "threat", one is talking about the real danger of unraveling static social
    patterns. In short, something that threatens the very existence of the society.
    "Murder", for example, if left unrestricted, could very well quickly undo
    society as we know it.

    Those promosing a return to Victorian morality may very well cry that drinking
    an open beer in public (something ILLEGAL in this wondrous country) will bring
    down society, but our intellect can tell us this is phony.

    With regards to the "war on drugs", it is near perfect hypocracy for the nation
    to be turned into a pill-nation by the big pharmaceuticals and quick-fix quacks
    in pyschology, while at the same time yell "war" against "drugs". As a side
    example, consider how Rush Limbaugh was all but excused for his illegal use of
    oxycontin, while "Jeffrey" down the street sits in jail for smoking a joint.

    For a very, eye-opening book on the history of marijuana legislation in this
    country read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". But since this did not originate
    in a neocon think-tank in D.C., some may dismiss is upfront as "leftist
    distortion". Make up your own mind.

    > can also have a intellectual positive on society as well. If Freud was high
    > cocaine yet produced some effective and accurate psychological data how can
    > any society determine the difference of good vs bad when using cocaine?
    > If smoking marijuana "enhances" a musical experience what is "that"?

    Maybe you took my sarcasm to heart. I am for loosening these restrictions. We
    are capable of making our own decisions without the conservative big brother
    telling us "what's best for us".

    > one consider that a manipulation of Quality that is not real? And if not then

    > why is it illegal?

    You remind me of Pirsig's talk on peyote. A significant part of a particular

    I believe these substances, including alcohol, *can* loosen static thought
    patterns in the brain and allow individuals to experience a merging of thought
    they may be incapable of in a "normal" state. I don't feel they are the only
    way (or the best way), and I think their effect is dulled to negligable by
    repeated, addictive use.

    Marijuana has been shown medically to lessen pain. And yet our prejudices still
    demand it to be completely illegal. Yet the good doctors can certainly
    prescribe other painkillers, including morphine. The difference? Well, call me
    a skeptic, but you CAN GROW marijuna YOURSELF. For the other drugs you are
    dependant on pharmaceutical companies.

    You see the pattern?....

    > We can go on and on with examples but I guess my question is how we
    > determine what is right and wrong? Because not a whole society will totally

    The agreement of society is not a morally justifiable excuse to restrict
    Intellectual patterns. Society is morally inferior, and if an Intellectual
    pattern destroys society, so be it.

    The agreement of society to restrict biological quality is what Pirsig evidences
    with Victorian morality. However, it ignores the Intellectual which is morally
    justified in guiding social patterns. Thus, society cannot agree to prohibit
    interracial sex just because it is social and sex is biological. Intellectual
    patterns that advance the right of any individual to have sexual relations with
    partners of their choosing supercedes static social patterns.

    Platt will tell you ad infinitum the negative effects on DQ when Intellectual
    stifles the "market", but grossly neglects that social patterns can just as
    readily stifle a society's ability to respond to DQ. The Victorians found that
    out. As nearly did the society of the Brujo.

    > And if you disagree and you become the minority (for example, you are a pot
    > smoker and have never harmed anyone or, when under the influence, put
    > in a position to harm anyone) isn't this taking away from your ability to
    > experience Quality?

    Given that Pirsig spoke fondly of his peyote experience, which plays a
    significant role (at least in LILA) of orienting his thoughts, then I'd have to
    say "yes".

    > Without getting too far away from this far as terrorism, or the
    > use of it, I believe there is a lot to be desired. When terrorism is used is
    > the rationality because it's a last resort?

    Again, I think we're more on the same page than not. I do believe that
    "terrorism" is a response to some Intellectual pattern, in this case a
    perceived legitimate attempt to block US hegemony. I also believe that the
    terrorist power structure is manipulating the situation to serve its own power
    reification (this is not unique to terrorist power structures, btw, but is a
    function of power strutures in general).

    Do I think part of the reasoning from the perspective of the terrorist is that
    it's a last resort, I'm not sure. Maybe. Like I said, I'm not saying the
    Intellectual patterns are sound, mind you, or that they aren't, only that they
    are guided by Intellectual patterns, not biological or social ones.

    If your question is, "is terrorism (I'll use the definition by MSH in another
    thread) EVER moral?", I'd have to answer "no".

    Including when the USG has historically been involved in, or supported, such

    To condemn terrorism without this inclusion is arrogant hypocracy.

    What if you try and try through
    > summits and meetings and peaceful resolutions yet you still have a country
    > invading yours?

    This is why we need a strong U.N. (Down, Platt, down!!) ;-)

     Despite how your country's current system is, by drawing lines on
    > the earth doesn't that create and - more harmfully protect - static patterns

    > that are the ROOT CAUSE of the hatred and fighting in the world?

    My personal opinion? The idea of the "nation-state" is an outmoded way of
    viewing the world. It is not descriptive of culture, politics or languages.
    Though it will likely be around for a while, mankind will eventually overcome
    its desire to draw lines in the sand. Europe seems to be easing its way in this
    direction. Platt will resist to his dying breath. :-)

    > You also added:
    > "More on this soon..."
    > Great! I enjoy your ideas and rationality.
    > Thanks for humoring my feeble mind!!!

    Thanks for humoring my feeble ego!!! :-)


    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 : Tue Dec 14 2004 - 04:29:52 GMT