From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 05:53:21 BST
"Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu> wrote:
Hi Erin,
[Arlo previously]
What I mean is that the so-called "terrorists" aren't "biological", any more
than an American soldier is "biological". What IS biological are the actions of
the individuals.
[Erin]
So I am curious at how is sayng a solider/terrorist is biological different than
saying Lila is the biological character (which there didn't seem to be any
problem with).
[Arlo]
I'm certainly not saying a soldier or a "terrorist" is "biological". That's the
opposite of my point.
ERIN: I thought you were objecting to reducing the individual to just one level of values...that you needed to recognize the intellectual and social levels of the individual too to understand the individual. That is why I wrote about how it reminded me of DMB asserting Lila didn't exist on the intellectual level reminded me of this discussion. See I said using biological character to describe Lila didn't bother me if you were just using it as shorthand to describe somebody dominated by biological values but it only became bothersome if you wanted to use that label to deny one of the other levels.
But maybe where I am misunderstanding you is that you don't have a problem to reducing the soldier/terrorist to one level you just have a problem reducing them to that particular level?.....so saying social terrorist or intellectual terrorist makes more sense to you?
ARLO: With Iraq, we are not dealing with a "biological force" (such as sex, drugs, or
satisfying biological pleasure), we are dealing with a social pattern with its
own mythos, with its own intellectual patterns, that sees the West as a threat
to ITS patterns. Whether or not this is justified is not the point.
ERIN: So can't you say that having sex, taking drugs, etc. are the actions of the individual? Not sure what distinction you are pointing to between the "biological actions" and the "biological force".
ARLO: Their fighters are using biological violence to stem of a threat they see as
injurious to their social/intellectual patterns. Our fighters are using
biological violence to stem of a threat we see as injurious to our
social/intellectual patterns. That biological violence is being used is wihout
question. But the underlying conflict is NOT biological-social, as in Pirsig's
example.
ERIN: See again looking at all three patterns in the individual was why I wrote that post...it reminded me of the conversation I had with DMB when I was trying to do the same thing with Lila. So if Lila CONSISTENTLY uses biological actions to stem a threat she sees as injurious to her social/intellectual patterns she is called the biologcial character. If somebody CONSISTENTLY uses violent actions calling them biological isn't off (as long as you recognize the role of the other levels.) Now I don't think all soldiers are biologically dominated....I think some are and some aren't.
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 Jul 29 2005 - 06:56:05 BST