From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 04:54:58 BST
Hi Platt, DMB, and all,
Platt, thanks for your feedback re my analyses of Pirsig quotes 2 and
3. I'll address your points for both analyses below. Then we can go
another round if you like.
After my detailed analysis of Pirsig Q2-2, revealing among other
things Pirsig's contention that capital punishment is morally wrong,
except perhaps for traitors during wartime (a notion I'll accept for
the purposes of this argument, asking only that the reader keep in
mind the fact that one man's traitor is another man's patriot),
Platt responded with...
ph said:
Here Pirsig makes a clear distinction between the morality of war in
which social levels are in conflict to the morality of how a social
level ought to treat individual criminals in its midst. Note Pirsig's
emphasis in making the transition from talking about societies in
conflict with one another to an individual in conflict with society
by identifying what he's talking about as "individual criminals," "a
criminal," a "defective unit of society," and "a human being." In
other words and in broader terms, Pirsig makes a transition from the
morality of war to the morality of capital punishment, illustrating
the moral difference between biological vs.social values and social
vs.intellectual values.
msh says:
I see nothing to argue with here because you make no substantive
statement. Based on your reading, do you think Pirsig accepts
capital punishment of individual criminals as moral? It's not
possible to tell from your response.
msh said:
...If a nation violates, suppresses, destroys, or in any other way
impedes or diminishes even a single person's chance for equality with
his fellow beings, it is MORALLY IMPERATIVE that
that corrupted nation be destroyed. Tough but true words, I think.
ph said:
Also, I commented on this in a previous post, saying your idea was
moral justification for invading Iraq. You responded that the U.S.
doesn't want to establish a democracy in Iraq. Suggest we discuss
this further in a separate post.
msh says:
At best, the only morally justified action is that the people of Iraq
be allowed to shape their society and culture in any way they see
fit, not just as seen fit by the US government. That is, when I
speak of a corrupted society being destroyed, I mean destroyed, in
the sense of dramatically altered, FROM WITHIN, by the people who
live in that society. I think Pirsig would argue that a heavy burden
of proof of the need for societal self-defense rests on the
preemptively attacking society. As we've seen, in the case of Iraq,
nothing even approximating any such proof has been presenting.
RE PIRSIG QUOTE 3
>
> Pirsig Quote 3A (LILA-HC, Page 300)
> Pirsig Idea Q3A-1) "In the battle of society against biology, the
> new twentieth-century intellectuals have taken biology's side.
>
> msh:
> I'm afraid this idea is too vague for me to know whether or not I
> agree with it. I can understand how someone might take biology's
> side over society, but Who are these new intellectuals, and what
> are their ideas? Pirsig doesn't say. And what is an intellectual
> anyway? Someone with a Ph.D.? Or just anyone who reads and
> discusses and thinks, and tries to provide support for his ideas?
> Or is it just anyone who thinks, which means everyone?
ph said:
DMB had an excellent answer to your questions in his post of 10 May
in which he referred to chapters 21 and 22 and "lots of names on page
274."
msh says:
Yes, thanks to both of you for this reference. But all I see listed
are names of a few individuals whose ideas contributed to the
formulation of the domestic policy known as The New Deal. Where does
Pirsig argue that The New Deal was bad for society? Or that it
somehow is a demonstration of how IDEAS are trying to directly
control BIOLOGY. I mean, people's lives were so dramatically
improved by The New Deal that FDR was clearly the most popular
American president EVER. And this was during a time when popularity
was determined, mostly, by the effect you had on people's day-to-day
lives, not by how much money you had to spend on TV attack ads.
msh continued:
Pirsig Idea Q3A-2) Society can handle biology alone by means of
prisons and guns and police and the military.
msh said:
Sure, we can turn society loose on biology; there are countless
examples of this. Nazi society handled biology, as did Pol Pot and
his regime. American society has handled its biological "criminals"
in a variety of ways as well, many of them difficult to square with
ANY interpretation of the MOQ's moral hierarchy, from killing
strikers and imprisoning war protesters, to turning dogs loose on
civil rights workers, to stifling, even outlawing any ideas critical
of such actions.
ph said:
Nowhere do I find Pirsig condoning turning "society loose on
biology."
msh says:
No, but YOU do.
msh said:
Pirsig is well aware of this, as DMB has pointed out in an earlier
post, which is why he emphasizes the importance of the intellectual
level. I paste Pirsig from dmb's message:
"A culture that supports the dominance of social values over
biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does
not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values
over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not."
ph said:
Good point. A society in which the intellectual values of free
speech, trial by jury, protection of property rights and individual
freedom is undoubtedly superior to totalitarian societies ruled by
fascists or communists.
msh says:
Agreed. Although I'm always tickled by how "property rights" get
tossed into the equation. There's some interesting history here
How did "property" come to have rights? Somehow, "the pursuit of
happiness" gets transformed into "the right to own property, no
matter what..." Anyway, lemme know when you find such a society,
free of fascist thought, and we can talk about it.
ph said:
America is not without fault in either making laws or enforcing them.
But, if you're suggesting America is no better than Nazi Germany or
Pol Pot's regime as you seem to do by putting them side by side in a
negative context in the same paragraph, I seriously question your
judgment.
msh says:
You're right. This was sloppy writing on my part. I should have
connected the dots. Pol Pot's Killing Fields were being bloodied at
roughly the same time as another genocide was taking place:
Indonesia's annexation of East Timor resulted in the extermination
and displacement of something like 85% of the population, a relative
proportion far worse than Pol Pot.
This murderous action was carried out with the full knowledge and
support of the US government, including military training, weapons,
and covert logistical support. An ancillary and revealing point here
is that US commercial media coverage of events in East Timor was
virtually non-existent, while Pol Pot made the headlines, day after
day after day. FYI, this is demonstrated graphically and
indisputably in Manufacturing Consent. BTW, because the authors of
MC pointed out this simple fact of extremely unbalanced coverage,
they are often reviled, even to the point of being called supports of
Pol Pot.
And this is just one example of American support for and/or direct
involvement in atrocities against defenseless others. I'll be happy
to provide a list to anyone who's interested enough to email me
directly. It's true that the US government has never attempted
genocide with regard to it's own people, if we forget Native
Americans, of course, a pretty ponderous forgetting, IMO. However,
unless your interpretation of the MOQ somehow entails that American
human animals are of higher value than non-American human animals,
it's impossible to see how such activity might be regarded as moral
in ANYONE'S metaphysics.
> Pirsig Quote 3B (LILA-HC, Page 310)
> Pirsig Idea Q3B-1) "The idea that biological crimes can be ended by
> intellect alone, that you can talk crime to death, doesn't work."
>
> msh:
> Agreed. But who says it does?
ph said:
A lot of people, including Neville Chamberlain, Jimmy Carter and John
Kerry.
msh says:
Can't comment without textual support. Sorry. I'd be very surprised
if any of these people thought you can talk crime to death. Carter
was president during the slaughter in East Timor, and did nothing to
stop it. John Kerry happily supported the attack against Iraq, and
wants to send more troops even now.
ph said:
Those "oversimple, out-of-context, and incomplete ideas" have
prompted quite a lengthy response from you, suggesting they weren't
so butchered after all. You understood them perfectly well.
msh says:
I apologize for the subtle deprecation in my tone. It wasn't
warranted, as the overall tenor of our exchanges has improved
tremendously. However, it's clear that the quotes were out of
context and incomplete. My understanding of them is a result of
lotsa backreading and analysis.
ph said:
In any case,thanks for giving us the opportunity to become familiar
with your worldview as it applies to specifics of the MOQ.
msh says:
Same here. Thanks.
Mark Heyman
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." --
Henri Poincare'
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 : Mon May 24 2004 - 04:52:14 BST