> FOR RIGEL:
> >"And that part about Indian reservations being "hotbeds" of drug and
alcohol
> > abuse (where do you live Glenn?) is patently absurd...
>
> Read Cory's very thoughtful post. He thinks "hotbeds" is too strong, but
based
> on his depictions it's close.> >
are you suggesting that Indians have high rates of drug and alcohol abuse
because of the
> > religious use of peyote????
>
> Yes, but not entirely. Cory hits on other important reasons - to mask or
quiet
> the inner rage caused by the white man's oppression, and obviously the
poverty.
> But yes, I think not just the condoned but sanctioned use of a drug in the
> mainstream ceremonies of a culture will have a similar effect on
recreational
> use. And we can see it has branched out to other drugs, especially
alcohol."
>
RICK
Sorry about the confusion here, I wasn't taking issues with your
characterization Indian reservations---I've never even been to one. I was
only taking issue with your aligning of this "hotbed" problem with religious
peyote use... not withstanding Cory's wonderful post, I still don't think
one thing has anything to with another. Many white people (and black
people) as well as Indians have drug and alcohol problems and they don't
come from cultures that sanction peyote use in religion--- (I think the
closest thing maybe wine) maybe it would be more valuable to find a cause of
drug and abuse (and that's abuse not just use) more common to all who have
the problem... peyote ain't it.
>
> > They've been doing it for thousands of years...
>
GLENN:
> According to Lila, peyote was introduced from Mexico in the last century.
RICK:
I think LILA is right, but it was of course introduced by Mexican Indians---
Pirsig concentrates on North American Indians because he's concerned with
American (that is United Statesian) culture, but there's no reason to ignore
Indian culture from south of the border in the conversation we're having.
> RICK:
> > long before alcohol was introduced by the white man, long before our
> > "narcotics" were introduced. One thing has NOTHING to do with the
other.
>
GLENN:
> You ought to be very sure of yourself before you make blanket statements
like
> this. For some reason white man's fire-water is a big problem for American
> Indians. Rates of alcoholism per capita among American Indians is much
higher
> than in white America. There are even accounts of this abuse before they
were
> put on reservations. Draw your own conclusions.
I'm not very sure of this, but so far you've provided no real reason to
correlate the two (that is, alcohol abuse and religious peyote use) and that
was my point. Sorry if it came out to extreme.
>
> > What you propose here is the stifling of David B's intellectual
statements
> > in favor some moot social concern---- according to our own system, your
> > methods are immoral (especially given the forum in which they are
> > introduced).
>
GLENN:
>" I'm sure David B. is not going to let anyone stifle him.
>
> You're right, what I said *is* immoral according to the MOQ if my
statement is a
> social concern (moot or not) and David B's was intellectual. But you've
got it
> the wrong way round. Not only is David B. espousing a popular claim of the
"drug
> culture", a thriving low-quality social movement, but all he's really
talking
> about is biological quality: a big, humungus, physical high. I keep
reading his
> paragraph over and over and I don't see anything vaguely intellectual
about it."
If you think that post was only in reference to a physical high than I must
suggest you don't understand "drug" use. Peyote, acid, shrooms,
mescaline...etc are not like Cocaine which provides only a physical high.
These "psychedelics" influence the mind in ways that undescrible to the
uninitiated, but anyone with experince in these matters will vouch for the
fact that with these kinds of drugs the physical high is barely an
afterthought.
GLENN:>
> *My* concern has no social strings attached.
RICK:
Huh??? Your concern seemed to have nothing but social strings... i.e. let's
not say the wrong thing because it may have bad sociological repercussions.
ANd as for winning by two levels... a set of intellectual statements about
the biological level are still INTELLECTUAL.... it looks like by the way you
carve up the levels Darwin's book on evolution is a biological pattern.
GLENN:
> I wish people would start realizing this morality-through-the-levels stuff
is
> pure disaster, especially when applied between the social and intellectual
> levels.
RICK:
A pure disaster??? Elaborate, please....
GLENN:
> And no, Rick, I'm not telling you where I live.
RICK:
I don't really care where you live, I just want you to be aware that
wherever you are--- there is drug abuse, and alcohol abuse--- though not
likly alot of religious peyote use. I think you've committed the fallacy
sometimes called a False Cause. You see religious peyote use, then alcohol
and drug abuse, and you've assumed one has caused the other.... there's no
reason to believe so.
all good,
Rick
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST