[MD] Barbarian attack

[Joseph Bromley]

Hello all, I hope you don't mind me butting in too much.

Platt:
>Sorry, I don't follow you. What culture do you think is superior to
>ours? An alien culture from outer space perhaps? How would you judge
>whether it was superior or not?
On what criteria are you basing the value judgement that western culture is 
the pinicle of culture? Greek culture is in my opinion the highest form of 
culture that the west has yet seen. I define culture as that which is unique 
to a local, not necessarily geogrphical as TLS demonstrates. A higher 
culture seeks perfection / excellence in all its activities. The west 
operates on a capitalistic mass production with emphasis on quanity over 
quality, nothing is built to last, why because items are not viewed as 
having deep value, buy today bin tomorrow. This is in contrast to the way 
the Roman culture which again I would rank above "modern" culture, if it was 
worth doing it was worth doing to such an extent that it was done to last.  
A good example of the lack fine taste in modern society over culture is 
Liverpool (aka the pied cow) being named European capital of culture. (I 
have to make amends here for adding my weight to the "world in one city" 
statement, which makes Liverpool more of a hotch potch culture than a 
culture in its own right. It has nothing unique, and everything it has got 
has ben done better somewhere else. Only a plebian valuation of culture 
would call Liverpool capital of culture, though in an unfathomable sense 
yes. Where was the location for the first MOQ convention? Sorry I missed 
that.
>
> > > Platt said:
> > > Further, do you detect a difference in the traditional morality of Al-
> > > Qaeda and the Western democracies with one being superior to the
> > > other?
>
> > > Scott:
> > > The "traditional morality" I am referring to is not that of Al-Qaeda.
> > > What I am referring to is centuries-old Islamic culture of hundreds of
> > > millions which is in fact being threatened.
>
>The only thing I see being threatened is a culture that supports
>biological terrorism, and that culture is limited to radical Islam
>represented by the Taliban,  Al-Qaeda, and the current governments of
>Palestine and Iran. There may be small splinter groups as well.
>
By biological terrorism do you mean that you view terrorism as a "law of the 
jungle" course of action? But don't the terrorists lure people by using "the 
law", which would make put it on the social level. Could 9/11 have happened 
without intellectual planning? From a total war perspective it was a stroke 
of genious.

> > The evidence is that Mubarak and company dare not allow free elections.
> > And I'm not saying that all those who want Islamic government "fully
> > sides" with Al-Qaeda. I would guess that the majority of Muslims
> > consider that what Al-Qaeda is doing is unIslamic, just as the majority
> > of anti-abortion Christians consider bombing abortion clinics to be
> > unChristian. That does not, however, mean that the majority of Muslims
> > want to integrate peacefully with U.S. and European society.
>
The majority of musslims abide by "the law" more closely than the 
terrorists, is this why you call terrorism biological Platt? I get where you 
are coming from I just disagree with the use of the word biological in this 
context. If MOQ is ever to make a mark in the outside world then the vocab 
needs to be fixed so that those that don't get the deeper significance can 
still make use of it. Just a thought, just planting seeds as Bill Hicks 
would say.

>I think we agree that the majority of Muslims do not support biological
>terrorism.
>
> > [Scott said]> Now I don't think much of
> > > that culture (I wouldn't want to live in it), and I think in the long
> > > term it is doomed, just as the similar culture that existed in the
> > > West a few centuries ago was doomed, thanks to the industrial
> > > revolution and so on. It didn't go quietly either. All I really want
> > > to say here is that your characterization of the situation as
> > > "descend[ing] to the level of biological values (terrorism)" is a
> > > cheap sound-byte. I know, you got it from a sentence in Lila. It's
> > > still cheap, that is, a way to turn a very complex situation into one
> > > of good guys and bad guys.
> >
> > Platt said:
> > I wonder which if any of the following excerpts from Lila you consider
> > "cheap sound bites" and if you disagree with any of the the ideas
> > expressed:
> >
> > Scott:
> > The only thing I am calling a cheap sound bite is characterizing
> > terrorism as "biological" when the terrorists think that what they are
> > doing is defending their culture.
>
>I don't see in any of Pirsig's writing that the motivation behind
>criminal acts changes the biological nature of those acts. If you can
>point to such a caveat, I would be happy to be corrected.
>
> > While I agree with the abstract points
> > that Pirsig is making in these quotes, the story in history is hardly so
> > clearcut. Do you think that the fact that Britain and France were
> > democracies legitimizes their colonization of the Middle East?
>
>No. I do not approve of the initiation of physical force except in self-
>defense.
I agree in principle but there is also unity to be had if someone actually 
conquered the whole world and made it a multicultural single state.

> >From Pirsig:
> > "Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
> > social order over biological life-conventional morals -proscriptions
> > against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like." (c.13)
Ok, when Pirsig uses the words such as drugs here, what is he getting at? 
That all drugs at any time are a no no? Says only Pirsig or the moral code? 
And the moral code is what kind of a directive? Its root in this case is the 
social level, which means it comes form the minds and lips of humans.
In the Yoga Sutra's it says "Narcotics open up the house of the Asura's". 
Now I don't profess to know what an Asura is but concidering that the Yoga 
Sutra is an ancient attempt at the scientific attempt in aiding a seeker to 
experience ever greater degrees of Dynamic quality, he can not mean all 
drugs all the time. The sorcerers of South America also use drugs 
occassionaly to aid the pursuit of truth.
The music of the last century would be a barren place without aided 
inspiration drug. Drugs can open up the doors of perception, they can also 
kill. From person experience there is more to be gained from recreational 
drug use than there is from drinking, which tends to fuels the passions. All 
the examples given have to be taken in context, also the intellect is higher 
than both of them.
To defend the social level here against the biological weakness to drug 
taking, is that yes drugs are bad if taken regular. Anyone who can no longer 
perform their social function due to drug missuse, which I would extend to 
alcohol also, needs dealing with. You could take them to a secure/safe place 
to do cold turkey.

> > "Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
> > intellectual order over the -social order-democracy, trial by jury,
> > freedom of speech, freedom of the press." (c. 13)

All the above points are null and void if not done for intelectual reasons, 
by those operating on the intellectual level. Enter those right wing 
exteremists, they are operating on the social level and by the MOQ hierarchy 
have no rights to the fruits of the intellectual level. This code of 
morality is not working because everyone thinks that they are equal. Have a 
good look around at the Joe Bloggs and the Dubya Bushes of this world, how 
often do they even get to the intellectual level? Intellectual rigths for 
intellectual activites. Not the intellect aiding and abetting social and 
biological freedom of expression etc.
> >
> > "It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code
> > of intellect-vs. -society, the moral right of intellect to be free of
> > social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial
> > by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent-these "human rights" are
> > all intellect-vs.-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of
> > Quality these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a
> > rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a
> > higher level of life from a lower level of life. They are for real."
> > (c.24)
> >
What are the a "humans rights"? can anyone give me a full run down please.
If Pirsig's list is all inclusive, hwich it can not be as there is no 
provision for boilogical necesities such as fod and water, clean air to 
breath, clothes to wear etc. Then I must be way off the mark, or it is a 
question of context again. Travel for example happens at the biological 
level, animals travel, they also communicate and congregate freely in the 
wild. I am not arguing with the underlying point that there is "right 
action" but right action varies from individual to individual depending on 
the inherited potential. No-one chose to be born as they are, did they? To 
grant freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to terrorists is to the 
detrement of society, so sayeth the intellect. I do not view this as one of 
Pirsig's better paasges when taken on its own.

> > "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." (c.24)
> >
The important word here is dominance, something I take to be analagous to 
Nietzsche's sublimation, not to stamp out of existence but dare I say it 
spiritualised. Put to best use.

> > "The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that
> > you can talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot
> > directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control
> > biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society
> > and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between society
> > and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun."
> > (c.24)
> >

"The instrument of conversation between society
and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." example 
of sublimated biological aggression put in the service of society, the 
ability to fight fire with fire. The law of the jungle does not respect the 
law, so the law has to put "the law" into the jungle.

> > "What's coming out of the urban slums, where old Victorian social moral
> > codes are almost completely destroyed, isn't any new paradise the
> > revolutionaries hoped for, but a reversion to rule by terror, violence
> > and gang death-the old biological might-makes-right morality of
> > prehistoric brigandage that primitive societies were set up to
> > overcome." (c.24)
> >
The time to act before it is too late is growing ever pressing. If a new 
form of "the law" is not put into place then the future looks bleak. I know 
Pirsig had hoped that MOQ would be a quick fix for moral questions and has 
since stated that it is not, is no reason for not tackling the problem of 
morality with MOQ. If TLS has not taken MOQ to war over the of value of 
morality then who will. The destruction of SOM is not as pressing as society 
crumbling intothe dust, besides SOM is intellectual and the morality I am 
getting at is social as such it is more moral to but that which is below in 
order first. When building a house make sure the foundations are in order.

> > "We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual freedom
> > for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses
> > biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good.
> > These moral bads and goods are not just "customs." They are as real as
> > rocks and trees. The destructive sympathy by intellectuals toward
> > lawlessness in the sixties and since is derived, no doubt, from what is
> > perceived to be a common enemy, the social system. But the Metaphysics
> > of Quality concludes that this sympathy was really stupid. The decades
> > since the sixties have borne this out." (c. 24)
> >
Lets get to work. First step would be to fix a working definition of the 
levels so that everyone sings from the same song sheet. With the dextrity 
gained from war against a lower level and the exceptance of society, given 
victory, the eclipsing of SOM would be much more likely.

> > "And this is a war in which intellect, to end the paralysis of society,
> > has to know whose side it is on, and support that side and never
> > undercut it. Where biological values are undermining social values
> > intellectuals must identify social behavior, not matter its ethnic
> > connection, and support it all the way without restraint. Intellectuals
> > must find biological behavior, no matter what its ethnic connection, and
> > limit or destroy destructive biological patterns with complete moral
> > ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs, before those biological
> > patterns destroy civilization itself." (c. 24)
>
As Nietzsche called for over a hundred years ago let the re-evaluation of 
all values commence. The war will not be easy and I have this nagging 
feeling that I'm going to have to fight it on my own for a long while. Call 
me fickle but I don't see many if any of TLS breaking free from their 
habitual patterns and values. Still I have to try.

Keep growing and climbing higher, every new foot hold brings new pain, but 
anything of value comes at a cost.

Yours sincerely J. C. Bromley.

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 
7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk