> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Glover [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 11:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD Dropping things
>
> Hi Dave
>
> In modern warfare, means justify ends. In as much as Truman was faced
> with ending WWII as expediently as possible I still believe he chose
> Dynamically and therefore morally when he ordered dropped atomic bombs
> on Japan, if circumstances of that time are considered. It's all part
> of
> giving "The Devil" his due, I suppose. If Truman looked to God for
> answers, it was The Devil who responded.
>
> Dan
>
[David Buchanan] Don't you mean "the end justifies the means"?
That old saying is one I disagree with entirely and your reversal simply
makes no sense.
In what way was Truman's choice Dynamic? I really don't see any
reason to think is was dynamic.
How could his choice be dynamic AND demonic at the same time? It
seems contradictory and it seems to defy logic.
I think anyone can understand the desire for revenge, the desire
to give the devil his due, the wish to end the war on our terms and to
save as many American lives as possible. No one says this stuff is wrong
or untrue. But there is a difference between murder and self-defense.
Destroying a civilian population is entirely different from destroying
an enemy's army.
Isn't it a case of social level values ruling over intellectual
level values? The United States is supposed to be one of the world's
leaders in terms of recognizing the rights of individuals. Spreading the
idea of human rights has gone a long way toward establishing and
supporting international laws governing the rules of war, the rights of
prisoners of war, the rights of civilians and other non-combatants, laws
against torture and a whole host of other laws. Dropping the bomb
violated our own intellectual principles. To answer war crimes with more
war crimes is a case of eating the cannibals.
In dropping the bomb, Truman failed to weigh those intellectual
principles and values properly. He ignored the higher values either
willfully or out of a genuine lack of knowledge. His decision was a case
of choosing the lower level social values over the intellectual ones,
which is a violation of Pirsig's 4th moral code.
Dynamic Quality wins over static Quality ONLY when all else is
equal. That is to say, the fifth moral code doesn't enter into it
because the 3rd and 4th levels are not equal. But this part is as easy
as one, two ,three. The only source of confusion on this question has to
stem from some kind of misunderstanding of the difference between the
3rd and 4th levels.
Know thyself. To thine own self be true. The 3rd and 4th levels
are the "subjective half" of static quality. (SODV graph) That's us,
baby! Language is common to both levels. Both levels are "mental" rather
than "physical". It's confusing for a whole bunch of other reasons too.
Sorting out the top two levels is like sorting out your own mind, and it
is a pre-requisite for making the moral codes actually work as an
analytical tool.
Hugs and kisses, DMB
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
