LS
THE POWER OF WAR
[Kevin}
> Thus killing the Native Americans was immoral because it wasn't
> the most dynamic option available. Working with the Native Americans or
> leaving the Native Americans alone would provide much more dynamic options
> on a social level.
[Dave]
This post is not directed specifically to Kevin, not because his opinions are
not insightfully, but rather as indicated by this post and previous posts both
here and in MD his position is clear on this issue. What's yours?
What if: "it wasn't the most dynamic option available" is false?
War is Dynamic Quality; make no mistake about it. Analogous with being naked
and blind in a room full of hot stoves with someone shooting at you. Negative
yes, but still very Dynamic. Direct experiences so powerful that survivors
relive them the rest of their lives.
The obvious, but false, rebuttal is the teleology of MoQ is defined as
evolving toward "good". A chart of the stock market's growth is an apt
metaphor here. From a long enough time perspective and sufficiently smoothed
the charts indicate a general trend towards what that system defines as
"good." But this perspective also minimizes the shorter term negatives that
can cause people to jump out windows. So while the overall trend of DQ maybe
towards "good" it is frought with what we humans perceive as "bad" events.
Critics of both ZZM and Lila have noted a similar disparity between the
philosophic "Chautauqua" and tales of the the physical journeys. So strong are
the negatives in Lila's tale that I have had female friends who refused to
continue past the first chapter. I believe Mary Witter indicated she had a
similar problem. Having read both books a number of times I've found myself,
as no doubt many of you have, skipping the physical trip sections to continue
on with the mind trip. Relegating the physical to the JUNK pile if you will. I
have now come to the point where the greater insights into the application of
MoQ may be contained in those JUNK piles.
I propose, and believe that history supports, that in a majority of all
conflicts it is the rigidity, static, stuckedness of the combatants positions
that finally causes the dynamic resolution, war. If this is true and war
destroys this stuckness would not one, under MoQ, have to view it as
ultimately moral and good?
Some wag said, " The cause of war is peace." Yet we keep vowing that we want
peace. Maybe we would be better to steal from Dewey, who stole from James, a
wish for a society who's philosophy is based on the "Moral equivalent of War."
Dave Thomas
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:40 GMT