Dear Xcto,
Firstly may I clear up the name. I suppose with bensegust@... it
could be taken a number of ways, "benseg ust", perhaps a wild hunter
gatherer on the plains of Africa. Sadly I am plain old Ben, resident
of London, UK.
Anyway - back to MOQ. Sorry for the length of this mail, but I'm sure
some will battle their way thru it (pardon the pun).
Xcto:
> This idea of war being fought on the intellectual intrigues me but I
don't
> think it is the primary reason for war and it seems clear that war
doesn't
> operate primarily on this idea.
Pirsig, LILA Chpt. 13, p.194:
"These 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."
Pirsig, LILA Chpt.13, p.196:
"That's what this whole century's been about, this struggle between
intellectual and social patterns. That's the theme song of the
twentieth century. Is society going to dominate intellect or is
intellect going to dominate society? And if intellect wins, what's
going to be left of society? That was the thing that this evolutionary
morality brought out clearer than anything else. Intellect is not an
extension of society any more than society is an extension of biology.
Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so is at war with society,
seeking to subjugate society to put society under lock and
key........... This has been a century of fantastic intellectual
growth and fantastic social destruction."
Pirsig, LILA, Chpt 13, p.191:
"When the United States drafted troops for the Civil War everyone knew
that innocent people would be murdered."
Who is everyone? Everyone includes those that are leading this war.
Who are the innocent? The innocent in my opinion are those who:
1. Don't believe in conflict, or
2. Those who are not taking part, or
3. Those who are taking part, but against their intellectual will.
I believe that this statement hilights the fact that there are those
involved in war who do not believe in it.
"....... an evolutionary morality argues that the North was right in
pursuing that war because a nation is a higher form of evolution than a
human body."
Nation = society
"..... and the principle of human equality is an even higher form than
a nation"
Nation + 1 level = Intellectual.
This is the level that WW2 was fought on also. A fight for democracy,
free speech, human equality. That's what angered people, Germany's and
Japan's disregard for human rights which were being imposed on those
that they conquered. This is the reason for World War 2 starting and
continuing.
Common-man
----------
Man is interested in preserving his own personal value systems. Only
through the control of media were men convinced that they were required
to fight for something important. A huge propaganda machine was
required to force people to fight by appealing to their intellect.
Trust in social systems has been dead since the end of the Great War,
when the common-man realised what had happened to them.
Pirsig, LILA, Chpt 22, p.316
"The Victorian social system and the Victorian morality that led into
the First World War had portrayed war as an adventurous conflict
between noble individuals engaged in the idealistic service of their
country, a kind of extended knighthood. Victorians loved exquisetely
painted heroic battle scenes in their drawing rooms, with dashing
cavalrymen riding toward the enemy"
".... The First World War wasn't like that. The Gatling Gun removed
the nobility."
"Those who survived suffered a stunnedness, and a lostness and felt
bitter toward the society that could do that to them. They joined the
faith that intellect must find some way out of old Victorian "nobility"
and "virtue" into a more sane and intelligent world. In an instantit
seemed, the snobbish fashionable Victorian social system was gone"
So common-man couldn't be tricked as easily with "save our society"
morals inside of himself for WWII. The leaders must appeal to the
mens' intellect, their value systems in order to get them to fight.
World War 2 was the domination of social systems over intellect which
appeared in the form of fascism in Germany. These systems are however
run by intellectuals, those who truly believe in these systems because
they perpetuate them. These kind of systems always cause resentment in
the people of those countries. Look at the huge efforts being made by
the western powers in Serbia today, in attempts to overthrow President
Milosevic who is in terms of world power, a very small player. Is is
the belief of maintaining social systems in the interest of humanity
that led people into the WW2 conflict. However these systems are not
being maintained alone; the intellect that guides them must also be
present in the form of leadership.
Pirsig, LILA, Chpt 21 (final paragraph), p.314: Speaking about
Victorian morality and values:
"And so this social base which had no intellectual meaning and no
biological purpose slowly and helplessly drifted toward it's own stupid
self-destruction, towardsthe senseless murder of millions of its own
children on the battlefields of the First World War."
and
Pirsig, LILA, Chpt 22, p. 315
"Phaedrus thought that if he had to pick one day when the shift from
social destruction fo intellect to intellectual domination of society
took place, he would pick 11th November 1918, Armistise Dat, the end of
the First World War."
and
".... We must use our intelligence to stop future war; social
institutions cannot be trusted to function morally by themselves; they
must be guided by intellect."
This is what I mean by a society using intellect to stop war with a
minimum of damage to its own reality. That's what the Allied forces
were engaged in - efforts to stop a war."
Ben:
> I believe that it is only on an intellectual level that wars between
nations are conducted. Yes, they have effects upon society, and thus
the biological. However, the common man is not
> responsible for a war like World War II occuring. It is a failure of
leadership.
Xcto:
> This part of your discussion seems even further than the truth of
what happened in WWII. It sounds more like a modern evaluation
> without the true facts and experience of the 1940s.
> 'Failure of Leadership' does not stop bad leadership when it is
recognized. A war does not stop when someone says,'that side is
> wrong.'
This "Failure of Leadership" that I speak of is not concerned with
bringing a war to an end. I am talking about the war "occuring" in the
first place. That was a failure of leadership on all sides. The
"common-man", or to quote Robert Pirsig, "the innocent", were not
responsible for the war occuring. After the Great War the populations
had to be treated to mass propaganda in order to get them to fight at
all.
Mastering History:P.L. Grossier, Oxford Book Co. 1st ed. 1974
"BASIC CAUSES OF WORLD WAR 11
Underlying the immediate causes of World War 11 were basic causes,
which may be summarized as follows: (1) aggressive nationalism and
imperialism on the part of Germany, Italy, and Japan; (2) the
development of new alliances; (3) the collapse of collective security;
(4) appeasement; (5) fascism and its doctrines of national
aggrandizement, racism, violence and disregard of human rights; (6) the
failure of the United States to enter actively into European affairs in
the 1920's and 1930's, and to help stop aggression."
The immediate cause of World War 11 was Germany's attack on Poland in
September, 1939. The western democracies finally abandoned appeasement
and formed a bloc to stop Hitler. When Poland was attacked, they
declared war on Germany
1. The End of Appeasement. When Hitler broke his promise not to seize
any more European territory after acquiring the Sudetenland, Britain
and France realized that the appeasement policy was a total failure.
They saw also, that if they did not take a real stand against Hitler,
they would be risking national disaster. In March, 1939, they promised
to aid Poland if that country were attacked. In April, after Mussolini
had seized Albania, they guaranteed assistance to Rumania and Greece.
Negotiations to bring Russia into the anti-axis pact failed because of
mutual distrust. Despite their fears of further aggression, however,
Britain and France still did not begin to arm rapidly.
2.The Nazi-Soviet Pact. The world was further shocked in August, 1939,
when Germany and Russia announced a 10-year non-aggression pact. Under
terms of this treaty the two nations secretly agreed to divide Poland,
to allow Russia to take control of Latvia and Estonia, and to permit
Germany to add Lithuania to it's sphere of influence in Europe.
3.The Invasion of Poland. In March,1939, Hitler demanded that Poland
allow Germany to annex the Nazi-dominated free city of Danzig, and he
demanded also that Germany be given control over a 25-mile wide strip
of land between Germany and East Germany, created by the Versailles
Treaty to give Poland access to the Baltic Sea. Attempts by the Allies
to persuade Hitler to negotiate with the Poles were unsuccessful. After
signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which safeguarded his eastern border,
Hitler sent his air and land forces into Poland on September 1, 1939.
Warsaw and other Polish cities were bombed. Britain and France declared
war on Germany (September 3, 1939) when Germany ignored their demands
to cease its attack and withdraw.
The common-man could not control these events. The second world war is
all about politics of the 1920s and 1930s, not the 1940s. The 1940s
was merely the result; something beyond the control of anyone except
those in power over the countries. A revolution is generally not
considered a good idea by people when their country is under threat.
The common-man was powerless to do anything.
Xcto:
> This idea of war being fought on the intellectual intrigues me but I
don't
> think it is the primary reason for war and it seems clear that war
doesn't
> operate primarily on this idea. We can say that Montgomery's failed
attack
> in Operation Market Garden was using the principle of concentrating
your
> forces in a one-two attack to spearhead an assault to the German
Border, but
> it's failure wasn't because the German's had an intellectually
superior
> battle plan. There were social, biological, and inorganic (weather
and
> ground conditions especially) problems that factored in everything.
Each
> affected the other in many ways.
I am not talking about individual battles. Yes, these battles
contribute massively to the direction of a war, however over such a
long conflict the effects of "weather and ground conditions" must
statistically zero-out in favour of neither side.
Xcto:
> In the same way, the idea that the common man was not responsible
for WWII is incorrect because the individuals that
> made up the societies were created by the societies that practically
required WWII to take place.
Pirsig, LILA, p.256
"Biological man doesn't invent cities or societies any more than pigs
and chickens invent the farmer that feeds them. The force of
evolutionary creation isn't contained by substance. Substance is just
one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative force."
".... When societies and cultures are and cities are seen not as
inventions of 'man' but as higher organisms than biological man, the
phenomena of war and genocide and all other forms of human exploitation
become more intelligible. "Mankind" has never been interested in
getting itself killed. But the superorganism, the Giant, who is a
pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human bodies,
doesn't mind losing a few bodies to protest his greater interests."
The direction which a superorganism like a city / society takes is a
almost completely out of control of its occupants. This is what I mean
by the distinction between "common-man" and "leadership". Poor
leadership can change the direction of society and cause the
superorganism to claim innocent lives. It is a lack of foresight in
the leaders of society; an unwillingness to change to situations that
perpetuate war."
Waiting for you to further the discussion ( I hate the word argument -
kind of reminds me of shouting, etc, etc.)
Ben Segust
--- Xcto@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/15/99 5:30:13 AM Pacific
> Daylight Time,
> bensegust@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> >
> > So even though biological levels are being
> affected by a war (i.e.
> > being killed) this doesn't mean that the entire
> society is reduced to
> > the biological "Kill or be killed" response. I
> believe that something
> > else was at work.
>
> Me:
> I agree that my statements are, in general, an
> oversimplification and that
> your argument is basically correct especially the
> part that a single society
> is not the basis for a biological threat. Thanks
> for your thoughts.
> However...
>
> Ben(sorry if it's not your name):
> > A nation will seek the means to end the conflict
> with
> > minimal damage to its reality. These "means" are
> represented in the
> > armed forces, diplomats, and weapon scientists.
> All of these are
> > designed to find a resolution to areas of
> conflict. I don't believe
> > that one society forms a "Kill or be killed
> attitude" against another
> > society. Society itself is under the control of
> its leaders who run it
> > on an intellectual level. I believe that it is
> only on an intellectual
> > level that wars between nations are conducted.
> Yes, they have effects
> > upon society, and thus the biological. However,
> the common man is not
> > responsible for a war like World War II occuring.
> It is a failure of
> > leadership. A common man's reaction to a war in
> which he must fight is
> > surely intellectual, social, and biological.
> "Fight for your country!"
> > is appealing to an individual and what that
> individual values about his
> > society. His signing up to fight is not a
> reaction of a society - but
> > one man, an organism.
> >
> This idea of war being fought on the intellectual
> intrigues me but I don't
> think it is the primary reason for war and it seems
> clear that war doesn't
> operate primarily on this idea. We can say that
> Montgomery's failed attack
> in Operation Market Garden was using the principle
> of concentrating your
> forces in a one-two attack to spearhead an assault
> to the German Border, but
> it's failure wasn't because the German's had an
> intellectually superior
> battle plan. There were social, biological, and
> inorganic (weather and
> ground conditions especially) problems that factored
> in everything. Each
> affected the other in many ways. In the same way,
> the idea that the common
> man was not responsible for WWII is incorrect
> because the individuals that
> made up the societies were created by the societies
> that practically required
> WWII to take place.
>
> And what is the 'common man' anyway? And how is our
> leadership (today)
> supposedly different from the common man?
>
> This part of your discussion seems even further than
> the truth of what
> happened in WWII. It sounds more like a modern
> evaluation without the true
> facts and experience of the 1940s. 'Failure of
> Leadership' does not stop bad
> leadership when it is recognized. A war does not
> stop when someone says,
> 'that side is wrong.'
>
> The 'kill or be killed' idea was an
> oversimplification, but I just wanted to
> say that both sides weren't holding things back when
> they wanted to win. The
> use of the Atomic bomb is justified in that you use
> the weapons that best
> reach your objective to win the war within the
> leadership's best judgment.
> It's too big (for me to know all the facts) and I
> wasn't there (in Truman's
> war room). I haven't read that much about the
> decision to drop the bomb, but
> I believe that MOQ allows for dynamic decisions to
> have a lot of gray area.
>
> Waiting for your counter-argument,
> xcto
>
>
> 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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>
_____________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST