Squad,
I thought I sent this message two or three days ago but I just discovered
that I had addressed it incorrectly.
David B and squad,
I am including David's entire recent post although I am really replying
to the previous discussion about the dropping of the Abomb on Japan at the
end of World War 11.
David says:
Hi Glenn, Tor and all:
If there were such a thing as a fifth level, we would NOT be able to
make sense of it with our intellect, just as the social level doesn't
recognize intellectual values, just as hunger doesn't care about table
manners.
The recent "conversation" between Glenn and Tor represents a critical
issue. (Funding the cyclotron) I think Tor is not only right, but his
view was practically demonstrated. Glenn's apparent wish to dismiss the
intellectual level itself was supported by an "embarrassing" and
illogical argument. (Nothing personal here Glenn. And I'm honestly sorry
if it stings.) I've seen too much of such "reasoning", especially in the
other forum. And this is not just a way of insulting the intelligence of
those who don't see things the way I do, although it may have that
effect. I bring this up because I think it demonstrates the axiom that a
level can't really see the one above it. Its probably more like the
higher level values "don't matter" and are not appreciated by lower
levels., but the basic idea is the same.
Let me use some un-named individuals from the other forum as an example.
Hopefully this will prevent the debate from getting too personal and/or
over-heated.
We'd been discussing the MOQ morality of Hirsoshima when I pointed out
that it was simply against the law, that the bombing violated legal
principles (Int PoVs) that the US had already adopted by 1945. I'd said
that Truman ignored those principles, either willfully or through a
genuine lack of knowledge, in deciding to drop the big one. The crux of
the argument was that Truman based his act on social level values that
were contradicted by higher intellectual values and was therefore
immoral. (Although I don't think we need a whole need metaphysics to
conclude that indiscriminate killing of civilians is immoral.)
There were several people who posted their disagreements, using mostly
emotional patriotism as a defence. And none of those who sought to
defend Truman ever even mentioned the crux of the argument. Everyone one
of them ignored the laws and principles, just as Truman himself had. It
was as if those ideas were invisible to them. It was as if I'd never
said anything about it at all. Perhaps there was no good reply and so
they chose to dance around it. Maybe they really didn't understand what
I was saying. It could be that they know perfectly well what I'm talking
about, but choose to "pretend" otherwise for some reason. What ever the
case, they obviously find no value in the intellectual principles
involved, or think such values shouldn't even be involved in the first
place, or they simply don't see the difference between the 3rd and 4th
levels. Sure, its frustrating to have such a conversation, but that's
not really the point.
This blindless isn't so much about intelligence, but values and
attitudes. (Although one of them also requested that we all limit our
vocabulary to words with five letters or less because he was dhaving
trouble following along and he also said Hitler wasn't so bad, just
overly ambitious, so I guess you could say plain old stupidity is
culprit in some cases.) And I'm not suggesting that intellectuals ought
to return the favor by ignoring the value of social patterns, quite the
contrary. What I'm objecting to is the very idea of anti-intellectual
philosophers. Not only does philosophy require a competent intellect,
Pirsig's philosophy puts intellectual values at the top and at the
cutting edge of evolution, insisting that they rule in cases of conflict
with the social level. I think its not just a matter of being correct,
according to the MOQ I think anti-intellectual philosphers are actually
degenerate, at least in a certain sense.
If Pirsig is right, and I think he is, then the history of the 20th
century is explained by the conflict between the social and intellectual
levels. And that struggle still goes on to this day, even in this forum,
no? Again, I'm gringing this up not to hurt anyone's feelings, but it
seems this struggle has a very real effect this forum, which is in our
common interest.
I don't think there are any answers or solutions to this problem. What
can we do, impose some kind of intellectual litmus test? That's not too
likely and it wouldn't even be wise.
I'm breaking some windows here, but its only because there are flames
and smoke billowing out of the house.
DMB
Clark says:
While I don't think that it makes much difference to the discussion I
would like to point out that Pirsig's MoQ had not been heard of during WW11
so using the MoQ terms to base a WW11 argument on is a little disingenious.
David says:
We'd been discussing the MOQ morality of Hirsoshima when I pointed out
that it was simply against the law, that the bombing violated legal
principles (Int PoVs) that the US had already adopted by 1945. I'd said
Clark says:
I believe that it is not illegal to take someone else's life if he is
clearly and immediately trying to take yours. If we can agree that the
entire population of Japan was intimately and actively prepared to enter
the war as combatants then your argument against bombing innocent civilians
does not apply.
According to our information the entire population of Japan, military and
civilian alike, had been organized to defend against a land invasion. Even
12 and 14 year old kids who volunteered were to be outfitted with
explosives and sent against the invaders. Sneaky, self guided missles so to
speak.
This was probably a worst case scenario since the Japanese fleet was
pretty well wiped out and they had been hit hard. On 14 Aug over Japanese
1000 soldiers attacked the imperial palace to prevent the surrender message
from going out.
In any case the projections were that 2 million lives on both sides would
be lost in a land invasion. The total war had already cost 55 million
lives.
In Hiroshima the first bomb killed 92,233 people and wounded 37,425.
In Nagasaki the second bomb killed 23,753 dead and 43,020 wounded.
These figures come from a book named "2194 Days of War" and are probably
pretty accurate.
So, we can see that the dropping of the bombs was clearly moral in
Pirsig's terms since probably more civilians than this would have been
killed in a land invasion. This was not "indiscriminate killing of
civilians". The decision was based on the lesser of two evils and was in
accordance with Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.
David, your problem is that you have a skewed view of history based on
the current conditions that obtain in the world. Many presumably innocent
civilians are getting kicked around in the world today and I totally agree
that we should not use the bomb to try to straighten these conditions out.
We can apply Pirsig's morality as far back as we can see provided we are
sufficiently aware of the totality of the conditions obtaining at the time.
It makes me wonder what happens to history when it is so far in the past
that there is nobody left to remember what happened. Ken Clark
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 - 16:03:14 BST