[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[Horse]

Hi Amirman

I think you'll find that Platt's views on this and many other subjects 
are in the minority here and come about for a variety of reasons. The 
main reason for the post that you disagree with is mistaking the 
destruction of biological patterns for the destruction of the entity as 
a whole. Platt frequently misinterprets Pirsig's words (on hippy's, 
socialism, biological pattern destruction etc.) to suit his own 
purposes. As I said above, the majority of folk on this list disagree 
with those interpretations, myself included, so please don't take away 
the impression that his views represent what Lila and/or the Metaphysics 
of Quality is about.

Cheers


Horse

amir izadi wrote:



> [amirman]
> 
> Though I read Lila in 1992, I only joined this forum a
> week ago to see what was being discussed. My first
> encounter happened to be with a guy by the name of
> Platt who's arguing in favour of dropping A-bombs,
> killing babies, engaging in bio-terrorism and
> torturing people if it means giving his side an
> advantage in a war. 
> 
> What Platt is doing is subordinating the social to the
> biological by maintaining absolute biological survival
> as the highest goal in any conflict. He is willing to
> sacrifice the very social fabric of society which are
> often governed by a sense of fairness, chivalry,
> honour, morals etc. (even in the face of conflict) for
> absolute biological survival.
> 
> It doesn't appear that there is any limit to how far
> he'll go to achieve this "utilitarian" objective of
> biological survival at any cost. Using chemical
> weapons, spreading plagues, torture, genocide? All
> seems to be fair game as long as he, Platt, says: "To
> save lives, you bet".
> 
> Note how for him the quality of life saved doesn't
> seem to matter. THAT he lives (biological) is more
> important than HOW he lives (social). 
> 
> To answer his question: "Now a question for you. Are
> you willing to fight tyranny?"
> 
> All I can say is "yes". But first I'll start with
> myself to clarify my own philosophy, and make sure
> IT'S not tyrannical.  Anyone who in 2006 can
> rationally justify for themselves torture in the name
> of survival, needs to seriously reexamine their own
> philosophy to make sure it's not some rehashed fascist
> philosophy of old. Whether it's coming from the mouths
> of Ayatullahs or Nazis or Zionists or Pol Pots or the
> Neo-cons in the current US administration, the
> rationalization is always the same: we torture people
> and kill civilians to save lives.
> 
> Maybe I'll give some of the other discussions a read.
> But I'm signing off on this one.
>