[MD] atomic bomb and torture

[Platt Holden]

> [amirman]
> > 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). 
> 
> [Platt]
> Last time I looked, you have to be alive in order to
> know how best to 
> live.  Or maybe you've found a way to reverse the
> natural order?
> 
> [Amirman]
> 
> Though I find the discussion we're having about
> whether to torture people or drop A-bombs on babies to
> be somewhat laughable, I know the matter is not,
> because there are still people like yourself who
> believe that under some circumstances we must, as it's
> a matter of biological survival. 

Also social and intellectual survival.

> I don't mean this as a personal attack, but people
> like yourself often end up working for people like
> George dubya, so it's not surprising to hear the same
> arguments for places like Guantanamo coming from the
> mouths of Gonzales, Rumsfield and Rice et al. And
> that's all the more reason to counter such arguments.
> That philosophy does affect lives.

Terrorist attacks also affect lives.
 
> In your quest to uphold biology you're removing all
> the static social components that enable the
> intellectual level to thrive. One of those elements is
> respect for the dignity in eachother. Even in the face
> of the worst atrocities there are static, social
> values which we must uphold if the intellectual level
> is to flourish.

You cannot uphold values if you are dead.

> Yet, we always fear that the other may not adhere to
> these rules and play the game fairly. That's what
> osamaman thinks of you, and that's what you think of
> him. For you it's biological survival of the fittest,
> and if nuclear weapons and germ warfare are going to
> help further that goal, then so be it. For them it's
> ALL their stale, static, social beliefs that has no
> room for DQ. They'd probably drop an A bomb too if
> they had it.
> 
> They sacrifice their own biology (and yours), for
> social goals, and you sacrifice your own humanity
> (social trust and respect) for biological goals.
> Though you each give different justifications, in the
> end, the reality on the ground, is the same. You both
> justify the killing of innocent people.

As does Pirsig under certain circumstances.
 
> But have you thought of one thing?? What if you win?
> What if your way of thinking survives? Would you want
> to be a part of that world?

I want to preserve the world that respects intellectual values and 
offers freedom to pursue DQ.

> There are a lot of people that don't.

Yes, there are a lot of people who don't think intellectual values and 
freedom to pursue DQ are worth preserving.

> The reason is that the foundation upon which you have
> built your philosophy is based on a primal biological
> fear of survival. That fear is so profound, that it
> overrides the same human, static, social need for
> trust.

Not fear of survival. Fear of losing higher values.

> But just as the social level would be foolish to
> destroy key static foundations of biological processes
> upon which it depends (for example clean water), the
> intellectual level would be foolish to destroy a key
> static pillar of the social level upon which it
> depends: TRUST.

A surprise attack tends to destroy trust.

> [platt]
> Let me remind you of what Pirsig said. "The idea that
> biological crimes 
> can be ended by intellect alone, that you can talk
> crime to death, 
> doesn't work. (Note 'work'-- utility.) Intellectual
> patterns cannot 
> directly control biological patterns. Only social
> patterns can control 
> biological patterns, and the instrument of
> conversation between society 
> and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier
> and his gun." 
> (Note 'gun' -- metaphor for an instrument of death.)
> (Lila, 24 -- 
> parens added) What about Pirsig's statement do you
> disagree with?
> 
> [amirman]
> I'm not a pacifist and I agree with Pirsig's quote,
> that the gun is the means by which the social level
> controls the biological. However, here he's referring
> to when society has to keep certain rogue, biological
> elements in check that lead to crime, like greed,
> fear, and domination.

Guns don't check greed, fear, domination and other motives that 
sometimes lead to crime. Guns check criminal acts.   

> In the case of the Islamic terrorists, they're not
> acting from a biological motive, but a social one. And
> the social level is best controlled by values from the
> intellectual level - JUSTICE.

The motive for terrorism can be intellectual or social. The act of 
terrorism is biological.   

> You, on the other hand, are acting from a biological
> motive of primal fear. The stale and stagnant social
> level of osama and his gang (devoid of all DQ) are
> trying to deal with you in their way.

Osama and his gang are acting biologically. I am taking Pirsig's 
recommendation to converse with them with guns.

Best,
Platt