[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Platt Holden]

SA:   They asked very clear questions, and made very
> clear statements.  What is not clear to you Platt, is
> your cookie cutter episode, in which you have this
> preconceived notion about what they must be talking
> about.  Even though, what they are saying is
> straightforward, you search and search, thinking you
> know what's going on in their heads, and you try to
> analyze too much between the lines.  Notice how you
> say, "what the writer really means."  Your searching
> beyond the words they typed.  So what your really
> saying is what they asked and stated is not what they
> really mean, and so the writer must ask and state,
> "what the writer really means."  You think they really
> mean what they did not ask or state, I guess

Their statements and questions were not clear to me. As said, the 
burden is on the writer, not the reader to make himself clear and to
respond to questions the reader asks without insulting the questioner
by calling him "morally bereft," "ignorant," "idiotic," and a 
"patriotic masturbator." Such personal attacks are pure evil, as Pirsig 
has pointed out.

      [SA]
> > > Yet, you are holding a conversation
> > > by yourself.  It's as if what Ian and Arlo are
> > saying and asking does not exist.
> 
>      [Platt]
> > Ian asked if there were any circumstances when I
> > would disobey an order of my
> > commanding officer. I answered, "In battle, no."
> > When I asked for an example
> > in a case that didn't involve battle,
> 
>      You didn't ask for an example that doesn't
> involve battle.  You said and I quote, "In battle, no.
> Otherwise, give me a for instance."  But now that you
> state above, "that didn't involve battle."  I guess
> that's what you meant.

In the context, "Otherwise" means "other than in battle." What did you 
think I meant?
 
>     [Platt]
> > he replied
> > with personal insults. You call
> > that an intellectual dialogue? Arlo asked if on
> > orders I would shoot
> > a dead girl in battle. Does that question make sense
> > to you? 
 
>     No, that question doesn't make sense, but since
> you wouldn't answer his question(s) and respond to his
> statements without throwing in weird comments as well,
> then this dialogue began to escalate.

What comments did I make that you considered "weird?" 

> Without an
> argument from your side to what he asked long ago,
> near the beginning of this thread, then I guess you
> became an open target to all kinds of assumptions,
> Arlo did as well - hence the personal insults on both
> sides.  They are personal insults, I guess, because
> your philosophy is your way of life.  Nothing wrong
> with that. 

What personal insults have I been guilty of?  Also, I don't understand 
the meaning of your next to last sentence. Please explain who is "They" 
and how are personal insults caused by "my philosophy is my way of 
life?" 

      [Platt]
> > Furthermore, Arlo
> > admitted he would rather face a firing squad than
> > drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima,
> 
>      Is that the punishment to not following orders? 
> The firing squad?

In war either that, or hanging.

>      [Platt]
> > thus shortening the war which, in spite of the fact
> > that the war ended shortly
> > thereafter, he called propaganda. You consider that
> > a rational response? 
> 
>      Well, that has become a debate now-a-days. 
> Hindsight usually does bring out debates, meanwhile at
> the time the A-bomb dropped all paths seemed to lead
> to dropping the A-bomb, since it happened, but
> honestly I don't know what was in Truman's head.  I
> know Einstein didn't wanted the A-bomb.  He wrote a
> letter.  Patton wanted to go all the way to Moscow he
> foresaw a rising monster, so, I'm sure the pressures
> of the times seemed very great.

To correct your view of history,  Einstein wrote to Roosevelt urging 
him to create the bomb before the Nazis did. Truman dropped the bomb to 
avoid the necessity of invading the Japanese homeland which would have 
cost millions of lives on both sides. The Japs, both soldiers and 
civilians, were fanatics, preferring death to capture.  

'      [SA]
> > >      By the way, dynamic quality has no
> > definition, no
> > > boundaries, no concept.  Dq is at the edge of
> > > experience before and after static patterns are
> > > cultivated.  I would say noticing Dq is to think
> > > outside of the box, thus, ones first inclination
> > is conscious decision making.
> 
>      [Platt]
> > Disagree. Noticing DQ is not to think at all. It is
> > an intuitive, not an 
> > intellectual (thinking) response.
> 
>      Your right, what I meant is that by noticing Dq
> exists outside of ones current static patterns, then,
> ones thoughts, ones intellect will be able to notice
> something different and try to put that which is
> different (dq) into words eventually, to make dq - a
> static pattern.  Dq always remains.  I'm just talking
> about the code of art.

Now we are having a fine intellectual level conversation. I make a 
statement of disagreement, you reply with further explanation.

>      [Platt]
> > Is it DQ or intellect that is best to handle a
> > chaotic situation?
> 
>      I haven't been able to split dq and sq.  I just
> experience quality.  Maybe it all depends.  At one
> moment I'm thinking my way through, and another moment
> I'm opening myself up to new ways of experiencing.

Another excellent response to a question. This is dialogue as it should 
be. 

>      [SA previously]
> > This is the solider that not only follows orders,
> but
> > can clearly think for him/her self and thus be a
> > leader during those trying times when waiting for
> orders
> > will only end in the killing of the soldiers.  These
> > > soldiers, I would assume, are the soldiers that
> > move up the ranks, become leaders that others depend
> > upon for those strategies and creative ways through
> > battles delivering the good when the dust settles.
> 
>      [Platt]
> > Too abstract to be clearly understood. Some specific
> > examples would help
> > convey your meaning.
> 
>      What I mean is, that in battle, if, a soldier
> would happen to wait for orders in a situation that
> getting very dangerous.  If the soldier doesn't act on
> his/her own while the bullets are flying.  If the
> soldier has to constantly wait for directives from
> somebody else, thus, has become too habitualized into
> listening to others too much, and not him/her self
> when the meat of action occurs, then this soldier will
> probably not move high up in rank.  The soldier that
> notices dq, and is able to evade and conquer
> situations that arise in battle on a whims notice,
> without waiting for orders to come in, then this
> soldier is a leader.  This soldier will be noticed, in
> time, as somebody that knows how to lead others.  This
> soldier could become sergeant, maybe even a general
> someday.  Yet, this is probably what the military
> tries to do.  The military probably tries to get
> people to on the one hand follow orders, and on the
> other hand be somebody that can think for him or her
> self - thus, be a leader.

I agree. You are talking about a situation in which a soldier finds 
himself without clear orders as to what to do.  Your further 
explanation in your post to Ben clarified your position even more. This 
is another example of a conversation at the intellectual level among 
adults.

Platt