Monday, August 11, 2003

The Zen Thug

Perhaps violence is not the answer.  Regardless, it can be extremely useful in clarifying the question.

Seems that way, but after a while, nobody remembers what the question really was in the beginning.  The question can’t be properly framed and constantly changes with the increased violence—sounds like a branch of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

There are those situations which appear morally ambiguous or ethically muddy, until violent acts galvanize individuals to espouse, or actively reject, a course of action.  When nazism turned from a political theory to a justification for violence; when the confederates fired weapons on Ft Sumner and american soldiers died in a conflict over human rights and states’ rights; when national guardsmen killed a protester at Kent State - these turned messy philosophical debates into clear-cut moral imperatives.  You agree, or disagree, and place your mortal will on the balances.  The question could be an old one, but our position on it is radically influenced by the onset of violence. 

(I don’t know, really.  I just kind of blurted it out to myself at the coffee maker and figured I’d post it.  No clue what it actually means, if anything.)

I dunno, I thought that sounded pretty clear.