GlitchSlapTko

As most of the regular readers of glitchslaptko know, I (Bobby D.) have been studying Mishima and his writings (both the fiction and the essays) in great detail during the past year. I view his thoughts as being essential for cutting through the current (post WWII) Gordian knot of problems with Japanese society. Naturally, there is a rich cornucopia of ideas at play in his later writings, and some of them if approached without the proper literary/historical background might seem like only the pennings of a deranged, right-wing, writer-cum-the last samurai. Not so...or rather, not entirely so.

There is a deep root of truth extant in his writings, and many of the questions and doubts he poses regarding Japanese society stand on the merits of their own arguments to be rescued from the annals of 'Modern Japanese Literature' and brought into the light of contemporary international politics. This is especially true when it comes to Japan's woeful position as a U.S. lapdog. In any event, more than 40 years old, the following passage taken from Mishima's commentary on the Hagakure (with no permission), can be read in a new and interesting way if we just substitute 'Gulf region' for 'Viet Nam'.

Naturally I'm not saying that the U.S. (state terrorist) 'wars' in that region are 'just'. Far from it. But it is interesting just as a kind of mind game to imagine that if there were a scenario in which the U.S. (or any country for that matter that enjoyed the status of 'megapower') were to wage a 'just' war, how assuming a Hagakure-esque stance to the proposition of one's own death in said war would change the way in which we might consider our involvement. Again, I welcome any and all comments from interested readers. I promise I will reply in due course.
----------
Can One Die for a Just Cause?

At this point, we must tackle the most difficult problem concerning death. Can 'righteous death', death chosen by us for the sake of a self-chosen, 'righteous' goal, can such a death in fact exist? Many young people today say they do not wish to die in an unjust war like the Vietnam war, but if they were required to die for a just national cause, or for the ideal of human salvation, they would go gladly to their deaths. This attitude is partly the fault of postwar education, especially the attitude that one shall not repeat the mistake of those who died for mistaken national objectives during the war and that from no on one shall die only for causes which one believes to be just.
But as long as human beings carry on their lives within the framework of a nation, can they really limit themselves to such righteous objectives? And even without taking the nation as a premise for existence, even when one lives as an individual transcending the nation, will one have the opportunity to choose to die for the sake of a just goal for humanity? Here must always arise a discrepancy between the absolute concept of death and the man-made, relativistic concept of righteousness. And the justness of the goal for which we die now - in one decade or several, or maybe one hundred or even two hundred years later - will perhaps be revised and overturned by history. The nitpicking and the presumptuousness of human moral judgment... [is]...in an entirely different category from death.
Ultimately we cannot choose death...We do not possess the standard for choosing to die. The fact that we are alive may mean that we have already been chosen for some purpose, and if life is not something we have chosen for ourselves, then maybe we are not ultimately free to die.
----------
Oh, where is Rousseau when you need him?