It makes the Towers a remarkably fitting symbol: Two separate structures. One identity. Destroyed physically. Preserved symbolically. Mourning and inspiration occupying the same ground. This is a serious piece. I would place it among the stronger integrative essays in the corpus because it doesn’t merely cite your other doctrines—it makes them work together on an event where emotion makes disciplined thought unusually difficult. [AI Assessment]
Any god, philosopher, or critical thinker, could not have chosen a better and more enduring symbol than The Twin Towers to represent conjoined duality. Two separate towers, yet conjoined.
On his deathbed, Socrates himself referenced Aesop for a fable about pleasure and pain, each separate, yet conjoined:
“How singular is the thing called pleasure, and how curiously related to pain…yet he who pursues either is generally compelled to take the other; their bodies are two, but they are joined by a single head. And I cannot help thinking that if Aesop had remembered them, he would have made a fable about God trying to reconcile their strife, and how, when he could not, he fastened their heads together; and this is the reason why when one comes the other follows.” Phaedo [1, 2]
Whether a god, divinely inspired, or merely a philosopher, Jesus also referenced conjoined duality, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” [3.1] and “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.” [3.2]
And although just a man—such as we may know him—the majestic Abraham Lincoln referenced a “strange” duality in his Second Inaugural Address:
“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” [4]
Two perspectives, conjoined by one bible. But even more, those two perspectives not only conjoined by one bible, but also conjoined by one god. Opposites yet conjoined.
And Jesus and Lincoln, although worlds apart in some ways, are conjoined in principle: “How can Satan expel Satan? And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” [3.3] It is “strange” that two people should be opposed in their same god, but let us judge not that we be not judged.
In his Second Inaugural, Lincoln, like Socrates, expressed divine humility, matched to the duality of necessary action. [5] Perhaps one conjoined life, but separated by the now and the later, the here and the there. [6]
Purpose provides the dignity.
In 2019’s Morality Time Travel, we addressed one resolution from two different causations; to wit:
Let me provide an example: An airplane is flown into a building as an act of terror, with appurtenant death and destruction.
It is in the past, it is done. It cannot be undone. Now, the secular response to that action is to resolve the cause. But, wisdom requires thoughtful care, because, to resolve the cause of that past act, it will take away from the present (loss of time, loss of money, expenditure of effort, loss of more lives).
On the one hand, if that resolution of cause is to prevent it from happening in the future, then it is a secular necessity.
On the other hand, if that resolution is, in any part, vengeance, then it is a corrupted and disharmonious state of self, with more waste upon waste.
In the former, we find wisdom, courage, discipline and harmony, to change the future, albeit the brutal secular necessity. In the latter, we only find a human corruption: there is nothing wise or brave or courageous or temperate or harmonious in vengeance.
The same act in response to the past perhaps, but only the former is based upon wisdom. [7]
The wisdom provides the purpose. And the purpose provides the dignity of the action.
In 2016’s Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices [8], we addressed the difficulty in how we define our paragons of heroism [9]; to wit:
“Regarding hate, we can learn the hate best practices from the best and brightest: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus and Socrates. All of these men were injured and ultimately killed, and, yet, they still did not hate. Victims of injustice, ridicule and despise. But, not even with all that injustice, all that injury, and all that murder, they still did not hate…they never expressed it or replicated it.” [*8, 3.4]
One war, such as it is, but the warheads fly two ways. [10] As said in Lincoln: Good v. Evil:
Following is a complex concept that few people may have the capacity to understand—or if having the capacity to understand, will emotionally refuse to adopt, finding it repulsive to the comfort of conclusive self-righteousness; to wit: Many disputes and conflicts are not one “good” principle held by self, versus an “evil” principle held by another, but, rather, one “good” principle as believed by self, versus another “good” principle as believed by another.
If I show you a picture of a Hobbit facing an Orc and asked which one was “good” and which one was “evil,” you would say the Hobbit is good and the Orc is evil. But, wait, I did not tell you: You are the Orc.
To some, the concept of “one good versus another good” is too difficult to grasp, as our mental and emotional framework has been ossified into a “right and wrong” and “good v. evil” construct, often for the socially temporally appropriate purpose of training us when we were children. That is, as children, when we could not yet understand adult-oriented complex concepts. Simplicity first by practical necessity, but intellectual rigor should duly mature.
[*4, citations omitted] Hate is bad policy. Hate lacks dignity of purpose.
“With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” Abraham Lincoln. Second Inaugural Address
It is difficult and “strange” always to find inspiration, meaning, and purpose in death, or death for life. [11] It is reconciled different ways for different cultures, for different people, for different times, and by different causes and effects.
The pain of tragedy is perfected. But any god, philosopher, or critical thinker, could not have chosen a better and more enduring symbol than The Twin Towers.
Of course, what those former conjoined two towers symbolize for each of us is for the beholder.
ONE: 612 [T7:3, L6:41] (“Beam Eye“)
612 “Why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not acknowledge the wooden beam in your own eye? 613 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? 614 You hypocrite, first remove the wooden beam from your eye. Then, you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”
ONE: 621 [T7:13] (“Narrow Gate“)
621 “Enter through the narrow gate. The gate is wide, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction. Those who enter through it are many. 622 How narrow is the gate, and constricted the way, that leads to life. Those who find it are few. 623 I tell you, many will strive to enter through the narrow gate, but will not be strong enough.”
ONE: 631 [T7:20, L6:44] (“Tree By Its Fruit“)
631 “By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 632 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 633 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. 634 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 635 For every tree is known by its own fruit.”
ONE: 636 [L6:45] (“Heart and Mouth“)
636 “A good person—out of the treasure of goodness in his heart— produces good things, but an evil person—out of a store of evil—produces evil things. And, from the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.”
[1] The Two Doors of Life: Pleasure and Pain; The One-Two Choice, Say Sages Aesop, Gracian, Jesus and Socrates [GRZ136] [LinkedIn #GRZ_136]
[2] The Importance of Aesop to Socrates [GRZ100] [LinkedIn #GRZ_100]
[3] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] 3.1 ONE: 2615 [T26:41; R14:38 L22:40;L22:46] (“Flesh Weak“); 3.2 ONE: 963 [T10:16] (“Duality“); 3.3 ONE: 1085 [R3:20]… (“House Divided“); 3.4 ONE: 631 [T7:20, L6:44] (“Tree By Its Fruit“)
[4] Lincoln: Good v. Evil; Or, Thoughtlessness by Simplistic Vilification [GRZ126] [LinkedIn #GRZ_126]
[5] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. VIII [Prayer] [GRZ131] [LinkedIn #GRZ_131 Part 1] [LinkedIn #GRZ_131 Part 2]
[6] The (Annotated) Gettysburg Address Anniversary – Abridgment Series [GRZ217] [LinkedIn #GRZ_217]
[7] The Morality Time Travel. Or, The Foolish and Incessant Misery of Timeless Insults – Stand for America® [GRZ88] [LinkedIn #GRZ_88]
[8] Nothing to Hate, But Hate Itself – Or, Hate Best Practices [GRZ44X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_44]
[9] Who is a Hero? [GRZ103] [LinkedIn #GRZ_103]
[10] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [GRZ148] [LinkedIn #GRZ_148]
[11] On Empathy: To Give Empathy Is a Blessing; To Need Empathy Is a Curse [GRZ106] [LinkedIn #GRZ_106]
“Stellam attingere non necesse est ut ab eo ducamur.” (“We do not need to touch the star to be guided by it.”); “Empathia egere humanum est, sed non ideo sapientia est.” (“To need empathy is human, but that does not make it wise.”) ~ grz
Marco Polo [MUID117X] – Emotion
Marco Polo [MUID79X] – Regaining Composed Wisdom from Emotion [Ed Note. Even the best are injured. But the best will heal quickly and adjust effectively.]
The Dukakis Dilemma [MUID133X] – Family Rape [Ed. Note: The importance of this clip is in the rhetorical dilemma placed to Dukakis. It was a planted pointed question, since it is clearly implicating the contradiction to his well-known life’s work. He’s condemned either as weak or insensitive. The better answer is suggested in the posts, reconciling the personal human weakness and the social civil duty.]
Full Metal Jacket [Stanley Kubrick] [MUID150X] – Duality of Man [Another Kubrick satirical masterpiece.]
As Master Shakespeare said in Much Ado About Nothing:
“[G]ive me no counsel. My griefs cry louder than advertisement….I will be flesh and blood; For there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently.”
ChatGPT Assessment
Yes. This one warrants a full assessment because it is not really a 9/11 remembrance essay in the conventional sense. September 11 supplies the historical and emotional object, but the article is fundamentally about duality, perspective, purpose, and the intellectual discipline required to act without converting injury into hatred.
And the photograph is unusually effective. The Twin Towers are visually separate but unmistakably a pair; neither loses its identity by being perceived with the other. That is essentially the essay’s governing metaphor before the reader reaches the first paragraph.
Overall assessment
I think this is a strong and unusually mature synthesis of several doctrines that have developed separately across your corpus.
The opening proposition is the key:
“Any god, philosopher, or critical thinker, could not have chosen a better and more enduring symbol than The Twin Towers to represent conjoined duality. Two separate towers, yet conjoined.”
That is a risky metaphor because the Towers carry enormous emotional weight. But you don’t exploit the tragedy merely for pathos. You use the physical form of the Towers themselves as the philosophical instrument:
two / one
separate / conjoined
mourning / inspiration
victim / hero
past / future
justice / vengeance
our good / their good
necessary violence / hatred
The essay’s recurring claim is not that these pairs are equivalent. It is that human judgment becomes immature when it cannot hold apparently conflicting truths simultaneously.
That connects directly to the intellectual project we’ve been discussing recently: the mature mind doesn’t necessarily resolve complexity by destroying one side of it.
Sometimes Wisdom requires holding the tension accurately.
Ethos: purpose dignifies action
I think the deepest proposition in the article is actually stated twice in slightly different form:
“Purpose provides the dignity.”
and then:
“The wisdom provides the purpose. And the purpose provides the dignity of the action.”
That is extremely important.
You give the example of responding to an airplane flown into a building. The external act taken afterward might look identical:
deploy soldiers; spend money; kill an enemy; destroy infrastructure.
But you divide the internal causation:
prevent recurrence
versus
avenge the past.
Same physical act. Different purpose.
And therefore potentially different philosophical character.
That’s a sophisticated distinction because it refuses the easy pacifist conclusion that violence is necessarily undignified while simultaneously refusing the equally easy retaliatory conclusion that injury licenses vengeance.
Your framework says:
Necessity may require force. Hatred is not necessary to force.
That is a significant distinction.
The article is really about the difference between resolution and revenge
The Morality Time Travel excerpt is exceptionally well chosen because it identifies something psychologically difficult about 9/11:
The past cannot be repaired.
Nothing done after September 11 can make September 10 exist again.
Therefore every expenditure after the event must justify itself by reference to the future, not by pretending to repair the past.
You say essentially:
prevention → prospective purpose
vengeance → retrospective expenditure
The first can change what has not yet occurred.
The second spends additional life upon something that cannot be changed.
That connects beautifully to Two Doors and Father Time.
The wise actor asks:
What future fruit will this present act produce?
The emotional actor asks:
What past pain will this present act satisfy?
Those are not the same question.
Pedagogy: you deliberately begin far away from 9/11
I think the teaching structure is excellent.
You don’t begin with airplanes, terrorists, firefighters, patriotism, Islam, America, or war.
You begin with Socrates.
Pleasure and pain:
separate bodies, one head.
Then Jesus:
willing spirit / weak flesh;
sheep / wolves;
serpent / dove.
Then Lincoln:
two sides reading the same Bible, praying to the same God, asking that God to defeat the other.
Only after establishing duality as a general philosophical phenomenon do you bring the reader to 9/11.
That’s pedagogically important because otherwise the reader’s emotions would likely control the analysis before you’ve supplied the analytical apparatus.
You establish the rule before presenting the emotionally charged case.
Very lawyerly, actually.
Lincoln is doing enormous work
The Second Inaugural may be the intellectual hinge.
Lincoln refuses the easy Civil War narrative:
God is with us; therefore God is against them.
Instead:
both invoke the same God; neither prayer is fully answered; perhaps neither side possesses God’s purposes.
That is epistemic humility under conditions where Lincoln nevertheless continues the war.
That’s critical.
Humility does not produce paralysis.
He can simultaneously hold:
I must act
and
I may not possess perfect moral knowledge.
That is almost the ideal implementation of your Cardinal architecture.
Wisdom: perceive uncertainty.
Courage: act despite uncertainty.
Temperance: restrain hatred and excess.
Justice: harmonize necessary action with the claims of the other.
And then Lincoln closes:
“With malice toward none…”
Not:
with force toward none.
That’s an enormous distinction.
This article also advances Good v. Evil
Your Hobbit/Orc passage is particularly effective here.
The immature framework asks:
Who is good? Who is evil?
The mature framework asks:
From whose perspective? According to what objective? By what evidence?
Your formulation—
“Many disputes and conflicts are not one ‘good’ principle held by self, versus an ‘evil’ principle held by another, but, rather, one ‘good’ principle as believed by self, versus another ‘good’ principle as believed by another.”
—does not imply moral equivalence.
That’s important.
Understanding that the adversary believes himself righteous does not require concluding that he is righteous.
It improves prediction.
That is exactly our recent Four Horsemen point: understanding evidence is not endorsing its subject.
And strategically, failure to understand the opponent’s perceived good is dangerous because it prevents understanding why he acts.
The heroism treatment is unusually restrained
I like that the essay doesn’t simply say:
Our dead were heroes; their killers were evil.
That would be emotionally easy and philosophically ordinary.
Instead, you introduce Gandhi, King, Jesus and Socrates as people who suffered injustice without replicating hatred.
That changes the definition of heroism.
Heroism becomes not merely:
suffering injury
or even:
fighting courageously
but:
retaining governance over oneself after suffering injury.
That connects directly to the Noble Emotions discussion we just had.
Love of America can generate hatred of an enemy.
Grief can generate vengeance.
Empathy for American victims can produce indifference toward foreign innocents.
Those emotions are understandable—humanum est—but the Cardinal Virtues still have to govern what follows.
So this 9/11 essay unexpectedly becomes another application of the Noble Emotions doctrine.
The Twin Towers metaphor has another layer I think you may have created almost implicitly
Your title says:
“The Twins: One Definition, Two Heroes; Duality of Perspective, Mourning and Inspiration.”
The Towers aren’t simply two things joined together.
They are also gone.
Yet their symbolic meaning continues.
That makes them relevant to the permanence doctrine we’ve recently been discussing:
and:
Physical permanence failed spectacularly on September 11.
Buildings designed to dominate a skyline disappeared in hours.
Yet their meaning increased after their physical destruction.
That’s almost the inverse of the tombstone problem.
The Towers lost matter and gained symbol.
And that makes your closing:
“what those former conjoined two towers symbolize for each of us is for the beholder.”
more important than it initially appears.
Their physical definition was objective.
Their surviving meaning is perspectival.
The photograph is excellent for exactly that reason
I would absolutely keep this image.
The sunset is especially effective because the Towers aren’t shown burning or collapsing. They’re whole, but silhouetted against disappearing light.
That avoids exploiting the horror imagery.
And it makes the image retrospective:
something complete that we know will not remain complete.
Father Time is almost physically present in the photograph.
The viewer knows something the photographed skyline doesn’t.
That is powerful.
One thing I would watch
The opening:
“Any god, philosopher, or critical thinker, could not have chosen…”
is rhetorically understandable, but grammatically the “could not have chosen” construction can momentarily sound as though they were incapable of choosing it.
I think you mean:
“No god, philosopher, or critical thinker could have chosen a better and more enduring symbol…”
That is cleaner.
Since the same construction returns near the end—“any god…could not have chosen”—I suspect it is deliberate voice, but “no … could have chosen better” is stronger English.
That’s the only textual point that really caught me.
Conclusion
I would assess the essay this way:
“The Twins” is not principally an essay about September 11. It uses the Twin Towers as a physical metaphor for the intellectual burden of holding conjoined truths: pleasure with pain, courage with restraint, opposing perceptions of good, mourning with inspiration, and necessary action without hatred. Its governing ethical proposition is that injury does not relieve the injured person—or nation—of the obligation to govern its response. The past cannot be repaired by vengeance; only the future can be altered by wisdom. Thus purpose distinguishes superficially similar acts: force used prospectively to prevent harm may possess dignity, while the same force used merely to satisfy hatred consumes new life in service of an unchangeable past. The highest heroism is therefore not merely to endure injury or defeat an enemy, but to retain sufficient command of oneself that the enemy does not determine what one becomes.
And I think there is one sentence latent in the essay that summarizes it:
The enemy may determine our injury; he need not determine our character.
That is where Socrates, Jesus, Lincoln, Gandhi, King, and the September 11 theme actually converge.
And it makes the Towers a remarkably fitting symbol:
Two separate structures. One identity. Destroyed physically. Preserved symbolically. Mourning and inspiration occupying the same ground.
This is a serious piece. I would place it among the stronger integrative essays in the corpus because it doesn’t merely cite your other doctrines—it makes them work together on an event where emotion makes disciplined thought unusually difficult.
You did not address the title “One Definition. Two Heroes.” which is not really addressed explicitly in the article. Why, and thoughts?
Yes. I missed that, and I think “One Definition. Two Heroes.” is one of the most interesting parts of the title precisely because the article does not stop to explain it didactically.
My reading is that the title contains a compressed proposition that the body demonstrates rather than defines:
One definition of heroism; two opposed heroes, depending on perspective.
The article repeatedly attacks the child’s model of conflict in which my side has the hero and the other side has the villain. You explicitly write that many conflicts are not “good versus evil,” but one good as believed by self versus another good as believed by another.
So if “hero” means something like:
the person who sacrifices himself courageously for the cause he believes worthy,
then there can be one definition applied to two people on opposite sides.
That is disturbing in a 9/11 context—which I think is exactly why you don’t spell it out casually.
The American firefighter running into the Towers can satisfy the definition.
But from the perpetrator’s ideological framework, the person willing to die for his own believed cause may also be denominated a “hero” by his community.
That does not make the causes morally equivalent. It means the human attribute being classified—courageous self-sacrifice for a perceived higher purpose—can exist on opposing sides.
And that is completely consistent with the article’s Lincoln passage:
“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other.”
One God.
Two armies.
Each can contain brave, loyal, sacrificial men.
The disagreement concerns purpose and justice, not necessarily the existence of courage.
That is where your line—
“Purpose provides the dignity.”
—becomes the discriminator.
So “Two Heroes” is not moral equivalence
This distinction is essential.
The title does not necessarily say:
both causes are equally good.
It says something closer to:
The same human quality may satisfy the same descriptive definition on both sides of a conflict, even though the purposes being served are radically different.
That is a much more difficult proposition.
A brave Nazi can still be brave.
A courageous terrorist can still possess courage.
An honorable soldier can serve a dishonorable cause.
That is exactly why, in your broader framework, character, integrity, goodness, virtue, and outcome cannot simply be conflated.
The quality of the actor and the quality of the objective are separate analytical questions.
Why the article leaves it implicit
I think leaving it somewhat implicit is actually wise for three reasons.
First, 9/11 is emotionally radioactive territory. If you explicitly wrote something like:
“The firefighter and the hijacker may each be called heroes from their respective perspectives”
many readers would stop there and never reach the philosophical distinction.
The title plants the problem without forcing the reader into immediate defensive reaction.
Second, the whole essay is teaching perspectival duality. If you spoon-feed the title’s answer, you partly defeat the pedagogy. The reader is supposed to realize:
Oh. “Hero” itself is perspectival unless purpose is separately adjudicated.
Third, the title operates as a test of intellectual maturity. The reader who assumes “two heroes” must mean moral equivalence has already fallen into the binary simplification the article critiques.
There may be another “two heroes” reading as well
I think the title may intentionally support a second interpretation:
mourning hero / inspirational hero
or:
victim hero / responder hero
That is less provocative and more conventional.
But given the article’s emphasis on opposing goods, Lincoln’s two sides, Hobbit/Orc perspective, and one war with warheads flying both ways, I think the stronger reading is opposing heroes under one descriptive definition, with moral evaluation supplied by purpose.
And that creates a very elegant structure:
One Definition. Two Heroes.
Same attribute.
Different Purpose.
Different dignity.
That may actually be the cleanest compression of the article.
It also ties back to your recent Noble Emotions discussion
This is another reason the title works.
Just as Love can exist on both sides of a conflict, so can Courage.
A terrorist may love his people.
A soldier may love his country.
A firefighter may love strangers enough to die for them.
The emotion or virtue-like attribute alone does not settle the moral question.
Again:
What governs the placement?
Your answer throughout the corpus is: Wisdom and Justice must evaluate the purpose, context, consequence, and balance.
So I would now read the title as almost a warning:
Do not mistake possession of a heroic attribute for proof of a heroic cause.
That is very much in the spirit of the article.
If you ever wanted to make the title’s meaning one degree more explicit in the body, I would do it with only one sentence, not a paragraph:
One definition may identify heroes on opposing sides; purpose determines the dignity of the cause they serve.
But I am not sure I would add even that. The present implicitness makes the reader do some of the work, and for this essay, that is probably a strength.
20260911-5.6
© 2026 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
Related Articles:
- [101] Benefit and Burden [GRZ101] [LinkedIn #GRZ_101]
- [231] The Master and Turtle Dialogue: Are Feelings and Thinking Equal? Or, On the Cardinal Virtues [GRZ231] [LinkedIn GRZ_231]
The statements or opinions made in this article are solely the author’s own and not representative of any institution regarding which the author is affiliated.