1. Fight Philosophy: Krav Maga

In this post, I will be comparing the main tenets of Krav Maga's fight philosophy against the political realist philosophy.

Pre-emptive attack: This rests on the assumption that the defender is weaker and needs the element of surprise. Another assumption is that the attacker is indeed aggressive enough to take action. But then again on the other hand, no action may mean harm to the defender.

From another angle of analysis, a pre-emptive attack is one method of power maximization, the quinessential asset to a realist player in order to ensure his survival.

“Fast in and out”: The amount of damage dealt to the attacker stops once attacker is unable to attack anymore. In essence, this is a ethical use of strength and power with limits.

Multiple assailants: Humans, being pack animals, can and will gang up on the Krav Maga defender. By being aggressive against one of the multiple assailants first, the Krav Maga defender is creating an tactical opening and is also striking at the unity of their collective will, Their collective unity would have to be tested against the individual “fight of flight” and it would make them question if it is worth it to attack such a pugnacious defender.

“Borrowing from the best”: Everything works so long as it works. The over-arching philosophy behind Krav Maga's choice of style and combatives is efficiency, not ideology.

“A creature of its environment”: Having been born out of the aftermath of the WW2 and Yom Kippur war, the original creators of Krav Maga would find that reality is harsh and so too the combat system must be. When transferred to the anarchic reality of the street, we find that the Krav Maga defender must play by the rules (or lack of) in order to survive.

“I am no superhero”: the Krav Maga defender will attempt to de-escalate the hostility of the situation because the defender knows full well the dangers of combat.

“An elusive creature”: This is where the value of verbal disarming comes into play as the Krav Maga defender appears submissive and the neutral stance which he adopts can explode into bursting combatives at any second. All these means that the Krav Maga defender is an elusive creature for the attacker to read.

“The chain is only as strong as its weakest link”: Krav Maga combatives are all aimed at the weakest spots in the human anatomy because that is the fastest way to end a fight and the attacker is always assumed to be stronger. This is another method of power maximisation.

“Tragic Realism”: as witnessed by point 1 and 3, Krav Maga operates on a level of “pessimistic realism” which is important to understand. Because merely looking at the dangers ahead and resigning oneself to it inevitability is cynicism. Looking at the dangers ahead and preparing accordingly is pessimism.

On Civilisation (John Armstrong)

Armstrong's thoughts are very much in sync with my own on agents of change, love and art as bridging towards the truth. In this book, he brings in an extra dimension of civilisation as the societal life-support system in the environment of freedom in order to nurture high-quality relationships between people and their ideas and objects. He defines such high-quality relationships as enabling the flourishing of our human nature. Such relationships are beyond attachment and obsession and invoke a questioning of worth and value.

And so this adds onto my idea: that free agents come together/ act seperately in order to foster a society with a nurturing environment with the aim of developing human flourishing (freeing the others from the social realm of pain and thereby allowing them to look upon and explore concepts of value).

But this is no airy-fairy idealism for he acknowledges that material support must be present in order to allow for such flourishing to happen. Very importantly, he even goes on to defend worldy goods and that they are not the cause of us being spiritually/ innerly deficient. He posits that it is not material comfort that has beguiled us from the path but that we have not grown sufficiently in our inner world. And this is because we allow our attachment to material goods to be just that. We do not use them as conduits in which to explore and develop our concepts of value. To achieve this, we must go, "So I love having this/admiring this object, but why do I love it? What does my love for this object then tell me about myself?"

Another important point that Armstrong puts forth is the distinction between "happiness" and "flourishing" and that we should aim for the latter since happiness is a buoyant inner state but not grounded in action and character. This brings into emphasis the new maxim that I shall adopt for next year, "How can I be of help to others today?" We must help each other deal with the challenges of mortality in the outer realm where the tangible realities bite at us on the most immediate level. And when happiness can be achieved, we must guide others on to a flourishing state.

13. On War- The "Warrior's Vanity"

In this post, I shall combine lines of thought from Azar Gat and Leo Braudy and explore the significance of the "Warrior's Vanity" as a sub-cultural superstructure in sustaining the soldierly ethos. (as termed in my previous post, "On war- What makes an effective soldier?"

Azar Gat starts us off with his argument of the evolutionary strain on all facets of human civilization and their origins from the innate biological drives that derive from our reproductive and sustenance needs. Everything else that is to be (which Azar understands with a Marxist conceptual aid as the cultural super-structure) has its roots from these biological drives, whether directly or indirectly.

Similarly, the evolutionary strain runs it course and casts its effects on the sub-cultural super-structure of the warring class/ group as well. Leo Braudy termed this set of values as "Code of Honor" which many have used before him. However, I posit that my term, the "Warrior's Vanity", lends an extra dimension of conceptual appreciation to this set of values. Firstly as Braudy argues, the code of honor needs to be affirmed by an appropriate audience. This feeds the warrior's vanity for he wishes to be desired/ respected and admired for his displays of courage and skill in battle. It is both self-affirming and reinforcing of the expectations of soldierly conduct in battle.

The significance of this much prized and justified source of vanity is that it helps signal the boundaries of exclusive membership which is highly important to all sub-cultures. Secondly, as explained above, it serves to anchor membership. Lastly, it posits the individual to rise above personal interest and ensures the thriving of the warring group's endeavors.

12. On War- The myth of US tactical and technological superiority in the Vietnam War

Most talk of the US's impressive kill ratio in the Vietnam war. They would argue that the US won the mainforce war with their superior technology but lost the domestic and international political war. But Paddy Griffith argues a different case as he focuses on the weaknesses of the US's technology and tactics which ultimately led to a slow and uncertain mainforce victory which inadvertently led to a unfavorable domestic and international political slant towards their war effort. In his argument, the US's tactical and technological superiority over the NVA was by no means overwhelming.

Firstly, Griffith argues that the US did not succeed as they thought that they would in the area of surveillance. Surveillance is of paramount importance when faced with an enemy based on guerrilla tactics. The physical constraints of the environment gave strength to the NVA's already elusive nature due to the denseness of the jungle and the cloak of the nights. Chemical defoliation and large scale land clearing helped but did little to improve the overall situation. Aerial surveillance also failed to penetrate the canopy. The unmanned sensors of the Mcnamara wall seemed to deliver the promise of penetrating the canopy and saving manpower. However, maintainence of the unmanned sensors and the need for follow-up action meant that it was only an auxillary and never a subsitute for the soldier on the ground. Proponents for the wall talk of the success of FSB Crook and its success with its sensors but similarly impressive kill-rates were also accomplished by FSBs with no sensors.

Next, Giffith turns to examine the lethality of US forces in mobile warfare with the enemy. General Westmoreland in late 1965 put forth the doctrine of "Search and Destroy" in order to capture the initiative in the war effort. But the problem was that the enemy was near impossible to locate before he sprang an ambush. Preparatory fire was thus used in order to flush out any NVA before US forces landed anywhere and also to boost US force morale. However, this was counterproductive as it signaled their arrival and the NVA knew when to hide and where to later attack. As a rule of thumb, US forces thus still found themselves ambushed by the NVA who had good fire discipline and would pin down the US forces with their initial initiative. The US forces would then reply by slowly escalating the level of their return fire (small arms to MG to mortar to Artillery/ Air strikes) Popular media protrays this escalation of firepower as utterly devastating on the NVA. Griffith argues otherwise. Firstly, fire orders were not accurate given that the fog of war was given a boost by the dense jungles. Artillery fire would then suffer from hesitance and/ or inaccuracy. Also the NVA would smartly close in with the US forces thus only their extended flank and rear columns (if any) would be vulnerable to US supporting arms fire as they would not risk hitting their own. Mortars also needed clearings and these were hard to find in the jungles. Heliborne support fire suffered from low aerial visibility. If the US forces threw smoke signals, the NVA would follow suit so as to confuse the pilots. Also, heli-borne support fire suffered from the inherent technical need for helicopters' high maintenance hours (thus there would often be too little and too few). Fixed wing support fire carried bigger payloads and thus needed larger safer ranges and so they mostly served as interdiction and/or counter-battery work.

Griffith then moves on to debunk the myth of the next chain in the alleged US tactical and technological superiority chain: its mobility. Or rather, air mobility as was the case in the Vietnam war. Air mobility rested on the sturdy backs of the helicopters. However, heli-borne operations suffered from many constraints. Helicopters needed LZs and the jungle terrain made their options scarce. LZs had to be cleared laboriously and maintained. LZs also needed to be "cold" lest helicopters would be lost to NVA sniping fire. Thus security was another issue. Heli-borne troops in dense jungles also tended to be lightly armed and their much vaunted mobility reverted back to foot mobility once they landed. Of course, they still had immense advantages of speed over their foot-slogging predecessors but their mobile advantage must not be exaggerated. LZs tended to be out of operation areas since they would be too "hot". This also meant that when casualties needed to be evacuated, US troops would have to fight their way out of sticky encirclement situations in order to reach their LZs in a mad-scramble to disengage.

Fourthly in a connected line of thought, Griffith then goes on to contemplate the extra-tactical dimension that the political necessity of evacuating their wounded placed limitations on US mobility. Many operations were virtually halted as it became necessary to secure the evacuation of casualties. Real time effort and attention which could have been used to pursue the NVA would then be needed to pull them back to the LZs.

Thus because of these reasons, he surmises that the US forces often did not "fire and manoeuvre" but instead the US infanrty simply found the NVA and then "manoeuvre and fire". They puckered down, made an all-round defence, ordered for supporting arms, sat tight, fought desperately out to evacuate their wounded and did not pursue the NVA. Thus the NVA were seldom decisively beat in mainforce war and this protracted the conflict.

11. On War- The myth of Nuclear Deterrence

In this lecture, Wilson Ward debunks the myth that the dropping of the Atomic bombs were the main reason that Imperial Japan surrendered. He argues that in fact it served as a convenient political face-saver. He also argues why in the modern era, the continued proliferation of Nuclear weaponary makes world security even more tenuous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFyfK43mEk

Follow the link above to the video lecture.

10. On War: Expansion on "Why men fight?"

Azar Gat's "War in Human Civilisation" has expanded some of my prior thoughts about the "resource" explanation for why man fight. This considerations were absent from my previous conceptualizations because of my lack of knowledge in this particular econo-environmental sphere. Resources can cause conflicts by virtue of them being resources. How so? This post will explain how.

Azar Gat expands my thoughts about the topic that low-yield environments simply requires larger territories for subsistence, Nor does wide spacing out mean that there are empty spaces to move to. As a rule, species quickly fill up their particular habitat and soon push against its boundaries.

Even in lush environments, the classical Rousseauite anthropological imagination is not valid since simple hunter-gatherers are in fact restricted nomads or centrally based wanderers. These territories were sanctioned by totem and myth and trespassers would provoke severe aggression.

In addition, "plenty of resources" is only relative. The more resource rich a region, the more people it attracts from outside, and the more internal population growth will take place. Thus a new equilibrium will eventually be reached and recreating the same tenuous ratio of subsistence.

Human needs can also be overtaken by human desire. (as I previously pointed out under perceived importance of resources)Human competition then increases with abundance and deficiency. With abundance, some monopolize access to resources and others try to upset this pattern of allocation. Also, ostentatious consumption comes into play with decorative items which are possessed and coveted for prestige purposes. These would come in the form of crafted scarce resources. Such monopolies and social positions would add onto the ability of such "Big Men" to have future access to resources.

9. On War: Revolution (Hannah Arendt) and its recourse to freedom

I am sidetracking a bit and exploring one particular form of war: a revolutionary war and starting off with understanding it in its political context. With Arendt's book, we have an insight into two revolutions: the American and French and explore the factors that led to its different outcomes. For now from hindsight, we have come to understand revolution as an action (which may constitute war) to freedom. But Arendt breaks down our lens of presentism and she starts off with the exploration of the term. The term "revolution" dates back to Machiavelli but it meant originally restoration. In the initial stags of both American and French revolution, firmly convinced that they could do no more than restore an old order that had been violated and disturbed. They merely wanted to revolve back to old times. The metaphoric use of it in political language also carried with it the notion of irresistibility and it being removed from all human influence. In addition, Hegel's historical processes convinced all who followed in the revolutionary footsteps of the French revolution that they were agents of history and historical necessity

She then moves on the social question and states that poverty was almost absent from American scene, the poor in America were laborious but not miserable. Darkness rather than want is the curse of poverty. French liberation from tyranny meant freedom for few if most were still loaded down by their misery. They had to be liberated once more from the yoke of necessity. And in comes compassion which abolishes the distance because it is easier to suffer than to see others suffer. With it, they claimed for swift and direct action, action with the means of violence. But solidarity was aroused by suffering but not guided by it. It is guided by and committed to ideas and translates into an emotion-laden insensitivity to reality. When pity is taken as the spring of virtue, holds a greater capacity for cruelty than cruelty itself. The action of violence may appear irresistible because it lives from the necessity of biological life itself thus the rebellions of the belly are the worst. Arendt points out that the direction of American revolution remained committed to foundation of freedom and establishment of lasting institutions since there was no sufferings around them to lead them astray from reason.

Another point was that the men of French revolution used freedom in novel way which could exist only in public, away from free will and thought. All except the ruling class suffered from obscurity because the public realm was invisible to them and they lacked the public space where they themselves could become visible. Tyranny then became understood as the form of government in which the ruler ruled out of his own will and in pursuit of his own interests, thus monopolized for himself the right of action in public realm (even though he may rule for their good and according to laws)

The two revolutions were also influenced by the type of power they overthrew. The Americans separated powers because only power can arrest power. To do this, they needed to create more power, an entirely new power center and they followed the model of limited monarchy that they overthrew, never even tempted to derive law and power from the same source. Power from the people but law from the constitution. Now what about the source of law? From the constitution, “we hold these truths to be self-evident” which meant that agreement between those who have embarked upon revolution was pre-rational. It informed reason but was not its product. Thus the source of law was not held by the American but they were held by this divinely informed reason. However, the overthrow of French absolutism meant that they had to find an absolute from which to derive authority for law and power and they could not find it in religion anymore. Both power and law in the French model was anchored in the will of the nation which was above and outside all government and law. This led it to be easily manipulated by someone willing to take the burden upon himself and majority decision degenerated in majority rule where the minority was pushed out.

The American revolution was also born of promises. The American revolutionists realized that whatever men may be in their singularity (good or evil) could bind themselves into a community and this need not necessarily reflect the sinful side of men. For them, binding and combining were the means by men join together for the purpose of action and is by which power is kept in existence and this was done from the start prior to the revolution. Thus in the American model, we witnessed force (through binding and combining) and power (kept in existence and binding and combining and kept in check by separating power) but in the French, we witnessed violence and power (both of which were born out of violence and seated in the will of the nation which was above and beyond the body politic and in nature, could not be kept in check).

8. On War- "Aiya! Singapore just kena one Atomic bomb, all die already. What is the point of defending?"

*Briefly translated- Singapore is of such a small landmass that if we were to suffer an attack from an atomic/ nuclear weapon, we would definitely all be wiped out. Thus what is the point of defending Singapore at all?*

If you are a Singaporean adult like me, I am sure that you have been hearing kids of all ages from the years when we were young till now who state this claim. And if you are like me, you would no doubt feel the intellectual exasperation. And if you are an adult but do not see any problem with the above exclamation, please take a seat with the children while I shall once and for all put this claim to rest.

In this post, I shall argue the case of "Theory meets Reality" on the various claims of the statement above.

Firstly,Singapore is of such a small landmass and concentrated density that if we were to suffer an attack from an atomic/ nuclear weapon, we would definitely be all wiped out. Yes, this is a definite. Most if not all of us would be wiped out. Why? The terror of atomic/ nuclear weapons inflict direct damage through static, dynamic overpressure and thermal radiation which on impact with a human body would cause severe burning, hemorrhaging or air embolisms, either of which can be rapidly fatal.

The indirect effect of such weapons would be a nuclear fallout. This is because when added to the dust of radioactive material released by the bomb itself, a large amount of radioactive material is released into the environment. This form of radioactive contamination poses the primary risk of exposure to ionizing radiation for a large nuclear weapon. This radioactive dust, consisting of hot particles, is a kind of radioactive contamination. It can lead to the contamination of the animal food chain. Rapid death following high doses of penetrating whole-body radiation, to essentially normal lives for a variable period of time until the development of delayed radiation effects, in a portion of the exposed population, following low dose exposures. Late or delayed effects of radiation occur following a wide range of doses and dose rates. Delayed effects may appear months to years after irradiation and include a wide variety of effects involving almost all tissues or organs. Some of the possible delayed consequences of radiation injury are life shortening, carcinogenesis, cataract formation, chronic radiodermatitis, decreased fertility, and genetic mutations.

So yes in theory, if we were to suffer from an attack by such weapons, we would surely "all die already". But theory has to meet reality which is the hallmark of all sound argumentative statements.

What does it mean to possess a nuclear weapon? What does it cost? Let's explore the physical costs first. These would include the costs of research and development, fabrication, production and the infrastructure required for the launching/ deployment of these weapons. These costs come in the amounts of trillions. This realistically cuts down the amount of countries and individuals who are able to deploy such weapons.

Next and perhaps of more gravity are the political costs of even possessing such weapons. The political status of being a Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) is high indeed. The first group of countries who are pushing up the entry of barrier so as to speak are the NWS already present who have every incentive to keep their club limited in size so as to keep the international Balance of Power in their favor. When a state acquires nuclear weapons ability, the cost of invading that state then tactically increases, since it becomes more difficult and expensive for the aggressor to gain a military edge. Then there are NWS supported multilateral pressures exerted by the likes of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which seek to keep the BOP just the way it is. So any state who wished to acquire NWS status would have to run up against the big boys. And current US foreign policy, along with its allies and other powerful nuclear-armed states, have worked to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, while also attempting to coax rival NWS into decommissioning their nuclear weapons. And most importantly, US has been careful to leave some of its important allies with nuclear weapons in order to preserve the BOP in certain regions like Israel in the Middle East.

In this third section of this counter-argument, we must consider the possibility if a state would use atomic/ nuclear weapons against Singapore in the first place. The true value of such weapons lie in its deterrence and bargaining power. This is because the fear of reprisals from using such a morally objectionable weapon in this current world order would bear into the mental calculations of aggressors. We all are well-associated with the chilling end-game scenario that was the fear of all parties involved in the Cold War, "MAD" or Mutually-Assured Destruction.

Lastly we consider if Singapore even warrants an attack from such weapons. We are not tactically costly to defeat if we were to come face to face with a NWS who would logically have better military capabilities than us. So we would not be in the same situation as Japan in WW2 who doggedly refused to surrender and would cost the US millions of lives if US chose to launch a landed invasion. Secondly, Singapore would have to commit a seriously heinous international atrocity to warrant the use of such punitive and morally objectionable weapons on us. Thirdly, would we be even worth the attention and all the physical and political costs incurred to level such weapons against us? Fourthly and consider this: even if we were still in the age of conquest, occupation and harvesting of resources, Singapore is essentially an information exchange and trade hub and such "resources" would not be able to exploited by an aggressor who uses such weapons and obliterates all people and infrastructure in the act.

6. On war- What makes an effective soldier in a state of War? (Micro-aspect)

This post is a refinement of the previous posting. I shall explore the question of "What makes an effective soldier in a state of war?" from the micro-aspect's two paradigms: the mental faculties and physical capabilities of the soldier. Before we carry forth, what is an "Effective" soldier? I understand effectiveness to mean that the soldier can carry out what is required of him/her in a real warring situation. And the micro-aspect will be understood as all the faculties and capacities of the individual soldier. Of course some of the assumptions of a micro-aspect below has to remain as a purely theoretical delimitation of boundaries.

We shall first concentrate on the mental faculties of the effective soldier. The first micro-condition that exists in this paradigm is initiative. This translates into a flexibility in tactics which allows the soldier to adapt, counter and exploit. This is very important because the uncertainty of war is ever certain. So initiative helps pierce through the "fog of war" and foster a higher chance of success despite very real uncertainties. But as argued in my earlier post, initiative as a offspring of individualism must still be subsumed as part of a strategic hold (collectivism) lest it becomes unorganized and threatens tactical coherency.

Volunteerism is the second micro-condition in the paradigm of mental faculties that I shall delve into. Volunteerism aids in the effectiveness of a soldier in three important areas. Firstly, a unit of volunteers has the confidence of dedication from the company of comrades because he/she knows that every boot on the ground next to him/her signed up for this. Second, a crucial psychological acceptance of one's lot also means that such soldiers can be pushed to greater limits in training or real situations. This undoubtedly translates into greater effectiveness. One can fall back upon one's conviction to have chosen to be there in times of ordeal to draw strength. Thirdly, all these gets spilled over into a positive sense of warriors' vanity. He/she is most likely to push himself/herself to perform so as to be accepted as worthy in the eyes of his/her fellow gritty-minded comrades. Attempts at one-up-manship will also ensue which would also lead to the volunteer soldier pushing his limits to perform.

Thirdly, every soldier needs a cause. And the most primordial and effective of causes is a personal stake. The most effective form is of course the cause of protection of personal kin and property. Thus most wars, even offensive ones, are masked with a defensive necessity. A soldier fighting to defend all that is all to him will more likely fight to the end since it is matter of survival. This is opposed to a raider or looter who fights only when it beneficial and flees to gain another day. The ardent (which is grounded in desperation and a closed situation) defender has to make every day of his count so as to defend all that is dear to him. In the most hard-hitting real situations, the psychological connection to what is at stake on the macro-scale loses emphasis to what is at stake on the micro-scale who are their comrades next to them. It is well known and proven that when the rounds fly, soldiers fight for their buddies next to them. It is only when the pounding of lead dies down and out, does the soldier reflect on the nobler causes. Thus these two aspects need each other to make the soldier an effective military machine.

Next up is mental strength which is quintessential for effective soldiering since this profession often puts one in many situations that are beyond daily pain, deprivation and fatigue thresholds.

We shall now move onto the paradigm that involves the physical capabilities of the effective soldier. Fitness is a two-dimensional requirement of the effective soldier. At the base level is physical fitness. Add on the burden of combat loads and stress of combat fatigue and deprivation and you have combat fitness. This then brings into emphasis the previous point of the importance of mental strength and bridges into our next point: Realistic training.

Realistic training is the next hallmark of the physical capabilities of the effective soldier. Realistic training saves the soldier in a real state of war as he knows what to expect. This transfers into the elimination of reflex time and the effective soldier operates on drilled efficient mechanical reflex. Many aspects of realistic training also dehumanizes the nasty psycho-social aspects of warfare (namely killing)and thus downplays emotive reactions that could prove detrimental to the actual execution of motions. If we explore what all this means, we should also come to realize and appreciate the importance and omnipresence of mental faculties in this factor as well.

7. On War: Clausewitz's "On War"

Of course, this is a must read for my inquiry into the topic. The book that inspired and shaped much of contemporary thought on the topic. In this post, I shall be touching on the various significant concepts that I picked up from this essential text.

Clausewitz puts forth his conceptualization of the operating levels of war. Politics or policy lies outside these operating levels but is the root cause of the existent of the resultant operating levels of war as Clausewitz puts it. It can take the form of hostile or peaceful.

Strategy is the overarching macro level. Its aim is the destruction of the enemy's spirit and cohesion by determining the enemy's center of gravity and focus upon it. Clausewitz speaks of war in its limited political scope since once the destruction of the enemy's spirit and cohesion is achieved, the killing should cease. Strategy takes two forms; offensive or defensive. Next comes a modern operating level of war: Operations. Strategy is perhaps the most important because it can lead directly to peace. Thus a general must be in tune with state policy and the military should be under the control of the political.

Operations was made possible with the Napoleonic invention of corps since this meant that the self-sufficient formations could successfully engage in operations by itself.

Next the last operating level of war exists in the "Lowest" tangible realm. But as Clausewitz puts it (and most do not see the existence of this important argument of his)since success in this operating level of war determines strategy. So strategy must always keep tactics in consideration.

Another essential point was what Clausewitz argued that light cavalry and infantry did more than screening the main body of troops. This adds onto my argument about individualism in the state of war since such troops in the era of gunpowder and marching armies needed to be more motivated, more tactically intelligent and needed to be more loyal (since they were absent from the constant scrutiny and command scope of their commanders). This traits of individualism were essential since they were engaged in independent operations and needed flexible tactics to survive and achieve their tactical aims. To add onto this aspect, Clausewitz also recognized the lethality of this modern way of warfare and stated that modern wars should vitalize individual energies as far as the weapon permits and cease to use men like simple machines. This was truly a step in increasing the scope of individualism in the state of war.

5. On War: Individualism and the Military in war (of landed infantry)

I wish to examine the correlation between Individualism and the Military in the situation of war(of landed infantry). I ask, "Is it correct to say that collectivism has always dominated over individualism when it comes to the situation of war?" I argue that collectivism has always dominated over individualism in the military sphere but individualism is possible and increasingly cultivated (albeit of a compartmentalized kind) in the modern battlefield. So it seems logical to go on to ask: How is this possible? And what does this compartmentalized individualism "look" like?

I understand Individualism as a socio-political concept that manifests itself in certain positive traits such as self-reliance and independence. In the extreme, it can come to mean that an individual's goals and interest comes to take center stage and can supercede and dominate over the goals and interests of the collective and culminate in a form of a "self-interested" individual. Thus the concept of individualism surely is in sharp contrast with all that we associate with the military sphere with its culture of conformity and strong group identity.

So the peculiar form of compartmentalized individualism that I will be referring to in this discussion is one that focuses on the increased importance of self-reliance and scoped decision-making. But the individual's social identity is still fixed within the group identity and the individual's goals and interests still lay second fiddle to those of the collective due to the fundamental mission-based nature of the military sphere. But it is important to take note here that just because the individual's goals and interests are dominated over, it does not mean that soldiers are cannon-fodder. In fact in democratic cultures, we find that the emphasis on taking care of the well-being of the soldier is increasingly important. I seek to examine the validity of my argument through the various epochs of military history. We begin with the Phalangite era when the importance and dominance of group tactics come to crush over the effectiveness of individual skirmishing. This era clearly puts the idea of collectivism over individualism as the soldier turns himself into a part of a mechanized killing machine. He was a sum of parts. Simple pyschology proved to successfully condition the phalangite as the man in the unit was "pushed" forward by the legs behind him and assured by the sarissas all around him. Perhaps individualism was only displayed by army commanders who required guile and tactics in order to lead his men to victory. But the bulk of the efficient Macedonian, then Roman and later Frankish pikemen all proved the unconquerable efficiency of the collective in that era of the Phalanx. When we move onto the era of gunpowder and marching armies, the inaccuracy of the dominant weapon was a limiter. This technological limiter made drilled rank and file volley fire a more advantageous way of fighting. Also, drilled rank and file and facing down cannon fire made for the necessity of instilling iron discipline. The soldiers needed to be more afraid of their officers than the opposite side so that commanders could wield their men to face off, exchange volleys with the opposition and march over to claim land all in the face of exploding gunpowder and walls of lead. Thus collectivism triumphed out of necessity and efficiency over Individualism again in this era.

When firearms became more accurate, individualism became to grow in importance. This was heralded with the advent of riflemen as opposed to musketeers even during the previously discussed era of gunpowder and marching armies. Individualism hit a wall again during the stalemate engagements of WW1. This time the efficiency of technology was a limiter on individualism as tactics that were still rooted in the Nineteenth century could not keep up with the new surgically efficient killing machine gun. Commanders went about planning with an outmoded expectation of “good soldiering" which led to millions of lives wasted as cannon fodder. Numbers and human waves of charges called for little need for individualism. Too much thought-process could jeopardize the charge in fact and leave already committed comrades stranded ahead. A bolt out of the blue, storm-troopers were to prove a display of individualism and bravery intended to break the stalemate but could not counter the general macro-situation of the poorly coping battlefield tactics of the era. (I pause here to insert the clause that I have a sinking suspicion that in the novel new theatre of air combat, individualism flourished. To what extent and why, I cannot conclusively say now because admittedly, my knowledge in this area is insufficient to pose any coherent argument. I shall investigate further. :P )

Past the static lines of WW1,scattered group tactics grew in importance and pitched battles faded away in importance in WW2. Commanders came to recognize that decentralized fighting required more individualism. The movement away from pitched battles meant that warfare became more and more dynamic and ever new circumstances needed split-second decision-making and self-reliance from soldiers on the ground.

Move over to the modern armies of today's battlefields and we see that modern combatants face an even greater array of threats and opportunities. The need for co-ordinated arms warfare in the modern battlefields has also brought the share of decision-making increasingly down into the hands of the individual soldier (notably small unit leaders). Yet another a post-WW2 phenomenon, the advent of asymmetrical warfare also places emphasis on the guile, devotion and tactics of the individual soldier. The importance of compartmentalized individualism has never bewn stronger...

The question of "Effective Sovereignty"

Brought some kids to HACA'09 last thursday and this was one of the questions which arose during the presentation round. "Is UN Intervention in line with its role of safeguarding of state sovereignty?"

The students answered that on the grounds of effective sovereignty arising from social contract, a state would forfeit its right to effective sovereignty if it worked the ill sufferings of its people. But this statement is iffy. In the perfect scenario, the people confer the legitimacy of power unto the ruling party. But this is problematic because a social contract assumes that all parties in power come about by voluntary and consent. This however is not always the case as parties can wrestle their way to power and then dominate the populace with a monopoly of force. A social contract is not always existent. So from a realist point of view, this particular stance of their's is swept under the rug.

However we should judge the argument on the school on which it is formulated. Thus we will now apply the liberal lens. We move onto examine if the UN grounds of intervention is in line with its role of safeguarding state sovereignty. I say yes although some may argue that UN intervention on the grounds of HR violations puts the rights of the individual above those of the nation-state. However if we delve deeper, we find this not to be the case and instead both are reconcilable in true nature. To this, we turn to the rightful scope of UN intervention which is limited in nature. The aims of UN intervention is to put a stop to HR violations. It does not intervene to take over a country and operate as its state. Thus I see this as a utilitarian liberal action, which serves to achieve the greatest good with a little "evil".

Next, we look from the liberal HR lens and analyze the situation. The party in power and its people are all equal as human beings under the HR lens. Thus they do not have any inherent rights over and above their people. By acting contrary to this, they are in effect performing a violation of HR as a private individual. Were it a usual civilian act of transgression then they would be trialled as a citizen of the state under its laws. But since a HR violation by a party or individual in power is directed towards a large group of people and trangresses International Law, thus they then would be rightfully trialled under International Law. Thus it is not so much as a question of an individual's rights over the State's but rather an affirmative action of the equality of all individuals' rights.

Now lastly, a Realist sprinkling of power politics come into play. Authoritarian regimes or ruling individuals with authoritarian tendencies may argue that liberals are transgressing their own rules by intervention and scream bloody murder when they see UN-backed troops crashing into their backyards to arrest them. The simple fact of the matter is that the ones with the muscle can decide the rules and what matters. At the end of the day, it really does not matter as much what you feel is "right" when the current reality of international politics and law is now liberal in stance. Man has always used his fist to protect his ideas and his fellow kind.

3. Mein Kampf: Hitler on the State (a Folkish state, education and military service)

Hitler goes about to clear up certain "misconceptions" of the state. He is idea of what a Folkish state should be is highly "ethno-centric" and asserts that the state is not simply a more or less voluntary grouping of people under a government power. In the modern corruption, the state no longer exists to serve men; men exist in order to worship a state. Thus it is not an end but a means. It is the premise for the foundation of a higher human culture.

However, the state's highest state is the preservation and intensification of the race as a community of physically and psychically homogeneous creatures, this then is the fundamental condition of all human cultural development. The perils of racial mixing as put forth by Hitler have already been discussed in the previous posting. His German Reich must embrace all Germans and assemble and preserve the most valuable of basic racial elements in this people so as to slowly but surely raise them to a dominant position.

The Folkish state must then undertake certain "positive interventions" into the lives of their citizens. Firstly, Hitler states that it raise marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race and give it the consecration of a institution which produces images of the Lord and not half-apes. It must declare unfit of propagation those who are visibly sick and diseased or mentally handicapped.

Education focuses on physical training for a citizen with firm character and strength is more valuable than an intellectual weakling. Boxing is to be encouraged as it imbues and nurtures the spirit of attack, lightning decisions and trains the body in steel dexterity. Once the German child passes through school, it does not mean that the state's right to supervise its young citizens suddenly ceases. This right is a duty and is equally present at all times. Education for the males in its broad outlines serve as a preparation for future military service. Only then will the army be the rightful last and highest school of patriotic education. Whereas for females, it culminates in their role as future mothers.

The German soldier must have superior training in peacetime and have self-confidence in his superiority and the invincibility of his people which will not be lost even in the terror of the greatest battles. During military service, the boy will be transformed into a man and learns to obey and later command. His citizen's diploma is earned by completion of his military service which admits him to public activity and his health certificate confirms his physical health for marriage.

2. Mein Kampf: Hitler on Nation and Race

Hitler's writings on Nation and Race are a one-dimensional reading of Nietzsche's philosophy of the Uber-mensch.

The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel. In nature, you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese. Nature's daily struggles are always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance is a cause of higher development.

The result of all racial crossing is the lowering of the level of the higher race and physical, intellectual regression is the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.

We can divide mankind into three groups, the founders, the bearers and the destroyers of culture. True genius which is found in founders is always inborn and never cultivated, let alone learned. The founders of all progressive human culture and civilizations are Aryans. The Aryan founders also possess a self-sacrificing will to give one's personal labor and of necessary one's own life for others is most strongly developed. However, for the formation of such higher cultures, the existance of lower human types is essential as a precondition. As such is natural, the strong dominates the weak and directs his energies for their mutual good.

The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is the Jew. Their instinct for self-preservation is most developed and no other people have gone through greater upheavals and remained unchanged. Their sense of solidarity is not positive either since it is based on the very primitive herd instinct. This primitive heard instinct only exists in the face of danger and dissipates into self-quarreling once any danger is over.

1. Mein Kampf: Hitler on Propaganda

I am currently reading Mein Kampf (Finally! This is a book that I have been intellectually salivating for since the time that I was in JC) As of now, my comments about this book are as follows, "Intellectually uninspiring but highly important as it is historically revealing from hindsight." What am I to expect? I knew all along that Hitler was no intellectual. But still, there are many important points to highight.

Having learnt much from the "superior" war propaganda being unleashed upon the German soldiers in WW1, Hitler argues on how to perfect the art of Propaganda:

Is propaganda a means or an end? It is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves.

The German nation was involved in a struggle for a human existence and the purpose of war propaganda should have been yp support this struggle; its aim to bring about victory.

When nations on this planet fight for existence.....then all considerations of humanitarianism or aesthetics crumble into nothingness. As such, these two concepts are inapplicable to propaganda.
Propaganda must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. It must attract the attention of the crowd by form and color. Its function lies in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes and necessities.

Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. This is because receptivity of the masses is veyr limited. thier intelligience is small but thier power of forgetting is enormous.

It was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous (as the German authorities did in WW1) becuase actual conflict with the enemy would arouse an entirely different conviction and the results would be devastating. By contrast, British war propaganda rightfully prepared thier side for the terrors of war and thus helped to preserve them from disappointments.

Next, propaganda is not to weight the rights of different people but to exclusively emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. It is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

This sentiment and message should not be complicated but bery simple and all of a piece. This way, it does not lead to no half-statements that might have given rise to doubts.

As a whole, all pieces of propaganda must have a common outline and never depart from it. This then must be performed with steady, consistent emphasis which would allow our final success to mature.

Up next, Hitler on Race and Nation

4. On War: The differentiating conditions of Banded fighting from Individual fighting

Why then did man and how then did man come to fight in bands from the initial state of one-on-one fighting? First, we need to explore the reasons why man need and want to engage in Banded fighting? There are two prime reasons. Firstly, it is the need to improve one's state of relative strength. Man in banded fighting are stronger than any individual. Co-operation accords a group of man greater strength which translates into many resultant benefits such as the increase in their chances for individual survivability and their success rates (just to name two). Secondly, man come together in fight in bands because of a commonality in interests which springs forth from social units. In tribes, ancient man may have been unrelated in blood but only in territory and they would still logically combine their efforts to achieve their common goal of fighting to repulse an invader for example. The other social unit of the family makes for easier explanation since all species of animals fight to protect and ensure the success of their genetic line.

Now we move onto the differentiating conditions which exist in Banded fighting as unique and distinct from Individual fighting. The first such condition is Leadership. As social psychologists rightfully observe and assert, even between two people, a system of social dominance is established. Leadership among man who unite to fight on the same side can take the form of formal or informal. As Webster provides, it would also be buttressed by the charismatic appeal of the leader or the legal-rational authority of the leader. Leadership is what transforms a mass of weapon-wielding men into a unit. Leadership also brings into the group of man functional organization and hierarchies.

A second differentiating condition would be ideology which operates as a tool for unification and offers direction and motivation to the men. This is highly important and effective since it is beyond the material and operates on the emotive and basal instincts of men. The banded fighting unit with ideology can be better counted on to "bear their swords in the cold".

Sometimes individuals do fight with the conviction of ideologies, you may argue. And I rightfully agree. However, only in a banded fighting unit can ideology truly flourish. This is largely due to the effects of the next differentiating condition which is group-think which reinforces self-right and in turn may blur judgment and increase risk-taking. Another effect of group-think is to heighten "Other-ing" which strengthens group culture. Group-culture is crucial to the banded fighting unit as it unites them mentally and develops exclusive kinship within the unit in the form of a symbolic code of arms and a unit name for example.

I shall move onto the next differentiating condition which is closely related. As man come together to fight in banded units, they come to recognize certain values such as valor, self-sacrifice, cowardice and camaraderie for example. This is the appearance of concepts which are specific to banded fighting.They praise positive values and mock negative ones. Symbolic acknowledgment of positive values displayed in the heat of battle heightens the social hierarchy within the group and also gives birth to the "Warrior's Vanity" where a warrior seeks to win the admiration of his fellow warriors by his display of positive values. There is then the motivation to outdo each other and in turn win their fellow warriors' admiration which actually serves to improve the overall fighting ability of the unit.

The last differentiating condition is the development of group tactics. The need for close-order fighting tactics develops out of a need to kill the enemy without killing your own. Tactics also arises out of man's ability to adapt and observe. Man is a creature of observation and is able to learn from mistakes. Defeat prompts tactical response. Group Tactics (or rather , developing Group tactics) then improve the success rate of a banded fighting unit.

3.On War: Why do men fight?

I sat and I pondered. I also talked and debated a bit with Uncle Chua and this is what I have gotten thus far. I understand fighting as the physical action of violence of one human against another human. Before I develop on how individual conflict escalates into banded conflict, we first have to consider what is man's propensity to fight which will be the content of this post. (take note that I am pursuing the question in the context of pre-modernity, pre-civilisation and maybe even pre-history.)

There are two types of propensities to fight: one innate and one forced. Let's explore the forced propensity to fight first. Ecology dictates that all environments are limited and a lack of resources (either real or perceived- and in this aspect, ideology can come into play and effectively alter and manipulate perceptions to its advantage. More will be discussed about ideology's role in mankind's escalation from individual conflict to banded conflict) threatens the individual's survival. This is heightened due to competition as posed by other individuals over scarce resources. At first, competition takes the form of a struggle till the point when the individual lacks any other means to achieve his acquisition of the resources which are vital to his survival, he then subsequently resorts to violent means and engages in fighting. (more on the seemingly flawed modern rational-economic lens used to account for the forced propensity to fight later)The individual who is forced to fight due to ecology fights till he reaches a safe zone whereby he can sufficiently provide for himself. Thus it is an action with limits.

Next, I shall move onto the natural propensity to fight. The origins of such a mental make-up is not easily understood. Sure, science tells us that the seat of aggression is located in our lower brain and that such impulses are subject to control from our higher brain. However, we cannot explain the inexplicable natural propensity for violence that some individuals display. Neither would religious explanations such as original sin suffice. Thus I shall just leave it as a real possibility that some individuals have a higher natural propensity for violence. Such individuals would soon develop a worldview that "might makes right" in an environmental with no policing repercussions. As long as such individuals could successfully fend off reprisals and successfully acquire what he set out to fight for, "might makes right" would make sense. Then as Uncle Chua has greatly input, Greed would factor into the issue and this would move the individual to further pursue violence as a means to an end. Such individuals may fight for the pure fun of it and like the ancient horse people of the steppe. Rational CBA may also factor into their decided action to fight since parasitism benefits them greater than rape and pillage on a long term scale. Hence such parties would be involved in raiding.

Let me digress for a bit and explain about how the seemingly flawed modern rational-economic lens used to account for the forced propensity to fight actually still holds true. Survival is still the ultimate motivation. In fact, Keagan's argument of the Aztecs who fought to capture human sacrificial tokens to their Gods. They were of an abundant society and had no immediate threat to survival. But yet, I argue that they were motivated by survival. Why? This is because the Aztecs were fighting in order to gain human sacrificial tokens which would then appease their Gods, if not their world would cease to be. Survival? Yes. Even if you argue that the priests and noble class did not in fact buy entirely into the idea that the Gods would cease the mechanics of the universe unless they were fed, the motivation of fighting would still be survival. The ruling Aztecs would have to set into motion fighting in order to keep alive their way of living and worldview which in turn validates their political survival.

Whatever the type of propensity to fight, the intermediate goals of fighting can converge and blur. These goals are to gain (this includes any gains from basic stealing to routing and even to the non-material dimension such as the political effects of war-mongering), to reclaim, to settle disputes, to defend and sometimes for the pure thrill and exhilaration of it(where the individual is pre-disposed to violence). Sometimes an individual is forced to fight to steal in order to survive. Sometimes a bloodthirsty individual is forced to fight to defend himself from a reprisal. As stated above, the intermediate goals of fighting can converge and blur.

But the ultimate end in fighting differs from the forced individual to the greedy/blood-lust individual. The forced individual would only fight a limited fight. This means that the act of fighting would only be carried out if it serves as a means to an end. Whereas the blood-lust individual is capable of fighting an unlimited fight. He could be fighting just for the fun of it (fighting as a means and end in itself).

2. On War: Clausewitz's "On War" and John Keagan's "A history of Warfare"

War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent ("War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.")

War as a purpose to itself presupposes that man is biologically driven to warring. This is an argument which is hard to make and sustain. However, Keagan then adds that Clausewitz did not factor in that war is also a cultural instrument and a cultural act. It is not entirely governed by the dynanism of all-imposing political forces. Indeed, it can be governed by static, revisionist forces such as culture.
In western military history, this was observed in the aristocracies' undying grip on the honor and exclusivity of the idea of the "Flower Calvary" which resulted in disastrous showings at Balaclava (from "War and Civilisation: Blood and Iron") for example, a prime example of culture obstinately preserving a style of warring despite real political realities. This was again demonstrated by the Japanese Samurai which had effectively employed gunpowder for realpolitik and then forcefully reinstated their Samurai way of warring once gunpowder had achieved its purpose. However, is this then not political? As Keagan later explains, the Samurai could accomplish this as there were no gunpowder weapon wielding enemies at their doorsteps.? Is this not an absence of a particular political reality which allowed them to put culture above politics?

Secondly, I agree more with Weigly who states that war is not so much a continuation of political commerce but also one of political bankrupty. This would resonate with what Frantz Fanon put forth and many freedom-fighters such as the LTTE and the IRA who have found that peaceful demands are empty and achieve little. Their appreciation of their own state of political bankruptcy then forces war upon them as an additional means to continue their political commerce.

Lastly, my understanding of the concept “Politics” is perhaps more inclusive and al-encompassing than Clausewitz’s and Keagan’s. Thus I see Keagan’s argument of incidences of cultural primacy in the preservation and promotion of various warring styles not as arguing against Clausewitz but adding on. Such historical experiences that he highlighted are highly political as they all involve and revolve around the quinessential element of politics, Power. After all, the Japanese generals who united Japan successfully and reinstated the Cult of the Sword only because they had the political means to do so. And later when confronted with the American fleet and forced to modernize some 250 years later, the political necessity won out and dictated the style of warring. As uncle Chua rightfully puts it, the image of the desert raider brandishing his sword before an unimpressed Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and getting nonchalantly blazed down proves the potency and uncompromising pressure of real politics on the style of warring.

Indeed, war in the political realm is a political instrument of violence that is undertaken to continue political commerce or break political bankrupty in order to achieve power (of its many forms) over other parties or in issues.

1. On War: sec3 SS: Chap 6

There were three reasons cited in my department's notes for the causes of conflicts. They were 1. for resources 2. for territory and 3. over ideological differences. The notes then stated that ideological differences were the quinessential reason why parties would end up in conflict. I disagree strongly and maybe I am taking too much offence since it serves the argument at thier point in education. But yet, it seems so wrong to me so I must state my case.

Firstly, war and conflict are totally two different concepts. War is armed conflict and presupposes a significant number of casualties for it to qualify as war. Conflict is a much looser idea and thus should not be used for the purposes of such a statement.

Secondly, the argument that ideological differences are the quinessential reason why parties end up in conflict seems to be supported only by the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) and only holds true between Democracies. This lack of interstate war between democracies may only exist because I would argue firstly that since Democracy had "won" the Cold War and has since had the benefits of emplaced and established conflict management devices (trade sanctions, international dialogue mechanisms, Supranational and regional organisations and the list goes on and on) I wonder if the USSR had won. Would the "Iron Fist" of the "Iron Curtain" not also be successful in dowsing any potential interstate flare-ups and prevented large scale conflict with its authoritarian ways? Also, Democracies are only less likely to war with Democracies. What about the other camp? Two authoritarian states may clash. And you may argue that at least the DPT supports the essential claim. I say no. Why? Because nothing is monotheistic in color and hue, especially when it closes to ideologies which are colored by context and unique social and political histories. So to say similar ideologies would firstly be a huge no-no to me and to further the argument and say that there is such a thing as ideological similarities is certainly pushing the logical coherency of an argument too far.

Lastly, ideologies are evolving creatures of the mind. Even if I assume that two ideologies have a common origin or common point in thier trajectories, they are definitely not asymmetrical for eternity. We often forget that ideologies bend to our will and are often tokens of what we really stand for. Indeed, the real tangible concerns like oppression, resources and territory are what counts in sparking a conflict. Ideologies are tools that justify our claims and unite us under a common flag. Case in point, I refer to the "Contigent Democrats" theory. Conflicts exist in states at all levels and the "Contingent Democrats" theory rightfully shows and assets that groups will push for democracy within society only when it serves thier position at that moment. Even if they were supposedly the democratising force, they would renounce democracy if it were in conflict with thier interests. Thus this shows the reality that real tangible concerns bite us at our cores. They rumble when our tummies are unfed. They bleed when we are cut. We cannot deny them. They are the real undenieable facts of life. Ideologies on the other hand, often just serve to help us deny.

Introduction

Summer is such a beautiful time of the year. Flowers bloom. Fruits ripen. (describe children tossing their books and pencils aside as they ran into the streets to watch the parade floats pass their houses. Welcoming the arrival of a carnival.) Carnivals come very often to (town name) the whole year round. (town name) is the best place for entertainers to entertain. (town name)'s folks are the most (welcoming/ helpful/ cheerful/ fun) Performers make a lot of (money/revenue) in (town name. They love this place so much and sometimes they never leave. Even though the folks are (fun), they have a very close relationship with God because he is the one making the town rich. They are very fervent Catholics. (Describe their resentment towards taboos, blasphemy)The crops never dies out. The river never dries. Disease comes and goes but never stays long making the people strong, rich and prosperous. They ostracize/ cast out/ exile/ banish criminals. Sometimes when it gets too personal, they tale the law into their own hands. Because it is their town and the people do all they can to keep it safe and prosperous.

Loud thuds of long handled hammers knocking nails into the earth. Large men hoisting up canvases and ropes. (Describe a tent falling apart)Putting together tents can be quite frustrating and chaotic sometimes. Especially when you are missing a few helping hands. (At the corner, fat Jim sleeps. Slapped by his brother) The site of the carnival is by the sea by the cliff. The winds bring the fresh scent of the ocean waters to (brighten up/ refresh) carry the workers' sweat away and (revitalize/cool) their bodies.

Away from all the noise, the rustles of construction, at the corner of the cliff stood a tall white steeple. A light house. It used to be busy. A place to warn incoming ships of the sharp coastal rocks.

Franz Kafka- The Fasting Artist

Another short story marvel. Here goes.

Can you be honest about a dishonesty? To be perfectly transparent, I did register a hint of disappointment at the end of this tale when I realised the truth.

The man was to me, a fraud. He was honest about a dishonesty. This dishonesty was his whole life. It informed others of him. Can one thing make a man? Can one thing break a man? Yes, it does and it did. It broke and hollowed him out to the core.

He never wanted to fast. It was forced upon him and yet often he adopted a "holier than thou" attitude which was best brought out by comparison with the guards who doubted him and yet they couldn't have lasted the night and executed their duties if they had not been nourished.

Yet again, was it a true blue dishonesty? Or did he choose this fate because he was simply too choosy by nature.

Yet the paradox continues for he is honest about it. He is honest about the rules and formalities. He sticks to his craft/ art lawfully and is even ambitious about it. Is this akin to Kant's conception of "A truly virtuous act" whereby it is born out of duty (which he sees his art as) and not personal inclination.

The last point that struck me is how we are all innately attracted to the gory. We all seek and obtain some form of perverse pleasure from experiencing rationed-out and controlled fear. He is the embodiment of what would be. He is the gory spectacular which would have no meaning if we did not feel this particular inclination.
He is still an enigma to me. I hope one day, I will gather the full picture.

The Circle

Love is selfish
Only within our circle, are we both happy
If we even know what happiness is
Once out, we are no longer on the same track
My happiness with someone else makes you sad
And vice versa

Our happiness together deprives others
If we even know what happiness is
This would make a bad song
As many thing in life do
I ask myself, do I know what love is
I dare say that I don't
I know what it means to love
But of Love, it eludes me
I only know when I am within our circle
Yet when I am, I am blind
When I leave, I am bitter
I do not know what Love is

Our love exists in the circle
Yet it lives in reality
Within our circle, all is possible
In reality, possible is not all
Our circle collides with other circles
Each testing its limits and strengths
Reality exists in time
Time, time binds us
I wanted to be with her
It was too soon
Time, it controls us
Because we will die
So we let time play us
It dictates us
Too soon, too late
It speaks to us
Not right, good or perfect
We measure ourselves on its scale
It is timing
Good timing makes the good "perfect"
Bad timing makes it not to be
Yet we were the masters of time
We gave it meaning and set it free upon ourselves

Time, when you have more of it, it becomes pointless
When you have little of it, time is all you think about
Not so much what you can do with it
But how it slips away
You do so much yet all the while at the back of your mind, you worry
How it slips away

Time, does not make how you feel
If you don't feel how you are supposed to, it is a bad feeling
Others get with the time's programme
If you don't, you feel bad
Yet again, we have lost control

Full Nelson

I won't say that this Indie film is good. It is just that it leaves food for thought. Of course it helps that Ryan Gosling is the lead.

But onto the "smart stuff"..... He says "One thing doesn't make a man" or so he says.

This is true and false at the same time.

Dunne's addiction is but one thing. Yes, it does not make him. His mind, his teaching and many more aspects all make him. Not just that one thing. So this is true.

But yet it is so wrong. It is precisely the nature of that one thing which breaks him. As Epicurus would criticize, that one pleasure of his is not within his control. Worst still, it is beyond his control and controls him. Not only that, it also compromises all other pleasures (like having a meaningful relationship, like being able to function normally and healthily throughout the day)

Thus the danger is apparent to see as it is not the quantity but the nature of it all. The nature of one thing that may break a man.

Franz Kafka- The Metamorphsis

What a great read. I think I have not been impressed thus far since "The Outsider" and that is one tough cookie to live up to. "The Metamorphsis" has left me with many thoughts and bugging questions and suspicions.

Gregory suffers from Alienation. And this alienation is multifarious in its dimensions. Firstly, he is alienated from himself. He has become something that he does not quite recognize. Even if he had not changed into a cockroach, he was already at a point of "non-self-recognition". He is alienated by who he is (who he has to be) from who he is and was. Secondly, Gregory is alienated from his family. Similarly, his biological metamorphsis only serves to highlight the fact that they had developed a complacency towards his generosity and had effectively typecast him as just the provider. Lastly, he is alienated from humanity due to the nature of his work which makes his never stay long enough anywhere to be of any impression and permanence. In effect, his travelling salesman occupation renders his existence among any community a nature of fleeting weightlessness.

Of course, the text is peppered with absurdity as well which always underlines such thought-provoking plots. But it is all true. The absurdity of pressing concerns/ practicalities still remains even though Gregory has had the worst happen to him. As a flailing cockroach which is struggling to understand and discover his biomechanics, he still has to contend with a supervisor which actually makes a house visit on account of him being late. Everyone suffers from wrong priorities in that particular part of the story and this really highlights how perceived importance triumphs over real importance.

Absurdity rears its ugly face once again later in the story when the "normalcy of the unusual" strikes. The family members show us that humans are all but creatures of habit and memory. We can get used to suffering. Is it too tiring to go on mourning forever? Is this a self-defense mechanism? Gregory's plight (which is highly unusual!) becomes normal in due time. Habit and memories then snuff all meaning out of his suffering till he feels himself redundant and guilty of being a burden. And that is when he goes through his last phase of the metamorphsis and becomes null.

Read this with the knowledge that for now this is just my interpretation of the text and I have not studied any prior analysis of it as of yet. I am sure once I have that I will be back eagerly to develop on this text more. :)

Miraculous coincidences

Can you imagine when the universe was not yet in existence? When it was suspended in imaginary time.

If you think about how things come to be and the myriad of miraculous coincidences that have propelled or rather brought us to where we are now.

The fact that I can write this blog post. The fact that I can apply my cognitive reasoning. The fact that the atoms on my laptop are holding up with the strength of its bonds and not disintegrating. The fact that the moon is high in the sky and regulating the earth's waves.

And then I think about us. About our meat vessels, about our consciousness and witness-consciousness and how at our core, we are but a highly complex system of atomic systems. How at essence, we are integrating as a system of atomic systems with other atomic systems. How we must leave energy residues and parts of ourselves with everything that we interact with.

Our lives and all we hold dear are miraculous coincidences. Let us begin at the beginning or rather the point of non-being.

Imagine all (or rather the lack of all) before the "Big Bang", when all that was to be was suspended in imaginary time.

And then the universe expanded out into time and space as a hot, glowing fireball and rapidly cooled while it expanded. Protogalaxies contracted and began to break into fragments. Gravity then caused the fragments to contract even more and to become very hot as they compressed. Nuclear fusion then began within their cores.

Our solar system begins its birth dance as the cloud of interstellar gas and dust condenses. As the cloud collapsed, a dense, slowly rotating core was formed. This would become the sun.

Our nascent earth experienced numerous collisions with asteroids. This produced so much energy that our earth formed a molten core that was composed mostly of iron. the lighter elements then floated to the surface and created our rocky mantle. Our early earth's surface was molten, it had no solid surface.

The atmosphere consisted mainly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. photosynthesizing bacteria were not present as of yet. We had no oceans either. Most of the water that is present on the earth;s surface was released from the mantle in volcanic eruptions and had come originally from collisions with comets ("dirty ice balls").

Our surface cooled enough for the oceans to form and created a hospitable environment. Amino acids, on the tails of comets that brushed the earth's atmosphere, blessed us with the building blocks from which proteins are formed.

Amino acids and the other organic chemicals were present in the primordial oceans only in small quantities. Darwin suggested a highly likely warm pond where chemical evolution took place. RNA (the primitive form of DNA) then could form. The first living organisms were primitive algae and bacteria.

It then took 3 billion years for multicellular life forms to evolve on earth.

The Monkey in the Mirror

This book has added onto my knowledge and inquiry into the conceptualization of the "soul" in humans.

I stated previously that to understand why and how we came about with our conceptualization of the soul. I then had to ask what makes us so special.

Previous probes have equipped me with certain factors: namely language (both spoken and written).

This new book has given insight into how exaptation (the incidental hero of our 'evolution') has allowed us the ability to find a novel use of our structurally-lower vocal chords to produce speech. Spoken language put us above and beyond other creatures who had and have written language. With spoken language, we were then able to build upon our essentially wonderful ability to re-conceptualise the world around us in abstract logic. This was also another "Big Bang" in terms of cultural-releasing.

We also are gifted with extended consciousness, the ability to add the awareness of the past and future into the mix and factor in such variables into decision-making.

Which came first? Symbolism in language which graduated to abstract meaning to language which in turn helped us scale greater cognitive heights or the ability to cognitively re-conceptualize our world? I guess we will never know. It may forever be a case of chicken and the egg.

Yet again, I find cause to praise our consciousness and the ability to be conscious of our consciousness. (which Satre may deem weak) Weak it may be but still it allows us so much cognitive scope and possibilities that probably makes us the most dangerous animal on earth.

So yet again, I find little reason to purport that we are spiritually privileged creatures. Indeed, we are the product of lucky exaptations and rugged ancestry. But given the power we hold over the rest of terran life, environment and this planet's possible trajectories, I find the question "What is the SOUL?" even more pertinent.

On The Sopranos: Everything I know I learned from TV

Only thing interesting that I gathered from this chapter is about how Pyschoanalysis provides us with aspect-seeing metaphors and how These are metaphors that allow us new ways of looking at and thinking about ourselves. Psychoanalytical analysis cannot be tested right or wrong.

By contributing evil to a personality and mental disorder, Rowlands posits that we cannot achieve meaning in our lives by pitting ourselves against evil anymore, not in this modern world.

But I think this is a commendable point of view that should not be taken too far. By offering help to the "evil", we distinguish what a person is and does from his true nature. Deep down, everyone is "fixable" and can be restored to the order that Plato prescribes (of Reason, Spirit and Appetite).

Of which, Tony Soprano is not. He is evil because according to Plato's view, his order is not in the correct form. Thus he is fractured and he has to put on different faces and accomodate conflicting actions in conflicting situations.

On Buffy: Everything I know I learned from TV

A nice book with which freshness into philosophical inquiry is brought in with the help of some pretty nonacademic language features and phrases. :)

Rowlands interestingly defines modernity as a tendency in all of us to swing towards some pretty conflicting life philosophies, namely: individualism, relativism and voluntarism. So basically we are pretty screwed up.

Buffy is the first to be examined. And he defines her rightfully as a pre-modern girl (with her inability to avoid the obligation of being the slayer) living in a modern world.

This is made even more obvious by her existential counterparts, the vampires whose lives are "light" (read Milan Kundera, "The incredible lightness of being") and no obligations bind them (because our consciousness is what allows us to act and choose and it lies outside the natural order and therefore also avoids the realm of obligation, as Sartre supports).

The next point that Rowlands puts forth is something that I have argued before. It concerns the positive nature of death and the mutually-defining phenomenon of life and death, the infinite made finite by the finite.

Thus, death is Buffy's gift as it is all of our's as it allows us to permanently become our actions by stopping the process of becoming and be fixed and for the first time anything.

Thus our actions, Rowland(as I do) asserts, does have bearing and that is why obligations should bind as we owe it to ourselves to leave positive legacies behind.

Then of course the problem is that modernity, with the help of relativism makes everything "small" and very little of everything in life is left "big". So it is tougher on us on the surface to make significance and meaning to our lives as relativism deludes us into believing that everything and every value is not fixed.