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.