Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-warrior-main-20150524-story.html

Not exhaustive but the article gets the gist of it.

The part you quoted -

So many people give you lip service and offer fake sympathy. Their sons and daughters aren't in the military, so it's not their war. It's something that happens to other people," said Phillip Ruiz, 46, a former Army staff sergeant in Tennessee who was wounded twice during three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Douglas Pearce, a former Army lieutenant who fought in Afghanistan and is now a marriage and family counselor in Nashville, said civilians seem to think they "can assuage their guilt with five seconds in the airport."

"What they're saying is, 'I'm glad you served so that I didn't have to, and my kids won't have to.'"

That's exactly what people are saying, because that's the truth of the matter - "I'm glad you served so I don't have to." That is honestly exactly what the thanks amount to. I don't see why that's a slap in the face.

Let me just add a disclaimer here that I don't thank our troops when I see them out and about; but I don't thank them because I don't presume to know what they've done in the line of duty, and maybe they don't want to be thanked for it. So I acknowledge that there's an experiential gap that I can't bridge; but my choice not to thank them also amounts to a refusal to valorize and glorify what soldiers do.

Roughly 80% of military jobs are non-combat. Many "combat jobs" still don't deal in direct violence. I've got an inlaw who currently checks baggage for the AF. The closest thing to violence she's most likely going to encounter is a spilled drink.

Bravery is a word that doesn't apply very much to military affairs. It's a job, and if there is a draft, you're of course quite forced. There are certain situations where someone kind of "rises above", like Captain Ripley or John Basilone. Even then, those people themselves would probably not think in terms of bravery but instead of "it needed to be done". The bravery is in that anyone would have known it needed to be done, but wouldn't have done it. Joining the military isn't something that "needs to be done" per se, at least not yet.

It frequently isn't the case, but polls are all over the place as to exactly why it isn't. I'll say until I'm no longer alive to say it that the biggest problem in the military are the other people in the military. Of course, someone who gets in with a little prior life experience first knows that's just a part of the human condition: People are often kind of shitty. Usually it takes getting out of the military to realize many of those things you complained about can be found anywhere, and sometimes the complaints were merely a symptom of immaturity.

These are good points, so thank you. I think the whole "bravery" aspect derives more from heroic ideology than from any actual experience in the military.

 

[Dak]

The part you quoted -
That's exactly what people are saying, because that's the truth of the matter - "I'm glad you served so I don't have to." That is honestly exactly what the thanks amount to. I don't see why that's a slap in the face.

I think it rings hollow because it's not something that's actually much in the mind of the speaker, until they see a veteran or whatever. It's for the speaker, not the hearer.

Let me just add a disclaimer here that I don't thank our troops when I see them out and about; but I don't thank them because I don't presume to know what they've done in the line of duty, and maybe they don't want to be thanked for it. So I acknowledge that there's an experiential gap that I can't bridge; but my choice not to thank them also amounts to a refusal to valorize and glorify what soldiers do.

These are good points, so thank you. I think the whole "bravery" aspect derives more from heroic ideology than from any actual experience in the military.

Well mythology and the "heroic ideology" are things that cultures push because to do the opposite would be to push being cowardly. This is a recipe for being wiped out or at a minimum subjugated by foreigners. We don't do well with balance as a species so a sort of healthy orientation towards a standing military being a "job, sometimes demanding, sometimes difficult and/or dangerous" doesn't get much traction. Being in the modern US military is generally much safer than being in the civilian world. Exclusive gated community, piles of safety protocols, everything is dumbed down as much as possible, etc. There are a select few jobs where this isn't the case (at least the safety protocols anyway), and now with women going into them they probably will also become this way.

Speaking of women (and LGBT) in the military, pretty amusing to me that the same day the Pentagon opens the door on trans service (to include paying for surgeries - there's that subsidization) and the day that USMC removes "man" from some job titles, they also roll out a revamped fitness test program that corrects, at least to some degree, some of the grosser imbalances between male and female fitness requirements, and overall significantly upped the demand on upper body strength for both males and females. Pretty smooth move.

 

[SentinelSlain]

So the token females in the special forces squads can be trannies. Wont having "sexual diversity" confuse and demoralize the men though?

 

[Dak]

I don't know what effect it will have. I can tell you that a bunch of 18-22 year old males and females put in close quarters is a distraction for both. All these functionally geriatric officers and SNCOs offering platitudes about "our servicemembers can and will be professional!" are either lying or ignorant. When the distraction means some paperwork gets pushed off, that's one thing. When it's breaking down fireteam cohesion, it's another. Making the females as masculine as possible only helps a little. "Deployment goggles" are a thing.

 

[Dak]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

@Einherjar86

I found this to be one of the best (although a little just-so-ish) critiques I have read of both libertarianism and Landian Gnon-love. It's incredibly long though, as per usual with SA. I think this quote might pique your interest:

I am a transhumanist because I do not have enough hubris not to try to kill God.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ugh, well I'll get around to giving that its due in five to ten years.

Nah, I'll probably try and look at it later this week. A cursory glance tells me that it isn't an easy read, that it'll take a lot of attention and parsing the author's idiom. I'll be interested to see his take on transhumanism, which always sets off my alarm bells.

 

[Dak]

Ugh, well I'll get around to giving that its due in five to ten years.

Nah, I'll probably try and look at it later this week. A cursory glance tells me that it isn't an easy read, that it'll take a lot of attention and parsing the author's idiom. I'll be interested to see his take on transhumanism, which always sets off my alarm bells.

It might be readily apparent or it might not be that SA approaches things from the same sort of, what I would expect if a sort of "genetic/pre-existing mindset" or whatever that I do. I'll give him the nod as being both certainly more educated and most likely more intelligent than myself (but he's Jewish, so of course he is trollolol) . Of course he's a psychiatrist, which is [merely] a psychologist that felt like going to med school too. His rhetorical style speaks directly to me, and even if I disagree with his premises and therefore his conclusion, his process is enough to give me pause. His references all ring true etc.

 

[Dak]

I think the whole "bravery" aspect derives more from heroic ideology than from any actual experience in the military.

I wanted to quickly and separately follow up on the bravery thing. I'm sort of biased in my knowledge towards the Marine Corps, but if you want to read some incredible stories, "The Bridge at Dong Ha" covers the story of Captain John Ripley's exploit, although to many modern era Marines he is less famous. But Basilone is something of an eternal legend and lacks a definitive book afaik. He is included in the TV miniseries "The Pacific" if you want some screenviewing review. The details of the story might be embellished, but are incredible even with assuming some recounting liberties:

After yet another tropical downpour Sergeant John Basilone was sitting in the mud of the defensive perimeter. He was given a whispered warning over the radio that a Japanese assault force had been spotted approaching his position. His fifteen man squad found themselves at the brunt of an attack by around three thousand Japanese infantry. They were trying to overcome the U.S. Marines position by sheer weight of numbers. They almost succeeded.

For extraordinary heroism and conspicuous gallantry in action against enemy Japanese forces, above and beyond the call of duty, while serving with the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division in the Lunga Area, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, on 24 and 25 October 1942.

While the enemy was hammering at the Marines’ defensive positions, Sgt. Basilone, in charge of 2 sections of heavy machine guns, fought valiantly to check the savage and determined assault. In a fierce frontal attack with the Japanese blasting his guns with grenades and mortar fire, one of Sgt. Basilone’s sections, with its gun crews, was put out of action, leaving only 2 men able to carry on.

Moving an extra gun into position, he placed it in action, then, under continual fire, repaired another and personally manned it, gallantly holding his line until replacements arrived.

A little later, with ammunition critically low and the supply lines cut off, Sgt. Basilone, at great risk of his life and in the face of continued enemy attack, battled his way through hostile lines with urgently needed shells for his gunners, thereby contributing in large measure to the virtual annihilation of a Japanese regiment.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2010/02/hbos_the_pacific_highlights_he.html

One of the American positions was knocked out and Basilone ran 200 yards carrying a new 90-pound machine gun, returning enemy fire with just a pistol, to restore it.In the end, only Basilone and two of his men survived, but the Japanese retreated.

The combination of will and luck it took to accomplish this is practically worship worthy.

"He was one of us," said John Pacifico, who has run the Basilone remembrances in Raritan for 29 years. "By that, I don’t mean just a guy from Raritan. I mean a regular, middle-class kid, from an honest hard-working family who put this country first."

"He was a powerful role model, because if he could do it, we could do it. It showed us success was not out of our reach," said Joseph De Pierro, the dean of the college of education and human services at Seton Hall.

Pacifico and De Pierro were at a Basilone symposium held by the Seton Hall Italian Studies department Monday. Frank Cannata, a champion of Italian-American culture and himself a former Marine, gave a lecture on Basilone at Guadalcanal. The documentary "John Basilone, Marine Corps Hero & American Legend" was shown.

His legacy as an Italian-American was discussed: more important, his legacy as an enlisted man, as a regular Marine. Time stopped for John Basilone on Feb. 19, 1945. For us, there is a timeless lesson in his legend.

There's a reason I'm skeptical of the dismissal of the "Great Men of History" theories.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm a sucker for these kind of episodes when I see them onscreen (big or little). I remember a scene from Band of Brothers involving a ranking officer who ran into enemy fire in order to relay a message from one unit to another when their comms went down. The character narrating the moment said: "But that wasn't what was amazing. What was amazing was that after he delivered the message, he came back." Still gives me chills.

But emotional sensations are part of a larger ideological calculation, as I see it. Emotions clearly have their practical purposes, but not in this heavily mediated sense. This isn't to deny that some soldiers have accomplished extraordinary acts, but to deny them some kind of privileged respect for doing so. I take pleasure in my absorption into the ideology when watching films or shows like this, but I also try to push back at them.

 

[The Ozzman]

I remember a scene from Band of Brothers involving a ranking officer who ran into enemy fire in order to relay a message from one unit to another when their comms went down. The character narrating the moment said: "But that wasn't what was amazing. What was amazing was that after he delivered the message, he came back."

Lt. Speirs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Speirs

When Easy Company's initial attack on the German-occupied town of Foy bogged down due to the poor leadership of its commander, 1st Lieutenant Norman Dike, battalion executive officer Captain Richard Winters ordered Speirs to relieve Dike of command. The selection of Speirs was incidental; Winters later stated that Speirs was simply the first officer he saw when he turned around. Speirs successfully took over the assault and led Easy Company to victory. During this battle, Lt. Dike had ordered a platoon to go on a flanking mission around the rear of the town. To countermand this order, Speirs himself ran through the town and German lines (as this platoon had no radio), linked up with the Item Company soldiers and relayed the order. Having completed this, he then ran back through the German-occupied town. He was reassigned as commanding officer of Easy Company and remained in that position for the rest of the war. Of the officers who commanded Easy Company during the war, Speirs commanded the longest

 

[Dak]

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.tw/2014/01/the-limits-of-expertise.html

Pretty interesting read.

 

[Dak]

http://insider.si.edu/2012/03/ice-a...were-the-first-people-to-reach-north-america/

 

[Einherjar86]

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.tw/2014/01/the-limits-of-expertise.html

Pretty interesting read.

Louis Menand, Mr. Greer, not Menard... Louis Menand.

Good write-up though. Unfortunately, the most compelling and paradigm-shifting claims can never be proven within given (i.e. present) parameters, as Godel already (ahem) proved.

 

[Dak]

http://meaningness.com/metablog/communal-vs-systematic-politics

Left without comment because I don't think I have one yet.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wow, a reductive yet rather accurate description of a systems-theory approach. I also like this quote:

There is no “The System,” actually—that’s conspiracy theory stuff. What we have instead are numerous interlocking, sometimes-competing systems: governments, laws, corporations, the media, the professions, churches and religions, schools and universities, hospitals and transportation utilities.

...

The enormous improvements in material conditions over the past few centuries are due mainly to systematicity. That’s the good part.

The bad part is that the systematic mode is profoundly psychologically unnatural. For many people it seems dehumanizing, alienating, incomprehensible, senseless, meaningless, and utterly immoral. This has been obvious for a hundred years.

I agree with this entirely, I think. If there is a "The System," then it's absolutely meaningless to access it comprehensively, since it would dictate the totality of our existence (i.e. it would be logically impossible to provide any rational description of the system, since as a totality it necessarily must include within itself any and every description - a logical mind-fuck).

The only further step I would take is to insist that "meaning" itself (at least in our psychic conception of it) is a residue of the individualist/communal attitude toward politics and social organization. This isn't to say that meaning is worthless or useless, because it isn't; but systems-theorists recognize that meaning, if it exists at other scales, would take a drastically alien form.

Deleuze and Guattari posit that when dealing with systems, meaning is less important than use: the question shouldn't be "what does it mean?" but "how does it work?"

 

[Einherjar86]

The Stone published a piece by Galen Strawson on the mystery of consciousness... yet another piece on the "hard problem."

I'm not fond of Strawson's methodology, which basically boils down to = "having consciousness means knowing what consciousness is." This seems like a way to elide lots of argumentative nuances, but whatever. I happen to agree, however, with his basic premise, which he lays out in the final paragraph:

So the hard problem is the problem of matter (physical stuff in general). If physics made any claim that couldn’t be squared with the fact that our conscious experience is brain activity, then I believe that claim would be false. But physics doesn’t do any such thing. It’s not the physics picture of matter that’s the problem; it’s the ordinary everyday picture of matter. It’s ironic that the people who are most likely to doubt or deny the existence of consciousness (on the ground that everything is physical, and that consciousness can’t possibly be physical) are also those who are most insistent on the primacy of science, because it is precisely science that makes the key point shine most brightly: the point that there is a fundamental respect in which ultimate intrinsic nature of the stuff of the universe is unknown to us — except insofar as it is consciousness.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/o...er.html?rref=collection/column/the-stone&_r=0

 

[Dak]

Fairly well put if I understand it correctly.

 

[Einherjar86]

He's taking eliminativists to task, and not in an entirely convincing way (probably because the piece is so short)... but I do agree with his criticism.

Eliminativists claim that consciousness doesn't exist at all, that's all a bunch of fancy magic tricks the brain pulls. The issue here is less a problem of the actual workings of consciousness and more a problem with what "consciousness," as a term, entails. As Strawson says, many people tend to believe that consciousness implies some essential spark, a non-physical element of thought, or something like this. Since this is a problematic metaphysical, if not spiritual, assertion, those doubtful make the leap and say that "consciousness," in this sense, doesn't exist.

If that's what we mean by consciousness, then I would agree, but I don't think it is. Consciousness describes a set of experiences issuing from the complex orientation/organization of brain matter, which is what Strawson claims. It's all an effect of matter. That seems to be what people have a hard time believing, that something so ephemeral and so intangible could be the effect of material processes. But matter isn't restricted to things we can feel, things that have a tactile quality to us - things like sound, light, or speech. All of these are aspects of matter. I think consciousness has to fall into a similar category.

 

[Dak]

Consciousness describes a set of experiences issuing from the complex orientation/organization of brain matter, which is what Strawson claims. It's all an effect of matter.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is more to the emergence of consciousness if you will, than just brain matter. If what makes you "you" is significantly your unique combination of genetic code, then I would not be surprised that other matter in your body may play at least a small part in the emergence of consciousness.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh, I would be hasty to disagree with that. I don't think I meant to exclude the influence of DNA, which obviously codes our body's ability to produce its own consciousness. I'm sure it has some impact on an individual's subjective conscious experience as well.