Wars are Arguments

All wars are arguments about something.  This principle can even be expanded to conflicts. These arguments are about a wide variety of things... in the context of war between governments, the arguments are often over the assets that help create power; land, resources, rights to use common resources, and public perception of the government's credibility.  Revolutions and insurrections are often an argument over the role of government, how it treats people, and the government's and rebel group's credibility.  Even personal conflicts are arguments about something, such as money, or one party feels insulted and the other party refuses to apologize (which can also be boiled down to the perception of credibility).

Violence is not inherent in conflict, arguments are.  Conflicts end when the argument is resolved in a way that both parties can agree on.  Historically, the majority of both parties believed that if your armies were defeated in violent war, then you were defeated and should defer to the victor's will.  For the most part, war was seen for over two millennia to be the ultimate arbitrator to resolve international conflict.  This was possible thanks to the simple fact that everyone involved made an unspoken agreement that if you were defeated in violent combat then you stopped resisting.

This stopped being the case on the international scale around the time of the Napoleonic wars when the democratic and industrial forces changed the nature of warfare.  Famously the Spanish, who were defeated by Napoleon's armies, simply refused to be defeated.  They had shaken loose the mental straight-jacket that said violent war was the ultimate arbitrator.  Their resistance, while often violent, was a sign of things to come, where simply defeating an army was not enough to bring a solution to the argument.

You are not defeated as long as you still have the dignity and will to resist.  Threats of death and even death do not produce obedience or even an end to the argument.  "Fearful people do not act well."    The logic of violence presupposes that the opponent will act in a certain way, which is obedience.  This social construct is entirely escapable.  Refusing to embrace it confounds the violent opponent, because they simply do not know how to respond; conferring a significant advantage both tactically and strategically.

When a violent force confronts a non-violent opponent, it is the violent force's objective to provoke the non-violent opponent into becoming violent.  The violent force always has the advantage when it comes to violence, so it is to their advantage to deprive their opponent of the advantage of being non-violent.  If the non-violent force has the discipline to maintain it's dignity and remain non-violent, it deprives it's opponent of the ability to use violence in a legitimate way.  When violence is used against a stubbornly non-violent force, the violent organization loses its legitimacy and credibility, and is often shamed into surrender.

It may seem odd that a violent enemy can be defeated through non-violent means.  But remember, all conflict is an argument.  The point of the conflict is to get the other side to concede to a mutually agreed-upon conclusion.  Convincing the other side to agree will never again be as simple as it was before the Napoleonic Wars.  Non-violent resistance to violence will always sway the opinion of onlookers in favor of the non-violent party, it is a principle of human nature.  It will even go so far as to make the violent party question themselves and their actions.  That is the power of non-violence, it creates allies who pressure the other party, it undermines the other party's power (support from their population/allies), and makes the other party question itself about its own actions and motives.  This pressure, both external and internal, will always lead to a more beneficial agreement to the conflict for the non-violent party.

Content from a letter to Sarah #2

Written in late June 2009 as part of a letter to Sarah

To continue where I left off with Mammoth cave... there is a cathedral sized room in there that is just indescribable in beauty. It is an aptly named cave. I have gone on a bunch of tours there, one for 5 hours. There is still a good percentage of it that is unmapped. For part of one of the tours, they turn off all the lights. It is the darkest black I have ever experienced.

Looking back on this letter, it took a turn toward describing my mental life, so I thought I would throw out that category for this letter... except the previous paragraph.

My school experience was certainly interesting. I was kind of nerd. Academic team, Gifted and Talented program, you get the picture. I got contacts in 6th grade, and wore them everyday for nearly 8 years before they started to bug my eyes too much and I gave them up. I remember being really self-conscious of my glasses for a long time. Freshman year of college I started feeling much more comfortable with myself, more confident and more willing to let people judge me for who I am.

Tracking my mental development is, for some reason, really interesting to me. In 7th and 8th grade I began to question myself about who I was, who I wanted to be and what trajectory I wanted my life to take. This thought process culminated in 10th grade when I started really feeling lost and was kind of depressed for 6 months. Thinking about one's purpose in life will do that to you. But after being lost in that desert of melancholy for so long, I somehow stumbled upon an epiphany that has been the foundation of my world since then. At the time I couldn't really articulate it, but I had decided that the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life" is "people." (yeah, I am also a stubborn contemplater of unanswerable questions... I am still contemplating the meaning of life a decade later)

It was during this contemplation of myself that I began my core spiritual practices... these are all inherently interconnected but i have kind of broken them down in my own head to include: deep self-reflection, self-improvement processes, emotional and behavioral shaping practices, redefinition of my identity, my experiments with the truth (Gandhi is a big influence on me), my endeavors to understand and empathize with people, and my adherence to a philosophy of generosity. There might be more of them, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I began my experiments with truth during 7th grade. My first and longest running experiment is with the idea of ends and means and their connection. I have always heard that "the end does not justify the means." Most people take this to mean that even if you get the end you want, if the means was bad, you should feel guilty. I do not think that is what the phrase means. I think it means that if you are seeking just ends, you can never fully reach them if you use unjust means. It is just simply impossible. Now, if you have an unholy end, or a narrow end you *can* achieve it with unjust means. And by "narrow end" I mean you want one thing, only that thing and don't care about the effect on other things. The CIA term "blowback" is an example of this... when they achieve a narrow end but the surrounding environment becomes worse. I have done countless experiments on this hypothesis, through observing my behavior analyzing the results, changing my behavior, seeing what happens, etc. I have been doing this since 1997-ish, although not consciously at first.

The first part of this experiment that I can isolate in my memory is my dealings with bullies. Now, I got picked on alot as a kid. But I had great parents, and they told me to try to understand the bully. So I did. I began consciously struggling to empathize with my attackers. And boy did this pay off. I started naturally acting nice to them, even when they were horrible to me. This just confused them, most of the time. But after awhile I wore them down with my kindness. I remember the turning point with a kid named Anthony Berta. He had a canker sore in his mouth and was complaining about it. I sympathized with him, told him I got those sometimes and they hurt like hell. I offered advice, telling him he should try applying hydrogen peroxide to it. He tried it and about two days later he thanked me. I remember feeling so good from that. And as I observed his behavior from then on he was generally nicer to me. He still made jokes at my expense on occasion, but nothing compared to what had gone on before. This is one reason I have such faith in non-violence. I have seen it work from a very early age.

Another bully named Brad something used to bug me in middle school. He was a big guy, rather aggressive and insecure about himself so he felt the need to act out. I don't remember any specific turning point with him, but I slowly won him over. I won him over so much that sophomore year when he was sitting at our table, being a jerk, and everyone asked him to either stop of leave, he was really surprised when I joined in the request. Reflecting on that whole situation, I think he saw me as his only friend at the table and felt very betrayed when I united with the others to try to get him to stop being a jerk. I felt bad about it for awhile afterward. Apparently kindness is a double-edged sword. I wonder what happened to him, I wish I remembered his last name so I could friend him on facebook.

So, building on this very practical and beneficial application of my experiments, I started toying around with a good percentage of my life. I started applying more and more control over my behavior, learning to let go of anger and to communicate my feelings effectively to de-escalate and conflict-resolve. And as I did this, the predictions emanating from my hypothesis about ends and means were all coming true. If I wanted a better life, treating people well seemed to be the most effective strategy. When I slipped up and conducted myself bady, I could sense tremors in my world in that direction as well. I built up my mind as much as I could into an analysis machine to tease out little cause and effects and after years of doing this I see patterns in the chaos, and they all fit my initial hypothesis. Of course, it could be analytical bias, but either way, it makes me happier than I would be otherwise (this could also be a placebo effect... but who cares).

And so, I came to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means because you can never get the a truly good end using evil means. I am still conducting this experiment on and off these days, re-testing my conclusion.

My second longest experiment, which I have been conducting in conjunction with the first, was testing the golden rule. As you can see, it fits in very nicely with the first experiment. If I am trying to treat others as I would have them treat me, then I am almost always using good means. It is amazing the good feelings and good fortune that come your way when you try your hardest to follow this rule... but it is damn hard. I started this one in 10th grade, I believe... or maybe I just consciously recognized it in 10th grade. I start alot of things within myself without realizing it, sometimes it goes on for more than a year or two before I recognize it. At this point I was way WAY into Gandhi's philosophy, and it buttressed my analysis from a personal level to a societal level and a method of struggle.

While those are my two major experiments, I have a bunch of smaller ones... probably more than I can remember. I have experimented with leadership styles, conflict resolution, democratic processes, communication processes (both appealing to large audiences and interpersonal), etc. Usually with these experiments, I was the only variable I could change. So, I got really good at controlling my behavior and emotions so I could see what would happen when I acted a certain way. This coupled nicely with my intention to improve myself.

Changing myself has been another one of my major life projects. I don't remember exactly when I started, but I have always had a goal, at first nebulous but now quite clear. This general goal in changing myself is to make the lives of the people around me better. When I was young I remember being selfish, somewhat uptight and arrogant. Well, one day I decided I didn't like those traits in other people, and that I should try to change myself to get rid of those undesirable traits. I think it has been like 10 or more years since I really started working on myself, and I am proud to say I have made alot of progress. I still have problems with arrogance, but I do a good job of hiding it behind a veil of modesty. (For these letters, I feel like I have lifted my veil of modesty somewhat, and it is actually making me anxious to have done so... please don't judge me too harshly as arrogant or self-absorbed). I am also so much calmer than I once was, it is a huge relief.

It is very hard to describe this process for change, it is not explained in English in my head... it is a series of emotions, urges and bulbous shapes (representing concepts and cause and effect relationships) interacting with other bulbous shapes in a kind of weird fluidic space in my mind's eye. But when I find that I am acting in a way that I don't like, I will start a long thinking process, analyzing it and trying to set up triggers in my own mind to prevent me from acting that way again. One of my favorite attempts to change my behavior and thought patterns (because in involves my endeavors to fight sexism in my own mind) is to successfully be aware of the gender dynamics at gatherings, to comment on them to the group, and to break them through my actions. So, that house dinner where Lapedis and Caely came over (you were in Marin with a friend), I commented how, after the meal, Liz and Caely started making cookies and all the men were sitting in the living room talking. I offered to help make cookies, but I was un-needed. It bothers me when people aren't aware of how easily people fall into gender roles, which often means women end up doing alot more work. I will talk more about my feminist tendencies later.

This process also comes with reinforcing good traits, like generosity. I like to think I have achieved a pretty good level with that, I am always on the lookout for ways to be generous to other people... there is a chapter in the book The Prophet that has had an IMMENSE impact on my direction in life, especially when it concerns giving... have you ever read "The Prophet"? Here is a taste:

Then said a rich man, "Speak to us of Giving."

And he answered: You give but little when you give of your possessions.

It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.

For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow?

And tomorrow, what shall tomorrow bring to the over-prudent dog burying bones in the trackless sand as he follows the pilgrims to the holy city?

And what is fear of need but need itself?

Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, thirst that is unquenchable?

Here is a link to it: http://leb.net/~mira/works/prophet/prophet5.html
I will probably talk about generosity more later... One of my conclusions about life is its inherent dynamism. Things and people change. I change, and accepting my own dynamic self has allowed me to give it some direction. I think far too many people see themselves as static, and don't realize that they can and should deal with unpleasant feelings that arise so that they do not burden one's life. I know all my emotions come up for a reason, and until I know that reason and have dealt with the root of the emotion, it will not dissipate. And it is within my power to do that. I feel very empowered when it comes to defining myself and pushing myself to be my highest vision for myself. I wish I could give that confidence and technique to other people. I credit a great deal of my happiness to the fact that I am able to deal with unwanted emotions and behavior in a productive and healthy way. Looking back at KY, I realize how much of a difference it would make in people's lives to be able to do this. I wish I could make a constructive campaign around it, like Gandhi did.

Defining myself has been an important journey that, like everything else I have described in this letter seems to, underpins a large swath of my beliefs. When I was in 10th grade, I came to the realization that I did not like identifying myself as an individual. It did not hold any appeal to me. If I defined myself that way, then I should want to acquire at other's expense, and that did not make me feel good. That identity meant selfishness as a way of life, and I was already seeing its negative effects in my own life and the lives of those around me. So I endeavored to shed my individual identity in favor of a more collectivist model. The best way of describing this is to look at your hand. Now, I can think of myself as a finger, or I can think of myself as part of the hand. I prefer to think of myself as part of the hand. My well-being is inherently tied to my community, and everyone in the community is tied to each other. Seeing ourselves as isolated individuals is just out of touch with reality. Defining myself in this way has made it not only easy to give, but made it the only logical thing to do.

There are alot of interesting manifestations of this identity. For example, when I am somewhere with unemployed friends... I feel like if they pay that I am somehow getting more hurt than if I pay. (I, here, refers to my identity as a part of a group) They have a finite pool of money that is not being recharged, so if they spend money it is more detrimental than if I or someone who has income pays. It is hard to explain, and I don't think I am doing the best job. but suffice to say this identity has really motivated me to protect/help my community, even if i have to sacrifice a disproportionately high number of things myself. I think many American's don't understand this mentality even when some of them subscribe to it in their own communities... and our world would be a much better place if they did understand it.

I have actually found that playing with my identity is one of the more powerful things I can do to change myself. I am generally kind of shy, but I have made great strides in changing that through trying to define myself as a more outgoing person. This is especially effective when I am in roles where I think other people expect me to be outgoing... like as a camp counselor or a host of a party. There is so much potential for how I could change myself, I have pushed my identity toward more generosity, more kindness, more willingness to forgive, less anger and more calm. And overall, it has made me a thousand times more happier. It is an incredible tool for self-improvement. I think most people, especially kids, simply take up the identity that other people ascribe to them. I wonder what would happen if I could teach this to repeat prisoners and motivate them to see themselves differently. Religion often has this effect, from what I have seen with prisons.

Part of all this interconnected mess is self-reflection. I think about myself alot, maybe too much. I observe my emotions, my behavior, my thoughts, and my motivations. When I first started doing this, I looked at everything and spent years thinking about it. But now, I think I have examined most of myself that I want to reinforce, so I mostly stick to things that bug me, and new things that arise. I mull them over, then over again. As you can see by this series of letters, I can write way too much about myself when I have an interested audience. This process has become second nature to me now, as with most of my spiritual practices. I do it without even trying, and often have to quiet it down to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. It is this process that gives me the strong sense of who I am, which has not really been shaken since maybe senior year in high school.
Anyway, that's enough for this letter... to be continued.

Bee Wars 3, The Revenge of the Sarcophagus

I woke up this morn, and to my eyes, what did appear? Why, a colony of bees uncovered, oh dear!
No longer the Sarcophagus covered, my dearest bee friends, who could hover.
The tub was overturned, was lifting a skill the bees had learned?
No, twas a neighbor who free the bees, man I wish I had my teas.
But, hark, what beist this? The bees had meet the death of kiss.
In piles upon piles they lay, lifeless and cold, in May.
Yes, they no longer menace my yard, but it is unfortunate that they are so marred.
Now the ants have a field day, fiesting upon the corpses of their insect brethren where they lay.
Hundred upon hundred lay still, in a tub shaped depression that I will fill.
A sultry grave for a colony, just like that guy Ptolemy.

That poem-esque rambling is in memory of the colony of bees whose genocide I had a hand in. I do feel guilty that I had to dispatch them, but they had sharp ends on their butts that made me scared to walk to my door. And the hovering... oh the hovering. So unpleasant.

In other news, my sublet is up in two weeks, and I still don't have a place to live after that. But, I am hopeful. Worst case scenario, I would have to spend a couple weeks with my brother.

Here is some food for thought for the estimated 4 of you who read this:
Gandhi's 7 Social Sins
Politics without Principle
Wealth without Work
Commerce without Morality
Pleasure without Conscience
Education without Character
Science without Humanity
Worship without Sacrafice

to that I would add these two:
Work without Community
Priorities without People

Priorities without people, is my way of saying that our priorities should always be each other.
So why do I feel guilty about the bees? I was placing the safety of my neighbor and myself over the lives of those bees, placing people at the top of my priority list. Well, maybe a simple saying like the one I wrote above does not take in the whole complexity of the world. I wish there had been a way where they could have lived.
I can even get a ends and means lesson out of this one. The end may be that the bees are no longer a menace. That was my primary goal. But the means we used produced unwanted consequences... feelings of guilt, regret and sadness. A smelly pile of dead bees covered in ants. On the macro level, fewer honey bees to pollenate the plants that make the food we eat. All this stems from the wrong means. I don't know what the right means would have been... maybe contacting a nearby bee farm and trying to sell the bees to them, or atleast get them to cart them away. Yes, that would have been a better outcome. Maybe if I had put in alittle more effort this sad outcome would not have happened. Yet another life lesson from my banal existence. (Footnote: I learned the word "banal" during SAT prep. Well, it might not have been entirely useless. It allowed me to use overly educated language on a low-traffic blog. Yay!)

Democracy and Violence Part 2

Some more rambling thoughts on democracy and violence. WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS RAMBLING, INTENSE BRAINSTORMING AND STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WRITING.

I think I need to do a more in depth analysis of violence.
Let me start by explaining something about human cultures. We have commonly held beliefs about the way things are accomplished. A simple example of this is the way we make circular holes in things. We make circular motions, like a drill. Indeed, the drill motion has become so accepted as the way to make a small circular hole that we are prone to interpret holes in ancient artifacts as produced through a drilling motion. But they often weren't. It is easy enough to make a circular hole with other carving motions. When a culture vests a certain amount of belief and confidence in a means, then they start to believe that everyone does it that way and that other ways do not really work.
This is what has happened to our culture with violence. Violence is seen as THE method to force people to do things, to force their consent. So people on both sides of the conflict tend to obey this misconception... the forcer will believe the forcee will accept it, and the forcee believes that they have no choice. As a result, the belief is reinforced because everyone consents to go along with it. There is nothing inherent about violence that makes it have this power, it is a social construction and nothing more. It is one of many social constructions that need to be dissolved before democracy can be installed.

Having large numbers of people solving conflicts through violence (either personal or state violence), as happens now, will not work for a democracy. Using violence to solve a problem does not actually solve it. In fact, it complicates the matter. It denies the right of the victims of the violence to have their concerns addressed and it assumes that those imposing the violence have the right to value the issue of contention over the person. In a democracy, people are the most important thing, they should be prioritized over everything else.

Violence is done out of desperation. Resorting to this type of action assumes that the victim is unreasonable and will not be persuaded any other way. It shows how little control someone has over a situation if they resort to violence. This is the difficult position police are put into. They are invested with the responsibility of keeping the peace, and controlling a situation. When they lose control, they get desperate and they get violent.

Right now our society lacks the social institutions necessary to conflict resolve on the spot. The police are the only institution vested with immediate conflict resolution, and they tend to do it by arresting one party. If there was a common belief in a system that involved real, on the spot conflict resolution, then the police would not be forced to resort to physical force and violence.

The act of forcing someone in this way is anti-democratic. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, consensus and understanding. It is not a results-oriented method of governance, it is a people-oriented method. Violence places results over people.

So far, I have said:
1. Violence and democracy have different priorities
2. Violence and democracy have contradicting products
3. Violence does not produce circumstances conducive to democracy.
4. Violence is used (ineffectively) in the stead of democratic institutions of conflict resolution.
5. Violence is a social construction that is thought to be practical, but ends up not being in practice.
6. Violence undermines the democratic prerequisite that citizens need to be able to make decisions free of oppression
7. Violence as a means to force consent would be replaced with other institutions under a democracy

Things I wish to explore further: How violence effects the victim. The ends produced when one uses violent means. And the chaos factors in democracy and violence.

Democracy and Violence Part 1

Well, I am concretely defeating Bucky when it comes to keeping up with my blog. He can consider that a challenge to try and catch up.

So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.

Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.

So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.

Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.

Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.

So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.

I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.

In other news, I got my California License!