Kevin's Watch

.....and what would you be prepared to part with it for.

A day or two ago Avatar responded to a post with a sentiment saying that like most things in life he didn't take the topic in question too seriously - a view point that pretty much mirrors my own. Later on though, for some reason (probably because I sometimes mull over threads/posts etc as the day progresses) the following lines of verse by a jewish holocaust survivor (I believe - to my shame I have lost the reference and can only remember the words) came into my head;-

This life is not a joke
You must take it seriously
Seriously enough to find yourself against a wall
With your wrists bound, maybe.

This set me to thinking what do I take seriously enough to make such a sacrifice. Clearly in protection of my loved ones I believe I would be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice - I'm sure we all have this feeling in us, but beyond this what do I believe in enough to lay down my life for. My country, my neighbours, my pets? A child falling into a canal? Democracy? I just can't say.
I knew of a man who, it was said, as a result of his linguistic abilities was given the job in a Nazi death camp during the war, of directing polish/german jews to thier deaths in the gas chambers. He himself was a POW and by all accounts, had he not performed the tasks as instucted, would immediately have been killed. I cannot judge this man (by all accounts there were plenty who did), but like to feel there is a point beyond which I would not feel my life was worth preserving - and that this situation would have been beyond that point (I stress however that none of us can know what courage we may, or may not find in ourselves when the chips are down). But what about freedom of speech, freedom to love whoever you choose, freedom to choose who makes the Law under which we are goverened; are these things I should be prepared to fight for - my forefathers were (or were they just better at doing what they were told to?). Any observations here anyone.

What you said reminded me of a quote that Hemingway made about Dos Passos, something along the lines of "he'll backstab you for 15 cents he's so disloyal," and I thought to myself, "he must be very principled if he'd do something like backstabbing someone for that cheap."

For myself, I am too skewed towards wanting to be dead, in a kind of sedentary and uninspired way, to consider what I'd sacrifice my life for a measure of what I value. If the death was quick and painless enough I'd probably betray everything to get it.

My only thought on the matter was bessed summarized by the Mighty Mighty Bosstones.

I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested.
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass.
Look at the tested, and think there but for the grace go I.
Might be a coward, I'm afraid of what I might find out.

I think many people discover great and unexpected pugnacity when faced with a hopeless situation.

I don't think it's a question anybody can answer honestly until such a situation arises. All we can say is what we like to think we would or would not do.

As for seriousness, just think, if everybody else didn't take things seriously as well, we wouldn't do so much bad stuff to each other.

--A

Maybe we'd do more. And we'd hear sentences like, "Stop taking things so seriously! You still have your other arm."

Perhaps what we would be prepared to die for should only be considered alongside what we would be prepared to kill for. I have a friend at work, a commited christian and pacifist, who believes that all forms of violence (from personal right up to war) are wrong, and are always wrong. Her take on my observation that 'somebody had to resist the nazi's' is that, if left to it's own devices these extremes always burn themselves out of their own accord - and most likely with much less death and suffering overall. That may be so I suppose, but I would be prepared to fight against such an enemy (but how could you be sure they were such an enemy - would you take a politicians word for it?), and to both kill and die in the course, if that was my destiny. But as I say - that is based on the kind of retrospective knowledge that life is rarely kind enough to provide at the time the decision must be made. And there are times when perhaps the braver thing to do is to live.

But I think Av has a point - seriousness is more likeley to begat trouble than viewing it all with a healthy dose of good humour isn't it?

peter wrote:Perhaps what we would be prepared to die for should only be considered alongside what we would be prepared to kill for.

This is one of the central issues for me.
I think, in general, people seem much more willing to kill for things than die for them.
We'd have less trouble in the world if the priority were switched.
But it's a tough thing...cuz our instinctual brains and our chemical stew run counter to that in many ways.
In theory, there are a fair number of things I think worth dying for...
for most of them, whether I would actually act that way hasn't really been tested, as others have mentioned.

OTOH...not so many I would kill for, I don't think...yet [again], can I [or anyone] know if THAT side is true? [a less often asked question] Because we ALSO have the empathic brain/chemical flow. For most people, most of the time, killing is HARD...if it wasn't hard,..., well, among many other [and probably worse] things, militaries would be a lot bigger and the training process quite a bit different.

But...topically...I roughly agree with Av. Less seriousness would likely be a good thing.
Perhaps more accurately though: it isn't the seriousness so much, even if it would be better/more joyous without it, it is seriousness+existential threat/conflict/fear.
It is perfectly fine to take your "Bard"-ic tragedies seriously, or your tennis matches, or your religion/philosophy.
In fact, at least for me, for many things, "taking it seriously" is part of the fun/joy. [paradox? I kinda hope so] It is adding in the other parts that can really ruin your [or your enemies] life.
It is those additions that CREATE enemies.
[and how the powerful/fanatical/dogmatic train/control their followers]

Vraith, a great many muskets were discovered at Gettysburg after the battle that had been loaded up to 29 times without being fired.

So in other words, many people were willing to stand in ranks and reload under fire with an identical risk of death as that faced by their companions, but were not willing to pull the trigger on their fellow humans.

It's not that they weren't willing to Don, they were just panicked.

They were drilled and drilled on reloading, because at the time, the speed at which you could reload was the most crucial skill in war.

They would misfire, and the training was so engrained that they would load again on top of the misfired charge, and then again.

(I took a look, and the highest I can find is 23 in one musket. There were lots of muskets found loaded and unfired, and several with multiple loads, but not "many that were loaded up to 29 times.")

Anyway, it wasn't an uncommon phenomenon in the Napoleonic Wars either, and was usually found in relatively raw troops...ones who had been drilled a lot, but not seen much or any combat.

As for seriousness...I always say that suicide is a symptom of taking yourself too seriously.

--A

Avatar, you may have a point to an extent (and I will accept the correction, memory fails me it seems), although I note again that these men were standing upright in a field raked by musket and fragmenting artillery fire while they were reloading, which is suggestive of courage rather than panic (panic suggests running away to me, anyhow). But here is some information you may find useful. Prior to modern training historic combat participation rates in the gunpowder era have been estimated at 15-20%, and this includes WWII. Certain nations managed to get slightly higher participation, but not significantly so. Using modern training techniques this has been raised to 95%, but it remains an unnatural and emotionally destructive act for all but about 3% of the populace who are psychopathic (most of them are socialized rather than sociopathic, despite their lack of empathy). The other 12-17% of the past we can speculate were persons that were motivated enough by both their predispositions and circumstances to fight against whatever they were facing.

If you think about it for a moment it will be obvious that given the extreme lethality of mankind considered generally, without some sort of inherent resistance to killing our fellow humans, we would have been gone long ago. Most higher social animals have similar resistances, though by no means is this an absolute rule. And also, our very revulsion at the idea of warfare and killing people as articulated in this thread is evidence that humans certainly have the capacity and most likely the inclination to be averse to the idea. At least unless you don't simply consign the balance of humanity that are not present to the status of barbarians.

If you'd like to know more of the basic facts of the matter, check out On Killing, by LTC Dave Grossman.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins or even a half decent 'game theorist' could probably crunch the numbers and come up with why, as a survival strategy (involving Hawks and Doves etc) it is better that evolution has fitted us up to be a killing averse species rather than the opposite - but no less are we averse to dying/being killed ourselves and peoples tenacious ability to cling to life even in the face of almost impossible odds is testemont to this. Thus it seems to me that events or beliefs that push us beyond these naturaly limiting boundries would have to be extreme in the extreme (sorry aabout that ). How then to explain 'suicide crazes' that sweep through the youngsters of a town or indeed school rampage killings (alas all to frequent) that seem to fly in the face of these deeply ingrained evolutionary behavioral traits.

I think there is some serious dysfunction with both modern psychiatry and popular culture that goes a long way towards explaining that.

I would first say that, despite all this talk about the "species" having a killing aversion (something I'd dispute), each individual needs to resolve his fight or flight pattern. A schizophrenic that believes he is being attacked on all sides may decide to fight to defend himself. A person who loves life may flee instead of staying around to protect children.

Don Exnihilote wrote:Vraith, a great many muskets were discovered at Gettysburg after the battle that had been loaded up to 29 times without being fired.

So in other words, many people were willing to stand in ranks and reload under fire with an identical risk of death as that faced by their companions, but were not willing to pull the trigger on their fellow humans.

Similar things appear elsewhere...but it just points to the complexity/conundrum/continuum [and the need for "training"] I was pointing at.
There's a difference between risking/guessing, though, and standing/declaring.
WWII, lots of folk didn't fire in major battles. That doesn't mean they did NOTHING. And one thing they didn't do, hardly anyone does except in a few movies, is stand up unarmed in full view and say "Shoot me. I'll die, but I won't kill." [which is the particular I meant to be talking about even if I didn't make it clear.]
Nevertheless, your point, in general, ALSO agrees with the other part of the complexity I was pointing at [and I know that one was clear]:

Killing people, for MOST people MOST of the time, is a fucking hard thing to do.
And no one is ever completely ordinary afterwards.

Don Exnihilote wrote:...although I note again that these men were standing upright in a field raked by musket and fragmenting artillery fire while they were reloading, which is suggestive of courage rather than panic (panic suggests running away to me, anyhow). But here is some information you may find useful. Prior to modern training historic combat participation rates in the gunpowder era have been estimated at 15-20%, and this includes WWII.

Yes, I'm well aware of that a percentage of nominal combatants end up never firing a shot, even in modern combat. However I would venture to guess that this was less likely to be the case in instances of set-piece battles where everybody lined up in tight rows and shot at each other.

As you point out, the group that stood and took the most fire without breaking were the ones that won. Discipline and threat of savage punishment kept men in line. And you can't pour rolling platoon volleys into an enemy column if only 15-20% of your men are firing.

Wellington's thin red line worked because every single man could bring his musket to bear and fire 3 rounds a minute into the enemy.

Yes, it's an emotionally damaging thing. But not unnatural. The point of all the army training is to make you capable of shooting somebody just because somebody else tells you to. But it's to break down an entire lifetime (up to that point) of being told you're not allowed to do it.

In The Meaning Of Life was wrote:Here is better than home, eh, sir? I mean, at home if you kill someone they arrest you — here they'll give you a gun and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers. Now, at home they'd hang me — here they'll give me a fucking medal, sir!

Why do you think child soldiers have been so popular? Much easier to train to fanatical obedience than adults.

--A

Myself, I view life not very seriously at all, precisely because we do ridiculous things like line up in formation and shoot at each other until one group surrenders. I mean, how seriously does life deserve to be taken when shit like that happens??

I have been doing some research for a play I am writing. I was talking to an 87 year old woman that survived the holocaust. She lost her entire family of 12. This lady tells me one story over and over and over. It is the one story that never changes with each telling. She was 16 standing on a sorting line for the gas chambers with her 17 year old sister and her 5 year old brother. The gestapo directed her and her sister to the work line and sent her little brother to the line for the gas chamber by himself. Her sister looked at the officer, and as she always says, tossed her head, her hair swinging defiantly and took her brother's hand and walked to the gas chamber. She never saw them again.

This woman has to be one of the most miserable, depressed, angry people I have ever met. When you talk to her now, except for that story, she is always the star, always the savior in every situation. And I have known her for years now. The stories grow and her role in them grows. There is no one else of any value. I think she lives with the memory of what her sister did and what she didn't do. I think that decision has directed her whole life.