Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Some of what came to mind

Games that simulate war give players some patterns of thought which are of the type that occupy real commanders minds.

Troops are expendable. It's romantic to think that every man sent to fight to the death on our side will not die / no man will be left behind / a commander can possess enough skill to win battles without losing a soldier under him. But in a situation where fights-to-the-death settle matters such an outcome isn't possible. If commanders could decide to keep thier men alive then they would have some ability stronger than all enemy attacks. If some man or group of men were impervious to his/their enemies why would enemies return to a vain struggle?
Once it is accepted that a commander's men will die when they fight every engagement is chilling arithmetic: objective x is worth=# of men's lives. In that math is an odious trait of any but defensive wars, their operators place a value on some thing/s which is higher than their esteem for man. The nobility of the goal becomes irrelevant because at the end of each reason given is the unspoken qualifier "which is more important than the men I expect will die". We war to preserve the make the world safe for democracy...

When a mind's thoughtless and eyes stare without focus, is a man closer to nirvana?


Law of non-contradiction: No two premises which contradict can both be true. This law is the basis of all logic.

Paradox: Premises which seem to contradict each other but do not. "Eric was wearing a red shirt on Tuesday v. Eric was wearing a yellow shirt on Tuesday". Wearing a shirt of one color does not eliminate the possibility of wearing a shirt of another color. Eric can wear two shirts or Eric can change from one shirt into another during the course of a day.

In logic definitions decide the truth of an argument. A man may be very confident that what he claims is true and could make very good proofs for his conclusions -using a wrong definition. If the meaning of a word depended on for an argument is not present in its' definition all the justifications relying on that meaning are rendered moot.

When writing these explanations it is very easy to agree with them but tongues need controlled so they don't use familiar but erroneous sayings. Arguments that are regurally used rely on false definitions of words.

Tolerate=to allow a thing that bothers to continue. This word is used to justify arguments condemning critical analysis of practices; it is said "we must tolerate..." when the conclusion argued for is not tolerance but acceptance. "We should be tolerant of other lifestyles" may be said referencing cross-dressing, sodomy, or another action. Such a phrase can be true but is often used to persuade the listener against critical evaluation of the action. A man who does not know whether an action is good, neutral, or evil is in a state of ignorance, not tolerance. A man who thinks smoking an evil practice but does not try to stop a smoker from lighting up is tolerant. A police officer is paid to be intolerant.

No comments: