I went to a store and found a box with a plastic cover that had a hole in it so that shoppers could touch the “comfy socks” it contained. I removed the socks and discovered that the package’s interior was coated with a metallic material, which, when viewed under fluorescent lighting, resembled a mirror, whereas, when photographed after sundown, proved indistinguishable from the surface of Ganymede (not Zeus’ wine-pourer, “loveliest born of the race of mortals,” but the largest and most massive moon in our solar system).
Dear diary,
I’m stupid, but I’m not stupid enough. Insofar as I strain to contribute to the betterment of an unbetterable existence, I am stupid. If I were sufficiently stupid, I would enjoy the life that I have. I just can’t do that: I’ve never been able to attain the state of liking existence, and I know that I never will. I’m not stupid enough.
The point of feeling fright, it would seem, is to preserve the body from potential harm. So it’s considered intelligent for a body to feel much fear, as that tends to keep the body living long enough to procreate. But if the smartest bodies produce offspring that feel the most fear, what is the result? Smartness populates the world with terrified beings. Why is it unintelligent to feel little or no fear while going to and fro upon the earth? Because death might put a stop to your pleasant existence? But the smart being dies as well, eventually; so it doesn’t seem to be a choice between life and death, but rather a choice between quality-plus-duration of existence. One must ask oneself: Do I want to live a pleasant yet potentially briefer jaunt, OR a surer existence of full-blown paranoia? It’s sort of like that plight from the early chapters of Genesis which I can’t stop obsessing over: Do you choose a glad & brainless life devoid of will, as a slave to the LORD; or existence divine but alone in the cold, scary world? (Banished from paradise yet capable of creating your own.) Patrick Henry always sez: Liberty or death, gimme gimme! I wonder: Why can’t we just receive fair compensation, and live harmoniously, in mutual forgiveness? Why this binary, digital quandary of either/or?
Why does freedom, democracy, or _____ (fill in the blank with the latest fad term for whatever’s worth nuking each other to obtain) always have to be FOUGHT FOR? The American Revolutionary War. The American War of Independence. You gotta get out your weapons and kill, kill, kill, kill, kill… and then if your side emerges victorious from the slaughter you’ll get about one generation to set up a style of government that seems good to you. A government that you believe will most likely preserve YOUR family and YOUR property...
Always offer lip service to loving thy neighbor.
I wonder what the average U.S. citizen thinks was the reason the first and second World Wars were fought. At the moment, I’m not concerned with what any history book has to say about it: I think it’d be interesting to hear what “regular people on the street” (do they really exist?) assume were the reasons their nation joined the chaos. What necessitated the violent bloodshed? What was gained in the aftermath? What would’ve been the result, had the U.S. refused to participate? (Could the U.S. have refused to participate?) What do you imagine the world would look like today, if the U.S. had not fought in either of those unthinkables, or if the U.S. and its allies had not been victorious?
All the wars since the World Wars – all those foreign wars, several of which are ongoing this very moment – I wonder what the exact number of casualties would turn out to be, if we were able to compile an accurate total. It would be ever-growing, of course. And I’d like to break down this expanding figure in different ways, so that we can think about what we’re provoking with our aversion to diplomacy.
Civilian casualties. Are you OK with that concept? Can’t we all agree that the notion of non-military war-deaths is inexcusable? If all people, whether they choose to be soldiers or not, are liable to be slain during conflict, then the difference between servicemen and civilians is what, exactly? Who is the underdog? Where is the honor? In this upside-down world, instead of civilians thanking veterans for their service, the war machine as an industry should address the rest of the nation: “Thank you, O peaceful populace, for remaining unarmed and thus giving the clashing militias a chance to survive. You have performed the ultimate sacrifice for your country, and to the endless wars of its borderless corporations, by deigning to become collateral damage.”
But how can anyone stop “inexcusable” acts, amidst warfare! How do you say “You’re going a little too far” to one whose job is to kill people and break things!
I remember when, in the early years of grade school, I first learned the term “mercenary.” I was told that it referred to a person who accepts money for being a soldier. That idea seemed empty and ridiculous to me then, and it has remained so ever since. Pay a man to risk dying in battle. My first reaction was: The incentive here is to be a lousy soldier, since you’ll want to preserve your life to spend your paycheck. Since dead people can’t spend money, you’re going to fight in a cowardly fashion: anything to survive the conflict. It seems that there must be something beyond financial gain, to move you to fight in a way that is courageous. An effective soldier must be driven by allegiances beyond the self: one must be convinced that one is fighting for a greater good. I suppose if you knew that, upon dying, a bonus or pension would be awarded to your family, so that your wife and children would benefit—that might make you a courageous mercenary. But, even then, what can we conclude: One must have a spouse and offspring in order to fight well, and even THIS meager encouragement only works if civilian casualties are impermissible…
Moreover, an un-married individual who lacks children would be a better choice for military service, because less human ties means more vicious fighting. Plus a man who dies for his family, even if he thereby enriches them economically, still leaves them devoid of a husband and father – what gain is that? It’s a wash! Yet if we return to our earlier idea, it’s clear that we’re in a no-win situation: for the ruthlessness of the unwed & childless mercenary, as already established, is offset by his attachment to that paycheck.
I’m sick of this subject. I wanted to focus on the idea of “stupid” and I ended up veering into “warfare.” How bizarre; these notions have practically nothing in common. I shall try again tomorrow.
END OF ENTRY
No, on second thought, I’ll end with this sentence from the novel Hebdomeros, by Giorgio de Chirico, which I happened to run across while reading it this afternoon (the translator is unknown):
. . . Then Hebdomeros thought of deliverance, of flying machines and invincible phalanxes of white warriors with helmets of gold who would crush the enemy under their avenging heels and, in a world finally restored to peace, would regenerate humanity in the shadow of their sky blue standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment