Losing Hope in the Operation of Systematic Power by the Armed Forces

Currently, the law of the Armed Forces has not yet gone through a process of ‘humanization’ of its regime – or by Michel Foucault’s definition, a system of calculated, defined, refined and reformed discipline. The regime assumes that the arbitration of punishment and discipline can effectively deter prospective military crime and thereby improve obedience. When we investigate this ‘divine’ law of the military, we find arbitration everywhere implicit in all its directives and operations. This is all so much so that the operation of power of the armed forces has only become a mere display of amusement for the public rather than an effective systematic force against external forces.

Any soldier can only plainly see a culture of internal conflict. Thus, he understands that when an operation of power is divided against itself through itself, the whole force becomes weak and ceases to be any kind of operation at all. He observes and is aware of the Act put in place, and that it permits arbitration of punishment at all levels, such that no systematic operation of power is in place. So, when punitive operations are not properly reflected in the level of severity to its crime, even the condemned cannot see the relevance of the discipline involved. And since discipline has not evolved an implicit but calculated reflection against the purported crime, the condemned and the public both ultimately see the law as illegitimate. However, since the Armed Forces are directly involved with society via conscription, the Law of the Forces becomes a law useless and ineffective.

There seems to be no calculation, no consideration, of a proper systemization of the law and its power over soldiers. So implementation becomes arbitrary and deterrence becomes meaningless and of no value at all. What of the Armed Forces do we have if its people do not respect it? It becomes a norm through society, through conscripting soldiers, but by also the normality of despising the law, the norm of conscriptions forms an empty pact between society and the sovereign power. Arbitration sets the foundation of the Armed Forces, and so with the law of conscription imposed by the Sovereign power, arbitration and normality become associated and are as one. And since it is meaningless, the law being also arbitrary, the Sovereign power too becomes arbitrary and meaningless.

If I were not wrong, Jean Jacque once commented that the power of the Sovereign diminishes to a mere display of operation of power only when society sees the sovereign to be useless. A matured society can only observe the relentless perseverance of the useless power over its people and, by its mere perseverance, is amused by the existence of it at all. Rather than the role of government, sovereignty is like a sidekick, spontaneously acting and improvising upon itself without apparent goals and ideals, like a shadow behind the individual who beholds it.

Propaganda of its effectiveness thus only assumes the stupidity of its people. Yet, they ask why people of talent usually become unpatriotic and leave the nation for another, without realizing that society has matured beyond its undertaking. So here we see a prime example of the Sovereign pursuing an effective means under its principle of arbitration, only to pursue empty dreams. Improvisation becomes arbitrary in itself and no meaning can ever become attached to itself. It was as if anarchy was the best solution t this all…

Read more!

On Biblical Interpretation – an explanation from Spinoza

I find the strangest of things how people may assert different statements but belief blindly them to be connected in some way. Perhaps it is a psychological need for them to think they know something when, in fact, they know nothing of anything at all. Perhaps, again, they are too accustomed to superficial observation and plain memory that they become deprived of pure thought and systematic analysis. As Spinoza argue in “The Ethics”, human nature is naturally prone to this irresolute being of emotions – that the preservation of the intellect is the hardest of all. But my goal today is not to prove why human nature is like that. Instead, I would like to talk only of biblical interpretation and how the common view is opposed to reason.

I may have shown elsewhere some of these arguments within my blog, but would like to elucidate them here once more. I shall attempt to explain them as simply as possible.

Spinoza argues that all things have an object, an idea, an essence, and a substance in itself. The object is that which we plainly see or perceive with our senses. The idea of a thing is our imagining or recalling the image of the object in our mind, or rather, the proximate characteristics we attribute to the object of interest – a mental conception. The essence of a thing is that which is perceived and is without any qualification. Substance is that which is composed within all things.

We start off by stating that all things have a ‘telos’, which is the purpose of all things. However, as opposed to a knife which is designed to cut, I am here talking of things that grow and develop without the aid of an external agent. So, a seed’s ‘purpose’ is to grow into a tree, and so a child’s telos is to develop into a mature adult.

Our first axiom is first that reality has a telos, of which since we exist within it, it then too necessarily exists. This is self-evident. We can simply say that reality is a thing composed of many things, or a thing in itself. Our second axiom is that a thing must necessarily be caused or be a cause of itself, that is, to have necessary existence in relation to another existing thing or a necessary existence of utmost necessity that is not in relation to any existing thing. A logical argument, of which starts from axioms which are universal and self-evident, are the very building blocks of an argument which necessarily lead to some conclusion. So, the argument has a telos. And so, which is also self-evident, since all things must start from axiom(s), we say reality must ‘start’ from an axiom, or that it must be composed within a thing which is self-caused or self-preserved. This is God. We shall here re-define our axioms to make the previous explications clearer.

A substance is necessarily caused or self-caused, that is, to have necessary existence in relation to another existing thing or a necessary existence of utmost necessity that is not in relation to any existing thing. This latter substance we call God. And so if that be God, he must be self-evident and perfect in it-self. Perfection only means to contain the infinite necessary existence. God must only have this definition as he must be as simple as possible in order to encompass all things universally. However, if we say something exists outside of God which does not contain infinite necessary existence, we are also saying that God does not have this infinite necessary existence since God can and is limited by this thing which is imperfect. Therefore, since nothing can exist outside of God, nature necessarily is implicit of God’s definition or existence. The analogy is how the human body is implicit of the meaning of a human being. That is, without the human body, there is no human being. Therefore, the telos of God is the telos of nature. God’s will is most explicitly the very action potential of nature’s phenomena. Thus, in God we say his intellect and his will and his action is not actuality differentiated at all. For since he is that which has infinite necessary existence, and only this definition alone, anything which is in him is directly translated into nature itself. Therefore, whatever he wills or he intellectually perceives or desires are what we see in nature. Nature contains a divine decree or order. So, if anything can contravene nature’s divine order, or natural order, it is also opposed to God, which is also opposed to infinite necessary existence, which is absurd. Therefore miracles cannot actually occur since all things in nature must be caused following from God’s divine decree and order of all things in nature. In layman terms, God is nature itself.

So when we observe biblical scholars, theologians, and others of faith claim the many occurrences of so-called miracles, they are simply revealing their ignorance of their natural causes. Also, in saying that miracles occur, they do not realize that are also being heretical to nature’s divine order, which is God’s will and thus contrary to reason as they deny the truth or self-evidence of infinite necessary existence!

Read more!

On the Struggle of Power

It has been a common fallacy to assume that government alone plays politics amongst themselves. If however, we put the definition of ‘politics’ in its broadest sense, it is the struggle for power in any socioeconomic climate. We say ‘power’ in terms ranging from first impressions, respect and honour, family rules and family taboos, to others like corporate acquisition and mergers, political and international diplomacy and invasions, and political elections. We also say ‘socioeconomic’ in meaning of any social interaction acted through the use finite or infinite resources. So here, we see that all living things engage in the direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious politics, the very struggle for power.

Let me illustrate my point properly here. When I say that I am in the struggle for power, I do not mean the barbaric acquisition or stealing of moneys through the harming or lost of lives, being politically motivated and thus attaining political authority over the people, or finding ways to make friends afraid of me. Rather, as in not in the purest sense of the examples just mentioned, I am referring to the very mere interaction between two beings or more in order for acquisition of certain satisfaction or mutual satisfaction, and in doing so, creating the acknowledgement in the other this already acquired satisfaction – the acquisition of power itself.

Let me put forth my idea more clearly. A talks to B about Issue C, of which A discusses C(A) and B discusses C(B). While A may in fact be confiding with B about his her problems, A does so because for either or some, if not all, in the following instances:



(1) A feels disturbed about the problem and seeks advice, in doing so A unconsciously gives authority to B because A feels uncomfortable and lacks initially the confidence and esteem to face the situation. By B receiving the sense of importance from A, B gives A the necessary comforting and words A needs to acquire confidence once more. As in this case B respects A because B feels important to A, A feels that he is being acknowledged. And, if B sympathizes with A, A feels that somehow A is in the right. B indirectly reinforces A’s morals and circumstance. A thus feels that he is fighting a moral game in which he is the moral one and the 3rd party is the immoral one. A acquires a psychological backing, which in turn acquires power of confidence over B as B acts as a backing for A.

(2) B requires the cooperation of A to realize B’s own interests but realizes that A will cooperate only if A stands to gain. If A helps because he is the friend of B, A looks like as if he were the best friend of B, and in so doing acquires future support, if necessary, from B and thus attains his power through the backing of B.

(3) A requires the cooperation of B to realize A’s own interests but realizes that B will cooperate only if B stands to gain. If B is not the friend of A, or B is not close to A, or B has difficulties pertaining to A’s interest, A realizes that to reach his own goal he has to show B that by helping him, B stands to gain something substantial. That is, reaching A’s goal means to do so via the realization of certain or some own desire or interest of B. By empowering B with what he wants, A acquires power in the form of being a benefactor over B, receiving respect from B.



Of course, however, the above three situations may happen unconsciously or indirectly or both. For example:



(4) A wants B to help A realize A’s interest, and A does not explicitly show how B can help A via realizing B’s certain or some desire or interest of B, but B is aware that in helping A he can simultaneously certain or some of his own desires or interests, B willingly helps A. So, on superficial observation, it seems that B is helping A altruistically, but in fact wants to realize his own desire(s) or interest(s) through A – using A to realize B’s own desire or interest. Or, another scenario is possible. B understands that he is acquiring power quietly over A, or knows that he, after the incident, is comfortable with quietly using A to attain his means. A, however, thinks he holds some form of arbitrary authority over B in the form of friendship, and thus believes that if A needs help in the future, A has B for backing and aid.

(5) A needs B’s help to attain A’s means. B, aware that according to history and past observations, A always makes sure that A reaches his own goal by helping B in certain ways. Thus, B helps A anyway but, in this case, is unsure what benefits he may acquire through A’s attainment of A’s goal. Here is a possible source of abuse from A, as B is providing his services without question of A’s means of attainment, and A might in fact use B’s gullibility to destroy B as A finally has arbitrary power over B and has the potential and capacity to utterly destroy B if A has always hated B from the beginning but keeps quiet about it, or finds B’s presence utterly useless. A therefore obviously here acquires arbitrary discretionary power over B.



As we has seen for all the five scenarios (although there may be many other situations that are here not yet accounted for), the power for struggle does not simply belong to the government alone. We can, in fact, see how all these instance are so very much prevalent in our personal (civilian) lives, happening directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. I believe the reader is capable of coming up with his/her own examples as they must be quite obvious anyway.

By understanding the generality of the instances of the struggle for power, one must also acknowledge that this is so natural phenomena that it would be quite irrational to not extend this idea to all living things; that this principle of the struggle for power is one of the leading forces of evolutionary design.

I must therefore here discuss the nature of the struggle for power in relation to the freedom of humankind. For since every interaction happens out of these instances, out of necessity (as in Spinoza’s philosophy of determinism), and so we say all human interaction is directed towards the acquisition of power. And, so, if a human is to be free in so far as to acquire self-determination, he is to be rational and aware about the nature of all interactions, and treat all with a pinch of scepticism as all interactions are not in themselves genuine as all things require in themselves some direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious benefit from the interaction.


Note: If need be, I shall discuss my last paragraph with more detail and reason.

Read more!