philoSOPHY OF PHYSICAL FORCE + TERRORISM

THE PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICAL FORCE

There is an unlearned lesson that has been taught throughout history. Increases in philosophical insight, advances in artistic creativity and its appreciation, the growth of scientific accomplishment, all of the accouterments of what we have come to recognize as sophisticated civilizations, have been accompanied by a seemingly inseparable flaw in their survival capability.

Such civilizations and their accomplishments are inevitably destroyed or diminished to a great extent by less "civilized" peoples who are more inclined to use force. Many elements of such advanced civilizations become scattered and largely forgotten, but those that survive often serve as the seeds of yet another growth in the social advantages of civilization, only to become lost or scattered again in another age.

The support structures of societies that comprise well developed civilizations and enable them to enjoy a relatively comfortable way of life, are highly interdependent and can therefore be easily toppled, when attacks or lesser encroachments break a few links in the chains that maintain their function. A cessation of ready availability in needs and customary conveniences can then create a confusion that causes people to behave anarchistically and this adds to the extent of social destruction.

The encyclopedias of ancient China, containing knowledge so painfully and laboriously gathered and artfully represented, were burned by primitive, less educated invaders, as were the fabulous maps and the literary and scientific scrolls housed in the library at Alexandria. We don't know where it began, but the remarkably advanced peoples at Sumer were the first known to display this syndrome and be overrun by its effect.

Battles that are lost are not always lost on the field, they can be lost against superior "forces" at the conference table, where potential power of arms is only as effective as its representation. When the strong offer a sincere willingness to reason, they are often defeated by the unreasonable but unyielding, whose very useful confidence may only be supported by misapprehension.

Victory may thus be conferred upon the adamant weak by the conciliatory strong.

When the strong are the adamant ones and the weak attempt to offer only a sincere willingness to reason and a conciliatory readiness, they cannot prevail. Reasoning is an effective tool when dealing with the reasonable, providing they are capable in its use, but only if they are willing to use it.

Reason and thoughtful considerations of fairness and justice have been the mark of great civilizations, but typically after they have achieved dominion by physical aggression. When they then continue to prevail with lessening effort, they tend to become increasingly vulnerable. Eventually they concern themselves with other matters and either fatally fail to recognize the simpler, less minutely considerate attitude that made them strong, when it begins to appear in an emerging group, or they simply dissolve themselves in an all-absorbing indecisiveness regarding the matters of fairness and justice which they once dispensed with a relatively simplistic regard.

Great civilizations are often weakened by the inability to readily resolve internal disagreement and the inability to move their people cooperatively toward common goals. They are bewildered by over-eager attempts to perfect themselves, which can never succeed. They try to listen and fairly respond to never-ceasing voices of internal conflict, which become increasingly militant and aggressive when their weakness is sensed. Picayune demands, once ignored, may begin to receive their full attention.

The point that should be appreciated, is simply that physical force, or an implied threat of it, is always the final resort for the losing party, in failed negotiations, when they possess the capability for it. Once this is fully appreciated, it must not be forgotten.

Financially based pressures can frequently be equated with physical force, but only when there are mutual recognitions and acceptances of rules that govern their influence. Such mutual recognitions are internally typical of higher civilizations. In an earlier time, when a warrior nobility was the ruling class, and still under some totalitarian regimes, items that reflected wealth accrued to the leaders according to position. Money was a convenience for tradespeople and their customers. When the nobility wanted something, payment for it was likely to be viewed more as a courtesy than a lawful obligation and any delayed payment was likely to be unenforceable as a collectible debt. This is still true in relations between nations.

With the enlightened awareness of more complex cause and effect and a devised means to employ such knowledge, comes increased appreciation for the value of regulating activity within a society, for mutual benefit, by the formulation and enforcement of laws. In attempting an equitable creation of such mutually accepted regulatory artifices, we learn to understand the perspectives of others, to value a recognition of their rights as well as our own. Considerations once reserved for the closest of familial associations become expanded to affect millions. Our once infantile, infinitely small area of self-interest develops into an interest in the benefit of the many others who are important to us and our well-being. This is often called "enlightened self-interest."

Perhaps our greatest mental characteristic is the ability to visualize, to create scenarios in the flexible and malleable reality of our minds and to thus anticipate events, plan future courses of action, and experimentally try solutions to problems in the relatively safe environment of imagination. If we are able to employ relatively faithful representations of reality in the process, we are able to avoid useless expenditures of time and energy, to move toward our goals with greater efficiency, to direct our search for solutions to the areas where they are more likely to be found.

One of our most useful but most dangerous tools in understanding, is a projection of our own perspectives and attitudes on others, in the belief that others might react as we would react in similar circumstances. In an unfortunate misapplication, or perhaps misuse of this ability, we tend to greatly misjudge others who are greatly different in their backgrounds, training, life experiences and/or innate abilities. We try to imagine what we would do in their place, without knowledge of all that entails, just as we often tend to define behaviorisms of lower animals in terms of the human, interpreting their actions and reactions as having human-like origins. In the case of our pets, this sometimes adds to an appreciation of their companionship and frequently provides entertainment but is less than useful in gaining true insight into their character.

The faces of lions I have seen in the Zoo, seem to be very pleasant and friendly. They would not automatically inspire me to flight. I might easily be induced to approach a big maned specimen, even to the point of attempting to touch and pet him, were it not for a recognition that I am risking my life on nothing more than my fallible ability to judge a nature by its face. In a less critical instance this could be an acceptable risk, but when the error can be fatal, judgments need to have constant reality referrals if they are to assist in our survival.

As society becomes more "civilized" and we learn to work well together, our contributions tend to become more compartmentalized. We become specialists, and as such have limited knowledge of other specialties and consequently of other specialists. Many vegetarians chose to be such because they were appalled when they first witnessed the killing of an animal, with a type of flesh they had previously eaten and enjoyed. Many then became animal rights activists. Regardless of their new-found preferences, they are omnivores, having evolved like the rest of us. Their attitudes have been altered by existence in an artificial environment, which is made possible by support from others in a compartmentalized society. Those who kill the animals to provide food are not monsters, as the activists often describe them, they are merely not so far removed from the realities of life. Humans are not the only animals to kill for food, it is one of the natural ways creatures survive. We evolved being able to derive sustenance from many sources. Fortunately for the vegetarian posture, we can eat vegetable matter, not so well as a horse, but far better than the members of the feline family, who must apparently eat flesh or die. Our attempts to supply cats with substitute nutrition are, to date, very unsatisfactory. We did not design ourselves as organisms, nor determine our true needs. It is only wise that we try to know what we are and to recognize such needs, not as we might imagine them to be, but as they exist.

In negotiating human affairs, in resolving conflicts between individuals or groups, it is wise to remember that arguments must be appreciated to be effective. What appears reasonable to one may not be reasonable to the other even if they are able to appreciate the reasoning process that is employed, simply because of their perspective. What appears to be reasonable, because of the far-reaching value of its implications, may not be reasonable to those who are forced, by less fortunate circumstances, to be more concerned with immediate benefit. A better tomorrow will never be enjoyed by those who do not survive today. There are also those who are driven by primitive beliefs, to reject any arbitration that will result in change, beliefs which were perhaps once socially useful in binding them into a cooperative group that assisted survival in an ancient world, but which now bind them to a stagnant way of life. This eventually causes them to take their place as an historical notation, unless the modern world affords them a means of continuance as an amusing curiosity.

The critical focus of our contentions is that physical force is always the background element in any argument. We must not be so divorced from reality that we lose that recognition. If we are to preserve and continue a society that pursues knowledge and an understanding of all that exists, we must not be driven backward as so many others in history, by a more aggressive or adamant but less enlightened group, whether such opponents come from afar and batter at the gates of our sanctity or arise to attack from within our midst. We must not forget what we are, and we must not ignore our vulnerabilities which often increase as we develop other strengths. When we progress, we must not delude ourselves that such progress gains universal appreciation. We must be prepared to defend ourselves, not with token forces, but with those forces we have realistically devised as a means to prevail. We must also not permit socially important decisions to be made by those in a compartment of society where reality is fancifully represented, where reality checks on the imagination are likely to be infrequent. We have progressed in the matter of the sciences that support our society and yet we are, in social matters, presently in no way superior to civilized humans of a few thousand years ago.

Perhaps we are now ready for the next step forward, to achieve what our forebearers could not, a recognition of that which is required for the continuance of an enlightened society, the final painful enlightenment that enables it to survive and grow. Social decisions must include careful considerations of effect and made more dispassionately than ever before. Empathetic appreciations of others, in our dealings, must never be made to exclude an objective perspective from one's own position, or the realization that the others may not possess any reciprocal extent of thoughtful appreciation. The others may very well possess instead, a surprising ability to obtain their objectives that is greater than we have anticipated, and our reserves must include a margin for our errors, a realistically overwhelming potential for physical force and a willingness to use it, that can be so readily assessed and acknowledged that we will never need to use it.

The spectre of force hovers over any peace table. When acceptance of reason is not sufficiently motivated, reason is usually ignored. If the strong justify their position by reasoning, it is likely to be accepted, even if appreciation of the reasoning may be little more than a courtesy. When the weak offer reasons for their position, it is easily rejectable. However reasonably sound their proposals may be, they are likely to be perceived as mere appeals or even as submissive begging.

Might does not make right, but it can make people see wrong in a more favorable light.

Reasoning makes us human and has given us all that we possess in our power to shape our environment, but in matters of human conflict, the intellectually adept who rely on it as their greatest weapon, are always vulnerable to those who do not listen to reason or have no reason to listen. If a society of advanced philosophical, artistic and scientific achievement is to survive, it must also achieve a willingness to be dispassionately and physically forceful in its defense and in the furtherance of its objectives. Perhaps the formula for assuring its future can be found in its past. Perhaps the youthful vigor and the clear and motivating vision displayed at its inception can be regenerated, without losing anything that it has gained.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.

TERRORISM

"Terrorism", as now more narrowly defined, is the violent act of an individual or small group and is greatly differentiated from the violent acts associated with more formally declared conflicts where such acts are part of wars between nations or of allied nations which act in concert against each other. Acts of terrorism, perhaps by such definition, tends to be more terrifying than acts of war, even if fewer people are killed, because it is so often faceless and unpredictable in almost every way. If effective, its victims are left to develop paranoid expectations that span the breadth and depth of the imagination. Leaders infect their people with their own fears for. the country and confirm those already held by the people with repeated terrorist-alert warnings. It is hardly sane to be blasé about such things, but terrorism feeds upon victims' reactions and their typically frustrated attempts at defense. Reactive expressions of misdirected anger and attempted retaliation create additional enemies and are likely to inspire additional terrorism. We may suspect but are seldom able to correctly identify those responsible. When we do there are always others waiting to strike. We want to protect ourselves, but we cannot provide protection from all forms of damaging occurrence at all times and in all places.

Well guided terrorism is very efficient. One or two highly visible and horrific acts of terrorism, to make threats realistic, are followed by carefully leaked, apparently authoritative indications of imminently impending, additional acts, causing their victims to wet themselves in fear as they frantically try to look everywhere at the same time and provide protection against everything they can imagine. When repetition has worn this tactic a bit thin, the terrorists can renew the process with an even more horrifying act.

Courage is not the result of ignoring danger. Courage is the resolve to function, despite a recognition of danger, simply because it seems to be the wisest thing to do.

When terrorism is encouraged and/or funded by an enemy government, the government can be confronted and made responsive to diplomatic negotiation due to recognized leadership. Once terrorism has become the acts of an an inflamed populace it is substantially immune to negotiation. It is a Hydra with many heads. Once a government has convinced its people of a perceived wrong, it may require many years to affect any change and any vigorous attempt at immediate change will be likely to cause its leadership to appear traitorous and to lose any power to affect.

Individuals who feel strongly enough to sacrifice their own lives to do harm but fail, can be prosecuted, punished and interrogated in the hope of identifying co-conspirators but many small, isolated groups and disconnected individuals may have active involvement. The mere fact that large numbers of people in one group can be made to hate another group to this extent, is in itself, a reason for terror. The complacent citizen of today could become a terrorist tomorrow, if something sufficiently inspirational occurs, such as having a loved one killed by the perceived enemy.

Is there a solution? Even world domination, or subjugation of all nations under one power, will not eliminate terrorism. It is born of hatred directed toward a controlling group that the terrorists can strongly identify with their problems in life. They then employ any available means to inflict damage on the group at every opportunity.

They may not see their acts as a remedy for their problems, they may despair of this and merely seek revenge.

Terrorism can be considered an attack by less structured, woefully unhappy, ill-equipped peoples upon those who are more structured and live better lives. The relatively disorganized British colonists in America employed a terrorist technique against the British government in the Boston Tea Party. While this raid has been characterized as a protest against unfair taxation, it denies this description in that the colonists did not seek to be identified as such. The Colonists disguised themselves as Indians and seemed to be content to simply damage trade goods.

In the revolution that followed, civilians fought soldiers sent to quell the rebellion. While not all of the colonists were involved, the reasons for revolution were felt strongly by civilians who felt compelled to take matters into their own hands and attack the British whenever and wherever they could. Much of what they did could be called terrorism. In this instance, they were the people of a land repelling what they felt was an invading army. In the present situation, while at least one country feels it is repelling invaders, the anti-American terrorists in general are from various nations acting in sympathy with their ethnic neighbors, with their feelings intensified by a fear of additional invasions. The terrorists may thus be seen to be acting out of their own sense of terror. They are able now to take advantage of modern travel and the convenience of relaxed national entry opportunities to covertly and individually invade the homeland of those they consider active or potential invaders.

The modern terrorists have also realized a terrible truth of efficiency in warfare that gives them great advantage. When conventional armies clash, combatants are aware that many may die on each side in the anticipated give and take of armed conflict, but individual warriors cannot know who will die and most feel that they will not. When one is willing to know and accept in advance that they will die for their cause, they may carry explosives to a place where many of the unsuspecting enemy may die with them. In theory, it is simply warfare by-the-numbers; one life on one side is traded for many on the other. This is a primitive and simple mode of attack that does not require large armies, sophisticated equipment or large sums of support by established governments. Although the latter may have encouraged such action. terrorism is most often a relatively disorganized "peoples-war" carried on by individuals and small groups, sharing a similar inspiration but having little need for collusion.

We are the remaining superpower, but until recently we were not considered dangerous. Those who commit crimes of violence have had little to fear from America. We are famous for our equivocation, careful deliberations in lengthy discussions and half-hearted attempts followed by self-criticism and recriminations about anything we finally decide to do. Those who have taken hostages have always preferred Americans. Even our own domestic criminals, who terrorize and kill the innocents among us, have had little to fear from our laws which give them every benefit of doubt, every consideration of human rights and every legal opportunity to avoid penalties for their actions during years of considerate incarceration in which we provide free time and facilities and fund the legal expenses for the endless appeals that can make avoidance possible.

It is human nature to give far more respect to a maniac with an axe than a policeman with a gun. We will feel fairly secure in calling the policeman names, but we will be very careful to avoid insulting the maniac. It is a painful recognition for the more "civilized". but if we are a reasoning people, we will eventually realize that contrary to our empathetic impulses, it is quite valuable to occasionally appear less than reasonable, at least to those who are less reasonable. It can be advantageous to be less than predictably considerate and deliberate, in order to deliberately instill an unequivocal element of terror in terrorists who confidently think that we are incapable of such barbaric behavior as lashing out in anger. Since there are always those among us eager to do so, we might consider unleashing them in an effort to make those considering terrorist acts firmly believe that such acts of violence are likely to bring only the dishonor of destroying their own people. Anything less would seem to confirm our self-imposed vulnerability and encourage continued terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, the situation does not permit this simplistically harsh solution to be fully effective, although we may feel compelled to employ it. Terrorists may orchestrate reprisals by misidentifying themselves, as to their purposes and their affiliations, when credit is claimed, just as the American colonists did at the Tea Party. Even when the immediate perpetrators of a terrorist act are correctly known, those who encouraged and funded them may not be known and may not ever have been known, even to the terrorists. Purposely misdirecting retaliation can have a double effect. Direct damage to one enemy can result in retaliatory damage to another. However, since this blinding of terrorist victims may cause them to alienate and damage others indiscriminately, all are put at risk.

We currently feel that the U.S. has the right to raid suspected terrorist cells on foreign soil. This is immediately viewed by other nations as an excuse for trial invasions. It is not something the U.S. would find tolerable if the situation were reversed.

I can see no fully practicable solution for this most ancient problem of human unrest and conflict. Perhaps it is only a costly symptom of growth, a birthing-pain for the innovations that always seems to result from invigorating demands of war. If we could re-channel the energy and focus of wartime fury and avoid the destruction, all would be well.

In an idealistic dream-world. the solution to war might be to have a central source of wisdom to assist in the resolution of major conflict and fundamental issues of human concern. Unlike the League of Nations or the United Nations, it would be a consortium of the most accomplished and universally respected minds on our planet, without regard for a nationalistic origin or validation. This source would not command respect by virtue of military power, or any other fearful aspect, but would receive respect as a willing tribute to the recognized stature of its members. The consortium would thus be a great yet vulnerable power that no one would wish to destroy. While including the religious and non-religious, it would be tolerant of all faiths and yet remain aloof from any supernatural association or reference, at least as an entity. Its purpose would be to wisely advise for the resolution of conflicts; to be heard with greater credibility and to have an expectedly greater influence than political figures.

Once in place such a consortium would be maintained for its benefits by the mutual desire of all humanity. The membership would be expectedly small and could be formed by mutual agreement, choosing its own members and selecting a spokesperson by any means the group deems appropriate. No governmental bodies would be involved, and their sanction or approval would not be sought and if given should be considered irrelevant. No formal rules would be established. The presence of the group would be initially made known to the public when a problematical condition appeared that could be considered weighty enough to require their assistance. The members would expectedly have little time to spare from their personal endeavors but would be responsive to a need for their thoughts. Communication between members would be maintained in the most convenient manner and physical meetings, in parts or as a whole, arranged when considered necessary for a consensus. or when simply found to be desirable and convenient.

Before someone attempts to materialize this dream-world scenario, a word of caution is in order. The worth of accomplishment is measured in many ways and many individuals may be respected for characteristics of position which may color a judgment of their personal attributes. Fame often provides a platform for greater fame and conditions may permit a rapid ascension. As I have stated elsewhere, we all tend to be ignorant in some respects and even the verified possession of a massive intellect may not indicate a capacity for wisdom in regard to social affairs. Congenital or native Intelligence and subsequent works that demonstrate its functional presence would be varied and each member of the consortium would have to be accepted as qualified in the opinions of the others. Creativity, as an intellectual process and a most desirable tool, is served by intelligence in the manner of its expression but appears unrelated to it in the matter of its magnitude. It will need to be exercised to its greatest available extent by the consortium.

While the development of a directional bias in selection of members would be unavoidable, it could be beneficent. While great things will surely have other sources, and a perfect solution would still be beyond our grasp, would it not be wise for us to expect great things to come from such a concentration of individually proven sources of great things? While only acting in an advisory capacity, it would seem to be to our advantage to know the thinking of our most accomplished minds, on any subject of general importance. There may be understandable reluctance to participate and share their thinking, particularly to offer advice, and especially if it is taken. Some responsibility for advisements will be felt by the members of the consortium, even if it is made very clear that any uses, and any decisions to use such advisements, are considered the responsibility of those who already have the responsibility of leadership.

Perhaps someone theoretically qualified to be a member of such a consortium would consent to quietly contact other potential candidates and begin a consideration of its creation. Perhaps several will be responsive to the prospect and several groups may begin to evolve. They may then tend to meld into one or remain discrete but find a way to find an advisory consensus rather than seek to compete and contrarily become yet another source of strife. While we cannot reasonably expect the ideal, we should strenuously seek it. We may sometimes find optimism difficult to justify but we cannot truly know that the future is bleak and there can always be hope in the not knowing. I love pleasant surprises.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.