Army's "Spiritual Fitness" Test

[brainpanhandler]

One problem with upward mobility, especially for people trying to move out of poverty is their susceptibility to right wing tropes.

It's counterintuitive, but yah, that seems to be the case. And frankly susceptibility to right wing tropes is a trait that signifies, what? Intelligence?

It signifies that a particular meme is being activated I reckon. One to do with gathering territory and securing it. I don't think that has to do with intelligence per se, but you know, whats intelligence?

It may not be easy to say what intelligence is, but it's often pretty easy to see what it isn't.

Sigh. What's intelligence? It's a fair question of course and you'd think I'd be prepared to answer it if I'm going to go on about it. There are lots of paths to that question and the explicit attempts at answering it are basically more or less comprehensive. How many qualities does one put under that one umbrella term, intelligence? That's seems to sum up the differences between the various models for "intelligence". I guess it's probably a hopeless term that is so contentious that I really ought never use it, especially here where I won't get away with using it in a colloquial manner.

In order to offer you some response without having to spend a couple of hours composing it I'll try to address the more narrow context of the gathering and securing territory meme you suggest, not least of which because it so readily suggests a model of human consciousness we're probably both familiar with, to wit, the RAW/Leary 8 circuit model of consciousness. A great deal of what most of us regard as "intelligence" is a product of good semantic circuit imprints. That is the third circuit we imprint chronologically. If we are able to master abstract symbol systems and decipher extrasomatic stores of knowledge, if we are able to clearly, in the culturally dominate form manipulate those symbol systems to communicate, we are generally regarded as intelligent. To a large extent it is competence on the semantic circuit that is being tested on standardized tests. With deft enough use of language we mark ourselves as belonging to the educated classes. You're really not welcome if you can't speak the language. Unless of course you can bully your way to the top via a dominate second circuit imprint; in raw's (leary/freud) model the anal emotional territorial circuit.

In terms of the present theory, the
differences between domesticated primates (humans) and other
domesticated animals are virtually nil, as long as we are talking
only about the first two circuits. (Since most people spend most
of their time on these primitive circuits, the differences are often
much less obvious than the similarities.) Real differences begin
to appear when the third, semantic circuit enters the picture.

Prometheus Rising

When I consider the 8 circuit model I imagine it as a wisdom/freedom continuum. Now if one happens to live an incredibly charmed life and has nothing but non-neurotic imprints as one progresses through life and each circuit is activated... well, that must not happen very often. For the rest of us unfortunates we have to muster the self awareness and determination to undo disabling imprints and forge ahead toward some greater gestalt on the higher circuits; life is a struggle, enlightenment a seemingly endlessly receding horizon.

If an individual is heavily imprinted as top dog on the second circuit (anal/emotional/territorial) and lives mostly motivated by the acquisitive, dominance concerns of that circuit then that indiviual could be considered a spiritually impoverished infant tyrant. In the real world this infant tyrant, if possessing the weapons to enforce it's wishes, can manifest as a monstrosity. The second circuit is the foundation of fascism. Fear, territoriality, dominance/submission (to authority), these are all imprints on the primitive second circuit.

I guess I would argue that an individual unwilling or unable to recognize the central importance of the dictum, "know thyself", such that they can free themselves from the undue influence of the primitive circuits cannot in my mind be considered intelligent. So, my defintion oif intelligence includes the ability to reflect on oneself, to know oneself. To even so much as put a unifrom on, let alone obey an order to murder innocents suggests to me a being that is stuck in the concerns of the second circuit to a greater extent than will allow effective self reflection.



There are always exceptions. There are no hard and fast rules.

[nathan28]

The 8-circuit model, once again, psychologizes the sociopolitical and plays its cryptoelitist hand. Big surprise, huh?

To even so much as put a unifrom on, let alone obey an order to murder innocents suggests to me a being that is stuck in the concerns of the second circuit to a greater extent than will allow effective self reflection.

Despite the emphatic language, it hardly suggests that. See upthread.

[brainpanhandler]

The 8-circuit model, once again, psychologizes the sociopolitical and plays its cryptoelitist hand. Big surprise, huh?

To even so much as put a unifrom on, let alone obey an order to murder innocents suggests to me a being that is stuck in the concerns of the second circuit to a greater extent than will allow effective self reflection.

Despite the emphatic language, it hardly suggests that. See upthread.

Just because we might use the same tools does not mean we use them towards the same ends. I'm sidestepping that. I understand we disagree or at the least that I'm talking about something else now.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I guess I would argue that an individual unwilling or unable to recognize the central importance of the dictum, "know thyself", such that they can free themselves from the undue influence of the primitive circuits cannot in my mind be considered intelligent.

Yeah fair enough then.

Honestly I dunno how much of war is "murdering innocents" tho. In terms of cold blooded murder of innocents for the sake of killing. Can't really say cos I have never been, but I have friends who have. Even when civillians get killed its more cos of the chaos and craziness of the situation. (At least according to my mates) But still this happens way to often, to many soldiers who then spend the rest of their lives coming to terms with being everything they thought they weren't.

I have a friend who was in Rwanda as part of peace keeping mission and rarely fired his weapon. He spent most of the mission cleaning up bodies. They were under orders not to engage unless fired upon, and he still tells stories of watching people walk up to other people, machete in one hand gun in another and ask them how they wanted to die. And being unable to act cos of their rules of engagement.

To me thats exactly the opposite situation as killing indiscriminately, yet its just as bad.

[WakeUpAndLive]

I guess I would argue that an individual unwilling or unable to recognize the central importance of the dictum, "know thyself", such that they can free themselves from the undue influence of the primitive circuits cannot in my mind be considered intelligent.

Yeah fair enough then.

Honestly I dunno how much of war is "murdering innocents" tho. In terms of cold blooded murder of innocents for the sake of killing. Can't really say cos I have never been, but I have friends who have. Even when civillians get killed its more cos of the chaos and craziness of the situation. (At least according to my mates) But still this happens way to often, to many soldiers who then spend the rest of their lives coming to terms with being everything they thought they weren't.

I have a friend who was in Rwanda as part of peace keeping mission and rarely fired his weapon. He spent most of the mission cleaning up bodies. They were under orders not to engage unless fired upon, and he still tells stories of watching people walk up to other people, machete in one hand gun in another and ask them how they wanted to die. And being unable to act cos of their rules of engagement.

To me thats exactly the opposite situation as killing indiscriminately, yet its just as bad.

I think that regardless of the aspect of killing, being immersed so fully in it can be very damaging to the psyche. Unfortunately (and fortunately for the sake of each individuals sanity), we are more and more leaning towards remote attacks, where the individual doesn't have to see the destruction he has created. Paired with the growing popularity of first person shooters I feel much of the new class will have very little sympathy for the "enemies". After all they'll just respawn next round.

[brainpanhandler]

I guess I would argue that an individual unwilling or unable to recognize the central importance of the dictum, "know thyself", such that they can free themselves from the undue influence of the primitive circuits cannot in my mind be considered intelligent.

Yeah fair enough then.

Honestly I dunno how much of war is "murdering innocents" tho. In terms of cold blooded murder of innocents for the sake of killing. Can't really say cos I have never been, but I have friends who have. Even when civillians get killed its more cos of the chaos and craziness of the situation. (At least according to my mates) But still this happens way to often, to many soldiers who then spend the rest of their lives coming to terms with being everything they thought they weren't.

I have a friend who was in Rwanda as part of peace keeping mission and rarely fired his weapon. He spent most of the mission cleaning up bodies. They were under orders not to engage unless fired upon, and he still tells stories of watching people walk up to other people, machete in one hand gun in another and ask them how they wanted to die. And being unable to act cos of their rules of engagement.

To me thats exactly the opposite situation as killing indiscriminately, yet its just as bad.

I think that regardless of the aspect of killing, being immersed so fully in it can be very damaging to the psyche. Unfortunately (and fortunately for the sake of each individuals sanity), we are more and more leaning towards remote attacks, where the individual doesn't have to see the destruction he has created. Paired with the growing popularity of first person shooters I feel much of the new class will have very little sympathy for the "enemies". After all they'll just respawn next round.

That's a dicey argument. If I understand you, one of the things you're suggesting is that the silver lining in the ever evolving historical progression toward remote killing is that the killers no longer have to suffer the psychological trauma of witnessing the actual blood and guts and burnt flesh their actions result in? Yikes. Maybe so, but that's twisted as hell. That's like saying the invention of the straight razor was a humanitarian boon for the art of throat slitting. So much more efficient now. Before you had to hack away at the neck until you could penetrate an artery. Now they bleed out so much faster. Less suffering that way.

[Simulist]

I think that regardless of the aspect of killing, being immersed so fully in it can be very damaging to the psyche.

That isn't all bad. Those who "so fully" — and voluntarily — "immerse" themselves in efforts of mass killing need to experience at least some negative reinforcement for their behavior, don't you think?

[WakeUpAndLive]

That isn't all bad. Those who "so fully" — and voluntarily — "immerse" themselves in mass killing need to experience at least some negative reinforcement for their behavior, don't you think?

This really boils down if the person is voluntarily doing said action or is being forced by their superiors. In my opinion a healthy portion in the military are opposed at some level to killing another human, we see this with IVAW (Iraqi Veterans Against War). Others are peer pressured into performing said acts...I think on that IVAW there was an article in which soldiers who were not wanting to perform a certain task were ridiculed by their company with phrases such as "get the sand out of your vagina". For the individuals who are voluntarily in the war and who voluntarily immerse themselves in the situation I feel the damage is far less....kinda how those who have positions of power feel self entitled to perform tasks one would normally consider immoral (http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-san-f ... thy-part-1).

TLDR: Those who voluntarily immerse themselves are less likely to be psychologically damaged because the justification that what they are doing is right (in their eyes).

That's a dicey argument. If I understand you, one of the things you're suggesting is that the silver lining in the ever evolving historical progression toward remote killing is that the killers no longer have to suffer the psychological trauma of witnessing the actual blood and guts and burnt flesh their actions result in? Yikes. Maybe so, but that's twisted as hell. That's like saying the invention of the straight razor was a humanitarian boon for the art of throat slitting. So much more efficient now. Before you had to hack away at the neck until you could penetrate an artery. Now they bleed out so much faster. Less suffering that way.

Metaphors aren't my cup of tea, they can pretty much be rationalized to fit many arguments. Razors were meant to shave, although they can be used to kill, weapons of war have always been aimed at killing, and I find it difficult to think of another use for bunker busters or a-bombs...they singe too many hairs. I think it is more than just the fact that they don't see the destruction. The view that video games portray these same acts of destruction is rich with conditioning, as the story line usually has to do with overthrowing some "terrorist" country bent on world domination/nuclear warfare/resource manipulation. The only way to win is by blowing up shit, stealing classified "enemy" documents, and killing everyone (surprisingly there are no civilians in these games, because everyone is an enemy when you're at war).

[Joe Hillshoist]

I think that regardless of the aspect of killing, being immersed so fully in it can be very damaging to the psyche.

That isn't all bad. Those who "so fully" — and voluntarily — "immerse" themselves in efforts of mass killing need to experience at least some negative reinforcement for their behavior, don't you think?

That wasn't me, but ... my mate who was in Rwanda immersed himself in cleaning up bodies that had been hacked to death and trying to find some family members, decent burial for those bodies.

Before Dubya, it was rare that the ADF (Australian military) sent soldiers to a war zone. GW1, some special forces, a couple of warships thats about it I think.

Most people who joined the military here did so knowing that although they could go to war odds are they wouldn't.

Most of the deployments were peace keeping ops or disaster relief, and all the advertising basically said "You won't go to war, but you will get a trade, make lifetime friendships etc etc."

"Do 6 years and you'll come out as a mature rounded person who helped make the world better."

Some time this century the ads started focusing on the rush of combat.

[brainpanhandler]

Metaphors aren't my cup of tea

I could almost believe you intend the irony of that.

The best ones work on a number of levels and preferably all of them. I think you know what I meant.

(surprisingly there are no civilians in these games, because everyone is an enemy when you're at war).

I guess I don't find that surprising at all. I'm not familiar with first person shooter military games. Do you mean to say that there really are no characters in these games that are noncombatant civilians? Or that the games are so ruthless as to allow that slaughtering innocent civilians is just another strategy one can pursue in order to win such that civilians are automatically transformed into the enemy, noncombatant status notwithstanding?

[WakeUpAndLive]

Metaphors aren't my cup of tea

Freudian slip and just in my personal experience I rarely see metaphors online that actually prove a point and hold up well to it when brought to realistic terms. Or maybe i'm not quite understanding your original statement?

I guess I don't find that surprising at all. I'm not familiar with first person shooter military games. Do you mean to say that there really are no characters in these games that are noncombatant civilians? Or that the games are so ruthless as to allow that slaughtering innocent civilians is just another strategy one can pursue in order to win such that civilians are automatically transformed into the enemy, noncombatant status notwithstanding?

All characters in the game have weapons and are considered the enemy...basically if its moving shoot it. As you said it, there are ZERO noncombatant civilians (actually there aren't even combatant civilians, everyone seems dressed in military attire). Even the staple training stage doesn't have civilian dummies to not target. Most military games exclude civilians, but lots of other shooters (GTA namely) allow the killing of any and everyone.

[Gnomad]

I guess I don't find that surprising at all. I'm not familiar with first person shooter military games. Do you mean to say that there really are no characters in these games that are noncombatant civilians? Or that the games are so ruthless as to allow that slaughtering innocent civilians is just another strategy one can pursue in order to win such that civilians are automatically transformed into the enemy, noncombatant status notwithstanding?

I don't recall any war game where there were more than a few token civilians in some scenes. Most games have none at all. Then there are some exceptions like Modern Warfare 2 with its russian airport terror scene where you are actually a CIA agent taking part in a russian terrorist operation, you walk through the airport mowing down civilians with machine guns and grenades. In the end, the russians shoot you to be left for capture by the authorities, and this is used as basis for war - an american terrorist captured at the scene! In some games of these modern blockbuster type though, all enemies wear typical arab garments, making them indistinguishable from "civilians". Thou they all have guns...

To be fair to the makers of the Operation Flashpoint game - it is one of the very few games that actually tries to portray combat realistically. Its one shot and you are dead, and there is no respawning of any kind, and usually just one save point in the whole mission, which may take even an hour to play through. So if you get killed, that is it, you have to start all over again. And you could not just run and gun, if you did not utilize all possible cover and tactics as well as your teammates, you would quickly be shot from some bush a couple of hundred meters away. And every time you die, you are shown some quote about madness of war (in the original, in the later one some were from not so great thinkers).

On the other hand, the original was also used as basis for military simulators for many armies, because it allowed units to make their own scenarios and practice them together as units, complete with motorized vehicles, helicopters, and the like, and a system for giving orders to units, plus of course audio communication with headphones and mics.

Some have civilians as hostages, like the Rainbow Six series. Usually you fail the mission if you shoot any, of course, since it is your goal to save them. Operation Flashpoint (the original) had a few in some missions, and you were not supposed to shoot any - but you would simply be reprimanded if you did, at the debriefing. Op Flashpoint - Dragon Rising does not have any at all, the plot states all were evacuated from the island before the start of hostilities.

[Joe Hillshoist]

In NOLF you have to run around the streets of a town getting civillians to cover before Spoiler:an adipose based explosive detonates inside the bad baroness.

[wintler2]

..
Those who join the military don't know what they're getting into, and if any of these 'ruthless killers' who 'deserve all the suffering they get' because they 'sold their soul' to 'perpetuate empire' realize what's going on, or have a change of heart, it's almost impossible to get out whole and undamaged before the end of their contract.

What would you have these pathetic souls do, wintler2, fight the entire fucking army, or STFU and get out alive?

Soldier resisters have been, are, and will continue to be supported by diverse communities in your country and mine. Not enough support sure, and there is a crying human and strategic need for more, but nobody need fight 'the entire fucking army' on their own.

And while STFUing may (and only may) deliver physical security, how about the psychological impacts of participating in mass murder? A discount degree or trade is not adequate compensation.

Soldiers may not know what they're getting themselves into, but as soon as they realise, they should stop. If enough soldiers stop, the wars stop. As unimaginable as that might be, thats what it is going to take, not petitions or marches or speeches in parliament. The bankers will keep the US afloat to keep its military at war to keep commodities cheap and taxes low to keep the bankers afloat and round it goes. The soldiers are the most sentient, but they're operating on lifetimes worth of bad data - see the US jump to bar soldiers from reading wikileaks, they know how important the Good War myth is, to smooth over the humiliation and horror and waste. Soldiers must resist, and we must do everything we can to support them in their right to refuse unjust orders.

[Simulist]

Soldiers may not know what they're getting themselves into, but as soon as they realise, they should stop.

That's exactly right.

What would you have these pathetic souls do, wintler2, fight the entire fucking army, or STFU and get out alive?"

Here's what I have difficulty understanding about your point, Crikkett — and I sincerely hope that you can help me with this if I'm missing something.

Soldiers are supposed to be willing to risk their lives if ordered to do so for the purposes of killing the enemy, right? So shouldn't such brave souls be equally willing to risk their lives for the purpose of opposing unjust actions in war (including a refusal to cooperate in a war they discover to be unjust and evil), once they realize "what they've gotten themselves into"?

If one is willing to risk ones life to kill, shouldn't one be equally willing to risk ones life not to, if that's what's right?