Log in

I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | Myspace ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

(no subject) [Oct. 21st, 2009|03:32 pm]
[mood |Finally here.]
[music |Magrela Fever - Curumin]

why would she question herself again? if there is nothing, then there is nothing.  I would figure that the most reasonable thing to do is not to mention it anymore. but as I thought there is denial.

no football today. damnit. nothing to do now but sit around in my room til dinner. I was wondering today about possibly starting to write down my ideas for some change. there has been some change around here, thanks to the ideas put forward slowly, and they said more with change with more concrete suggestions. i'm only afraid that if I were to write with my point and emphasis in mind, that it would go over their heads. I've got to find a way to get around that.

it's so funny how i lived through practically every ethical philosophy throughout high school without even really knowing about them. Learning about them now has shone new light on so many things. But what's important now is what I choose to use going forward. I think stoicism with an aristotlian foundation would do best. Not caring about things I cannot control, but understanding that what I should try to control are the things which exemplify the life I intend to live. I've noticed that above all I need to curb desires. Something i want may not be the best thing for me, although they may not be bad either. The inevitable fact is that I live in a time and place where there are far too many things for me to get upset over, and the only way to overcome that is to understand that I cannot control certain things, and that I should embrace them to find happiness. It makes sense.

The answer therefore:

And if there is something, then it shouldn't matter to me. To each his own. I've no control over how one may feel for another, only how much they feel for me. So in the end, it means nothing to me. I must wake up at seven everyday, no matter what. I could choose not to, and face the concequences. I could choose to comply, and there will be no negative concequences. I may dislike it at first, but eventually if I embrace it, then I will find happiness and shun discontent. Yes.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Oct. 21st, 2009|01:06 pm]
It all makes sense now. It took a while to read, but it all makes sense. While she looks for it, I just wait. Don't look.
But it all makes sense now. Well. I know what this is going to turn into.

Sayuz nyerushimi respublik svabodnikh, splatila navyeki velikaya rus! Nas zdrastvu yetzoz danni voley narodov, yedini maguchi savyetski sayuz.
Slavsya atyechestva nashe svabodnaye, druzhbi narodov nyadozhni oplot. Partiya Lenina - Sila narodnaya. Nas tarzhestvu kammunizma vedyot.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Oct. 21st, 2009|12:47 pm]
[music |Mack the Knife- Bobby Darin]

Football has been going well. We've won two games this week, which have been phenomenal. Not just the wins, but our style of play. It feels so much more liberating and free. The only concern I have is that we've no midfield. But maybe that is what helps our flow. Keeping the midfield open. Anyhow the past two games have felt so poetic, so natural. I hope today is only more of the same.

The Eighth Wing has finally decided to throw a gentleman's night which should be pretty awesome. I've got to make a list of the necessary accesories. Music, regalia, food, etc. I definitely know that Frank Sinatra and Cigars are of order while Alex will be choosing the wine and the champagne. Creevy's house.

I was staring today at the word house outside of Wesley Brown. What a funny language, English. The word house looks so funny. French declenation, german phonology, I don't know.
Thanks giving has also been decided on. Good show it will be.

Notes, notes, more notes.

linkpost comment

(no subject) [Oct. 21st, 2009|12:24 am]
[music |Don't Worry Baby- The Beach Boys]

So as always, this is simply the easiest way to reflect. To look back.

There's nothing I can do. There isn't. You think it's simple because I love you. Whatever. I wish we could both do something. I wish we could both be a part of it. But I know. You want it to be all me. I know.
Anywho, this will be the last time I write to you directly. or indirectly probably. I just felt like I had to say that. I love you.

So there is no way to express what has been happening. Its a mixture of confusion mixed with this awkward understanding mixed with a sense of necessity, like if I should be doing something I am not. Often times, I start to think it's impossible. No time. No sleep. No available effort to spare. But then when did I ever care about those things? Have I really become so much about numbers? About time keeping?

I don't abject to numbers. I see how they make sense. I see how they make sense of no sense at all. But I think the problem arises when numbers become a measure rather than a simple suggestion of truth. When that measure becomes everything we live by. Why? Why should I live by that measure? Part of me believes its because of the place I've come to. And part of me agrees with that concept. But then there's always that idea in the back of my head, telling me that it's all in my control. My problem is, I don't want to have it. No control. Not over that.

The past two months have shown me how useless this entire process can be. I study. I learn. I decide I'm great. I love her. I blow her off. I fuck things up. But at least I'm still great right? Wrong. Why does it all have to happen that way? Why can't it be: I study. I learn. I decide I'm great, but only with her. I love her. Nothing without her. Life. Hello. And that's it. It's not the people that matter. I've noticed that. I mean like Aristotle said: "Man is a polis being." We need others to truly be happy, to truly exist. This may not be in a relaitonship, a marriage, but a friendship would suffice. So when I think about how I could be happy with just other people, I notice that she is just another person. But what makes that special is the feeling that she is THE person. That sure, happiness could come through others. But it's all relative. Or maybe it's like Plato says. Maybe it's all just an illusion. Maybe we should abandon our feelings, or emotions, and pursue pure logic.

I know this is an endless rant, being that the root arguement has yet to be uncovered. I will read this again tomorrow, and wonder, what was I saying. And then I'll remember that all along, the only thing I was thinking is that I'm fuck. I'm shit out of luck. And that the only thing that I have to save me, to make me feel safe, is the idea that I have ideas, that I have this ability to reason. That's it. Fuck the point itself. I can reason, and if it's endless, and just a rant, then that's even better. There, you've been reminded. Now rant on. Rant on.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Dec. 11th, 2008|01:47 am]
[music |The Strokes. Is This It?]

"Can't you see I'm trying?
I don't even like it. I just lied to
Get to your apartment, now I'm staying
Here just for a while
I can't think 'cause I'm just way too tired

Is this... it?

Said they'd give you anything you ever wanted
When they lied, I knew it was just stable children
Trying hard not to realize I was sitting right behind them

Oh dear, can't you see? It's them it's not me
We're not enemies; We just disagree
If I was like them all pissed in this bar
He changes his mind, says I went too far
We all disagree
I think we should disagree, yeah"

linkpost comment

(no subject) [Dec. 10th, 2008|11:15 pm]
ya krakayu myeta plavakushka nya vsyem nyim yetova igrayo nam atyets. puku.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Dec. 4th, 2008|02:55 pm]
I hate that I don't have the luxury of time and space. But I chose this life. O the wonders it brings. Ironically, I love it. Every second of it.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Nov. 19th, 2008|07:16 pm]
So I don't find any reason why this should be long. I love you. You don't believe it's love, but I will show you that it is. Somehow. I am determined now. Determined to find a way. Not just asking "how" anymore. I will find it. I love you. You don't know that. It's fine. You will.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Nov. 17th, 2008|05:18 pm]

On Mahan and Historical Inevitability


In 1890, Alfred Thayer Mahan generalized and postulated a number of concepts which he strung together, the culmination of which was his text The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783. Arguably the most influential military text of his time, and of the last 190 years since von Clausewitz set his ideas on type in the early 19th century. This book was single-handedly responsible for the ascendance of the United States upon the world stage in a time when American curiosity was beginning to require justification for exploration. It can even be argued that the ideas inside were to blame for World War I, through the naval arms race which was sparked by Mahan’s infectious theories on the importance of navies to project imperial power. Having been made required reading for the officers of the Japanese and German navies, it is no doubt that this could be more than only a small assumption. But the topic treated in this composition is one which solely questions how or why Mahan derived his ideas near the close of the 19th century. Essentially, the argument throughout will be that he derived these notions of naval superiority not only because they were good ideas, or because Mahan has genius, but because his concepts were simultaneously a product of the geo-political situation of his day. The impulse for American expansionism was increasing exponentially at the time, but territorial expansion on the continent into Mexico or Canada was highly unlikely because Americans have never liked considering themselves as conquerors or imperialists in the European sense. Mahan’s doctrine was thus a perfect outlet for the enthusiasm and energy of American imperialism, and furthermore, a product of historical necessity due to the technological and societal conventions of his day.

I. Historical Analysis

Prior to the publication of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, the question had already been critically posed as to whether the new American nation should undertake the construction of major ships, both economic and military, although the emphasis of discourse was placed on economic ships. In order to understand the historic needs of Mahan’s time, the analysis of historical context and therefore historical inevitability must begin in the 1870s. The years after Civil War, years of major rebuilding, drew the attention of many Navalists as an opportunity to call for the expansion of ship-owning among American corporations. This seemed to be a period of opportunity mainly because the American economy was in dire need of restoring its dominance in exportation oversees. To the Navalists, this need to regain commercial dominance on the seas also meant a chance to introduce the revolutionary naval technologies newly exploited by the British commerce and military fleets.

            The ensuing debate soon became not whether Americans should own ships, but whether Americans should build ships. The two schools of thought that formed were the Navalists, and those in support of the “free ship” theory. The “free ship” theory stated that it would be in the best interest of our economy to purchase superior quality ships from Britain and other sea-faring countries. This method they argued would allow shipping and ship-owning to increase while allowing the economy to focus on investing in the growth of other vital infrastructure while keeping away from threatening English superiority on the high seas. This concept was soon also coupled with the “free material” theory, which stated that if ships were to be built in America by American labor, that they should be built with materials imported from sea-faring countries. The Navalists on the other hand completely opposed both the “free ship” and “free material” theories completely. They claimed that if the United States was to undertake the development of a large and sophisticated shipping fleet, the U.S. should go as far as developing its interior resources, both natural and industrial, to liberate itself from any dependency on foreign ship production, thus establishing a large infrastructure of ship yards and ship-building components. In regards to          The impetus to expand the nation’s commerce fleet eventually yielded yet another question. Does the Navy require expansion in order to protect the interests of the American commerce fleet? After the Civil War, the Navy was left with no more than 60 ships, most of which were only fit for coastal defense. The existence of a blue-water navy was now being contemplated as the scope of our economic interests grew. Throughout the entirety of this debate, the Navalists continuously cited historical references in support of their argument, mainly references from the three largest wars fought by the nation up to that point in time ~ the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Of most importance to them was the lesson to be learned from the War of 1812. According to many American texts in the 1880’s, the growth of American shipping leading up to 1812 provoked the British to begin the practice of impressment and attacks on our commerce ships. For the Navalists, this meant that it expanding the Navy was simply a matter of observing historical precedence, and that the growth of American shipping would only yet again provoke an enemy like Britain to target our commerce. To counter this threat, it would only be common sense (and necessary) to build up a naval force capable of protecting and securing the interests of our foreign commerce. It is in this argument that we begin to see the traces of historical necessity.

            After regarding the socio-economic situation at hand, it is clear that Mahan began deriving his concepts in order to meet these demands. But there were other cultural and societal factors deep-rooted in the spirit of the American public that contributed to the origination and success of Mahan’s doctrine. The first was that of the Monroe doctrine, and of the notion that although expansion was welcome, Americans never were and never would become an abusive territorial empire on the continent. The fright that asserted itself with the notion of careful expansionism was twofold: the first being the fear in the presence of a standing army, and the second being the fear of eventually resembling a menacing continental European power.

Although Americans had embraced Manifest Destiny with open arms in the early 19th century, further continental expansion was unpopular, and like European wars of expansion, it would have required large armies, and long, protracted engagements. The West was won by 1880, and enterprises into neighboring Mexico or Canada were beyond feasibility. For this reason, the augmentation of the Navy as opposed to the creation of a standing army was a much more viable medium towards achieving political, territorial, and economic growth during the age of American Imperialism. America had now assumed the right to oversee the actions of its hemispheric neighbors rather than to conquer them. America’s territorial ambitions would take them elsewhere in the world.

            As can be seen, Mahan’s doctrine was set down as an outlet for the urges of imperialism and expansionism, a product of historical necessity. This historical necessity states that due to the desire of the nation to expand, the observance of historical precedence combined with society’s culturally imposed moral convictions, development and growth under Mahan’s ideas were inevitable.

II. Historical Inevitability

            The concept of historical necessity, or historical inevitability, requires in this case some clarification. To many historical philosophers, this concept may coincide with historical determinism, however it is vital to understand that the idea of historical inevitability is not in this context synonymous with determinism. We could better understand it through Hannah Arendt’s definition, which is addressed in her book On Revolution. In this text, Arendt argued that many events in history, revolutions included, are simply inevitable and are driven by societal forces which attain a momentum far beyond our control. Political revolutions are a prime example of historical necessity, but she explains that events which in nature are revolutionary or in essence innovative are also guided by this theory of inevitability, in that the impetus for these events to occur is sparked by societal forces and catalysts far beyond the sphere of human influence. The very astronomical connotation, arguably the first connotation of the word revolution, speaks of the words likeness to the idea of irresistibility. According to Arendt, “the notion of irresistibility, the fact that the revolving motion of the stars follows a preordained path and is removed from all influence of human power” (Arendt, page 37) provides the word with its strength and magnitude. The unfolding of revolutionary events is in fact irrevocable, but its removal “from all influence of human power” does not mean that events occur naturally or by means of metaphysical intervention. This removal from human influence refers to the idea that things will occur regardless of intent or desire. Therefore, it is clear that with the study of historical irresistability, it can be derived that even if Mahan was not to publish his theories in 1890, he would have done it eventually, and rather sooner than later. Or in another sense, if he was not the one to do it, someone would have. Just as the forces and angers of revolution ferment and eventually reach their breaking point through the manifestation of violence, the society in which Mahan lived emitted forces and attitudes which made the canonization of his doctrine inevitable.

III. Societal Analysis

Having now fully explained the concept of historical necessity, it is easier to understand how the forces of society shaped Mahan’s ideas. Beyond the strict historical analysis of Mahan’s era pertaining to the story of the Navalist and Free-Ship theories, it is also important to come to grips with the fundamentals of what societal qualities allowed America to venture for naval supremacy. It is clear that if Mahan had not identified these very qualities within the spirit and people of his own country, his enthusiasm to labor for the publication of his principles would perhaps be non-existent. In this regard, we see the work of the deep-rooted societal qualities which spurred Mahan onward.

Mahan identified elementary characteristics common among naval powers, and addressed their existence in the United States as sure justification for the growth of American sea control. The first of these characteristics is that of geography. With the conquest of the West, the United States now possessed vast coastlines on both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Most importantly however, the United States was comfortably distant from the turbulence and insecurity of European diplomacy. As identified by Clark G. Reynolds in his book Command of the Sea, “maritime nations have two important social advantages over continental powers, stemming from the natural accident of their geographic location” (Reynolds, page 5). These two advantages are national privacy, and the value placed on the worth of the individual.

National privacy is perhaps the absolute foundation for the development of a true naval power. As Reynolds explains “with no unfriendly powers poised on her borders, these [maritime] people enjoy something which continental people do not have ~ no large standing army or psychosis of impending attack” (Reynolds, page 5). This mere psychological advantage translates into a precious commodity ~ time. These maritime nations are separated by the space which is the sea, and thus are allotted more time and freedom for the development of their basic institutions. Institutions concerning the function of government, economy, and culture do not only develop more fully, but also tend to be fairly more democratic than their continental counterparts, and it is no coincidence. With so much emphasis placed on the constant defense of its borders, the continental society depends on the disciplining, training and mobilization of its manpower, which has generally tended to favor the formation of an authoritarian or totalitarian government. The landed ruling class, much more preoccupied with maintaining the status quo of their society has no time for nautical enterprises. This national privacy clearly allows for intellectual, technological, and cultural development at a pace which no other continental power can match. Essentially, the institutions which are embedded in these maritime societies soon become not only a part of the nation’s sea-going spirit, but in fact superior and more resilient in comparison to the institutions of continental powers. As an example, the English constitutional democracy has virtually survived 400 years, simply because while being untouched by outsiders, it was allowed to exercise its muscle, and its weaknesses and shortcomings were identified over time.

Simultaneously, maritime nations also enjoy the value placed upon the individual being, the creativity and energy which he brings not only to the democratic and economic processes of his country, but to the armed forces as well. Since long ago, navies have been an organization reliant not only upon the unity of its personnel, but also upon the ingenuity and determination of individuals in adverse situations, improvising when short on time, material, and/or doctrine. Mahan identifies that the qualities inherent in the blood of an ocean-going people are coincidentally the qualities of a fledging democratic society as well as a powerful navy. Maritime excursions, through their hazards and trials demand from individuals the very qualities which shape a great people. As identified by Reynolds much later, they are “discipline, creativity, and a high degree of practical intelligence” (Reynolds, page 6). To Mahan, the essence of thalassocratic individualism easily resembled the individualistic spirit which had become the cornerstone of the American Dream. The idea that one could choose his own destiny through hard work and determination regardless of their original social status excited and motivated Americans and foreigners alike. Just like the British who valued the ingenuity and relentless work ethic of the rugged individual, Mahan concluded that the American people possessed this same impulse for the rise of meritocracy and individuality. Navies, being institutions which espoused a rugged individualism seemed to Mahan to be the perfect institution through which the American work force could concentrate its energies.

The two advantages of American society thus aforementioned show how morally prepared America was to seek out naval power. The drive of the individual will however is particularly connected to the notion of historical irresistibility. The will to produce, and gain, and grow could not be bottled up much longer, and had reached a point where Mahan could identify it and thus postulate his theories because he deemed them now possible or achievable.

To Be Continued...

linkpost comment

(no subject) [Nov. 14th, 2008|04:27 pm]
why wont you understand that there's something about YOU and I that confuses the shit out of me. I know you think the best cure is waht you want. i know. and i wish i had more to say. more words. something to show you what is in my head. oh well.
linkpost comment

[ viewing | 10 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]