Response to Doug: Society, Morality and the Military

Doug/Sir . . . first of all, I want you to know that you are missed in class. Your perspective was always so thoughtfully rendered from your experiences and was refreshing and genuine. You always made me think. I hope all is well.

Now, as one military vet to another (if a Marine can grant such to a fly-boy), I question that the homosexual prohibition within our ranks has its most effective argument on the grounds of morality. I stress that this argument has no effect WITHIN the ranks. I will agree that the issue has moral relevance on the civilian side. I do not object just for what could be seen as the fun of drawing up a hair-splitting argument. I think this distinction is very important and it consequentially strikes at the notion you present that our military "should be a reflection of society, not a reflection of itself."

I feel the need to address the latter idea of what the military reflects, or "should reflect," in order to clear up our main issue of homosexuality. To begin, the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) does not follow, and in fact directly contradicts, the Constitution of our United States where it extends deeply into regulating human behavior and infringes upon those enumerated "certain unalienable rights" of its military members. The UCMJ regulates, well basically everything possible in human conduct, as you know: Article 125 prohibits the act of sodomy, even with a consensual spouse; Article 101 prohibits the "improper use of countersign" (a password used in the relief of sentries/guards on post); Article 134 is the famous "General Article," or the "catch all" article, which is phrased intentionally vague so as to afford superior ranks, and military prosecutors, an almost infinite, though discretionary, power to punitively enforce the "good order and discipline [of] the armed forces, [and] all conduct of a nature [that could] bring discredit upon the armed forces."

THE UCMJ IN ITS ENTIRETY:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm

Stringent? Yes. Necessary? There is no other way to conduct the serious task of disciplining and training a force, to the unimaginable degree that is necessary, in order to protect the citizens of our modern nation. The protectors of such a nation must be held accountable to an absolute and swift power, and a law, that reflects the nature of the war they must always anticipate. Military members necessarily stand outside the jewel of society that they protect; They are not civilians, and their ranks should not, as they necessarily do not, reflect the society of civilians that they protect.

Now for a fellow Marine, the scenario to follow would evoke an easy and immediate response-- I would think that someone who has never served would also easily be able to see the result of the following hypothetical(s). But, just to make sure I wasn't engaging in Jar-Headish thinking, I just got off the phone with my brother (who is a Captain in the Airforce) and he raised every objection I had to this idea of the military before I even got to raise them to him myself.

Imagine first: that "our military" were an actual "reflection of its society" where, it were composed of some approximation (to be fair) of an accurate socio-economic cross-section of its peoples. Would we force, or just permit, certain people unable to accomplish Marine training, etc., through the process just to have an accurate representation of the populace? Say, more reasonably, that the military were an accurate reflection of our society where its members could engage their superiors with rational free speech. What would happen to the "instant willingness for obedience to orders?" The necessary, instant, unquestioning obedience to orders? Ok, to be fair and charitable, what if all that was meant is that our military should reflect our society in that our society should have input on the values upheld within our military? Or maybe that our military should honorably reflect the moral justification for its existence and that of the nation it represents. To both of the last suggestions, in this context, I say: "Why ‘should’ one be made to reflect the other?" The polis, even if it found itself sufficiently equipped and educated to usefully inform its military, ought not ever even flirt with the idea that the practice of its own moral sentiment and liberty should find a like use when applied to understand the operations of the military or when installed into the actual operations of the military.

The moral liberties exercised within society, especially those of moral opining, do not make sense when applied to describe the nature of the military and would only serve to bog the efficient function of a properly constructed military. A moral code lacks empirical specificity. The definite (very Kantian) structure of an ethical demand points to a simple and singular source for its authority: the law/orders are to be immediately executed without interpretation or variation. All deviations have exact, known, and usually extreme consequences as a deterrent. A moral cannot perform the same function. A moral, at some point—and definitely at the point where the pressure to act or not has peaked, begs the question: “From where does this moral imperative gain its authority over me and my action?” An ethic points only to its authority in the law and ends consideration where punishment is sufficient. That a military “ought to” reflect anything outside the consideration of what composition is most necessary for it to serve in the defense of its nation, is an extraneous, irrelevant and dangerous moral add-on to a military system that would fail if its operations were made to have something to do with the vacillations inherent in moral interpretation.

Even though the values of a society may, indeed, end up being reflected in its military, this is the sum result of the values expressed of its military members in the performance of their black and white adherence to military duty. There is no moral component to consider. The Roman armies who openly celebrated the practice of homosexuality in their ranks, and who enjoyed successes on the battlefield, can be seen as successfully constructed militaries composed of a majority who valued “man-man” love. And though it may not be a pure comparison of armies and cultures, it is clear that no metaphysical moral proclamation is needed from any society so that it may impose its own reflection for some supposed betterment of its armed force. The question: Should homosexuals be allowed in the modern American military? Is answered in the playing out of the following, morally neutral, questions: Will the American military community be able accommodate open homosexuality into the necessity of its purpose? and Will the open admission of homosexuals into the American military add to or detract from its overall efficiency of purpose? Neither civilian society, nor any imposition of its morality will be able to answer these questions.

To everyone in our class: Comments/counter-arguements/points of clarification/general thoughts? Though I do argue this separation, I am a civilian now and do not wish to appear as saying that I only invite, or see as relevant, comments and ideas from those who have served, etc. I am interested, as I pull heavy from my experiences in the Marine Corps, to have input from those with different (hopefully very different) experiences and perspectives. Thanks.

Definition and Empirical Emphasis

Lets begin by better defining “perimeter.” Necessarily, the perimeter of an identity (paradigm/Psub1) is the demarcation line of what the brain can comprehend primarily by the use of language; Where, everything inside the perimeter, the brain can at least associate (rightly or wrongly, as the “true/” actual empirical world is concerned) with a known construct. Here, allow construct to mean everything from the most quantum unit to the entire lattice of quantum units hierarchically combined and associated within the mind. However this lattice is composed, whether in a well organized or in an extremely gapped arrangement, it’s most minute quantum constituent is allowed to remain/become a constituent due to its intelligibility. Our most primary mode of making our experiences (new and old) intelligible is association with foundational and inherited bundles of constituents (ex: we inherit language and it’s connotations and tones, which underlie a subconscious impartation to the brain . . . and other passively imparted quantum units exist as well). So, whatever can be (even passively/subconsciously) allowed to stick to the lattice of the mind, can only be allowed to do so through its intelligibility, whether it be by mode of language-inheritance or by some other more scientifically precise understanding of the brain’s operations. The perimeter defines the frontier of this intelligibility, per identity, so that the open ends of complex concepts, or quantum units, at the tips and tops and brand-new bases of the lattice begin to bleed off and fade into the unintelligible. This bleeding-off, or fading, is the foggy corners of certain thoughts which send us wanting for new information to round-out a theory, thought, etc or have us desperately craving for an association with already extant constructs. Anything conceived to have the possibility of being actualized (as an action, I assume you mean) within this perimeter is necessarily intelligible, and therefore it resides within the perimeter.

Outside the perimeter are those things at which our “open-ends” are pointing. Gaining new constructs augments, and or warps, the lattice (paradigm) as it as assimilates these new constructs and rearranges existing quantum units to other locations, redefines them in light of the new constructs, or counts them as redundant in light of the new, etc. Therefore, there is a distinction to be made between the processes of associating and rearranging constructs already intelligible (re-associating/organizing the mind) and that of incorporating something which was never intelligible before (migration).

An argument, you ask? We have evidence of our own migrations. We have carried these with us all our lives in memories of our differently composed identities, or phases of a person, we remember ourselves being (as in childhood) in the actions we performed on the convictions we had due to the perimeter of our identities relative to a period of time and to the size and shape of our paradigm at that particular moment. (I use 'phase' for the first time here as a more popular and palatable term for how a modern person might understand themselves as being composed of different identities throughout their life. The term palatability I use to mean exactly that . . . What tastes good to the individual . . . What is easy and agreeable to a particular macro-paradigm . . . What are each most likely to ingest when the requirement to think is diminished or removed?

It is not that there are false identities in the sense that, due to the constant motion of our mind’s migration, we must be static to have authentic identity. Quite to the contrary, an awareness of this migration may just allow an identity to become a more active participant within their own ongoing change (whether for the better or personal/communal harm it is very difficult to anticipate with limited, finite minds). The term “suspicion,” I will suppose was introduced in response to a reflection that certain processes composing who you are may be going on outside of your own awareness. This is an unnecessary and unhelpful term if it contains the element of fear which will permit the identity to accept paralysis or retreat from exploring itself. This analysis will not kill you; it will only tend to challenge the ordered, safe and comfortable perimeter of your paradigm which your self-preservation may interpret to be as threatening as death. If it is meant by “suspicion” that we must be rigorous in our standards as we take active control in guiding our paradigms, then, yes this is a complimentary reaction to such a philosophy.

As for what is meant in light of all this, as being better defined by what we are not, in relationship to what we think we are . . .

We must now know that we fundamentally do not have fixed identities. Why would our identities constantly migrate if we already possessed the power of everything there is to know—if were just the case that all that were needed is to properly arrange/order everything within the present paradigm? Obviously, as Peter Kingsley’s words seem to compliment, there is a longing taking place here. I do not find this some metaphysical longing of a soul . . . the notion of a soul is nothing but a complex of a particular identity’s association of inherited constructs to deal with its own unavoidable dynamic migration. We long because we are incomplete. We are incomplete because our understanding of ourselves in this universe is incomplete. Simply, we long and migrate because there is still room in which to move. We are better defined by what we are not, in view of what the cosmos still promises to tell us, because what we are is still out there. And so it is the shear size that I assume of the “unknown” beyond the perimeter of our most augmented macro-paradigm that necessarily defines us in relation to it.

What is to be said about a “metaphysical holding” as a subject of our predicated properties by substance dualists for grappling at the need for some continuity of identity? My current paradigm has no use for such a concept as the particular functions of such a metaphysical essence, should it exist, are completely unintelligible to me. When I/We are able to empirically approach these supposed operations with border-constructs (“open-ends”) founded on intermediate augmentations or great tangential leaps beyond the extant macro-paradigm, then such a concept may prove to be a beneficial pursuit in understanding who we are and why. From this current vantage though, I cannot make intelligible sense of how that would be useful, even if it is our reality within this universe. I acknowledge my perimeter while looking for ways to augment it empirically.

The only way I see there being a “problem” for a notion of self-consciousness being linked to personal identity is if identity is equated with existence. What I think I am, memories/knowledge erased or scrambled, etc . . . does not have bearing on what I am and have always been but do not currently perceive or have never perceived.

A brief hedge: I have just recently been approached about all sorts of Continental readings I am excited to engage. I started about these convictions primarily due to my reflections about myself (before even reading the term “phenomenology”) while attempting to transition from the Marine Corps back into civilian life and an academic environment. I wish for the time/job to research and write and develop these ideas in the best scientific theory and most powerful thinkers on the subject. I think we can make real progress in the pursuit of these truths about ourselves.