NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay I lied. I'm really nervous about posting this...

As those of you who've seen my few posts no doubt realize, one of my major focuses in life is conflict and the resolution thereof. As such I've made quite an extensive library of books, manuals and other articles that focus on the many aspects of conflict; military or otherwise. I focus more on theory and its practical application than the simple history of conflict because I seek to better understand how to successfully resolve conflicts with the minimum of fuss and mess.

My question then is this; is anyone here similarly interested? I've noticed a number of Military Vetrans on the forums and their imput would probably invaluable for my studies. I also have had many discussions with Pascifists and I've found some of their theories on non-violent conflict resolution to be quite useful. Also, I've seen people who have experience with such books as The Prince, The art of War, Clauswitz, and other such texts. Martial Art methods, theories and philosphies are appreciated as well.

I have no agenda in this other than my own improvement. This isn't for school or anything like that; I'm just a hardcore geek who is truly enthralled with the subject of human conflict and its resolution. I seek discussions on any aspects of the subject you can think of, I would like reccomendations on books to read or movies to watch, invitations to seek help or get a life are expected ;)

Thanks all, for your time and consideration.

May I recommend Choice Theory by William Glasser? Its a very simple read.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It contains many general principles that can be used in both violent and non-violent contexts.

I like the Amtrak Wars,
I like the way throughout the book there is conflicting human, race conflict as well as social conflict. Really interesting how it all combines into a great series of books.

Will think about others once I have made another tea. Damn tea bag broke. :(

"Vom Krieg". Clausewitz is the best in explaining the inner logic of war.

If you're going to draw on Machiavelli's The Prince you really have to read his Discourses as well. Given that The Prince is just an extended appeal for a job, it would be useful to read it knowing Machiavelli's real opinion of princes and power politics.

Also good would be The White Flag Principle: how to lose a war (and why) by Shimon Tzabar, and On the Psychology of Military Incompetence by Norman Dixon.

Are you familiar with the works of Paul Virilio? Fascinating stuff about the effects of the twentieth century being one long war.

Joseph A. Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies" deals, as the title suggests, with the collapse of complex societies. Parts of it deal with the way nations address conflicts. It might be interesting as a broad overview of some of the mechanisms behind the games that civilisations play.

A veryu short reading list - more to come later...

Classics:
Good old Niccolo - read widely, and in as many translatiojns as you can, and in Itallian if you can.

Sun Tsu - lots of English translations, I prefer S. Griffith

The Peloponnesian War - again read several translations

Modern Classics:
Actung - Panzer!
Everything you can lay your hands on by B.H. Liddell Hart.
Jim Dunnigan

Rommel's book on Infrantry attacks. Sorry but I blanked on the title.....

Rommel's book on Infrantry attacks. Sorry but I blanked on the title.....

Assuming that was straight up, and I didn*t get swooshed, the title was Infantry Attacks.

Thanks for all the good suggestions! I suspected there was a wealth of knowledge out there I could tap. Unfortunately my primary language is English. I have some Japanese proficiency, but not sufficient to make serious reading of texts worthwhile. My Italian is horrible, as is my German, and the less said about my command of Chinese the better (I once accidentally called my female "teacher" an "old man" due to a pronounciation error ;) ).

As mentioned previously, I have read The art of war by Sun-Tzu, 13 different translations of it to be exact. That was my introduction into the Chinese and Japanese schools of military thought. I've studied the Wu-Tzu, Wei Liao-Tzu, The Sun-Pin Ping Fa (the great-grandson of Sun-Tzu! His book was just discovered 20 or so years ago after centuries of being thought lost to history!), the T'ai Kung and the Ssu-ma Ping Fa from China.

I've only read the Book of Five Rings, the Life Giving Sword and the Hagekure from Japan. I hear there are significant texts in Japanese that I should read, anyone know if some have been translated? (from what I've heard, there are some truly wonderful texts from Korea floating around, I'm keenly interested in locating some titles)

I've read The Prince, the Discourses, The art of war (Machievelli wrote one too!), and Mandragolia by Machievelli as well. I've only obtained one copy of the Discourses for myself and the translation is poorly done in my opinion; does anyone know of a good translation? I've got the Penguin classics version. I somehow lost my best copy of the Prince, so now I'm down to four copies. (see? I told you I'm a geek) Also, does anyone know if his 'histories' that he wrote for the pope have been translated into English?

I've read Von Clausewitz's On War, is that what you meant? If I remember my notes correctly, thats the only book Clausewitz wrote, so I'm pretty sure I've read it.

Wow. So many new books to track down. I'm indebted to you guys. I've read Jim Dunnigan's books and I've heard of Paul Virilio (may have read some of his works) as well as Joseph A. Tainter.

A couple of questions:

Choice Theory by William Glasser: What 'section' of a Library or bookstore would I likely find this in? It sounds like an acidemic phsycology study.

The Peloponnesian War: I've heard of and have read excerpts from a book by this title...but I'm unsure of who wrote it or if it is one specific book, as I own several books on the subject.

Glasser is the founder of Reality Therapy. So you'll find it under psychology texts.

More Von Clausewitz:
The Campaign of 1812 in Russia
Principles of War (http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/PrincWar/Princwr1.htm)

The History of the Peloponnesian War was written by Thucydides and reads like Aristotle.... ;)

More Current writters:
Edward N. Luttwak (Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace is a good starting place)
Ralph Peters (Mostly articles, often critical of US policy)
James Dunnigan (again :) How to Make War is excellent.)

I've read both Art's of War (Macchiavelli's, and Sung Tsu's). Both of them have very little practical application to modern military thought, sadly. I liked Rommel's Infantry Tactics, and De Gaulle's books.

Okay I lied. I'm really nervous about posting this...

As those of you who've seen my few posts no doubt realize, one of my major focuses in life is conflict and the resolution thereof. As such I've made quite an extensive library of books, manuals and other articles that focus on the many aspects of conflict; military or otherwise. I focus more on theory and its practical application than the simple history of conflict because I seek to better understand how to successfully resolve conflicts with the minimum of fuss and mess.

My question then is this; is anyone here similarly interested? I've noticed a number of Military Vetrans on the forums and their imput would probably invaluable for my studies. I also have had many discussions with Pascifists and I've found some of their theories on non-violent conflict resolution to be quite useful. Also, I've seen people who have experience with such books as The Prince, The art of War, Clauswitz, and other such texts. Martial Art methods, theories and philosphies are appreciated as well.

I have no agenda in this other than my own improvement. This isn't for school or anything like that; I'm just a hardcore geek who is truly enthralled with the subject of human conflict and its resolution. I seek discussions on any aspects of the subject you can think of, I would like reccomendations on books to read or movies to watch, invitations to seek help or get a life are expected ;)

Thanks all, for your time and consideration.

I'm interested in a similar field, the nature of authority as pertains to human interaction. I find that conflict resolution often stems from the nature of the relationship between the conflicting parties, often it is the deciding factor. In any conflict the winner (if there can be said to be a winner) will be the one who is able to inflict more damage on their opponent than they themself recieve, within reasonable limits (you can't lose everything you've got even if it's less than what your opponent loses and still count it as a win). With that said the genesis if authority within any given relationship can be very fascinating. Simple sources of authority, such as guns or physical strength, are often ignored in discussions of authority. Most people think more about sanctioned or submitted authority, such as a citizen has for his state. The difference between voluntary submission to authority and forced submission is often a source of conflict. The use or display of force is an attempt to assert authority over others when they would not voluntarilty submit themselves to that authority. Conflicts arise primarily from lack of understanding on the part of one member of the conflict or the other such that both are convinced that they have greater authority over the other, or over the contested property (intellectual, physical, or otherwise). As before, the sources of these misunderstandings can be quite fascinating as well as the dynamic relationship of two forces in conflict as they move and change throughout their engagement.

Personally I recommend the Daodejing and the Zhuang Tzu. It's the religous writings of Taoism, the religion soley based on it's agressiveness through passiveness. But I'm biased because I am a Taoist.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It contains many general principles that can be used in both violent and non-violent contexts.
that is great for understanding many basic business principles.

you like conflict eh?

http://www.thingsmygirlfriendandihavearguedabout.com/

:D

Margret thinks I'm vain because... I use a mirror when I shave. During this argument in the bathroom - our fourth most popular location for arguments, it will delight and charm you to learn - Margret proved that shaving with a mirror could only be seen as outrageous narcissism by saying, 'None of the other men I've been with,' (my, but it's all I can do to stop myself hugging her when she begins sentences like that) 'None of the other men I've been with used a mirror to shave.'
'Ha! Difficult to check up on that, isn't it? As all the other men you've been with can now only communicate by blinking their eyes!' I said. Much later. When Margret had left the house.

LMAO!!!

Personally I recommend the Daodejing and the Zhuang Tzu. It's the religous writings of Taoism, the religion soley based on it's agressiveness through passiveness. But I'm biased because I am a Taoist.

Yay! Someone else has read those! I've especially enjoyed everything I've read from the Zhuang Tzu (I have an incomplete version, perhaps 3/4ths of the book.) Do you know of a good english translation?

I'm interested in a similar field, the nature of authority as pertains to human interaction. I find that conflict resolution often stems from the nature of the relationship between the conflicting parties, often it is the deciding factor. In any conflict the winner (if there can be said to be a winner) will be the one who is able to inflict more damage on their opponent than they themself recieve, within reasonable limits (you can't lose everything you've got even if it's less than what your opponent loses and still count it as a win).

With that said the genesis if authority within any given relationship can be very fascinating. Most people think more about sanctioned or submitted authority, such as a citizen has for his state. The difference between voluntary submission to authority and forced submission is often a source of conflict. The use or display of force is an attempt to assert authority over others when they would not voluntarilty submit themselves to that authority.

Conflicts arise primarily from lack of understanding on the part of one member of the conflict or the other such that both are convinced that they have greater authority over the other, or over the contested property (intellectual, physical, or otherwise). As before, the sources of these misunderstandings can be quite fascinating as well as the dynamic relationship of two forces in conflict as they move and change throughout their engagement.

A related field to be sure, and one I have dabbled in on occasion. Forgive me if my theories in the subject are not as well thought out as they could be...

"Simple sources of authority, such as guns or physical strength, are often ignored in discussions of authority."

I find this to be very true, allow me to provide a small example from my own studies. In The Book of Five Rings, the author describes a sense of powerful authority that must eminate from the fencer during a particular move (which he calls in the translation I've read a tut-TUT! move). The tut-TUT! move uses a kind of double tap with your sword against your opponent's, knocking the sword from their hand. The sword becomes a tool or method of conducting one's authority in a fencing match in this way.

I've found that most major treatsies on warfare deal with the subject if authority in a variety of ways, the Chinese manuals in particular express a number of concepts and varieties of authority in many contexts. Not just the authority of the officers and troops, but the leader and the people, the allies and enemies, and the minds of the two leading generals.

Oof. I've got to be up in five hours. I need sleep. I'm interested in hearing more about your studies into the subject.

Personally I recommend the Daodejing and the Zhuang Tzu. It's the religous writings of Taoism, the religion soley based on it's agressiveness through passiveness. But I'm biased because I am a Taoist.

Yay! Someone else has read those! I've especially enjoyed everything I've read from the Zhuang Tzu (I have an incomplete version, perhaps 3/4ths of the book.) Do you know of a good english translation?

Actually there are plenty of good online translations. I'd have to look them up again

Took me a moment to realize you were talking of who I know as Chuang Tsu. You may find better luck under that transliteration.... :D

My best advice is, live what you talk about...only you can really make changes of how you want things.

If your interested in conflict, rather than just military strategy, then i recomend reading Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzche.

I'm interested in a similar field, the nature of authority as pertains to human interaction. I find that conflict resolution often stems from the nature of the relationship between the conflicting parties, often it is the deciding factor. In any conflict the winner (if there can be said to be a winner) will be the one who is able to inflict more damage on their opponent than they themself recieve, within reasonable limits (you can't lose everything you've got even if it's less than what your opponent loses and still count it as a win).

With that said the genesis if authority within any given relationship can be very fascinating. Most people think more about sanctioned or submitted authority, such as a citizen has for his state. The difference between voluntary submission to authority and forced submission is often a source of conflict. The use or display of force is an attempt to assert authority over others when they would not voluntarilty submit themselves to that authority.

Conflicts arise primarily from lack of understanding on the part of one member of the conflict or the other such that both are convinced that they have greater authority over the other, or over the contested property (intellectual, physical, or otherwise). As before, the sources of these misunderstandings can be quite fascinating as well as the dynamic relationship of two forces in conflict as they move and change throughout their engagement.

A related field to be sure, and one I have dabbled in on occasion. Forgive me if my theories in the subject are not as well thought out as they could be...

"Simple sources of authority, such as guns or physical strength, are often ignored in discussions of authority."

I find this to be very true, allow me to provide a small example from my own studies. In The Book of Five Rings, the author describes a sense of powerful authority that must eminate from the fencer during a particular move (which he calls in the translation I've read a tut-TUT! move). The tut-TUT! move uses a kind of double tap with your sword against your opponent's, knocking the sword from their hand. The sword becomes a tool or method of conducting one's authority in a fencing match in this way.

I've found that most major treatsies on warfare deal with the subject if authority in a variety of ways, the Chinese manuals in particular express a number of concepts and varieties of authority in many contexts. Not just the authority of the officers and troops, but the leader and the people, the allies and enemies, and the minds of the two leading generals.

Oof. I've got to be up in five hours. I need sleep. I'm interested in hearing more about your studies into the subject.

In personal combat, the assertion of authority is often the deciding factor. I think the place this is most evident is in Samurai duels. Duels using Samurai swords hinge almost entirely on the first strike. If you strike your enemy before they strike you chances are they will die and be unable to strike you back. Thus the time before actual engagement in which the two combatants faced each other was very important. Nearly every fight was decided before it actually began by one fighter or the other asserting his authority over the other and in essense, declaring himself the victor.

Unfortunately most of my studies on the subject have been merely applying concepts to my own experience and my other areas of interest. I have not found, nor really searched, for any writing on the subject by others. Truth be told I'm relly more interested in the applications of understanding authority than in a scholarly research of it. Primarily my goal would be to find ways to escape the authority of others, or to assert my own authority in situations where I would otherwise be subservient. Taking the position that there must be a dominant and a submissive party in any relationship I suppose that an understanding of the nature of the relationship and authority would allow one to become the dominant party more often than not.

Historical evidence shows us that the people who are capable of commanding the greatest authority are capable of asserting their views onto the world in the greatest way and becoming the most memorable figures in history. The primary searchof every living organism is further life, and thus immortality is ideal. Biological immortality would be impractical at best, but genetic or conceptual immortality has a similarly strong pull. The urge to have children is the genes' way of pushing for immortality. The wish to be remembered after one's death is the mind's way of striving for immortality. Each dynamic system within the universe is attempting to become immortal, continuously. Most of these systems are able to maintain themselves for great lengths of time by one means or another, but few if any are truly immortal. In a strange way (one which I find pretty creepy) my studies of authority are my subconscious' way of trying to become immortal by empowering me to make my mark in history.

Anyway... that was kind of weird, because none of that was thought out before I wrote it. Boy, you learn something new every day, but you don't figure it'll be about yourself. :?

Yup, Nietzsche is great:

Throughout the Genealogy, Nietzsche rants against "the antisemites who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan bourgeois manner," and at the conclusion of the work, explodes mercilessly against the whole of modern Germany, including Duhring, Renan and the contemporary Lutheran state-church. He crucifies the "worms of vengefulness and rancor" that swarm on the soil of modern Europe, describing anti-Semites as "moral masturbators," "hangmen" and as those who represent the "will to power of the weakest": "They are all men of ressentiment, physiologically unfortunate and worm-eaten ... inexhaustible and insatiable in outbursts against the fortunate and happy."

Historically, the myth of the Germanic-Aryan race was formed and promoted by racial theorists such as Gobineau, Wagner and Renan well before the Genealogy appeared. In the Genealogy, Nietzsche was entering the political dialogue of his time, presenting an alternative version of the Aryan master race; a version that would have inflamed anti-Jewish racists. In the texts, Nietzsche severs the Germanic bloodline from Aryan humanity ("between the old Germanic tribes and us Germans there exists hardly a conceptual relationship, let alone one of blood"),60 proclaims mixed races instead (the blond beast is at the bottom of all "noble races," including "the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, and the Scandinavian Vikings")6l and exalts the Jews over the Germans ("one only has to compare similarly gifted nations - the Chinese or the Germans, for instance - with the Jews, to sense which is of the first and which of the fifth rank").62 Although decades later the Nazis uplifted terms like the "blond beast" to create the illusion that Nietzsche supported Aryan racial supremacy, Nietzsche was, in fact, opposing the actual precursors of the Third Reich, of which Nazi leaders were well aware. Initially, Nietzsche used the term "blond beast" when referring to the state and the Christian church of the Middle Ages.63

Yup, Nietzsche is great:

Throughout the Genealogy, Nietzsche rants against "the antisemites who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan bourgeois manner," and at the conclusion of the work, explodes mercilessly against the whole of modern Germany, including Duhring, Renan and the contemporary Lutheran state-church. He crucifies the "worms of vengefulness and rancor" that swarm on the soil of modern Europe, describing anti-Semites as "moral masturbators," "hangmen" and as those who represent the "will to power of the weakest": "They are all men of ressentiment, physiologically unfortunate and worm-eaten ... inexhaustible and insatiable in outbursts against the fortunate and happy."

Historically, the myth of the Germanic-Aryan race was formed and promoted by racial theorists such as Gobineau, Wagner and Renan well before the Genealogy appeared. In the Genealogy, Nietzsche was entering the political dialogue of his time, presenting an alternative version of the Aryan master race; a version that would have inflamed anti-Jewish racists. In the texts, Nietzsche severs the Germanic bloodline from Aryan humanity ("between the old Germanic tribes and us Germans there exists hardly a conceptual relationship, let alone one of blood"),60 proclaims mixed races instead (the blond beast is at the bottom of all "noble races," including "the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, and the Scandinavian Vikings")6l and exalts the Jews over the Germans ("one only has to compare similarly gifted nations - the Chinese or the Germans, for instance - with the Jews, to sense which is of the first and which of the fifth rank").62 Although decades later the Nazis uplifted terms like the "blond beast" to create the illusion that Nietzsche supported Aryan racial supremacy, Nietzsche was, in fact, opposing the actual precursors of the Third Reich, of which Nazi leaders were well aware. Initially, Nietzsche used the term "blond beast" when referring to the state and the Christian church of the Middle Ages.63

:roll: Yet another muppet trying to turn a discussion of philosophy into an attack on nationalism... Like i said, in response to the thread starters question, i believe Nietzsche's view on conflict and dominance; more specifically his belief in the superman, will to power, etc, are very good. His political beliefs are irrelevant to that fact, and ive never understood his slightly warped logic for some of his beliefs. You will also find that Nietzsche's philosophy had a very large effect on Hitler, as anyone who's read mein kampf will know.

Attack on nationalism? Far from it. I'm very much a supporter of nationalism. What I'm against is supremacism. Nationalism is what Germany practiced before the rise of Nazism; Nationalism is what inspired many Jews to fight for their country, Germany, in World War 1. Racial supremacism, on the other hand, is anti-Nationalist, for it discriminates against patriotic members of a nation, such as those Jews who fought for their country, considered themselves proud Germans, and were then sent to their deaths by the supremacist Nazis.

Attack on nationalism? Far from it. I'm very much a supporter of nationalism. What I'm against is supremacism. Nationalism is what Germany practiced before the rise of Nazism; Nationalism is what inspired many Jews to fight for their country, Germany, in World War 1. Racial supremacism, on the other hand, is anti-Nationalist, for it discriminates against patriotic members of a nation, such as those Jews who fought for their country, considered themselves proud Germans, and were then sent to their deaths by the supremacist Nazis.

You can only be a nationalist of the nation you belong to. Jews are not German and never have been. German is a distinct ethnicity, as are Jews, that cannot be conveyed through the mere fact of place of birth, slips of paper, etc.

In personal combat, the assertion of authority is often the deciding factor. I think the place this is most evident is in Samurai duels. Duels using Samurai swords hinge almost entirely on the first strike. If you strike your enemy before they strike you chances are they will die and be unable to strike you back. Thus the time before actual engagement in which the two combatants faced each other was very important. Nearly every fight was decided before it actually began by one fighter or the other asserting his authority over the other and in essense, declaring himself the victor.

**laughs** You couldn't have picked a better example; even though I may have led you to it by talking about Musashi.

I'm actually a Iaido and Kenjutsu student, the "hit and get out clean" and "command of a situation" aspect of both forms have inspired many a discussion in my experience. Where skill disparity is great, I can even predict a winner before a match; though I cannot compare to the Samurai films where two Samurai walk up to one another for the first time and predict the outcome of their fight, "You cannot defeat me." ;).


Unfortunately most of my studies on the subject have been merely applying concepts to my own experience and my other areas of interest. I have not found, nor really searched, for any writing on the subject by others. Truth be told I'm relly more interested in the applications of understanding authority than in a scholarly research of it. Primarily my goal would be to find ways to escape the authority of others, or to assert my own authority in situations where I would otherwise be subservient. Taking the position that there must be a dominant and a submissive party in any relationship I suppose that an understanding of the nature of the relationship and authority would allow one to become the dominant party more often than not.

Dominance as a view of immortality is one thing; but I would advise that a wise person would know when to be dominant and when to be submissive. There are times when the harmony that dominance breaks down is more important than the control that dominance of a situation can give you.

Let me put this in our swordplay analogy; Just as the Tut-tut! strike is a firey and hard hit that is designed to ensure dominance, there are also apects of swordplay that involve flowing motion and redirection that a dominant personality would have difficulty achieving. You've probably heard of Bruce Lee's "Be like water" speech right? If a smaller person fights a larger one, they would be better served to use their oppoenents dominant power against them. Sometimes being dominant is the same as being hard and brittle, easier to break than that which is malleable.

So then the best dominance of a situation would to be knowing when to be soft or hard, pliant or strong. To seek domination of a given situation is sometimes needed, but I would suggest that the truly wise would size up a situation and assess their own ability to deal with it and compare that to those with them. Thus the situation you find yourself in is addressed by whomever is most capable.

Mad poets and Aryan Supremacy, thanks! I am indeed interested in much more than simple military strategy; I hope to find many works such as the one you mentioned to further my understanding.

Several years ago I recived a collection of Nietzche works as a gift and much to my embarassment I have not read it yet. Your posts reminded me to go find that thing and show it the light of day. I'll read it and perhaps then I'll be able to add my own insights into his work and his philosophies.

Tell you what; I'll post a small discussion of what I've found when I'm done.

In personal combat, the assertion of authority is often the deciding factor. I think the place this is most evident is in Samurai duels. Duels using Samurai swords hinge almost entirely on the first strike. If you strike your enemy before they strike you chances are they will die and be unable to strike you back. Thus the time before actual engagement in which the two combatants faced each other was very important. Nearly every fight was decided before it actually began by one fighter or the other asserting his authority over the other and in essense, declaring himself the victor.

**laughs** You couldn't have picked a better example; even though I may have led you to it by talking about Musashi.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I haven't really read everything in the thread so far. Really I haven't read much beyond the original post and the responses to my own comment.

I'm actually a Iaido and Kenjutsu student, the "hit and get out clean" and "command of a situation" aspect of both forms have inspired many a discussion in my experience. Where skill disparity is great, I can even predict a winner before a match; though I cannot compare to the Samurai films where two Samurai walk up to one another for the first time and predict the outcome of their fight, "You cannot defeat me." ;).


Unfortunately most of my studies on the subject have been merely applying concepts to my own experience and my other areas of interest. I have not found, nor really searched, for any writing on the subject by others. Truth be told I'm relly more interested in the applications of understanding authority than in a scholarly research of it. Primarily my goal would be to find ways to escape the authority of others, or to assert my own authority in situations where I would otherwise be subservient. Taking the position that there must be a dominant and a submissive party in any relationship I suppose that an understanding of the nature of the relationship and authority would allow one to become the dominant party more often than not.

Dominance as a view of immortality is one thing; but I would advise that a wise person would know when to be dominant and when to be submissive. There are times when the harmony that dominance breaks down is more important than the control that dominance of a situation can give you.

Let me put this in our swordplay analogy; Just as the Tut-tut! strike is a firey and hard hit that is designed to ensure dominance, there are also apects of swordplay that involve flowing motion and redirection that a dominant personality would have difficulty achieving. You've probably heard of Bruce Lee's "Be like water" speech right? If a smaller person fights a larger one, they would be better served to use their oppoenents dominant power against them. Sometimes being dominant is the same as being hard and brittle, easier to break than that which is malleable.

So then the best dominance of a situation would to be knowing when to be soft or hard, pliant or strong. To seek domination of a given situation is sometimes needed, but I would suggest that the truly wise would size up a situation and assess their own ability to deal with it and compare that to those with them. Thus the situation you find yourself in is addressed by whomever is most capable.

The idea of temporarily submitting to allow for future dominance is not unfamiliar. For the sake of final victory sacrifices must often be made. Life and death combat situations simplify the issue by putting nearly everything in the "acceptable," or "sacrificable" column. Honor codes are an interesting complication because they are no more binding than a person allows them to be and yet people often die because they are unwilling or uncapable of breaking their honor. Honor codes, as well as other moral or ethical codes are a system of authority beyond the simple life/death systems of everyday life. These systems are the imposition of human consciousness on top of the animal instincts humans are born with. (and now we're branching into another area of interest for me, physchology and the brain). The majority of the work of the conscious mind is imposing non-instinctual rules onto the sub-conscious. To take terms from the great and mysterious Timothy Leary, the conscious programmer programs the unconscious or subconscious robot on top of its built in instinct programs. In many ways religion is the struggle between the conscious and the unconscious over control of the body. The conscious has no particular reason for making the rules it makes, but once it has made them it must enforce them with an iron fist to maintain its authority over the unconscious. This internal battle has been catalogued, most notably by Freud and can be seen in common life in the form of Freudian slips and other strange behavior, as well as in emergency situations when people's lower circuit imprints are activated. (imprint physchology is the most confusing thing i've ever read about, so don't worry if the things i'm saying don't make any sense). In effect the conscious and unconscious are like squabling siblings. When there are no outside pressures they fight with each other, but when an outside force comes to threaten them both they work together seamlessly to avoid the danger. Many philosophies stress the necessity of the dominance of conscious over unconscious (Buddhism) or vice-versa (some Pagan religion, hedonism). In essense each philosophy is an extreme position as to which force should be dominant and which submissive in the consicous/unconscious duality.

I seem to have gotten a bit off topic... Interpersonal conflict mirror the intrapersonal conflict taking place withing every person and can be treated in much the same way. I'm not sure how that can be meaningfully applied, but it seems to be true.

[/confusing rant]

You will also find that Nietzsche's philosophy had a very large effect on Hitler, as anyone who's read mein kampf will know.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that Hitler read a single word of Nietzsche's work, even when he visited the Nietzsche museum. The only influence Nietzsche would have had on him was as filtered through his rabidly anti-semitic sister, Elizabeth Nietzsche, who took to editing his last work "The Will To Power", but was generally viewed by the academic community as fundamentally misunderstanding nearly all of her brother's ideas.

"You couldn't have picked a better example; even though I may have led you to it by talking about Musashi."

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I haven't really read everything in the thread so far. Really I haven't read much beyond the original post and the responses to my own comment.

Actually you did read the part where I talked about Musashi, though you didn't realize it. Miyamoto Musashi is the Author of the "Book of Five Rings" which is where I first learned about the Tut-tut! strike. Sorry about the confusion.


The idea of temporarily submitting to allow for future dominance is not unfamiliar. For the sake of final victory sacrifices must often be made. Life and death combat situations simplify the issue by putting nearly everything in the "acceptable," or "sacrificable" column. Honor codes are an interesting complication because they are no more binding than a person allows them to be and yet people often die because they are unwilling or uncapable of breaking their honor.

Honor codes, as well as other moral or ethical codes are a system of authority beyond the simple life/death systems of everyday life. These systems are the imposition of human consciousness on top of the animal instincts humans are born with. (and now we're branching into another area of interest for me, physchology and the brain). The majority of the work of the conscious mind is imposing non-instinctual rules onto the sub-conscious. To take terms from the great and mysterious Timothy Leary, the conscious programmer programs the unconscious or subconscious robot on top of its built in instinct programs.

In many ways religion is the struggle between the conscious and the unconscious over control of the body. The conscious has no particular reason for making the rules it makes, but once it has made them it must enforce them with an iron fist to maintain its authority over the unconscious. This internal battle has been catalogued, most notably by Freud and can be seen in common life in the form of Freudian slips and other strange behavior, as well as in emergency situations when people's lower circuit imprints are activated. (imprint physchology is the most confusing thing i've ever read about, so don't worry if the things i'm saying don't make any sense). In effect the conscious and unconscious are like squabling siblings. When there are no outside pressures they fight with each other, but when an outside force comes to threaten them both they work together seamlessly to avoid the danger.

I seem to have gotten a bit off topic... Interpersonal conflict mirror the intrapersonal conflict taking place withing every person and can be treated in much the same way. I'm not sure how that can be meaningfully applied, but it seems to be true.
[/confusing rant]

I'm reasonably well-versed in the concepts of consious-subconsious interaction and override systems with imprint settings. Again, we can take this to the micro and macro levels; martial artists at high levels of skill usually have a fluidity of motion that comes from practice. What that practice has done is "taught" the subconcious functions of the brain the actions- "When someone throws a punch: take their right arm and left leg off and beat them about the head with them." With good practice, your body acts almost of its own accord; similar to the Zen "No-mind" state, were action is taken without concious thought.

In the macro setting, the calls for nation-wide unity during a crisis period reflect this same interaction, unite against danger; unite to promote a common goal, the concious and unconcious reactions of citizens (or muscles) needn't only be described of in a warlike setting of course, but I started this thread dangit and I'll darn well keep it on topic.

You mention the psycology of civil and martial codes, are you familiar with the early history of them in the various culture centers of the ancient world? Its an interesting topic to take a look at; various cultures defined concepts and institutions in their lives at nearly the same time across the globe from one another. Also, have you looked into the psycology of conflict avoidance in modern societies?

"You couldn't have picked a better example; even though I may have led you to it by talking about Musashi."

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that I haven't really read everything in the thread so far. Really I haven't read much beyond the original post and the responses to my own comment.

Actually you did read the part where I talked about Musashi, though you didn't realize it. Miyamoto Musashi is the Author of the "Book of Five Rings" which is where I first learned about the Tut-tut! strike. Sorry about the confusion.

Ah, didn't realize. I've read Eiji Yoshikawa's Musashi which has some interesting Musashi history, as well as being wholely enjoyable.

The idea of temporarily submitting to allow for future dominance is not unfamiliar. For the sake of final victory sacrifices must often be made. Life and death combat situations simplify the issue by putting nearly everything in the "acceptable," or "sacrificable" column. Honor codes are an interesting complication because they are no more binding than a person allows them to be and yet people often die because they are unwilling or uncapable of breaking their honor.

Honor codes, as well as other moral or ethical codes are a system of authority beyond the simple life/death systems of everyday life. These systems are the imposition of human consciousness on top of the animal instincts humans are born with. (and now we're branching into another area of interest for me, physchology and the brain). The majority of the work of the conscious mind is imposing non-instinctual rules onto the sub-conscious. To take terms from the great and mysterious Timothy Leary, the conscious programmer programs the unconscious or subconscious robot on top of its built in instinct programs.

In many ways religion is the struggle between the conscious and the unconscious over control of the body. The conscious has no particular reason for making the rules it makes, but once it has made them it must enforce them with an iron fist to maintain its authority over the unconscious. This internal battle has been catalogued, most notably by Freud and can be seen in common life in the form of Freudian slips and other strange behavior, as well as in emergency situations when people's lower circuit imprints are activated. (imprint physchology is the most confusing thing i've ever read about, so don't worry if the things i'm saying don't make any sense). In effect the conscious and unconscious are like squabling siblings. When there are no outside pressures they fight with each other, but when an outside force comes to threaten them both they work together seamlessly to avoid the danger.

I seem to have gotten a bit off topic... Interpersonal conflict mirror the intrapersonal conflict taking place withing every person and can be treated in much the same way. I'm not sure how that can be meaningfully applied, but it seems to be true.
[/confusing rant]

I'm reasonably well-versed in the concepts of consious-subconsious interaction and override systems with imprint settings. Again, we can take this to the micro and macro levels; martial artists at high levels of skill usually have a fluidity of motion that comes from practice. What that practice has done is "taught" the subconcious functions of the brain the actions- "When someone throws a punch: take their right arm and left leg off and beat them about the head with them." With good practice, your body acts almost of its own accord; similar to the Zen "No-mind" state, were action is taken without concious thought.

Muscle memory is somewhat weird in relation to the conscious/unconscious dichotomy, because reflexive muscle movement is even below the unconsicous. Muscles can act without any signal from the brain in response to pain or other sudden stimuli based on sub-neural instincts. The greatest martial artists have essentially made all their moves into this sort of sub-neural instinct so that they don't have to think, while still maintaining the ability to step in consciously or unconsciously to change tactics where necessary.

In the macro setting, the calls for nation-wide unity during a crisis period reflect this same interaction, unite against danger; unite to promote a common goal, the concious and unconcious reactions of citizens (or muscles) needn't only be described of in a warlike setting of course, but I started this thread dangit and I'll darn well keep it on topic.

All organism (I consider societies organism of a certain sort) seem to behave in basically the same ways. All the same sort of things we've been talking about with the conscious and unconscious minds and sub-neural reflexes can be seen on a societal level. An invasion, for instance is reacted to immediately at the site without the need for governmental (conscious mind) action. At the same time the government can shape tactics and strategy for the society as a whole in an engagement, and social morals or the prevailing philosophy (the unconscious) tend to guide the goverment's actions as well as the actions of individual members of society.

If there's one thing I've learned from my time on NS it's that staying on topic is impossible for more than a page or two. If there's a second thing, it's that discussion evolve as needed so that they can continue despite the limitted nature of any given topic. (more in the way of dynamic systems attempting to live forever).

You mention the psycology of civil and martial codes, are you familiar with the early history of them in the various culture centers of the ancient world? Its an interesting topic to take a look at; various cultures defined concepts and institutions in their lives at nearly the same time across the globe from one another. Also, have you looked into the psycology of conflict avoidance in modern societies?

I am not familiar with the history of civil and martial codes except in a vague way, and I have not seen anything significant abot conflict avoidance in modern societies.

I'd like to take a moment to say that this has been the most satisfying conversation I've had here on NationStates in a long time. :D

If there's one thing I've learned from my time on NS it's that staying on topic is impossible for more than a page or two. If there's a second thing, it's that discussion evolve as needed so that they can continue despite the limitted nature of any given topic. (more in the way of dynamic systems attempting to live forever).

I'd like to take a moment to say that this has been the most satisfying conversation I've had here on NationStates in a long time. :D

True, true, I just didn't want to go off on a fully-fledged tangent when a good topic was just sitting there.

Thanks. It's been a good one for me as well. :) I look foreward to seeing more from ya.

Ah, didn't realize. I've read Eiji Yoshikawa's Musashi which has some interesting Musashi history, as well as being wholely enjoyable.

Great book, but don't rely on it for Musashi history or biographical information. That bit is highly romanticized. :wink:

Ah, didn't realize. I've read Eiji Yoshikawa's Musashi which has some interesting Musashi history, as well as being wholely enjoyable.

Great book, but don't rely on it for Musashi history or biographical information. That bit is highly romanticized. :wink:

It's useful for history in a vague sense, not for details. It would be sort of interesting to put it up side by side with a factual history and see how they differ and where they are similar.

According to what I have read, Yoshikawa did do good resaearch. But several imprtant details were changed, deleted, or added. The love story is the most glaring example...