War.  So simple a word.  Three little letters.  And it conjures images in our heads of planes, bombs, nukes, soldiers, guns, battles, tanks, rockets, guerrillas, knights, swords, imperial legions and barbarian hordes stretching from the dawn of civilisation to the present.  We think of the suffering, the destruction, the loss of life, the wounded, the horrors, and so we think we know what war is.  Some us have witnessed this death and destruction first hand, but many of us have simply heard tales, watched footage from tv, etc.  So we think we know what war is.

If this is what we think of when we think of war, then I am not entirely convinced we do.  From my perspective these things seem like attributes of war, or maybe expressions or consequences of war, rather than an understanding of war itself.  I feel instinctively that war is something deeper, and I also feel So how can we understand war itself?  My intention is to explore this theme in this article, as I don’t think war will ever go away, nor do I even think its constructive to want it to, but I do think we can build a world in which its more deadly and destructive expressions are.

As I was writing this article, a discussion started on the kiamagic.com forum about Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”, which might be renamed “Basic Strategy for Dummy’s” these days despite widespread ‘use by analogy’ in various fields of human competition.  Definitely worth a read, but following blindly no substitute for intelligence.  In any case, in replying on the thread I came up with the following insight:

“Before deciding to fight, one has presumably asked themselves first the question ‘why?’

Probably to either gain or protect something you value or even need (either physical or abstract). Fair enough. But this raises other less obvious questions. Firstly, what do you stand to lose if you don’t win? And perhaps more importantly, what do you stand to lose even if you do win? Are these potential losses of even greater value/need to you than the loss from not fighting? Can they be protected against?”

So a big question to ask in deciding to whether to fight is determining or understanding what you are prepared to sacrifice in order to win.  “Winning at any cost” may be a defiant battle cry but is hardly a sound basis on which to form a beneficial strategy.  In any conflict one should understand how much one is willing to sacrifice, whilst only making those sacrifices where necessary.  One should also understand how much is being sacrificed and when.  But also, one should be very clear about one’s definition of a successful outcome.

I have no doubt that the generals involved in most of the conflicts both contemporary and historical understood this.  I also doubt very much that the reasons they given to troops and populations or the levels of sacrifice they are prepared to endure have matched those they held in their heads.  Indeed giving away one’s true objective and level’s of excepted sacrifice may put the general at a disadvantage compared to their opponent.  Of course, the general does have to be clear about how much they can expect their troops and population to sacrifice also before this support.  Although it can work the other way.  Sometimes the public demands tough talk from a leader such that they must exaggerate in a big show of bravado.  This can help to intimidate the enemy.

This could result in a major disadvantage for democratic leaders during a conflict, such that they would almost certainly have to find objectives to keep public support that may vary greatly from their true objectives.  Indeed the true enemy they wage war against may not even be the one they tell the public.  It is not inconceivable for example that a democratically elected government may not even care about winning some foreign adventure they are sending their troops to fight in.  That may simply be a diversion to distract the public attention from laws designed to remove their freedoms, or simply make obscure changes to the law that may have otherwise .  Their real opponent may be their own electorate.  Seen from this light, it may be that America never intended to ‘win’ in Vietnam.  It may not intend to actually ‘win’ in Afghanistan.  If it does, great, if not it didn’t really matter, it was just a sacrifice it was prepared to make.

Allies may not even share objectives.  They may simply be able to work together in a conflict in order to achieve entirely different goals, presuming they don’t have to step on each others toes too much in the process.  Nor do they need to be truthful with each other.

I would suggest taking a non-dualist viewpoint on war, embracing the idea that multiple factions exist within any conflict, many of which form uneasy alliances with each other and that the strongest bonds may be more about shared ideology than loyalty to nationality.  Although nationalism can be one of the ideologies involved in the struggle.

Armies, weapons and destruction therefore seem more like occasional symptoms of an underlying conflict between hundreds of ideological factions that takes place on many other levels.

For example during the cold war many in the west supported communism and many in the east supported democracy and/or capitalism.  During WWII, many in Germany wished for a return to democracy, whilst an active faction of British Fascists, including at one point prominent newspapers such as the Daily Mail, wanted us to ally with Hitler.   In the ongoing conflict between various capitalist democratic nations and fundamentalist Islam,  we find many Muslims in fundamentalist countries would like democracy and whilst some living in democracies would support their conversion to a fundamentalist dictatorship.  Things are rarely clear cut.

Choose your allies well, but try and understand who they are and how much and how little their objectives match your own.  We are all in secret societies, whether we realise it or not…

Io Ares!  Io Athena!  Io Anarchons!

Just getting some ideas down that occurred to me over the weekend (before I forget them).

For some reason these thoughts relate to a sorcerer and a chaos magician I overheard having an argument about being comfortable so years ago. Basically the chaos magician said that their ultimate aim with magic was to be comfortable. The sorcerer retorted that this would never be the aim of their magic. Such was their reaction that they were clearly shocked to hear the other state this as their aim.

My own thought back then was that being comfortable didn’t sound like such a bad thing, and I couldn’t understand what kind of masochism would deliberately avoid being comfortable. And yet I had much more respect for the sorcerer that opposed the comfortable than the chaos magician who supported it. Certainly I considered them more experienced and accomplished than myself (and still do to this day), so I had a sneaking suspicion that I was missing something important.

Well I can’t say its a problem that has occupied my thinking very much in the last several years since it first came up, probably in the Norwich meeting where KIA was launched in 2001 if I remember correctly, or if not definitely around that time. But it has popped into my mind unbidden every now and then, usually when I’m in some kind of altered mind state for some reason. So the fact its taken over seven years for me to work out this problem shouldn’t put me in too bad a light! Hopefully!

Oddly the answer that has come relates to my initial thoughts on the Senex and Puer in the article Thanateros and Anarchy which I wrote for key64.net (or key23 as it was back then). The Senex being the Jungian archetype of the Old Man, relating to Thanatos, Saturn and Kronos. The Puer relating to the Young Man, and thus to Eros, Mercury, Heros et al.

The Puer achetype often dies young as a result of its foolishness, whereas the Senex archetype often attempts to impart Wisdom to the Puer. Or if the Puer is too serious and responsible, then the Senex tries to inspire them with the joys of apparent foolishness. Merlin and Wart in the animated feature Sword in the Stone are good examples of the latter, and if we forget the masculine elements of the archetypes, the film Harold and Maude is an even better example.

Basically, the Senex, having wisdom, sees the danger both in too much foolishness as well as too little. In this sense Wisdom is not so much the opposite of foolishness so much as an arbiter between a foolish-serious polarity.

Seriousness can lead be what leads to the trap of the comfortable rut. Basically, by observing the consequences of our actions we learn which actions lead to greater happiness and thus repeat them more often, and exclude those actions that don’t bring us pleasure from further consideration. However, in so doing we would be continually narrowing our options until ultimately our life becomes a dull routine of what we previously enjoyed most. We can continue with this routine in the deluded belief that it is the best option to bring ourselves the most pleasure. We are comfortable and don’t want to move.

One of the many things I have observed about my own life however is that my tastes have changed continuously, and only really settle for short periods. Music I once loved now bores me. Music I once hated I now enjoy. Food that once disgusted me is now a regular part of my diet. Food I once couldn’t live without I now never eat. My clothing styles have changed over the years. My taste in internal décor has changed. My favoured means of sorcery and divination have changed. My sexual turn ons, and turn offs, have changed.

If I had simply stuck with what I was comfortable with, I would never have progressed. I would never have realised my tastes had changed and I would be living a bland yet comfortable life. In other words, a fate I would not wish upon anyone! The very fate I took up magic to escape in the first place!

Looking back, I wonder if I have ever needed to use magic to make myself comfortable. And really I think the answer is not only have I not, I don’t think I’ve ever needed to. Being comfortable is easy. Its what happens naturally when you don’t upset the apple cart. When you tow the line and do what is expected. If all you want is to be comfortable, sell all you magic books and buy a nice bed, a nice sofa and relax. If you can’t do that without magic, then I would suggest something is seriously wrong.

So what has the underlying goal of my sorcery been all this time? To upset the apple cart, to challenge myself to break new ground, to step into new situations in which I am not immediately comfortable and therefore escape the comfortable ruts in which I inevitably find myself. To rebel against my own inner tyrant and kick start an internal revolution in my own life.

At least that’s been my experience. Obviously I can’t speak for other sorcerers and magicians, and so I would be interested to hear how they relate to the idea of the comfortable, and especially how it relates to their sorcery.

…or a little less wise?

I’d been having tooth ache problems from a rotten wisdom tooth. No more! The tooth is gone. Instead I have a mouth full of blood and numb with anaesthetics right up into my sinuses. Not to mention a mind and body in shock at what just happened.

But its all for the best. The wisdom was rotten anyway, and would have gone on causing me pain if left, probably only getting worse.

Meanwhile the KIAwiki seems to have more and more Foolish People on it every day. This is not a bad thing of course! Unfortunately I have only seen them perform once, not currently living that near London, but when I did see them perform Dead Language at the Institute of Contemporary Arts the show was incredible. All of insightful, witty and darkly comedic and worth every penny I paid to see it. I also had the pleasure of a few drinks with John Harrigan after the show, and seemed to get adopted by the artist Maryam Hashemi. I will definitely get out to see them again when I get a chance. A foolish night to remember indeed!

To be entirely honest, I have no idea why its taken me so long to write it up.

Anyway, I think I need to go and take some pain killers or something. The local anaesthetic I mentioned earlier is starting to wear off. How many other people go and write a blog first thing after having a tooth pulled? I must be a fool…