Death and Pat Tillman (Spoilers for AtS5.15 -AHiTW)

[dlgood]

Why is Fred dead? Proximate cause - because Gunn signed papers that allowed Knox to sneak the coffin through. Bigger picture - because she was there. To the extent that it was her choice ('mindwipe') Fred chose to be in LA, chose to be in that fight, and could have gone elsewhere. She didn't And she's become a casualty of her lifestyle. It is sad. It sucks. It's also how life works sometimes.

As illustrated by the death of former Arizona Cardinals safety, Pat Tillman. A few years ago, Tillman gave up his NFL career (passing on a $3.6 million contract) and enlisted in the US military. At Arizona State, he was both a star athlete and an honor student, and he felt that it was more worthwhile to serve his country than play football, particularly after September 11. Tillman became an Army Ranger, and insisted on recieving no special media attention or treatment for his decision.

Today he was found dead in Afghanistan. I don't know the specific cause of death. Or who was to blame. Do we blame his CO or the pentagon for the strategies. For sending him to war. Perhaps. Maybe there was faulty equipment.

But Tillman made a choice, and he chose to be a soldier. Even though he knew the risks, and even though he could have been somewere else. And he did so, because he felt that joining in the fight was worthwhile to him. It satisfied his preference. And he died following through on that decision. And Fred died following through on hers.

It's sad. It's tragic. The Tillman family grieves. Those who love Fred grieve. But it's life.

Comments

You are making some huge leaps there

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

First, we have to define evil. Evil is anything that hinders our individuality. It does not mean it isn't practical or by some other moral standard it isn't "good." Anything that hinders our individuation causes unconscious ramifications. When we suppress our individuality, the Wrath is waiting to rip our hearts out, again and again and again.

Second, I said nothing that made *my* institutions immune from this claim. In another post, I even gave examples why the GSUSA can be classified as "evil." You are attributing things to me that I have not said. All institutions are tainted by the original sin of demanding something from their members that takes away from their individuality. That includes the groups I belong to. I belong to these groups because they allow me to express certain things, but to do that, I give up certain others.

Third where did I even mention the word irredeemable? Is society irredeemable? Can't really say. Most people don't give a fig arse about redemption and don't work for it. A convoy can only move as fast as its slowest moving vehicle. I have yet to see anything that shows me that society will reach utopia in my lifetime, as such whether it can or cannot is purely an intellectual exercise that has little bearing on my life. I have more important things to think about, such as remembering where I put the black thread so I can sew up the oriental dress I ripped tonight.

All I can do is work on myself, raise my daughters and contribute to individuation in my own way. I don't really care if you value me or not. That has no bearing on my life.

Re: You are making some huge leaps there

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

First, we have to define evil. Evil is anything that hinders our individuality.

The mere existence of any self-willed indivudual not under my direct command automatically hinders my individuality.

All institutions are tainted by the original sin of demanding something from their members that takes away from their individuality.

At which point, every person who enters into an institution commits the sin of demanding something from other members that takes away individuality.

I reject that. On our own, neither my neighbor, nor I, can afford a satellite dish. By pooling our resources, we now share a dish. As a team, we now have more than we did on our own. But, some element of out individuality is sacrificed because we form a team, even as we fulfill our own individuality in the process.

Does this mean we're done here? Because I pretty much have to reject your definition out of hand.

Re: You are making some huge leaps there

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

Does this mean we're done here? Because I pretty much have to reject your definition out of hand.

If all you want to do is look at the show from your limited perspective using your definitions, then I would say that we are finished. If you believe that owning a satelite dish is a pursuit more worthy than individuation, I don't see how any discussion can be held.

Re: You are making some huge leaps there

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

If you believe that owning a satelite dish is a pursuit more worthy than individuation

Because owning that metaphorical satellite dish is pursing my individuation. So is contemplating philosophy. So is giving up my free time to volunteer on my City Traffic Planning Board, to work voter registration drives, to tutor on the weekends. I can fulfill my individuation by doing things solely for myself. And I can fulfill my individuation by sacrificing some of that same individuation to a community.

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.
---Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759

I suppose it's the difference between being fundamentally community focused as opposed to being self-focused as an individual. Essentially, I don't believe that I'm an island. I believe that I am a part of something that is at once, both greater than myself, but also composed of myself. It's Economics 101. It's human nature.