10,365. RUDIMENTS, pt.184

RUDIMENTS, pt. 184

Making Cars

'Dereliction of duty.' I did

always like the sound of that 

phrase. Or the look of it, I guess,

since most things to me were seen

in writing form, sign form. It just

always came across well. Unlike

A.W.O.L., which I could never

figure out. I always figured, in the

military, to go anywhere you had

to get 'Leave' first, so that it meant,

'Absent Without Leave.' Meaning 

you've left the premises without 

being allowed to. And then, some 

years later, I learned it actually was 

'Absent Without Official Leave.'

Meaning you could leave, I guess,

but you had to leave 'officially.'

Someone first had to OK it. 

Typical military stuff, as if there 

were degrees of absence  -  you 

could NOT be there, the right way 

or the wrong way. No sense at all, 

and things of that nature always 

confused me. It was like a form

or predetermination. The human 

condition; were you not possessed

of a free will to make your own

selections? Then later, studying the

make-up and premise of militarism

in all its forms, I came across their

rather illogical rendering of the 

concept of the military 'unit' taking 

precedence, and that in order to 

maintain the needed cohesion (to 

be an effective 'fight-force' at but

a moment's notice), the member's

Freedom, in fighting for Freedom (?)

had first to be surrendered to a strict

code of faceless adhesion to rules 

and command, which is almost 

biblically correct by its ranking and 

naming of levels and positions, ranks 

and command. Every incremental step 

along the way had a designated title 

and locus, so as to provide an instant 

identification of where, along that

scale, the person's surrendering of

personal Liberty had brought them.

It actually made little sense in the

end, as the same bullet that kills 

PFC Clarkson could just as well 

kill Lieutenant Colonel Ambutson,

except that when you reach that rank 

and level, a certain portion, very 

small, but certain, of your 'Freedom' 

has been recouped enough  -  so that 

you are free NOT to stand in the 

line of fire, and thereby have PFC 

Clarkson take that hit for you, his

low-boy rank signifying him, 

essentially, as dead-meat, or at 

least an easy candidate for same.

That's the military argument, and 

the other one about all men being 

equal, or born equal, or whatever, 

only holds charge in the outside 

world, for in the military world 

you are judged and held to the 

mainstays of differing standards. 

I found that all very uncomfortable.  

And I found myself to be a 

charitable-enough man so that 

I'd not allow or wish to allow 

for having anyone to 'fall' in 

my stead. The military mind, 

however, cannot operate like

that. I'd rather NO ONE fell; 

they'd not blink if both fell. For 

some silly, indeterminate, cause 

deciphered over indirect and 

imprecise forms. After all, the 

game-plan here was that no 

one is free and ALL is 

pre-determined, or what's 

an army for? Fighting each 

for their IDEA of their own 

predestination. To hell with

Freedom, whatever that means.

-

In that way, I guess, in the 

world of brute boys and men, 

I'd be described as 'too good 

for this world'  -  a degenerate 

weakling. That would bother 

me, I guess, but only for about 

ten seconds. I hate to keep 

harping on 'control,' but that's 

about all I ever saw in anything. 

Every concept, every tenet of 

anything, seemed to have no 

merit except a kind of made-up 

fantastic-certainty by which 

someone could 'be over' someone 

else  - superior rank, a Cardinal 

over a priest, an Archbishop 

under the Cardinal but over the 

Bishop; the Pro over the Amateur, 

and, again, the Lieutenant Colonel, 

certainly, over the lame PFC. 

Marine over Army but Army 

over Navy. It's all crazy. 

-

If people don't, apparently, find 

their own footing among stuff like 

that, they feel things are out of 

control  - so there's saluting the 

flag, and rifle salutes and laws 

and proclamations; business leaders 

or just poor businessmen. Everything 

on the crawl to be slobbering over 

someone else. I always figured that 

if we gave others the benefit of the 

doubt like we gave ourselves, we 

might rise to be less demanding 

and rotten about crawling over 

others. We'd find peace. In my

time, from the bottom up, instead

of the top down, (rich dudes miss 

a lot, and garner bad habits), I saw

a lot of people, real human people,

going about their meager lives, with

those around them at the same level

and, mostly, just as perplexed. What

I saw there was a character action,

a helpful (and  healthful) interaction 

among peers. The guy lifting and 

hauling, the waitress cleaning up 

the counter between orders, the

frustrated driver trying to park.

People are always imperfect, and

at fault too, for something. But 

again, giving everyone the 

benefit of the doubt (same as 

to oneself ), the human that is 

managing, just coping, needs for

us, I think, to worry less about 

being in control, or who is, and

instead just going easier on each 

other. After all, really, what's any

of it worth? In the long run, as

John Maynard Keynes said, we're

all dead. Maybe it's far better that

we be as understanding with others

as we are  -  or ought to be  -  

with ourselves. So, don't shirk.

Do your duty, and  -  by the way  -

pass me that bowl of compassion

you're hoarding for yourself.