Third Self-Examination. I'll have to live with that.

It's been quite an intense morning. I've designed another, very serious class, that I'd like to teach even though not for the regular courses. However, I'm convinced that if one shows both one's ideas and method something very positive is achieved. At least, people can understand some pecularities of language, reasoning and behaviour in a person dedicated to the study of logic, truthful information, communication, learning, justice. Today I will upload a possible class, and also a brief comment about the film that I decided to watch yesterday for the third time: The lost batallion featuring Rick Schroeder. 2005

I bought this film when I was doing some personal research on the First World War and I used it, as usual in my case, to do some personal discourse analysis.

Curiously, it is a film in which no woman appears in any scene whatsoever. Not many allusions to love, romaticism, girlfriends. About porn, only one reference about a whoring incident properly punished. A serious film, therefore in which, I think, the main actions and sufferings of that war have been reproduced almost archeologically. I felt the impression from time to time that I was in a museum of military art, and I could identify the different figures. A good taste film in which wounds and blood are present but not highlighted unless it is unavoidable. The enemy is the enemy, but the language in the battle is almost polite, and the insults justifiable, not uncessary cruelty, good economy of effort. Almost a heroic war, but for some weapons: gas, fire. We are in 1917. That is base soldiers are heroes, about the others, it seems to depend on the colour of the coffee. No weapons of mass destruction yet, at least in our present terms.

I'd like to explore two terms today: "gambit," and "half-lie,"in communicative terms.

Of course, I can exploit one strategic movement based on deception, half lies, or false promises and achieve a victory. For instance, I can assure you that I know that in one country or building there are weapons and people that we need to elliminate by all means, and then find out that it was a misinterpretation. However, that country was destroyed and humiliated, many innocent people died and so on and we got plenty of benefit and booty in the deal. It has proved quite a good strategy in general terms in the past all too often. However, it erodes the reputation of countries, military men, religious authorities and people that claim to defend democracy, freedom, justice. Besides, half-lies can lead to totaliarian regimes very easily.

Something positive, there is heroism and fair warfare even when interrogating war prisoners. A soldier can hold different political and stategic views from his superior officers, be a good soldier and know how to speak. Not a terrorist, not a faggot, not a liberal and so on. Food for thought, about ideals, heroism even personality disorders and so on.

Some soldiers need to take and hold a position in the Argonne at no matter the cost. They'd been promised help in their flanks. General Alexander made a promise in which the preliminary conditions of the speech act did not meet. He acknowledges that in the last take of the movie. He defends his gambit based on a half-lie in strategic terms: victory. He has created many unknown heroes, the problem is, of course, that this system can be extended and applied to all circumstances. Why did he promise something that he knew he was not able to fulfil, same as well-know king David from the Christian Bible after some hot busy nights in the well-known story? Sorry, but I'm tired of mentioning, Nero and Hitler all the time. Maybe the Bible is corrupted, but this is not my emmity.



General Alexander: These are acceptable losses to me. I understand you are feeling....

I'll have to live with that.



What I like best in the film is Cher Ami, the pigeon: an animal that knows how to transmit an accurate message and obey orders.


I consider that I have written and published a comment based on the language of the film and that my point has been made without using prejudice, insult, or half-lies. That is, I've written a comment that I could publish in any free nation without the fear of being considered a radical, a liberal, a militarist and so on. That is a first pragmatic comment on a text that is essentially pragmatic. I do no consider this remark trivial taking into account certain ideological developments -and actions- that I have witnessed in the last ten years or so. The subtle change from democracy to totalitarianism in one country may depend on a gradient of half-lies.