The 2/29th Battalion intelligence summary regarding Muar to Parit Sulong

On the 18^th of January 1942 the 2/29 Bn was attacked, surrounded and almost overrun by the Japanese 5^th Imperial Guards Army near Muar. The survivors joined the 2/19^th Bn in a withdrawal heading to Yong Peng via Parit Sulong. They put the wounded in trucks and those that could walk marched along beside the trucks with a small force out front and one protecting the rear. They fought all the way, overcoming at least five major road blocks. They fought with completely inappropriate weapons as they had been heading for the middle east before being rushed to Malaysia. Massively outnumbered and constantly attacked and taking severe casualties the force finally arrived at Parit Sulong on the 22^nd January to find the Japanese in unassailable positions on the other side of the bridge. Nevertheless they attacked but were beaten back. By now they had run out of ammunition and it was apparent no relief force would or could fight through to them. They had also run out of medical supplies and had no way to look after the wounded.

Col Anderson (later awarded a VC) ordered the men to disperse, leaving the wounded behind, and try to make their way through the jungle to Yong Peng.

More than a thousand men went with the 2/29^th Bn to Muar. Only 130 survived to Yong Peng.

The 150 wounded left behind at Parit Sulong were pulled out of the trucks and massacred against the wall of a nearby building by the Japanese. Amazingly three men survived even this and at least one (Lt. Hackney) was even able to survive the war. The Japanese commander was later executed for war crimes.

The 2/29^th Bn received over 500 reinforcements, mostly untrained men rushed from recruiting depots in Australia. Many of these men had not been given any training or even a gun until they were on the boat headed for Singapore. The 2/29 Bn then fought in the defence of Singapore until being surrendered with the rest of the 8^th Division on the 15^th February.

The fight from Muar to Parit Sulong and then to Yong Peng is not well known in Australia. One of the main reasons for this is that hardly anyone survived. Another reason is that the story was perhaps subsumed in the larger story of the catastrophe at Singapore. But that fighting withdrawal by less than 2,000 men (and decreasing all the time) held up the entire 5^th Guards Army for five days, a feat remarked upon by the Japanese general at the time, and a feat unsurpassed in Australian history in terms of sheer determination.

Below is a transcript of the actual intelligence summary for the 2/29^th Bn from 18^th to 23rd January, the pdf of the original of which is available online at http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/second_world_war/diary.asp?levelID=1063

This is a full transcript of the Intelligence Summary for the 2/29 Battalion from the morning of the 18^th of January to the evening of the 23^rd of January, 1942. To the best of my knowledge this has never been transcribed before.

As it is has been copied from a handwritten document some of the wording was very difficult to identify. My creed has been to only transcribe what I am certain is correct. When I am unsure but strongly suspect the word's identity I have put the word in [brackets]. When I have not been able to decipher the writing I have put [indec].

I am not including an index to the elisions used, nor of the military terms. Most should be pretty obvious ('Bn' means Battalion, 'A/Tk' means Anti-tank, 'Ors' means 'Other Ranks' which is Army for privates and non-commissioned officers) though some may be a little more challenging, and some I don't have the foggiest about. Perhaps just one you should know is 'B Ech' means B Echelon and was the group of trucks and carriers assigned to carry food / ammunition and medical supplies from the dump to the troops in the line. Though not mentioned in the Summary the B Ech was itself overrun and almost wiped out. I have not attempted to 'unelide' the wording for two reasons. Firstly, this is meant to be an accurate transcription. Secondly, the language used is itself evocative of the chaos of the times in which it was written.

As an extra I have also transcribed some of the other documents found in the relevant file on the Australian War Memorial website. I have done so out of pure curiosity and they may serve to help set the wider scene in which the events described in the Intelligence Summary occurred.

Later I will put some photos of some of the men who died at the end of the post.

At the last moment I have had to change some of the formatting because it wouldn't publish in columns.

The Intelligence Summary of the 2/29^th Battalion, 2^nd AIF, 18^th to 23^rd January, 1942:

18 Jan 42 BAKRI 0100

A Coy in position BAKRI xrds

0600: Weather fine. Location unchanged.

0645: 5 light tanks advanced down rd + engaged by four a / tk guns using H.E. shells without effect. Fwd gun and rear gun using H.E. shells destroyed all 5 tanks – no prisoners.

0715: 3 more tanks moved down road – 400x range – put out of action by fwd a/tk gun.

0830: C Coy came under heavy automatic fire & sustained casualties. Enemy were in position in trees + must have come up during darkness. Engaged with S.A. fire and later w/ 3" mortars.

0945: One carrier went forward to silence M.Gs but on jamming Vickers was forced to withdraw, further attempts by a gunner was successful but [firing] from trees [could not] be silenced. 2 carriers badly damaged by S M G for rest of day. [A] & C Comps patrolled well forward and were in contact with the enemy force estimated to be 2 Bns.

1000: Recce patrol detailed contact Bgde HQ – forced back at rd block approx 500 x E Bn HQ.

1100: Lt Clarke killed in effort to [indecipherable]. CO decided to get through to Bgd himself+ a D.R. took him ([pinion] riding) they reached road block – came under heavy automatic fire, both wounded. D.R. turned bike and with C.O commenced return journey. C.O. fell off bike some 50x from BHQ. Capt [Gahan] using carrier picked up C.O. but he died a few minutes after reaching HQ. Major [Olliff] assumed com'd of Bn.

1200: A Coy Comd visited by 2 i/c 2/19 Bn, late by C.O. – Col Anderson, advised 2/19 were moving into area therefore A Coy should remain 2/29 Bn. Enemy road block approx 300 x from Xrds + [indec] ordered to remove it. Attempt unsuccessful but later 2/19 carriers with approx 2 sections A Coy succeeded in removing barrier. A Coy moved fwd astride rd + were forced to ground on right of road slightly fwd of where road block had been. Movement on left stopped by automatic + mortar fire – casualties 1 killed 10 wounded. 2/19 Bn mortars silenced enemy while Coy from 2/19 moved fwd on right + took up position. A Coy then moved fwd + rejoined Bn 1700 hrs.

1700: A Coy took up former position right rear.

1600 - 1700: Recce patrol under Lt McQueen went out to contact 2/19 Bn – returned after having made contact.

1800: 3 vehicles from B Echelon carrying ammn + food also 1 wireless van AASC [indec] vehicles from 2/15 [Fld Regt][indec] MACNEIL who had come up with ration truck officiate at burial of C.O., Lt Clarke + 3 Ors.

1930: Reports from C Coy that enemy force approx 100 armed with automatic weapons were preventing 18 PL from withdrawing to night perimeter positions.

Enemy force withdraws.

2000: Enemy approx 100 strong attacks 15 PL with bayonets + grenades but were driven off. 10 minutes later probably the same force attacked 14 PL when practically all enemy were [indec] off + high percentage killed – own cas 1 killed 5 wounded.

2200: A Coy ordered [indec] patrol [indec] to contact Bgde HQ. This patrol did not return Bn but subsequently was learned personnel were fighting (with) 2/19 Bn. Enemy air activity during day restricted to frequent aerial recces.

Patrolling. Patrols operated throughout night without contacting enemy.

19 Jan BAKRI

0600: Weather fine. Location unchanged.

0930: 2 scouts sent out to contact 2/19 Bn failed to do so.

1130: B.M. arrived Bn HQ + advised Bde HQ heavily bombed. He asked for a section to accompany him in an endeavour 2Bn of JATS who were reported to be on our right flank.

1330: JATS commenced to pass through our position to link up with 2/19 Bn. In movement back they encountered heavy enemy fire and considerable numbers returned to our perimeter. Attempts made to organise them

1400: Dive bomber dropped bomb vicinity BHQ no casualties

1430: B Ech moved to CORONATION [indec] KLUANG. Bombed and machine gunned from air.

1530: Enemy Arty shelled A Coy area. JATS suffered heavily and in their attempts to escape shelling crossed road between C + HQ Coys. Arty then shifted to W side of road + C Coy sustained come casualties whilst JATS suffered further heavy losses.

1630: Shelling lifted. Under mortar fire. Attack launched on B + C Coys – on B Coy front enemy attack defeated with heavy casualties. On C Coy front heavy mortar and automatic fire drove 1 PL back 50 x. C Coy counter attacked + drove enemy off for a distance 600 – 800 x.

1750: All enemy accounted for + C Coy Com'd reported positions on both fronts to C.O. Enemy shells identified as 5.9 inch.

1735: C.O.'s conference information given that 2/19 Bn had been trying to link up with us all day unsuccessfully. The Bn was now ordered to cut its way back to 2/19 Bn travelling east side of road. Order of march. A BHQ, HQ Coy, C + B Coys moving at 10 minute [intervals].

Transport to move 1815 hrs.

1815: Maj Olliff, C.O. was killed by enemy automatic fire.

A Coy which left at 1800 hrs whilst crossing open ground 300 x rear of original position came under heavy M.G. fire. Capt McNAUGHTON + Ly. CALVERT were killed + several Ors killed + wounded. O.C. + part of Coy became detached from main body. H.Q. Coy + B.H.Q. [going/arriving] further E to skirt open ground + became entangled in a swamp forcing them further E still. Lt SHELDON killed. C Coy detached 13 PL under Capt WEST to attempt to flank enemy position + clear road for transport but were unsuccessful. [This] PL [then] followed route taken by HQ Coy. B Coy followed main body of H.Q. Coy + reached 2/19 Bn without further casualties.

1930: Capt. MORGAN [indec] gathered parties which had [indec] E and formed a body consisting of 7 officers + 150 Ors – set off across country in direction of YONG PENG.

O.C. B Coy Capt MAHER assumed Com'd 2/29 Bn consisted of B Coy (3 Officers 100 Ors) C. Coy (3 Officers 45 Ors) A Coy (45 Ors) whilst organising this force at BAKRI Xrds it came under heavy M.G. fire. No casualties. The force moved inside 2/19 Bn perimeter + bedded down for night. 5 Carriers + 2 a/tk guns acting as rear guard remained in position until B Coy were clear of area.

1930: A/tk guns demobilised 2 Carriers attempted to get past road block one being successful in getting around it the other being abandoned. Other 3 Carriers demobilised. Crews together with R.M.O., 6 walking wounded + a/tk personnel moved N. And following night linked up with 2/19 Bn.

20 Jan BAKRI

Weather fine. Location – within 2/19 Bn perimeter.

0600: C.O. 2/19 Bn issued orders for withdrawal. A + C Coys organised as 2 PLs joined D Coy 2/19 Bn moving out left of formation. B Coy acted as rear guard. Start time 0730 hrs.

0900: Enemy M.G. position on right rd held up movement approx 1 hr finally silenced by attack under personal leadership of Lt. Col ANDERSON.

1200: Strong road block on road with M.Gs on road block also both sides of road – leading Coys pinned and unable to move.

1330: Lt. COOTES with remains of C Coy less Coy HQ ordered to make way across swamp on left + through jungle to attack on flank of left M.G. position to support frontal attack by remainder D + C Coys 2/19 Bn.

1415: 18 PL 2/19 Bn sent by same route as Lt. COOTES, as nothing had been heard of his party.

1500: Fire commenced on left of enemy later identified as that of 18 PL + frontal attack commenced with our A Coy in lead.

1530: Lt CARR Com'd A Coy when 100 yards from enemy guns was ordered by 2 i/c of 2/19 Bn to charge position. Leading his men he was killed + very heavy automatic fire forced remainder to withdraw.

1630: Fire heard from rear of enemy position turned out to be from LT COOTE's force.

Knowing strength of enemy he was ordered to withdraw and was not seen again.

1730: Fresh frontal attack by C Coy 2/19 Bn on right and A Coy 2/29 left supported by mortars + Carriers. 2/29 personnel reached point approx 50 x enemy position but C Coy 2/19 and Carriers were pinned 200 x short of objective.

1900: Withdrawal of 2/29 Bn personnel ordered by D Coy Com'd 2/19 Bn. Carried out without loss after 2 enemy MG put out of action with grenades.

1930: C Coy 2/19 Bn attacked on right of road and drove them out. Then B Coy 2/29 went through whole enemy position with bayonet and cleared out any remaining enemy. Road block cleared with axes. Stopped 2000 hrs. B Ech endeavoured to get rations through but failed.

21 Jan PARIT SULONG

0600: Weather fine. Location 4 miles E. PARIT SULONG.

D.R. had reported that PARIT SULONG Brdge had sandbagged barrier manned by either Malay or Japanese troops.

0730: Column reaches road running N to KAN KAR

Recce observed bridge held by enemy. 50 men from 2/29 Bn detailed to assist in attack on bridge but returned to rear guard when attack on rear started.

0800: Remainder 2/29 Bn acted as rear guard. Capt MAHER right Capt BOWRING left. 1 25 Pdr placed on position at [indec] corner when enemy attack developed from rear – some casualties in Arty + own personnel. Main attack came through scrub on left of road but was driven off by party from 2/29 Bn and Indians [indec].

New line formed 400 x E of KANKAR Xrds.

[1000]: 3 enemy heavy tanks penetrated Xrds – 2 put out of action by Arty + one disabled by fire from A/TK rifle. [Indec] remainder of day several small attacks beaten off on 2/29 front while attempts were made by 2/19 Bn to clear bridge. Sporadic shelling all day.

1630: R.M.O. 2/19 Bn suggested to Com'd 2/19 Bn that wounded should be placed on trucks + moved to rd block in case Japs would allow them through. Approx 15 badly wounded cases placed on 1 Amb + 1 [indec] vehicle. Jap Com'd refused to allow them through unless there was a complete surrender of the force. Vehicles retained as extra road block but during night drivers released brakes and vehicles reached our lines.

1800: Capt LOVETT and 7 Ors wounded by shell fire.

1930: 3 tanks penetrated to Xrds + opened fire. Under this fire several enemy with automatics advanced toward position. 1 sgt manned the gun at the road at rear of position + drove off tanks.

2030: 5 more tanks advanced along road one of them reaching a point only 50 x ahead of 25 pdr. An A.P. shell failed to [indec] the first tank but when HE used tank blown to pieces. Shells disabled at least 2 more tanks.

2100 – 2200: Capt MAHER wounded by [indec] + moved to R.A.P....killed when shell blew up car in which he had been placed.

B Ech CORONATION [indec] near KLUANG. All men essential transport moved to special pool.

22^nd Jan PARIT SULONG

0600: Weather fine. Location unchanged.

0630: Enemy Arty, mortars and MG fire brought down on position. Fire returned by our own mortars – shelling continued all morning.

0800: 3 of our aircraft dropped containers of food and medical supplies, latter especially needed as stocks of morphia exhausted.

0830: 5 enemy tanks came through rubber on right of road to within 50 x of our position. C.O. 2/19 Bn decision to break contact and withdraw.

0930: C.O. orders to withdraw by Coys moving approx 2 miles N then E to YONG PENG. Walking wounded accompanied main party, balance wounded had to be left. Amb made further attempt to get through but came under heavy fire + forced into river. Whole force crosses river during day + spends night in swamps near SRI MEDAH. B Ech – KLUANG but could not make contact with Bn.

1700 23^rd Jan YONG PENG

Weather fine. Party started to arrive at YONG PENG. Move by MT to B Ech after reporting to Bde HQ. Other parties moved direct to GBD JOHORE BAHRU. B Ech moved to 45 ¼ mile peg JOHORE BAHRU. Hot boxes rations + cigarette left in charge of 2/30 Bn about 2 miles from YONG PENG. [Indec] has continued through

1800: B Ech fed 192 2/19 Bn, 25 2/15 Fd Regt, 58 2/29 Bn, 1 8 Div Sigs. Nearly all troops refitted as D.A.D.O.S.

2130: Last party reached YONG PENG.

Next day the total strength of 2/29 Bn had reached 130 men.

Other documents from the file at AWM:

HQ 27 Aust Inf Bde SECRET

INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED UP TO 2100 hrs 2 DEC 41

ENEMY:

Troop movements: Continues Japanese activity SAIGONG – HAIPHONG (?) incl arrival 5 Div. This Div is experienced in Beach landings.

AIR ACTIVITY:

Steady increase JAPANESE Fighter and bomber squadron F I C during past month.

OWN TPS:

Field defences: Anti-personnel mines are being laid in certain [this 'certain' is handwritten above a crosses out 'Central'] Coastal Area.

SEDILI BOOM: Engrs closing boom. Arrangements will probably be made for river craft to pass at certain periods of the day.

Impressment of river craft: Action is being taken to obtain necessary craft for ENDAU, vessels being hired only.

Air activity: Continued recce seaward.

SIGNATURES HERE

2/29 Bn AIF

MALAYA

2
DEC '41

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCES

ROUTINE ORDERS BY LT-COL J C ROBERSTON, NC, VD.

1. DUTIES. Duty Coy Mounting RETREAT 2 DEC '41 HQ Coy
   

   Next for duty " " 3 " C Coy
   

   Orderly Officer " " 2 " Lieut N J GANAN (?)
   

   Next for duty " " 3 " Lieut N B SMITH (?)
   

2. UNION JACK CLUN. SINGAPORE. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Union Jack Club, SINGAPORE, is NOT open to Officers.
   
3. DRESS. Several cases have been noticed of AIF personnel without shirts driving vehicles in public places, including SINGAPORE.
   

   Instructions have been issued that such disregard of regulations as to dress will result in the offenders being immediately charged with disobedience of orders as to dress.
   

   
   

   SIGNATURE HERE
   

   NOTICE.
   

   A.C.F Comforts. Cigarette papers were not included in issue for the month of Novembers as no stocks were available.
   

   
   

   Lost, 1 set of Identification discs, marked VX 37335 PROSSER F. Finder please return to BN HQ.
   

   
   

2/29 Bn AIF

MALAYA

3^rd December ' 41

SCALE OF KIT TO BE CARRIED BY OR's FOR MOVE OPERATIONAL STATION

	On person or in haversack	In pack on truck	Total
Hat Shirt Shorts T/U Vests Underpants Socks Hose Tops Puttees Boots Laces spare Identity discs Field Dressing Knives clasp Rifle and Bayonet (or Pistol) & amn Respirator, cotton waste, eyeshields, & ointment Set of web equipment Anit-malarial cream Knife, fork and spoon Mess tin Emergency ration Ration bag Torch Toilet kit Towels Water proof cape (AUSTRALIAN ISSUE) Canvas shoes Mug Pay book Housewife Writing material	1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - -	- 5 4 2 1 5 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1	1 6 5 3 2 6 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

On truck – Helmet stool, or as ordered

Blanker

Net & rods

Ground sheet

SECRET

WEPI

21 DEC '41

MAIN FEATURES OF ENEMY TACTICS.

The main features of enemy tactics so far have been as follows:-

1. Simple verbal orders for attack on definite objectives. Great powers of endurance and no type of ground can be considered an obstacle. E.g., Creeks and small rivers are crossed by means of inflated rubber belts. Advance through jungle by Company columns precede by patrols which find flanks and infiltrate and HQ staff assemble in rear.
   

1. Attack by formed bodies pressed with great determination in defence, forward patrols go to ground allowing attack to pass through, then open fire on rear. Small bore ammunition inflicts minor wounds. Grenades are not as effective as ours and mortar ammunition has no blast effect. Considerable use made of small tanks which can traverse rubber with infantry penetrating.
   
2. Enemy tactics calculated to defeat static or linear defence and has considerable moral effect on troops taking enemy in rear. Best answer is systems of posts each self contained and with all round defence acting as pivots of manoeuvre for aggressive reserve.
   

The above is extract of KATI message 0 857 of 20 Dec '41

SIGNATURE HERE

SECRET 2/29 Bn A.I.F

No 69 H E GRENADE

1. The No 69 Grenade is a HE grenade for use against AFVs, transport or any other type of mechanization. It is a percussion type, i.e. it explodes on impact and has a very powerful local destructive ability. This grenade is essentially and anit AFV weapon and must not be used as anit personnel.
   
2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
   
   1. Lenght – approx 4 ½ inches
      
   2. Diameter – approx 2 ½ inches
      
   3. Weight – approx 3 / 4 lb
      
   4. Type – percussion HE
      
   5. The grenade consists of a barrel shaped black baelite casing with the usual HE markings, with a cylindrical shaped cap on the top containing the firing mechanism.
      
   6. The no 69 HE grenade is packed in tinned boxes containing 34 grenades, and two containers each holding 18 detonators.
      
3. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS – The following inspection must always be carried out before handling the grenade: -
   
   1. Remove base plug to see that the grenade is not primed.
      
   2. Remove safety cap and ensure that the safety pin and tape are in position.
      
4. MECHANISM – The grenade functions in the following manner: - During flight, the weight on the safety tape drags the tape from the grenade, thus removing the safety pin. On impact, the shock forces the firing ball on to the face of the striker, which moves down into the striker guide there compressing the striker spring. The nipples on the striker contact the firing cap which explodes, the flash passes into the open end of the detonator which then explodes and in turn, fires the HE in the outer casing.
   
5. EMPLOYMENT – As indicated in para 1 above the grenade is for use against AFVs against which it is very effective. It should not under any circumstances be used against personnel excepting in an emergency and when no other effective weapon is available, as no effect can be expected from fragmentation and unless a very vulnerable target is offered, very [few / little (?)] casualties would result from concussion. The grenade should be thrown into the tracks of AFVs to damage the tracks or driving sprocket or if possible, into the interior of the vehicle to damage the internal mechanism or engine. It may also be used with effect by throwing at any openings such as visors for driver or gunner.
   
6. PRIMING – The method of priming is as follows:- First carry out the safety precautions detailed in para 3 above. Ensure that the safety pin is in position with the tape correctly wound, then replace safety cap. Insert detonator open end first, into the bottom of the grenade and replace base plug. Detonators must be handled by the open end only and should not be left in the sun. They are extremely sensitive to heat and may be ignited by the heat of the hand with adverse results to the person concerned.
   
7. THROWING – First ensure that the grenade is primed. Then remove the safety cap and ensure that the safety pin and tape are in position. For throwing, adopt the normal stance, with the grenade held in the hand WITH THE THUMB ON THE WEIGHT OF THE SAFETY TAPE. The grenade may then be thrown in and normal overarm manner, with force, at the target, the tape and safety pin falling off during flight. It is important that the safety pin and tape are in position during the throwing motion for is this is neglected the action of the throw may cause the grenade to explode in the hand of the thrower.
   

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCER 27 DEC '41

ROUTINE ORDERS BY [INDECIPHERABLE] I Comd

PART 1 No 256

1. MEDICAL AND HYGIENE. Too much stress cannot be laid on the viligant [sic] maintonance [sic] of all medical, hygiene and danitary measures. Attention is drawn ro ADMS Circular 39 of 21 DEC '41 as well as regulation laid down in ASO, and previous Medical instns. Observance of these provisions is in all respects as vital as operational measures.
   
2. OBSERVATION OF ORDERS. Attention is drawn to the necessity for all ranks adhering to orders given and paying no attention to rumours coming from unauthorised sources that orders have been varied. An illustration is the spread of a rumour that regulations relating to brownout driving conditions have been changed,
   
3. TRAFFIC CONTROL. All MT and Carriers crossing wooden bridges will reduce speed to fifteen (15) m.p.h. Speeding loosens bridge spikes and no maintenance is available.
   
4. SALVAGE AND TRT GENERALLY. No vehicle will move unloaded unless no loads are available. Salvage will always be loaded if available. MT may move to SINGAPORE to purchase supplementary rations and canteen stores. Such vehicles must carry loads and must proceed in convoy. Permission must be obtained before vehicles move, and one Causeway pass will be issued for the convoy.
   
5. CAUSEWAY. All military MT crossing from JB must obtain a pass from GANU
   
6. CARE OF MT. The tendency to speed up must be curbed. Replacement repair and spare parts are increasingly difficult. This must be impressed on all ranks. Motor cyclists particularly are riding at excessive speeds.
   
7. CHURCH SERVICES, SUNDAY 28 DEC ' 41
   

   Combined
   

8. M.T. All drivers are to be warned that vehicles must NOT be driven on the field of the Aerodrome unless extreme emergency exists.
   

   SIGNATURE HERE
   

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCES 30 DEC 41

ROUTING ORDERS BY JIXA COMD

1. 2" MORTAR. Numerous reports have been received of broken firing pins. These may be caused by the following error in operation:-
   

   The Mortar is fitted with a firing handle which should not be pressed until the bomb is at rest. Gunners have been observed holding the firing handle so that the firing pin protrudes during loading, and firing is then similar in operation to that of the 3" Mortar. This must NOT be done. The bomb must NOT be allowed to fall onto the firing pin.
   

   As the cause of the trouble has not yet been accurately diagnosed Units are requested to examine carefully every broken firing pin and call upon the services of the OME for investigation.
   

   Is there any tendency for the firing pin to jamb?
   

   If the "Spring, firing pin" is enlarged at one end, the enlarged coil is to be inserted towards the muzzle.
   

2. DISPOSAL OF TOTAL CASUALTIES. In the event of fatal casualties the following action will be taken as soon as practicable after the occurrence :-
   
   1. BN HQ will be immediately informed and W3011 rendered.
      
   2. Paybook, red identity disc, cash and all other articles of a personal nature will be removed from the body, an inventory made out, and forwarded to Bn HQ.
      
   3. All items of clothing and equipment will be collected, and inventory made, and forwarded to QM who will dispose of these as follows :-
      
      1. Arms and equipment will be disposed of in the usual manner.
         
      2. Issue clothing will be treated as salvage.
         
      3. Items of personal clothing will be forwarded to 2 Ech.
         
   4. At Bn HQ, paybook and cash will be handed to Pay Sgt who will make necessary entries in paybook and forward both paybook and cash to 8 Div Fd Cash Office.
      
   5. Red identity disc and all other personal articles likely to be of a sentimental value will be forwarded by registered DR to 2 Ech (accompanied by inventory) from whence it is sent to Next of Kin.
      
   6. W3314 is rendered by Bn HQ, 1 copy to Assistant Chaplain General and 1 copy to 2 Ech.
      
3. EVACUATIONS TO HOSPITAL. Attention is again directed to the necessity of carrying out the correct procedure in regard to personnel who are evacuated to hospital. In spite of frequent instns obvious carelessness still occurs in some evacuations. It is the responsibility of the Coy concerned to ensure that when men leave their sub unit they are in possession of Paybook, F200, WF140, B122, Dental Card (if available), identification discs, steel helmet, rifle and equipment and ALL other belongings. It is the responsibility of the RMO to see that personnel are in possession of the correct documents, equipment and all personal gear. The evacuation is to be reported to Bn Hq by the RAP, and by the Coy on W3011.
   

   SIGNATURE HERE
   

Kevin Rudd, the ETS and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Kevin Rudd is caught in the most pure example of the Prisoner's Dilemma in post-War Australian political history. How he progresses the whole environment debate re the ETS and the reaction to the Copenhagen fiasco will be a severe test for his own ethical scaffolding. For Kevin Rudd this Dilemma traps him in the gap that has always existed between his Christian virtue-ethic and his Labor traditional realpolitik utilitarianism. Now I am not going to claim that utilitarianism is opposite to a virtue based ethic, I would in fact claim that underpinning utilitarianism is its own view of virtue regarding the individual, that is that an individual should be free, independent and as autonomous as possible within a rule governed society. But having said that the situation Kevin currently finds himself in throws into sharp relief the problems inherent in his trying to appear as if his ethical raison d'etre is virtue based while it is a plain fact that seizing political power requires a certain level of let's say malleability in framing one's virtue in the light of the ways in which political machinery demands manipulation in order for power to be attained. I sincerely think Kevin is spending the Christmas holidays squirming his soul through the sieve the dilemma presents in an honest attempt to find a way out. Whether he can or not will be interesting.

The Prisoner's Dilemma

There are two prisoners, kept separate from each other and asked to confess to some crime. If A confesses and B doesn't then A goes free and B gets 10 years, or vice versa if B confesses. If both confess they both get 5 years. If neither confesses they both get 6 months. In normal readings of this game it is most commonly asserted that the best thing to do is confess, because in any situation you are going to be relatively better off by confessing if the other prisoner confesses. But obviously you would both be better off if neither of you confessed. This is cited as an example of when rationality can lead to the not-best solution to a problem.

But if you believe your co-prisoner is a rational being some would say you are better not to confess. That is, if you can think that your co-prisoner knows that you know that if you confess it would be rationally better, but that your co-prisoner also knows that you know the co-prisoner knows this, and you can therefore both assume that both parties are assuming the other one knows this, then surely, by logical extension, you can assume that your co-prisoner also knows that you know that the best thing to do is not confess, and that you know the co-prisoner knows you know this, so that you know your co-prisoner knows that by logical extension you will not confess and thus won't confess.

So don't confess, unless you want to be a bastard and send your co-prisoner down for ten years and walk away scott free. But again, if you think you should do this and you consider your co-prisoner rational you would need to think your co-prisoner knows you know of this option, and you will reject it because you also know your co-prisoner knows you know your co-prisoner knows you know this option, and that your co-prisoner, knowing this, would confess but for the fact she knows you know this and therefore wont do it because you understand it's better not to confess.

Put another way, and as others have also suggested, one elemental part of this dilemma is that you can not communicate with your co-prisoner. This needs to be central to the dilemma because obviously if you could communicate you would both agree not to confess. So if you imagine for a moment that within this imaginary game there is a radio by which you can both communicate. If you could communicate you would both agree not to confess. Now realise that the presence or absence of the radio has no bearing on the logical steps you need to take in deciding whether to confess or not, the radio would just be a comforting device that you would both use to reaffirm to each other the (as it would appear if you were talking on the radio) obvious fact that the best thing to do is not confess. So don't confess.

And lastly, there are (admittedly deliberate) gaps in the story of the dilemma, most importantly for someone attempting to hold a virtue based ethic is whether or not you actually did the crime of which you are being accused. For a person with a virtue based ethic this is crucial and would almost certainly dictate which way you went, regardless of the resultant number of days of cold porridge.

But I don't really want to go on about the Dilemma as it can get really circular and tricky as you can imagine. My point is that Kevin is stuck in one now.

How is Kevin Rudd stuck in the Prisoner's Dilemma?

It will appear as if carrying on with the ETS is like deliberately not confessing when you know your co-prisoner is going to confess. You know Kevin knows this by the immediately invented phrase that Australia will go only so far as the rest of the world in terms of carbon reduction but no further, which is the most ridiculous phrase I have heard in Australian politics in a long time. It completely drains his position of any virtue.

Because:

Either Kevin believes the world is reducing its carbon usage enough or he believes it is not. One would suspect he thinks it is not, or else he would not have attempted to bring in the ETS nor bothered going to Copenhagen (unless it was for the beer or the weather or something).

If he believes it is not, then reducing our own carbon emissions only in line with the rest of the world is just completely contradictory to his own belief that the reductions are not enough. If he believes that the rest of the world is reducing carbon emissions at the correct rate to the correct levels then there is clearly no need for an ETS.

The only two 'rational' responses are:

1. Continue with the ETS anyway.
   
2. Forget about it.
   

The problem with 1. is that continuing with the ETS when the rest of the world refuses to come along leaves the rest of the world at a perceived economic advantage. This will be translated inevitably and instantly by the Opposition into a picture of Kevin perpetrating economic sabotage on his own country in the name of alleviating an environmental problem that many in the Opposition (and in the community) believe is itself a furphy, and that anyway were it true will now not be alleviated by the ETS as the rest of the world is backing out/not interested. The Opposition will make merry hell with this, I can envision them already gaggling about haggling over who will get to do the speaking in Question Time.

The problem with 2. is that he will lose large sections of voters and the Opposition will crow with victory.

Now these few sentences above have a distinctly 'utilitarian' flavour to them in that they are framed in basic political terms. But we should never forget that running parallel to the above will be Kevin's own I think deeply held virtue ethic that he should attempt to do the 'right' (big-picture style) thing, which in Kevin's mind is almost certainly going to be reduce carbon emissions through the ETS. Not because of what the rest of the world may or may not do but because reducing carbon emissions through an ETS is just plainly the right thing to do (for Kevin). Or ipso facto, not reducing carbon emissions by the levels attainable through an ETS would be to deliberately do something he believes is morally (in a virtue sense) wrong. And he's been going around telling us he believes it would be morally wrong not to introduce an ETS for the last year.

So for Kevin the choice is do what he believes is morally right in a virtue sense and take a severe beating in the polls and risk his government (if he continues to believe it is morally right to have an ETS when the rest of the world doesn't), which risk itself is also an affront to his ethical picture in terms of the 'whatever it takes' ethos of the Labor Party, ie. How can it be morally defensible to deliberately let the Coalition take power?

Or, drop it and try to win back the green constituency in some other way. Probably by attempting to reframe the whole debate away from an ETS, or by introducing calibration to the legislation that only commits Australia to staged introduction in concert with the rest of the world. 'Subject to certain conditions', as Humphrey might have said.

Neither of these positions is ethically 'nice' and both of them are eminently exploitable even by the current conga line of dimwits and UFOlogists who make up the Opposition.

It will certainly be an interesting couple of months.

I expect to hear a message along these lines from Labor:

'A balanced approach that seeks to reduce our own carbon emissions while at the same time securing the nation's economic potential.'

What none of them (internationally) have come to accept is that at some point economic potential and environmental security will be incompatible if economic potential remains defined as ever increasing industrial growth. I am sure many understand this, but they do not yet accept it as an acceptable price to pay, and that's understandable if your country is made up of 800 million angry hungry peasants. It's understandable, but not acceptable.

I have only sympathy for poor Kevin stuck in this vice. For I suspect he knows also that when it comes down to it the genesis of this problem is not in the political machinations of nations but in the minds of the people who make up those nations, all of them.

 

With thanks to the people who taught me about the Prisoner's Dilemma.

An old project: What am I doing?

What am I doing?

I am writing.

But not just writing, I am also thinking. Thinking then writing.

But sometimes, as I am writing, what I am thinking changes and so I write that.

So I am writing and thinking at the same time.

Is this writing, itself, me thinking?

What proportion or character of this thinking is affected by this writing? How is it affected? Is the part which is 'I' that which is being affected or that which is doing the effecting? Or, is the problem that I am laying false boundaries around this? Why should the identification of this 'I' be defined on one or the other side of this activity that I am now undertaking?

When I read other people's writing I do not consider that I am taking literal part in them being, or their thinking. I am not them thinking that sentence. This writing, these words, are not literally I in the same way as I thinking at night.

Yet even then I use words when I think at night – I compose thinking in words, and this writing consists entirely of words. But this still does not provide a link in actual being between these words, this writing, and this consciousness I am experiencing.

Am I experiencing this consciousness or am I doing it?

The writing of these words, the practice of this language, affects what I think as I do it, and so changes what I write, but this writing is not, itself, as ink on paper, me thinking. And yet, this thinking does not take form without this writing? There is thinking that takes form without writing, obviously, but this thinking I am doing now is in some way, and to some extent, reliant on and formed by and influenced by and composed of and consists of this writing, this language, these words.

So what am I doing?

Is this writing and thinking process even thinking then? Does this act of writing defile thinking? Would thinking be better without writing? Would it then be a different kind of consciousness and a different kind of being? It would be a different kind of thinking, while still influenced by and composed of and reliant upon this language and these words (or words like these except not written). Thinking without writing would not be influenced by this act of writing and so would be different. To what extent would it be different? To what degree would that matter? Maybe it is in fact not different? How could one ever know unless one tried to write down what one was thinking without writing and then destroy the project? I suppose one could just contemplate. Contemplate in sentences and not write it down. Would this just be like pretending to write one's thoughts down, and so would that thinking still be influenced by all the conventions of the writing bar the actual physical act of pen on paper? I am not sure what different means in this either. They could be different thoughts, as I have different shoes, but not different thoughts, as all my shoes are shoes. What difference would this make, were it true?

Also, what does better mean, when there is no purpose in this for effectiveness to be measured against except this thinking's own knowability, which can not be compared without undertaking some kind of cross-comparison – either thinking only writing empty of thinking, or writing thinking that is not written.

I seem to be writing and thinking in spirals. Am I trying to explain myself? Is all thinking some attempt to explain myself to myself, or to others? Why do I attempt to take one question in one instance –'Am I trying to explain myself?' and then try to explode it and expand it – 'Is all thinking…' as if many instances of the one (or an expanded instance of the one) would in some way explain or describe more fully the underlying question, which is something about thinking?

The vast majority of my thoughts are not contemplative, but have to do with the basic daily living of life.

I did not know the meaning of that sentence until I wrote it. Actually, I kind of knew it generally, I had an idea, I suppose, of what it was going to be before I started writing it, but I did not think it whole, compose it whole in my head, then copy it from my mind word by word onto the paper. No, I had a vague idea of how it would come out. No again, I had a confidence that it would be written, and at the same time, I knew generally what I wanted it to convey. Then I started writing it, and composed it into a sentence along the way. This is what I am doing with all these sentences. But even that first 'meaning' that I claim I already knew I wanted to convey – what meaning did that have until it was/is actually said or written? How can I claim to have had/known/held a meaning that was not yet made of language? How could I ever know that unless I could test it, and in so doing I would need to use words and so the meaning would no longer be wordless and so its first meaning collapses.

So, I am probably thinking vaguely (but still in language), and then, in writing, translating, or giving effect to, or forming, that vagueness into a structured piece of scrawl called a sentence.

Again I am thinking in spirals, going forward then returning to questions I wrote before. I embark on a series of thinkings and writings about a question. As thinking and writing happens other questions and issues arise and through them I come back to answering an earlier question (have I answered any questions?). But it is not neat or regular, and I seem to repeat myself. I seem to need to restate the same thought in different ways until I am convinced I have come up with a way of framing that thought that addresses the questions asked, or at least, addresses the assumptions I assume lead to the question being asked in the first place.

Is that all I am doing? Could this be the case not just for the answering of these questions but also for the questions themselves? That is, are all these questions just different attempts (in form) at trying to ask the same question? And am I merely trying to get the right framing, the adequate precision, the correct or accurate form of the same question? And isn't that question – the one I am trying to frame, to make clearly, some kind of question that already holds the assumptions that there needs to be a question, that it can be written down; and to what extent does that, should that, undermine or underpin what I am doing?

I am writing and I am thinking. I am thinking and writing in spirals. I am trying to find out if I am asking about whether I am thinking about many things or the one thing in different forms, and whether or not these questions are many questions, or if instead I am trying to write the same question in different ways. And I am repeating myself. Perhaps it is not one thinking or question as opposed to many thinkings or questions. Perhaps it is three or seven or four separate thinkings, and eight, six or three questions. But perhaps I am missing a more important problem, which is what is the 'it' which could be one or many or three or a thinking or a question or both, or written or unwritable? And when I ask that, I am assuming the question can be answered to 'What is the 'it'?' Perhaps the question can not be answered with 'is'. Perhaps it needs to be 'What does the 'it' which could be one or many questions or thinking or both….?'

I simply don't know if 'it', whatever it is or does, does or does not require, contain, describe, or in some other way relate to one or many questions or statements or combination thereof.

 

I accept this thinking is made up of, created by, limited by and described by this language, and that this language is created by, limited by, a whole miasma of history, societal/personal interactions. Am I bound to accept that this consciousness, also made up by thinking, is therefore created and restricted and described by the limitations of language? If this thinking is language, and this thinking is consciousness, to what extent is consciousness as necessarily socialised as language?

Is this consciousness unique to me (itself)? Perhaps this consciousness, which I normally take to be intensely personal, is in fact mundanely common. We seem to think that, at the same time, everyone has a common attribute – consciousness – which is the same kind of basic consciousness in everyone, but that we are all uniquely conscious in our own selves. I am not sure what 'basic' or 'unique' means. Am I giving in to another problem about one or many? In doing this writing and trying to find out about this consciousness – am I writing about one thing – this consciousness I am now doing or experiencing, or many consciousnesses that may or may not be the same, in substance or manner, in other people? Or only some people, maybe 50, maybe 3?

But none of this will help. It will make no difference to this project if this consciousness does or does not exist, to whatever extent, in others.

 

This is not about the stuff that makes up this thinking. I am not asking about this seeing, this smelling, this writing, or this thinking. This is about the experiencing of these things. What is (or does) this 'it' that is experiencing (or doing) this thinking? I can explain all the other stuff, or someone else can or will be able to – someone will be able to find out how the light goes in my eye and into my brain and fizzles some neuron – that's easy. They will even be able to see or explain or describe or tell a story about how any number of these stuffs – sensations, experiences of senses, instances of language use, examples of comprehension, interact as fizzles in the brain. They will even be able to predict the actions of a thinking person from the combination of fizzles. But this still will have nothing to do with the 'it' that is either experiencing the doing of these things, or doing the experience of these things.

But what is there to show that this experiencing is something other than the sensations themselves? One might say that there is something that is able to recall past sense experiences and predict future sense experiences that is not itself the sense experience, unless one claims that this recollection or prediction is itself a sense experience.

If a sense were defined as something that can be measured as fizzles and the experience is something that can not, then this would fall because someone can certainly measure the fizzles in the brain when recollection or prediction happens. So I must either deny that recollection/prediction is part of the experiencing or that the experience is still not fizzled.

I want to say that the delineation between fizzled/not fizzled is wrong – but I want to keep the idea that there is a delineation between the sensation, or waves of combinations of sensations, and the experiencing of it.

What about temporality? The individual sense experiences change through time, but there is some thread of continuity in the experience of them. Admittedly the sense experiences are not individual, but a whole net, a map of connected sensations, where there can never be a single moment of non-sensation. Non-sensation would mean non-experience which would destroy the experiencing thing.

But actually not a map or a net, rather a whole mess of sensations cascading through space and time that, (and perhaps here is role for the meaning of this consciousness) I pretend to order into a coherency I commonly consider 'reality'.

So these sense experiences and this experiencing are reliant. Body and life.

Am I confusing myself without simplicity? Is this project useless? Is it like asking completely unanswerable questions, questions trapped in their own grammatical assumptions. Questions like 'Why am I going to die?'

A question like this is useless because it (the 'why?') commonly assumes a justifiable answer, an 'ought' answer. Perhaps 'what am I doing?' is similar in that it assumes an answer from a sphere to which the answer can not turn?

 

The fullest answer I can give to the question 'Why am I going to die?' is: 'Because I was born.' It is not 'Because my heart will stop'.

When the doctor answers the question 'Why is he dead?' with: 'Because his heart has stopped'. He is really just re-stating the question, for to have a stopped heart and to be dead are the same thing. Obviously he could use any other medical term – his brain no longer fizzes, his pupils no longer dilate, or any combination of these, but they are all merely re-listing the criteria that the questioner already assumes to be true – that's why the question was asked.

This kind of questioning and answering will quickly degenerate into an endless spiral of justifications: 'Why did his heart stop?' 'Because he was hit by a truck.' 'Why was he hit by a truck?' 'Because he was walking on the freeway.' 'Why was he walking on the freeway?'

And this itself can spiral in countless other directions at any juncture: 'Why did his heart stop?' 'Because he was hit by a truck.' 'Why was he hit by a truck?' 'Because the driver failed to see him.' 'Why did the driver fail to see him?' 'Because he was listening to the radio.' Ad infinitum.

At some point we decide to break the 'causal' link. We do not want to say that because the radio producer decided to play Hits of the 60s this other guy died. Playing Hits of the 60s and being dead are not normally considered the same thing (or different ways of expressing the same thing), in the way that having a stopped heart and being dead are the same thing.

But neither would we normally accept that the reason he is dead is that he was born. I suppose even this could suffer from spiralling if we were to ask 'Why was he born?' But the difference in this scenario is that even if I can not answer the question 'Why was he born?' without going into spirals I can clearly and unambiguously claim that had he not been born he would not have died.

The truck accident he may have survived had the truck been going slower or swerved and just run over his toes. Or even it may be a lie and he only appeared to have been hit by a truck when brought into Emergency.

But the fact that he is dead is absolutely linked to the fact that once he was born. Again, he could never have died had he not been born. The truck, the heart stopping, are mediums through which his inevitable death became apparent. But while it is true to say that the two statements 'His heart has stopped' and 'He is dead' mean the same thing, it is not true that the two statements 'He was born' and 'He is dead' mean the same thing. Or is it?

Perhaps similarly I can not find an answer to 'What am I doing?', or 'What is the 'it' which is experiencing something now?' by looking at the immediate evidence or substance of this activity and this thing.

 

Can it even be described? Putting aside the problems of the constructions that limit language; and putting aside the problems of the relationship (intrinsic, constructive or otherwise) between language and this thing, can something meaningful be said about this thing that experiences thinking?

If something could be said, how can I know if it is meaningful? I could say it is meaningful if it has some kind of use. 'Use' meaning that description can be in some way used to draw some other inference or conclusion, and do so with some level of certainty. That other inference or conclusion may not itself be valid, but that at least the description can be used (perhaps in a variety of ways), and (importantly) by other people, in such a way as they will be comfortable in drawing inferences or conclusions that the description provides a fairly coherent set of sentences.

 

Is it valid for me to be writing about this consciousness? Or, what kind of validity pertains to this project by me writing about it myself and about my own consciousness (or this consciousness I am now experiencing, whether it can be described as 'mine' or not)? Would there be a reduction in validity if I were writing about the consciousness (or attempting to write about the consciousness) experienced by some other animal or thing? Am I assuming that by writing about this consciousness I am now experiencing, that anything (or something) I write would have or pertain to, some extension of validity in another (or some other) animal or thing?

If I am to write about some other animal or thing, there will always be the problem of investigating the nature and extent of any validity in that (or any particular) other animal or thing. This problem will of course also be inherent in the act of me thinking about myself in the same way as any perspective will have inherent problems of validity because of it being a perspective, but can I say that this problem might be slightly mitigated by the perspective being from me of me, or could it in fact be irritated by this approach?

However, even if I can not write with any real certainty about this consciousness I am experiencing, neither can I write with any certainty about the consciousness that may be experienced by any other animal or thing. And while I am certain that I am experiencing something (or at least that there is some experiencing going on here), I am not at all comfortable with postulating the content or character of any experiencing that might be going on in/around/about another (or some other) animal or thing.

I am therefore forced to write only about this experiencing happening now, to do with me, if I am to attempt to write validly at all.

 

There are some events that are probably occurring that are probably essential to this consciousness, but which I am not experiencing. I am not experiencing the electrical impulses in my brain that in some way create and contain this consciousness. Or, is this consciousness itself the experience of experiencing these electrical impulses? Likewise with my heartbeat, or the squelching of my stomach, or the purifying of my liver.

 

 

What am I doing?

I am writing about something I am experiencing. I am finding it difficult to find a way to describe what I am experiencing, and therefore to describe what I am doing. Why am I finding it difficult? Firstly because I keep asking additional questions? Secondly, because I can't find a way to write about it.

Perhaps the problem is that I am trying to write about it rather than just write it. But isn't writing about it and writing it the same thing?

Also I am trying to write with validity. What does this mean? Does it mean that at some point in the future when I read over what I am writing now, these words will still ring true? And, that these words ring true to other people at future times?

This could certainly be a part of it. I have to feel comfortable now that at some future time I will be able to read these words again and feel that they are valid. But that is not the whole story and it only gets me one step further down the track. For even if this is true I still don't know what would constitute some way of satisfying this criteria, and secondly, I still haven't done it in relation to what I am doing now.

All I have done is write about an aim I should have about a feeling I (or someone else) might have at some future point in time when these words are read. There is also no way, using this criteria, that I can ever verify it before finishing it.

 

Perhaps because there is nothing else to write. Do away with analogy you do away with character, plot, set – everything but this writing now, and this writing now is hopelessly lost, unsure, unsettled.

Unfocused but focused solely on the one thing that there is to write about if I want to write honestly, barely – this consciousness, this writing.

Does that mean that this writing is itself some kind of analogy for what to do when I am trying to write honestly, barely? No. Any other kind of writing – any poem, story, novel, article, list, graph, function or whatever – don't they inevitably become some kind of analogy for doing this kind of writing? (But that statement may be an analogy).

Trying to answer, in the broadest and yet most exact way – the question:

What am I doing?

 

Why would I want to do this? Am I trying to prove something? Must I carry forth as if no one will ever read this? That would be a conceit for at least I will read it as I am reading it now as I write it. And there is in me some want that when I write and then read over this I will feel that I have written something that in some way makes me think/feel: 'Yes, that's true.'

 

Now there's an assumption and a symptom! Why do I care to want to read/write something that makes me feel that?

 

Perhaps I can find my way by being less direct?

 

Other people seem to think I exist as a separate existence – as a person.

I also tend to think this.

If I accept this, what are the things that I think, when 'doing' what it is to be myself? Keeping in mind that the vast majority of my daily thinkings are not reflective, there is also though an activity I undertake in reflection in which I recall experiencing senses and I believe (as I do now) that these experiences were unique in that I alone experienced them, or at least I alone experienced the perspective I had upon those experiences.

This activity, this reflection, does not prove or describe this consciousness, nor does it answer any question about what I am doing now. But I do in fact spend some time in reflecting on past experiences. This activity is almost always provoked and comes unexpectedly – an aroma caught while crossing a street, or when I look at a photograph I haven't seen in a while, or on the anniversary of some event. And when I do this remembering activity I have a sense that it is about being me – that these things have some constitutive relationship to the consciousness I mundanely experience day in and day out – again, during the experiencing of which I rarely actually contemplate these things. So if they do have any constitutive relationship to this 'I' they are certainly not everpresent in my doing or experiencing this consciousness – and they are certainly not in any other person's consciousness or awareness of me being a conscious being, at least not in the same as I experience them. So their link to my self seems rather tenuous, and their link to my first point (that other people seem to think of me as a separate conscious entity) is extremely dubious – in fact non-existent.

So they do not in any sense support a putative argument that if other people seem to think I have or am a separate and different consciousness then I must be. And I can not build a bridge of validity from the practice of doing them to the proof of my own consciousness.

Nevertheless, what are they? What is this set of recollected senses /experiences specifically?

Another way of thinking of about this would be from the fact that if I had an arm transplant I would probably still consider myself (and be considered by others) to be the same being as the one with the old arm. I could have any part of this body transplanted – my whole body and this would still hold true – except my brain. If this brain were transplanted into another body, other people would almost certainly consider that the existential being went with the brain.

But we all have brains, and what is actually considered unique about that existential being is the thoughts that happen with that brain. So what are some of the thoughts that would need to go with the brain for me to consider that it was still the same conscious being, and that that being was 'me'. I can not possibly write them all, but what are some of the more common – and important ones in terms of which ones I place importance upon. What are the thoughts I have that, at this time in my life, make me reflect and feel that I am in fact a separate conscious being with a separate unique consciousness?

This is not the same as deciding the thoughts I would have injected into a new brain, if I were getting one, that would enable me to continue to be me. These would include broad knowledge such as knowledge of my family tree, a great liking for roast duck and beer, and the ability to play the banjo with my own unique badness.

Instead, what are some of the images/thoughts that, when I have or do them, I feel I am actively being (and in a way reviewing what it is to be) me.

 

1. The smell of my father as I rest my head into his chest just under his right collar bone near his shoulder. He is wearing a dark orange, soft woollen jumper with knitted lines about a centremeter wide. I can smell him and I can feel him hold me up against him and that he is really happy to have me there. His smell is of his own unique scent. He is talking to someone over my shoulder but I am just resting my head into his chest and I am comfortable and safe.
   
2. The smell of eucalyptus bark and the leaves and grass, early morning on my grandparents' farm in Byrneside in northern Victoria, and the singing magpies as the sunlight angles down through ghost gums. A sense of freedom.
   
3. The birth of my daughter, when she was placed on my wife's chest and looked up at us. In fact the whole birth and my wife going through it.
   
4. My wife smiling up at me when I first told her I loved her and she said she loved me too. Her beautiful clear eyes. Her bedroom as we stood next to her bed, and the dark wooden cupboard behind her. Also that it was night, and the soft orange light from the lamp on her face. Then, her face when we were married in Fitzroy Gardens. The tear in her eye for happiness and the almost overwhelming beauty of her.
   
5. My wife naked. And making love to her on a ferry between Helsinki and Stockholm. Our small cabin without a porthole, and the shaded lights coming down the brown walls, painted with a Scandinavian mountain scene.
   
6. I am about eight years old and it's summer holidays and I've leapt out of bed at our house in Essendon and I know I've got a full free day ahead and I open my drawers and slip on underpants, shorts, hawaian shirt and I'm ready to go and I thought how easy and wonderful this is. My blue BMX.
   
7. The last time I saw my father conscious and alive. As I was leaving the hospital room I was at the door and turned to say goodbye and he looked at me, swimming out of his morphine induced delirium he looked at me with absolute steady truth and thankfulness, with almost bashfulness and apology and said: 'Thanks pal.' These were his last words to me and he knew they would be and so did I and he meant them solidly, meant them for everything and even though I, at 26 then felt those words deeply, they have become even more penetrating, more real, more wonderful as I have continued to grow and specifically since I had a child, my daughter.
   

The death of our parents and the birth of our children – and the echo of these events through our being, is this what it comes down to?

1. Coming back from the pub drunk one night with my wife and we put on Irish music and danced all around the flat.
   
2. Waiting outside a gallery my wife was applying for, I'm standing on lower Broadway in SoHo on a cold grey September day about 11 am and suddenly realise it's snowing.
   
3. When my grandfather took me to Windy Hill when I was about 10 years old and some player kicked the ball through the goalposts and up into the stand and it came straight for my face, slow at first then incredibly fast and whack-ring! As it hit the metal pole right in front of my nose and bounced off somewhere and the shocked ooh aahing of the people around me who sighed a relief that it hadn't hit me, and my being ashamed at being the centre of attention and my grandfather not saying anything (that I can remember) but I loved to go to Windy Hill with him at three-quarter time when we could get in for free.
   
4. Running to talk to my mother on the telephone on Monday mornings when I was a kid and she lived in the U.S. and called every week.
   
5. The great excited flap of happiness my mother flew into when I told her my wife was pregnant.
   
6. My daughter, at two years old, running down the hallway to give me a hug because I came home from work.
   

 

I could write dozens if not hundreds of these and it honestly seems, when I read back over them, that they do give me, and I suppose would give others, a much richer understanding or impression of 'me'. But really it might give an impression of what I am like, what kind of person I am. But everyone would have these kind of memories of impressions. Perhaps they are the best way to undertake this project – in a way they are a lot more 'honest' (if by that I mean true, direct and bare) than this other way of writing and thinking. But again, they would only serve to prove that it is true when other people think I exist (that if they assume this means I have memories such as these) they are right. Also, that it is true that I believe I have memories.

But it only in the end serves to show that – that these memories occur to me, that I practice them, and I in general consider them in some way constitutive of my being.

It does not describe what that being is. Again, it does not describe or show what it is that experiences these memories. Nor does this in any way describe how or to what extent they are constitutive of this self – let alone of this experience of being a self.

And anyway, there is perhaps much that would be left out – even if I wrote thousands of them – and that which is left out could perhaps be essential to even knowing what it is that I am in the first place. I would also write different ones each time I tried to write them, they are not, in the end a small finite set. They are inevitably finite, but the set is not small.

So what value does it have? Unknown.

Perhaps this project should have been written as a poem, or thrown as a drawing. What is it that makes me think that I could get any way toward satisfying this project by using this form of writing and not some other form of writing or expression, even if that form were analogous perhaps it would be a closer way of pursuing this? I will admit that this very form of writing I find difficult to define. It is masked as discourse but really it is just me trying to write what I think as I think it, and obviously I have been trained to write / think in this manner when thinking / writing about this subject (regardless of how unsuccessfully I acquit this kind of writing / thinking).

But were I to attempt a different form of expression – a poem, a song, a drawing – wouldn't that defeat the very project I am now undertaking, if that undertaking is or in fact trying to do this project – to address these issues – in this kind of writing?

Should it turn out that I am unable to acquit this project in this kind of writing – would it perhaps be better to attempt it (though of course because it would be in this kind of writing 'it' would need a new definition and motivation) in another kind of writing?

Or, is the fact of doing this project in this writing intrinsic to this project in itself?

Would it hold the same meaning – or kind of meaning – were it done in another form of expression?

 

What is the point of 'separating' these images / recollections / thoughts from the meaning of my being? If to mean something is (or is not just) to re-state it in different forms then the whole miasma of these images / experiences and (dare I write it) feelings, could equate in a meaningful way to my being, even though these images / experiences / thoughts are chaotic and stand no border, perhaps they could be equated to the meaning of me and I should just have to accept the 'meaning' side of this equation must either encapsulate or accept the chaotic character of the experience side, whether or not it is currently capable of doing so.

    Consider the concept of twelve / 12. One one side the word 'twelve' and on the other side the written numeral '12'. Does 'twelve' mean '12'? Does 'twelve' equal '12'?

    If I accept that the statement 3 x 4 = 12 is true do I also accept the statement 'twelve' means 3 x 4 or 'twelve' equals 3 x 4 is true?

    How is 'twelve' different to '12'?

    When writing according to grammar rules we always write 'twelve' when we are not writing maths, and when we intend to signify the meaning that would be '12' were we writing in maths.

    But the relationship between 'twelve' and '12' is not a meaningful relationship in any other way than that the one signifies the other. It is again a way of restating, in different pen-strokes, the same meaning of one in the other language, just like a stopped heart and death. There is a meaning '12' and there is a meaning 'twelve', but writing the meaning 'twelve' signifies the meaning '12', and writing 'twelve' does not necessarily mean '12' in the sense that the writing of one does not provide any justification or explanation of the other.

        By extension if I claimed that the statement "jumpol means WL" is true     and the statement "jumpol = WL" is true, then another person who believed     me could answer these questions:

a. jumpol means __________

b. jumpol = __________

1. WL means = _____________
   

d. WL = ______________

 

    But be no closer to understanding or knowing the meaning either of jumpol or of WL.

    In the same way I could write five hundred tomes of speculation and recollections, of diaries, poems and reams of paintings and CDs full of songs and claim that they collectively (or indeed individually) mean (or =) this consciousness, this 'I', but there would still be no meaning, or way of knowing the meaning, either of the opus or of the consciousness.

    So is this very writing trapped in the same problem?

    

    The very fact that I have names for 'feelings / things' can complicate this: Love, hate, happiness, missing someone, fear, anxiety. There is no 'other than language' symbol to which I can match these words. And also, these words themselves can not be matched to any other non-word non-symbol 'thing' that I can 'do'. For what, or with what, can I fill the gap:

a. happiness means _______

b. happiness = _________

1. This thinking that is happening means ____________
   

d. This thinking that is happening = ______________

 

And yet, undeniably, intrinsically, here I am. Unable to explain myself, or what is happening to me, or what I am doing, or even if it should be for this experiencing to explain, or describe what is happening to it, or what it is doing.

 

    So what other meaningful relationship can there be? Is it that my very pulse is straining between these words, or the downstrokes of these letters? More literal than expected – I write and breathe and my heart pumps blood. Perhaps there is a bodily symbiosis here. I am doing this because I was born. Because I was born I am doing this. I was born so I am doing this?

    Perhaps I am the inconsolable scream of the collective will of the bacteria of which I am made, as we (the bacteria) struggle desperately to find the voice to scream out our anger that we were mute in the millions of years of our existence, coming together falling apart, coming together falling apart. A flailing mess of microscopic desperation clinging together in a desperate bid to stay together long enough to . . . what?

    Perhaps the circularity is: I can not explain or demonstrate a meaning for this consciousness that is occurring until I can know what it is to explain or demonstrate meaning; and yet I can not know what it is to explain or demonstrate meaning until I can know or explain or demonstrate something about this consciousness. Because, obviously, the content or practice of meaning can not be described without a consciousness that can be applied to it, or from which it can grow.

 

    If meaning could be somewhat ascribed in some relation to the usefulness of the matter or item whose meaning is being enquired of, can I look in that way to the meaning of this consciousness?

    But then, 'what use is this consciousness?' is a stupid question. I can see clearly how asking the use of many matters or objects can draw out the matter's or object's meaning, but to ask it of this consciousness seems immediately incongruous. This is because there can be no meaningful alternative. That is, the question 'If there were not this consciousness what would the use be?' is entirely ridiculous and does not in any way advance this project.

    In other words, that approach is meaningless because it has no use!

 

How could this project end? Firstly, when I am satisfied in some way that it has finished because there has been some kind of resolution to the project. This could mean either I feel satisfied that all has been written and there has or has not been some kind of resolution, or I am satisfied that enough has been written, though not necessarily all, and I feel there has or has not been some kind of resolution. In both of these cases the fact that there has not been some kind of resolution to the problems in this project does not necessarily mean there has not been resolution – or, the fact that there has not been resolution to the problems but I feel enough or all has been written will be in itself a kind of resolution, or end, to this project.

Secondly, I could die or be rendered in some way physically or mentally incapable of continuing.

Thirdly, I could just stop or give up, or decide to do something else, or decide to stop doing this.

In both the second and third cases the project will cease in actuality even if it has not been finished according to the parameters of the first case.

And fourthly it could finish or stop for some other reason of which I am not currently aware.

 

Should this project be redrafted into themes? Why am I not going to redraft it into themes?

Firstly, because there could be something gained in re-reading it, whereby the order in which these thoughts came to me might later reveal to me something about the way I think and about what I am doing.

Secondly, key to this project is trying to write 'truthfully' – that is, that writing in this form is the reason I call it a project, rather than an essay or a book or a poem or a cat. This means accepting messiness, disorder, because perhaps (no, in fact) this thing that is experiencing this is messy and disorderly.

This seems to lean toward an intention to demonstrate this thing – as distinct from define it – which might be better done in essays or poems or swims.

    Why justify this? It would only require justification were the original intent of the project be to best define / demonstrate this thing and then I would need seek the 'best' medium in which to operate this project.

    But this project did not start that way.

    This project started simply by me writing 'What am I doing?' and then trying honestly to embark.

    To change that would be to abandon this project. So this could now be a cause under 4 above, (though now it has to be a fifth criteria) whereby this project could end because I abandon it deciding this project itself can not adequately do what this project set out to do, which would in turn be a case under the first criteria (whether that be that all or enough has been written).

 

    Why am I doing this? I don't derive any particular pleasure out of it, not that that would be important anyway. It is not that I am unhappy or discontent in any particular or individual way either. I am in fact probably more sure of myself and happy now than I have ever been.

    Statements like that threaten to turn this into some kind of diary. This is not a diary and it needs to stay focussed, but there is perhaps light to be shone on the project by exploring the question of why am I doing it at all in the first place.

 

    I can approach this by asking a number of questions, each in themselves indicative of the assumptions that underlie the inquiry:

    I could ask "Why did I want to do this when I first set out to do this?" That question presupposes a kind of inductive reasoning teleologically, the validity of which I have no proof. Why would my first intention, even if I could acertain and describe it define why I am doing it now? And then what validity could or should pertain to any answer to that question to the overall project?

    I could ask "Why would I want to do this project?" Again, while the answer to this question could fall into or across broadly psychological, philosophical, sociological, or even anthropological ideas, any answer in or across or within any of these ideologies would not go any way, evidentially, toward resolving this project qua this project. Again, any answer along these lines would merely reek the ideological perspective from which these broad criteria operate.

    Perhaps when I am finished, if I finish under the first criteria, I could ask 'Why did I do this project?'. Then I either need to assume that the outcome of this project will itself provide the answer, or that some other (as yet unknown) ideology would equate to it.

 

    Perhaps I am an empty thing, my thin shell a tight sheen of letters.

    Perhaps this is all water and blood, salt and hair.

 

    I am going to need to explore the thing 'feeling'.

    I am not sure if 'feelings' always run parallel to thinkings, as is I suspect commonly supposed. If I were stopped at any given time and asked 'How do you feel?' I would be able most of the time to give a fairly simple answer using the normal code of words. But I am not often stopped in this manner so I do not go through my days 'feeling lost', 'feeling in-control', 'feeling happy'. This, in the same way as I do not go through my days 'feeling conscious', or being consciously aware that I am conscious, or that my heart is beating. I do not stop and check to see if my heart is beating.

    But there are times when I feel myself feeling things. When I think back to what I wrote earlier about images that constitute me I think they may have been feelings.

    When my two year old daughter pats my shoulder and says she loves me there is something in this that heightens my sense of being, without explanation, inexplicably. Is that what I am trying to explain? That feeling of being and meaning that feels unquestionable, yet I am questioning.

 

    Were I not to have that word 'self', would I a) need to have some other word to signify the meaning purportedly held by the word 'self'? b) not have a 'self' in fact? c)have a self in fact but not know it because I don't have a word for it? d) Have a self in fact but be unable to express this fact because of lack of lexicon, yet at the same time be vaguely (or acutely) aware that there is something for which I need a word? e) have another word that expressed something different in meaning, but whose meaning encompassed the content of the meaning of the word 'self' in this language.

 

Perhaps this all an excuse, and I am ignorant of my mundanity – dull and brilliant.

 

Perhaps I am the loneliness my wife feels when I am away, or perhaps I am the cost to my employer.

Here is a list of things that happen and be that might provoke others into their seeming belief that I exist:

    My physical presence

    The sounds they hear that seem to emanate from me

    The money they pay me going out of their bank

    The money I pay them

    The mess I leave behind, my footprints

    A memory they might have of me from the past

 

Even if I do not write this to conjure a reason, nor to measure a worth; yet it is a practice born of reason, and veined with the idea of measuring worth. It is the practice that fogs this, but it is also the practice that holds this (without dissolution)?

 

This is being written with one voice but it could be written with more. I am able to converse in dialogue in my head yet I have insisted in writing this as one voice, as if from one being. Of course I am one being (I am almost sure of that) but am I necessarily one voice? I use different voices when I speak to different people about different things all the time. There is no way I would speak to a work colleague the way I speak to my wife, and vice versa. Except of course for the basic politeness at the surface of our regular conversing.

So why are you writing as if it is from one voice?

Because I am trying get to something.

You can't tell me what it is you're trying to get to?

No. But that's the point.

You are going to end up finding out something more banal than you hope for.

What is that?

It's going to come down to some simple cliché. And it must, because whatever it is you are doing it is not unique, unless you suppose you are unique in some way?

I've already been over that, I am not unique in that all of us, I assume, experience this experiencing thing, yet I am unique in that this does seem to be me and me only experiencing these things in or from or about me. And I realise that this individualising is in fact not unique.

That's right in a pretty basic sort of way. You are going to end up plushing out some platitudes though if that is the track you are on. And it's going to be something like: The meaning is in the journey itself; or the meaning is unspeakable, and in the breathing of life through your body.

And would it be wrong if I did come to that kind of conclusion? Or are you intimating that I should avoid certain varieties or fields of possible answers if I, or you, suspect that they are potentially only going to yield plain, common answers. What validity is there in trying to do this project on the proviso that I do not come up with some cliché or common dull resolution. Anyway, I'm not sure any more that this is about an answer.

That's already pretty close to a cliché. Tell me, why are worried by all this stuff? Why embark on this journey at all?

Two reasons. One I want to write a big thick book about everything I think about this in the best and most honest and straightforward way I possibly can. I want to fully interrogate this phenomenon of my being with all the intelligence and thinking power I can possibly bring to bear. I am thirty-five, and I may fail, but I really want to give it a big honest go.

That's already more than two reasons you're giving me.

Secondly, I want to write a big thick heavy book that other people can get into and understand and scrape around the insides and pick bits out of and maybe get something....

So other people are in fact intrinsic to this project? Sounds to me like you are thirty-five, you feel you have not done enough in your life. You have not lived up to the promise you yourself believed you had in your twenties, and now you are trying to claw back some of that hope, some of that, let's be plain, some of that rush of being young again.

When I thought I would begin writing in two voices I didn't expect to have this kind of interrogation. You are just using easy assumptions as to why you think I would write this book. You are the one with the cliché, my friend, not me.

Testy.

Well.

Well what is it then? Are we going to make any progress going like this? Or are you just making me speak/write these words out of trickery?

I had hoped another voice would lend a hand in this project, rather than try to reduce it to a game of analyse myself.

What else could another voice do other than interrogate the other voice? Did you think we would sing a duet?

You are a cynical bastard.

You don't mean that with as much force as it appears on the page.

Can we cooperate?

Why? That would be pointless. Then it would just be one voice. We have to fight in order to make this progress. We have to argue. Dialectic. And that's another thing, why have you not been citing all the people whose ideas you have been stealing?

That's a side issue.

No it's not. You are pretending this is all your work when if any undergrad were to sift through this they could pick it apart like a bale of hay.

Three reasons.

Can't you keep it to two reasons?

One, because I do not want to get ensnared in the mess of inferring this one thought to one person and this to another. The whole bloody book would be footnotes.

You read David Foster Wallace ten years ago?

You didn't get what he was on about you were too young, and anyway he didn't use them for the reasons you're suggesting. Two, because where would I start?

I'd suggest the beginning.

And in a way I have. When I started this and I'm talking about 'I', should I have begun with an essay on Descartes? Or should I have taken it right back to the Greeks(1)?

And when I was writing about the logical possibilities of the knowability of the self, should I have stopped and diverted into a whole thing on Hume and Wittgenstein(2)? The project would not have got off the first few paragraphs if I had stopped to cite everyone. And even then I may not be citing them correctly.

You could try, many people make careers out of it.

And thirdly, I admit and wholly understand that everything I think and write and speak comes from the thoughts of others. This language, this way of thinking, the logical traps I am caught up in, all come from the western tradition and have been covered before. But I am doing this to use my own mind to the best of my ability.

You said that before.

And if my mind is filled by the thoughts of others so be it, but I must push on. Should I cite Samuel Johnson for the meaning of words?

OK. There is nothing new in this. Can we move on? But, at the risk of being too abstruse and citing Beckett, where should we go? Are we two here standing under a tree on the road?

Now you're the one sinking into cliché.

No, I'm just citing the sources for the next feeling I have. Was Godot a cliché when Beckett wrote it? Was he just explaining something we all already knew, or was he inventing something?

The best works are those that seem to reveal to us something obvious. They make us feel we already knew what they teach us but we just weren't able to open our eyes in our souls well enough to see clearly until that work of art helped us see. In this way the artist can do both, that is, both show us something we always feel we have known, and that that something, because it is the first time we actually feel it, is something new.

That's nice, but I already knew that.

I don't think we're getting very far with this.

Am I able to speak about you without speaking about me?

Is monologue any less of a restricting factor in this project than dialogue?

You often think in dialogue.

What I mostly do is play out scenes in my head about the future. Imagining what a person will or could say and what I should or would like to say back. I lay awake at night scheming and worrying.

Most of the time things do not turn out the way I imagined they would, and rarely do I get to actually say the things that I planned to say when stressing desperately at 2am.

Of course, later, all those situations (except for a few) that I spent hours stressing about, in retrospect seem silly, and in fact I can hardly remember what it was that had me tensely strung a year ago. But at work there's always something.

You writing a diary now?

That paragraph gave me pleasure to write.

Where are we? Who am I?

That's the point. You seem to be confident, you are a voice untied to this project. A voice being introduced to it. You are a voice of careful cynicism. You are a useful voice to me. I use you often when I am looking at the shit people put in front of me most days in the form of proposals, papers, plans. I use you to screen the crap away. Then you give me comfort. Then you criticize me for whatever you can.

But I am you.

I know.

Why don't you write a book about a turtle? Or a seagull, or a boat full of animals? Write a something that means something that has pictures in it. You love the Little Prince. Why don't you write a picture book?

Would this be dishonest?

How? Sometimes it's better to tell a story than tell what you think.

But that's what I am trying to find out. Can I describe myself in this form? And anyway, any story I tell is going to be from me.

 

If a book were something that merely carried you along to a conclusion, then the writer should just delete everything up to the last line and then submit that to a thinking audience. Nay, the last word. Nay again, merely the full stop.

 

It is one thing to know or feel someone is feeling something, it is another thing to altogether to feel it, to know it yourself. How does this relate to knowing / feeling / writing about oneself? When oneself is the subject how well can one both be and fell and watch oneself being and feeling oneself being and feeling at the same time?