|
The consideration of punishment
 
That those who steal shall have their hands cut off, that those who are adulterers shall be stoned to death, that those who kill shall have their lives taken from them - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
But before one passes judgment and issues punishment one must consider. Consider the nature of the crime. Is it truly hurtful? Does it detract from another's enjoyment of life? Or is it simply an anathema to one's personal views of how one should conduct one's self?
Is the sodomite personally infringing on your freedom? Or does the concept of sodomy simply offend your sensibilities? Surely, if you are not involved in the act and it does not impinge on your freedoms then the act is not truly punishable - your perceptions, and not the violator is that which needs correcting.
Consider the degree of the crime - to steal is a crime, be it by stealth, guile or blatant extraction - and this is a crime which should be punished. To take a life is another commonly cited crime, but the two do not compare.
Consider the reason for the punishment. In history punishment (and, in many cases, in the alter ego of justice) has proven itself, time and time again, simply to be revenge. There is no case for revenge as the perpetrator will visit the instance of the victim.
There can only be one reason for punishment - to prevent the perpetrator from revisiting the criminal behaviour. Given the maxim of Solipsology - that life must be preserved as all life is our life - there can be no case for taking life in the course of punishment.
This deduction comes not from a sympathetic judgment, but from a logical deduction based on this premise: that repercussions of an act should be based on future prevention rather than revenge.
Hypocrisy abounds as the Christian bible proclaims that one should "turn the other cheek" whereas their greatest followers are also the greatest proponents of exacting revenge. In this, Gandhi's statement, that an eye for an eye does nothing but leave the whole world blind, is a doctrine to be observed.
Punishment should not be based on revenge. Punishment should not be punishment at all. While it is truly naive to believe that correction is an available option in many cases - many criminals are as such by nature and cannot be corrected (a situation which we cannot truly understand until we visit their instances) - the solution cannot be simple eradication.
Many criminals can be corrected and given that a possibility exists, when you live their instance, wouldn't you want every opportunity?
But regardless of the possibility of rehabilitation, can we say, categorically, that a crime has been committed beyond doubt? And even it that were the case, then can we say that the ultimate price is justified? Would we ask to be done that we, ourselves are forbidden to do?
If the criminal is truly repentant, then the price of isolation for the remainder of that life is enough for that person to willingly sacrifice that life for another instance. In the society of this century, prison inmates are protected, so that they may suffer. This is, in itself, another way that we exact revenge on the perpetrators. Those who have been convicted of crimes should be allowed to resign themselves to the next instance (that of their victim), if they feel inclined and, those who aren't inclined should be allowed to wallow in their isolation, before they are inevitably forced to revisit their next instance.
Enforcing their death does not enforce them to revisit the instance of their victim. It makes them a victim and their executors, as any perpetrator of violence will, as any violent being, will revisit the instance of their victim.
The Consideration of Population
Let's be green. We can watch Planet Green (which inspired this post) and we can talk about how to make our houses more energy efficient. We can also talk about how we can all get energy efficient vehicles. Add to that ideas of compact fluorescent lights, shopping locally and driving hybrid vehicles.
Everyone has an idea of how to make the planet more "green" except for the most obvious one. Here's a simple fact: man has no natural predator.
In the days before industrialization and medicine, man was subject to culling just like any other species on the planet - there was a natural predator called disease and infection and now man has managed to, for the most part, overcome that enemy. Now, man has no other enemy than man, himself.
Since the early 1970's the population of the Earth has increased by a third. If that rate of population growth is expected to continue then, fellow inhabitants, we are in for some serious shit. And it's not like the situation when Europe was overpopulated with proletariat and many escaped to the "New World" of the Americas - there is nowhere to escape to.
The greatest threat to our, or our kids, way of life is not communism, nor is it terrorism, nor any other ideological "ism" - it is, quite simply, overpopulation. Earth, as a planet can, potentially, support twenty times its existing population but, before you go running off and fucking like rabbits to produce that 20x population, consider that the Earth can also sustain a two-thirds nuclear annihilation before there is any danger of extinction to the human race. We don't, out of fear, go randomly pushing buttons and launching ICBMs because of the pretty colors (or, at least, since the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty) but we will happily strive to have a family of six, seven, eight or .. fourteen!
Perhaps, before having children, people should be able to take a test proving that they understand the principles of exponential mathematics. The Lord said "go forth and multiply" but I don't think he ever said "go forth and stifle yourselves into oblivion in human life." You owe one life to the Earth and have one only life to replace - your own. Beyond that you share in the responsibility of the overpopulation of this Earth. Although the demise of our planet and variety of species may be considered the problem of future generations, they will have to live with eating Soylent Green and working as furniture - is that the life you wish for them when you hold them in your arms as a babe?
Be green. The population of Earth, in human terms, must stop. And we must do it humanely, by stopping the overgrowth by curbing new birth. Our Soul can only sustain the burden for so long.10:00 PM 3/19/2009
The Consideration of Randomness
For each of the following exercises, use several small pieces of paper (or an individual window for each question if using a computer system) and hide the previous one before writing the next one.
The first test:
- Think of a number between one and ten
- What is your favorite number?
Are they the same?
Now, answer the following questions as quickly as you can - if you don't know the answer then simply write down a number:
- Think of a number between one and ten thousand..
- When was the Battle of Hastings?
- How many teaspoons are in a cup of water?
- What is the square of 12?
- Write pi to as many digits as you can (without decimal points)
- How old are you?
- Using numbers 1 to 26 to represent the letters A to Z write your mother’s maiden name without spaces.
Now, without trying to remember what it was and without looking at any of the earlier entries you made – without consideration and without referring to the first question, write down the number you first wrote down.
Is this the actual number you wrote down? Compare the two. There’s probably at least one digit off and, if you completed the exercise properly the whole number is completely different, although it may be similar or even, perhaps, a number that you wrote down for one of the other questions.
Consider the second number that you wrote down. Imagine that you have the true ability to completely forget within a matter of moments (which you, of course, do not – otherwise social discourse would be utterly impossible) and imagine that you never saw the first number. Imagine that you are without the context of the questions asked. Would not the second number appear completely random, relative to the first?
Consider the first exercise. Does it not make sense that a random number you select would be a “favorite number”? We are without the power of voluntary ignorance, and yet we find ourselves ignorant all of the time, even to evidence that has been already presented to us - we forget, as was demonstrated in this exercise. In the first case we may have remembered the first number so we pick it as a favorite number. Or we may have remembered that we already chose that number so we picked another one. In either case, our choice in the first instance affects our choice in the second.
In the second exercise, we're so distracted by the subsequent questions that we forgot the first one which was a random number between one and ten thousand. When so called "randomness" comes from our mind we find it difficult to not be affected by previous information but when distraction is introduced then it's easy to forget. How often have you been distracted by something and realized that you'd forgotten to do some other mundane task, even if that distraction is voluntary?
The same is true of our Spirit - it is constantly engaging in self-distraction and, as such, forgets its previous instances. This is its nature and with it comes a duality - to engage with previous instances and, at the same time, to voluntarily be distracted from its first-hand experience of previous instances so as to perceive the acts of said instance as somehow "random." This is not the randomness of throwing the dice or drawing a card, but the randomness of a seemingly arbitrary decision, but like all decisions, it is affected by previous experience.
|
|
|
|
