Marking Your Territory?

“THUMBING:” BUT WHY NOT? (II)

:Wheeliep (June 8, 9:23PM) –

(a) “The punishment should fit the crime.”

(b) “Removal of a limb (sic) for vandalism crime of this ‘severity’ is a complete over reaction to the damage.”

The issue comes down to one of law but what is law? Both the atomists and the organicists believe that law regulates the relationship between the individual and society. But how is that relationship to be conceived? Implicit in both views is a conception of justice. So we both agree on the principle, (a) that justice resides “in the punishment fitting the crime.” Where we diverge, however, is on the application of the principle of justice.

But what is justice itself? Does it exist in some absolute sense or is it an outcome of the relations of the society concerned? In other words, is it an absolute or relative concept? If the former, then it falls to Wheeliep (nothing so far from the Lieutenant) to demonstrate what it is. If the latter, then it similarly falls to Wheeliep to answer my chanllenge, that is, to demonstrate – by appeal to reason alone! – that the atomistic and not the organic conception of society, and by extension its conception of justice, is the correct one. In other words, he must specify and not simply assert that (b) “thumbing” is “a complete over reaction to the damage.” But why is it an “over reaction? Of course, in organic societies, such “damage” would not be defined simply in economic or scenic terms but rather as the degradation of the fabric of that society in which he is nurtured.

Sadly, however, Wheeliep has so far failed to do so, but we are not discouraged.
I know he will continue to struggle to refine his concepts. Maybe he could use some help. (Lieutenant, where are you?)

: troondon4 – (10:06PM) – An interesting suggestion Troon. While no vandalism strictly defined has occurred, there is a visual blight involved in Uncle Ivan wanking in public parks. Perhaps one testicle only should do. What do you think?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“THUMBING:” BUT WHY NOT? (IV)

The tenor of the criticisms of thumbing for tagging public spaces have, naturally enough, been based upon the atomistic view of society which places the individual at the center of things and which therefore sees justice largely as the protection of individual rights and freedoms. My “thought experiment” if you like is that since such a view is not the only one nor, indeed, is it the one which prevails world-wide, it should also be considered. It takes the organic view of society, one based upon religious dogma (Sharia Law, old-style Biblical Law) where the individual has no existence outside the group and which, consequently, justice is seen in terms of protecting the religious collective identity.

Perhaps a change in vocabulary might highlight the distinction. Instead of viewing tagging as a minor crime, as a case of vandalism, try seeing it as a sin. Yes, a sin and not a minor sin at that but one of the seven deadly sins. What sin is it? It is the sin of Pride. Pride you say? How ridiculous! But in religiously orthodox societies pride does not consist of the warm fuzzy feeling it has acquired in secular cultures which drains it of any significance but rather consists of the individual placing oneself at the head of the Order of Creation. It consists, indeed, of placing oneself in front of God. Yea, and I say unto you that Pride cometh before a fall, and the “fall” in this context is not some slip on the ice but is the result of God’s judgement, one which which can be harsh, involving penalties up to and including death. So the loss of a thumb for the tagger is minor – he could be stoned. Anyway, a system of law based on Sharia or old style Biblical injunction conceives of justice in radically different ways from our own secular view of things. It is impossible, in effect, to say that one is superior to the other without committing to one or the other belief systems. But is it all a matter of taste, of personal preference?

I won’t reply on an individualasis to all the comments since they are, for the most part, a repeat of previous ones. However Avasto (June 9, 6:15PM) raises some interesting points centering about his question, “Which is the best form of justice?” and, correctly in my view, concudes that “The answer is that there really is no answer.” However, even though our societies are different Avasto sees room for the application of Sharia when he states that castrating the rapist and pedophile is “completely fitting to the crime.” He is also right when he suggests that thumbing cannot be viewed as a stand-alone item. The absence of democracy, the treatment of women (the sin of Lust, the sin of the males, not the females) and so on also come with the package. But I’ve gone on long enough.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“THUMBING:” BUT WHY NOT? (V)

: Wheeliep (June 10, 9:39PM) – “I know you are ‘discussing’ this with me to point out how stupid I am, but the merest illusion of respect would go a long way to coaxing another attempt out of me.”

I thought this might be the subtext to your (misguided) outrage that I was promoting Sharia Law for the Halifax taggers. There seemed to be a psychological head-of-steam behind your remarks, and this is it: You feel that I don’t respect your intelligence. The problem then becomes one of constructing that “merest illusion of respect.” (I think you meant “allusion” rather than “illusion” but let it pass.) The question then devolves into another: What would count as a “merest allusion of respect?” I could say, “Wheeliep, I respect your intelligence,” but would you believe me? What, then, would convince you that I respect your intelligence, Wheeliep? Can you give me guidance?

My post about thumbing for taggers was not so much an effort to promote Sharia Law in Halifax but to inquire into the mind of the (Islamic, but up to recent times also the Christian) true believer. On what was his conception of law and, by extension, his conception of justice, based? Why would he think thumbing WAS a punishment which fitted the crime? My inquiry took (me at least) into a God-centered eschatology which is wholly alien to our (note, I said “our”) secularist world-view. Central to that eschatology was the concept of life’s purpose – the eternal enjoyment of the vision of God. (One might ask as to what is the life-purpose of the individual in our secularist society. Do we have one?)

A footnote to my comment on the deadly sin of Lust as indicative not of being a horn dog but of losing one’s life purpose in fleshly desire: As is common knowledge, the Islamic true-believer’s reward in heaven is access to 72 virgins. To our secularist and literalist mentality this can only mean he must a real horn-dog up there, but of course the story means nothing of the sort. On being saved Lust, as well as the six other deadly sins, is no longer a factor for the true believer. The surfeit of virgins is simply a metaphor for Lust’s irrelevance to his salvation.

A further thought: I used to be an altar boy in the Roman Catholic Church in my early youth. This probably sounds ridiculous to the commenters but it is not. I was a “true believer.” In fact, looking back, I think I was well along to becoming a priest (my education up to the BA was at the hands of religious orders). In other words, I was on the “inside” of a belief system. My point is that the role of women in Roman Catholocism differs only in degree from that in Islam.
For the priest, the female is a source of confusion, an unknowable qualtity. She is not comprehensible. She is a creature of the flesh. To compensate, she must wear head-covering and, of course, is not admitted to the ranks of the priesthood. On the one hand, she is totally revered (the Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ, after all) but on the other she is a source of temptation (a Jezebel) who will undermine the attaining of one’s life goal, the eternal vision of God. She is best avoided. In patriarchical religions – and ALL religions are patriarchical – she is an object of confusion and possible damnation. Just thought I’d say.

The thought just occurred Wheeliep: Would my present discussion serve as that “merest allusion of respect” for your intelligence? Let me know your thoughts.

: Paingirl (10:42PM) – Here’s your chance: Could you elaborate the role of Sloth in the mind of the true-believer? Why, in other words, is it one of the seven deadly sins? How does it work to destroy one’s life-goal? Let’s see you go, Paingirl! (Otherwise, it’s back to “Mindless Anonymous” with you!)

“david fincher?”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

P.S. The Parasite has once again added his empty and stupid observation. Ignore him.

“THUMBING”: BUT WHY NOT? (VII)

: Wheeliep (June 12, 3:28PM) – You asked for a comment on your post. As I was reading it it occurred to me that I had failed to mention what may well be the most intense form of transcendence of all: artistic creativity. It seems to me that it is superior to the other forms in that it is active in the fundamental sense that you have created your own form of transcendence in the realm of music. One might be “carried away” as a member of the audience listening to you but such transcendence is ultimately passive as, of course, are the other forms I mentioned. But only a small percentage of the population possesses the genuine talent to create their own transcendence. In my view you are very lucky – not “lucky” in the sense of the operation of random chance but rather in the sense of being blessed – to have such a medium. Maybe the guide at Giza knew what he was talking about after all.

: Paingirl (3:25PM) – “You can fill your life so full that you don’t need something else. I’ve said it before, why do we always want more or need more, it’s all here.”

It seems to me that everything depends on how you conceive of your life. Is it a “container” into which one pours – what? – until it’s “full?” Do you view your life as a “period of time” which must be filled with – what? – because “it’s all here?” Perhaps you have already have attained transcendence and do not wish for “something else” or “more” or, more probably, you view such transcendence simply as “overhead traffic” in the first place. Nothing wrong with that but I think we might have stumbled upon a profound male/female difference here. IS anatomy destiny after all? Would the female be less inclined to strive for transcendence simply because her nature is fulfilled in giving birth where the male, in contrast, rages against the meaninglessness and absurdity of the quotidian round? Does this account for the paucity of world class female artists, authors and even scientists? Is there a biological basis, after all, for the significant differences one finds in the frequency of such creative effort?

Write back with your thoughts.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!