Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 12:35pm

I've never especially liked the word "justice", I think because I spent many years in Rome and came to associate Latin and its cognates with an imperial-mindedness that couldn't ever be "just" by dint of Rome's ethnocentrism.

"Jurisdiction", "jurisprudence", "jury" -- all "ew words" for me, I guess I'd never have made a good lawyer?  On the other hand, Cicero might have totally gotten it and stayed my friend; seems he had an agile mind.

I've transferred that suspicion of the ancient Rome of my childhood, to DC in later years, remarking on the similarity of architecture and the prominence of Roman symbols of authority, most notably that bundle of rods with an ax sticking out, what sixth graders at the Overseas School of Rome, like me, learned was the "fascis" in Latin.

I don't like US presidents to seem imperial (the longer the convoy of black flag-waving cars, the stupider).  From a Quaker standpoint, going for the "imperial look" is like dunking your whole head in a bucket of cosmetics and coming up thinking you'll look good.  Plainer is better.

Anyhoo, I know my quirky sentiments about words are not ruling the roost and I've learned that "when in Rome..."  I blend in pretty well, despite my level of alienation living in a self-styled empire or whatever it is, I keep looking at Puerto Rico to try figuring it out. 

When an analyst for AFSC and publishing Asian-Pacific Issues News my focus was on "the Puerto Ricos of the Pacific" -- also bombed (Puerto Rico has been a favorite bombing range, though not for nukes). 

What could such an imperial-minded civilization possibly know about "justice"?  Nothing, right?  Does that have anything to do with why they all clamor to be saved and forgiven?  They know if justice were served, they'd not be so "getting away with it" right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 1:38pm

"Justice" in the Bible doesn't mean "God will get them for that" -- or that we should. It's basically the domestic end of Shalom, ie making sure that widows & orphans receive what they need. The retributionary notions are in there; but when a prophet tells a group of poor people that they're going to have 'justice', those are not the popular connotations.

Scapegoating & persecution of outsiders is the cheap substitute that some political charlatans offer as a distraction while their true constituency just goes on pumping. (To be impartial about this, there are other distractions, like other political charlatans saying "Watch out for that charlatan!" while their true constituency does much the same. Truly, we shouldn't 'put our faith in princes'.)

----------------

Back to the context of the notion I started from: People ultimately want happiness more than they want the consolations of giving their tormentors Hell. But the human tendency to persist in demands for "Justice" of the equal-suffering form, that gets in the way.

Was thinking more about this last night. The worst thing you can do to someone isn't to make him suffer in body, heart or mind -- but to injure his soul by giving him cause to hate you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 3:22pm

Teasing apart all the meanings of "justice" can't be easy, especially in light of this thick Latin overlay, obscuring just about everything Biblical. Seminary students like Chris Hedges maybe get down to the deeper layers.

When I got to Princeton to learn about Philosophy right from the horses' mouths (quite a stable), I was surprised to learn from Walter Kaufmann that Nietzsche was so down on "resentment" as the prime symptom of spiritual illness, the antithesis of his own ideal, eternal life in some resentment-free zone.

Not that one need take Kaufmann's word for it, as Nietzsche expressed himself pretty clearly.  Not all of us read German though.[1]

I do think the "beyond good vs evil" aesthetic has much to recommend it, as then the "nonsense vs sense" axis is more exposed, and Oblivion (eternal perdition) is more in that direction for some of us (total sense = utter nonsense at some "meet at infinity" extreme). 

It's not just how evil we humans are, it's how banal and mundane we make our evildoing (Arendt), how we take for granted as some part of the eternal order ("human nature" becomes our excuse -- blame the brain).  We put our own evil onto God as our Maker, claiming we're omniscient about human nature (who made us the judge?).

In that sense, yes, our tendency to moralize, to think we know what true evil is, marks a turning point, when vanity (higher self consciousness) began.  Eden was over at that point, an Epic Saga begun.

One reaches for greater equanimity in a world full of insults and offenses or worse.  As a "Quaker citizen diplomat" or sorts (redundant?), I'd love to keep it to simply "insults and offenses", mixed with expressions of sincere appreciation and respect, and forgo what I consider "outward violence" in contrast. 

I'm sometimes confronted by other Friends who say "no, name-calling is hurtful, a form of violence".  I was brought up on "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" as a childhood "taunt" yes, but also words of wisdom.  Lets keep it to the virtual battle of names, and settle our differences there, how about it? Might take some hours.[2]

What's required in diplomacy is something like a "thick skin" such that you're not ticked off by the slightest provocation, and indeed manage to stay somewhat unruffled in the face of slings and arrows -- up to a point.

 I understand people having enough and fighting back, however if we have a keen sense of justice, we allow venting of grievances much sooner in the process and start to accommodate, nipping wars in the bud.  That's the Quaker ideal of right action. The ability to send clear signals is another "nice to have".

In choosing to name Spaceship Earth our "Promised Land", I'm echoing Jewish themes of working towards liberation, adding the Christian notion of "each one of us responsible" (a messiah, small "m").  "I am the way" is also "i am the way" meaning "small voice within" and not some completing of a Babel Tower somewhere.

[1] some people still think Nietzsche had something to do with Nazi white supremacism and was maybe friendly with Hitler, confusing Nietzsche with the later Heidegger.  On the contrary, Nietzsche's break with Wagner was precisely over the latter's antisemitism, and he was officially going crazy the day Hitler was born, already decrying the direction Germany was taking (Nietzsche had no real country by then, was Austrian after Prussia went away).

[2] I think of Duane Clarridge debating with that Sandanista guy at great length in his Spy for All Seasons. No one got shot.  They ended up friends.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 5:05pm

Forgiveness is the only true way "beyond Good and Evil."

And not even God demands forgiveness from someone who's been wronged; remember that personal aspect of the Day of Atonement.

One can't remain in Heaven in a state of malice... It sets a person into a condition similar to that of Mephistophilis, when he tells Dr. Fautus:"Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it."  Someone might be extremely angry, and still go to Heaven -- but "You can't take it with you" applies to anger as much as money.

Hence, I gather, reincarnation -- and karmic settling of scores -- to accommodate our weakness, not God's.

[I don't know what Nietzsche has to do with any of this -- (?) -- some heady idealizations of romantic excess, appealing mainly -- as Bertie Russell pointed out -- to people who can swallow a premise like: "I am a superman." Pointed out an epidemic mental condition of Western civilization, but instead of diagnosing & treating, as Dostoyevsky tried to do, seemed more to be recommending it.]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 6:08pm

Fine to be skeptical or just unknowing about Nietzsche, I'm not his lawyer, Kaufmann more so (and did a good job). Nietzsche's twisted sister cashed in on her bro's posthumous fame, was in bed with Nazis, and took his "overman" (as Walter repenned it, as in "we shall overcome") into some Social Darwinist antisemitic extreme, a sick projection, what Nietzsche himself was decrying as he officially went over the line into madness (politically defined).

These are deep topics.  I sometimes joke "Feudalism" means "people who feud", thinking Romeo and Juliet. I just now saw Kubo and the Two Strings at the Bagdad, Made In Oregon (a cartoon from Laika) and so am fresh with "family dynamics" [tm] being the core calculus of world history (stay tuned: Cain meets Able). 

"Capitalism" in contrast, is the sport of playing major cities off against each other, a benign form of cock fighting, highly metaphysical.  My Portland is doing quite well, by the way.  I apply my own spin to well-known words, in other words.  No one cares, even I don't, but I enjoy the sport.

--

Note: yes I sometimes put the comma outside the quotes, so not-Oxford (~Oxford), following a leading of one Thatcher Robinson (right? Ben's dad), local Friend, who wrote some rational-enough essay on the topic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 7:30pm

I don't understand either Nietzsche nor what he has to do with this topic, aside from your disinclination to actually discuss it.

When what you think about one person place or thing, in worlds above or below or sideways from here, is relevant to a discussion -- a comment explaining what you think about it is welcome -- but unless the relevance is clear, you should probably very patiently explain what it is...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 7, 2016 at 8:00pm

The link is "forgiveness", which you're talking about, and Nietzsche's encouraging that, versus holding a grudge or nursing resentment. If ya wanna get intellectual about it, spell it with two s's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 8, 2016 at 12:03am

Well, that would place Nietzsche among those few human beings who consider forgiveness a good thing.

I don't think that God _objects_ to resentment; it's a natural human reaction to being robbed, intimidated (or downright brutalized), humiliated, dissed & dismissed -- So far as I understand God's position here, feeling resentment simply doesn't happen to be good for us.

Resentment is not an attractive attribute of character... but between that, and living on the rewards of conquest and oppression, which would you consider more problematic?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 8, 2016 at 11:01am

Nietzsche's attempt to sketch an "anatomy of morals" somewhat opened the space for medical science to "get clinical" about what had previously been more the exclusive purview of religious ideation, with less emphasis on publication and peer review. People kept to themselves in cells a lot more in the old days, confessing sins, but without the context of group therapy.  They also sang a lot, in echoing cathedrals (great acoustics).

Treating an imprisoned population as suffering, in ways compassionate care (e.g. psychotherapy, drugs, outdoor gardening, hiking, scouting) might address, versus put there by God as just punishment for their (often unspecified) crimes, is a step up for both the prisoners and their guardians.  Get some libido flowing, resurrect and redeem.  In some prisons they get to study, even have a radio station right? [1]  How about a prisoners' website?  Every refugee camp should have one too (more than one?).  I'll tweet the UN, asking for a list of URLs later today.  I've already asked that Prism (CenturyLink) include a Refugee Channel.

Freud, an admirer of Nietzsche's project (and hounded by Nazis), addressed those suffering under Victorian morals about their "crime" of having sexual tendencies -- so often not according to church rules and/or mores -- with his new discourse of "psychoanalysis" thereby ushering in different patterns of response, like Dr. Ruth and Hugh Hefner (both dependent on many other factors, such as commute radio, and glossy mags).

The saga continues and I'm just telling one tiny bit of it, going back to the Vienna Circle.

Where are we today with our compassion for refugees and just who is a refugee exactly?  What is a refugee camp?  Where do refugees camp in Portland?  What are they fleeing (seeking asylum from)?  Weapons testers? Ageism? Prohibition? Patriarchy?

What role does PR play? Portland hosts some heavy-hitter PR firms.  Are we a "propaganda capital" yet?  Christian Science Monitor called us a "capital of Open Source" but that was a long time ago.

What Freud also helped unleash was motivational psychology and the realization people might be influenced through such as television.  Chris Hedges talks a lot with Chomsky about how this new understanding was used to mobilize outward wars in the face of great popular resistance (remember those street demonstrations prior to the invasion of Iraq? -- biggest ever, but the mobilizers took us to war anyway).[2]

In my liberal tradition, our religion called Christianity welcomes all the help it might get (including from other religions) when it comes to addressing suffering with compassionate care. 

Mother Teresa reflects the Catholic ideal in many ways, except we'd rather all concerned be living more like Global U students, in some attainable future wherein we've educated ourselves beyond needing anyone to afford such poor living conditions.  Hospice facilities needn't be so dismal, nor working there such a chore.  If we had national service options other than only military, we could help more of our youth mature in important ways, giving them more opportunities to help with hospice in various ways. My wife worked in a psych ward during the Vietnam War, just out of college.

Don't leave "vagrants and hobos" to just expire in city streets behind dumpsters.  That's a slap in the face of city planners, whose discipline it is, or was, to make our cities more livable if at all possible.  Whole skyscrapers could be dedicated to providing hospice, where today they're just selling insurance to a world losing its life management skills to over-specialization. 

Let people die with dignity, sitting up at their workstations if still wishing to engage in work-study.  Give them headphones and eye glasses.  We artificially suppress living standards to keep the prices jacked up, and then bemoan our misfortune, and that just looks farcical to the angels, who burn with jealousy over God's wasting even a spec of time with our sorry hypocritical species.  They taunt Him to flood us out gain, with no Noah this time, don't look back.  However God is loyal having sent a rainbow and later his only Son (whom we treated despicably, per usual, given our illness).

As mortal humans who've come a long way on this journey (since discovering Good and Evil, and leaving the innocence of Eden), we pray for continuing curriculum improvements based on continuing revelation, from the living Presence, intuitively present to each one of us, Amen.

[1] http://www.prisonradioassociation.org/national-prison-radio/

[2] https://youtu.be/ZHOF2s2S1oo (Hedges and Chomsky)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 9, 2016 at 12:28am

Again, we seem to be drifting a long ways into who-thought-of-this-first.

I'd rather take up the matter of whether all this is just-a-notion, or another in the series of Continuing Divine Hints.

But in any case, medical (& pseudo-medical) approaches to hysteria seems to have much predated The Vienese Quack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria_(2011_film)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 9, 2016 at 12:59am

Excuse me -- I've been busy & distracted today & missed what you already said about that!

(Since I'm still busy & distracted, I hope to respond better tomorrow!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 10, 2016 at 1:40pm

& now I too am busy backuping the various writings I've hung up on this site.

At first I found your raising of Nietzsche's ghost more annoying than illuminating -- & now I'm thinking that the question of "Whose ethics?" is very much worth some discussion. That wasn't my intended topic,

but any consideration of current newage ideas does inevitably raise an issue: Do they lend themselves (like the originally Hindu concept of karma) to blaming/ignoring the victims.

In this particular case, is it right to blame oppressors for oppressing? Is there a better foundation than 'blaming' for stopping such behavior and taking the perps off everyone's backs?

Are we off the hook for people's sufferings & injuries, free to accuse the victims of showing a (hypothetical, projected-by-us on people we aren't asking) "victim mentality" -- on the grounds that "They were just asking for it!"? That argument should not, and would not anymore, get anyone off in a rape case...

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion