Primary tabs
Posts
Posts
All articles from all albums, full content, latest on top,
not including Doodles
not including Doodles
Page 91 of 131, posts 451 - 455 of 655
When I began pondering the question of determinism and free will, I found myself, philosophically and theologically, going back and forth.
Many years ago, we read this, upon which we've often reflected:
In the question of nature v nurture:
Parents of one child believe it's all environment.
Parents of more than one child understand, it's all genetics.
I'm sure you get it, but to belabor the point anyway because I suffer from prolixism: the former take all credit or blame, depending on the results, the latter recognize that given the same approximate upbringing, one can get radically different results.
Certainly has been something we think about a lot as parents of fraternal twins! (If other parents have yet to fully appreciate this, so far having nothing but wonderful darling little ones, wait until you've shepherded all the offspring to adulthood. But then, it may be God's will all yours will remain trouble-free and you can take all the credit. While thanking God of course. Lest my humor be misunderstood due to deadpan delivery, please note: :-^ tongue in cheek.)
There are determinists among scientists and determinists among religionists. There is room for free will in quantum physics, though, and some religionists hold that we are the free-will children of the God of free will, even that free will may be the primary way in which we are created "in His image."
When I began pondering the question of determinism and free will, I found myself, philosophically and theologically, going back and forth.
On the one hand, the omnipotence and omniscience of the Almighty, that God knows the end from the beginning, that God cannot be surprised, augers for the theologies which favor election (and rejection). On the other hand, if there is no free will, how are we aught but automatons? That the Creator is in absolute control of the entire Creation can't be questioned, yet if the Creator chose to grant to the creature true spiritual liberty, full and free choice regarding eternal destiny, that also can't be questioned. (The limited time-frame of the earth-life for the full presentation of the eternal choice has incited ameliorating possibilities, reincarnation in the East, purgatory in the West, but merely extending the question to one type of after-life or another does not affect the basic dilemma under consideration.)
We are raised — in the modern West at least — with the rejection of old conceptions such as the divine right of kings and with the acceptance of the right of personal liberty. We recognize that one may be mentally incapacitated, truly incapable of recognizing right and wrong, but we assume, socially and in our courts, that, otherwise, people are freely choosing. (Otherwise, we would be like those tyrannies where both the thief and the political dissident are considered "insane" and are alike sentenced to "re-education.") However, in religion, such libertarianism and individualism might seem truly the endowment of our Creator as the revolutionary wrote, or could be construed to be more like the diabolical rebel angel who contested the God-centered universe. A philosophically distressing dilemma to ponder.
Perhaps the best clarity I've had on the matter is this simple comparison with the mortal parent: A mere human parent may know the child well enough to predict what choice the child will make. This in no way abrogates the free will of the child, but it does acknowledge that we choose according to our nature and training. If we as material parents can be so foreknowing, we can extrapolate that our divine Parent can, indeed, grant us true freedom of choice, yet foreknow how we will choose. In the end, I can't do better than that, except to confess that the divine power and prerogative makes such conundrums practically beyond our comprehension.
Therefore, I have long since concluded — not too surprisingly considering my own sometime artistic bent — that I am…
…a Calvin & Hobbesian.
A Mindful Original Remix
Supplemental viewing (added 2011 Sep 2):
John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes by Spacecoyote
after Watterson, of course
Linked from Robin Parrish at Forever Geek
Linked from Alan Gardner at Daily Cartoonist
John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes by Spacecoyote
after Watterson, of course
Linked from Robin Parrish at Forever Geek
Linked from Alan Gardner at Daily Cartoonist
•
•
•
•
•
Also available uncensored.![[*]](/radical/mass-media-meets-the-arctic-fox-raw.jpg){kind=small}
I've been thinking of doing this for some time now. I was inspired to act in honor of the Washington Post![[*]](/toolshed/new-window.png)
and NY Times and all the wolves stalking Caribou Barbie, and before the Bilderbergers manage to shut down internet bloggers and cancel artistic license.
and NY Times and all the wolves stalking Caribou Barbie, and before the Bilderbergers manage to shut down internet bloggers and cancel artistic license.
Remixed from the long-ago cartoon by R. Crumb, "Mr. Natural Meets the Kid" from Zap Comix #7, 1974. Freely offered. Irony alert: Crumb's original six-page cartoon seemed to be favoring Prem Rawat, a.k.a. Maharaji, as "God." No comparison is intended between the huckster guru and Sarah "the real deal" Palin — Crumb's work was just a great page for this purpose.
•
•
•
•
•
When 70% of Americans do not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, guess what! It isn't.
"When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal."
—Allison Bricker
"'What is the supreme law of the land?' 70 percent of the 1,000 citizens polled by Newsweek couldn't answer correctly."
—Nat Hentoff
When 70% of Americans do not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, guess what! It isn't.
The Tea Party is the greatest revolutionary movement since the founding of the forgotten Libertarian Party (heh — sorry, LP), because of its steadily maintained focus on Constitutionality and the rule of law, and, relatedly, constrained government. I expect that the reason the movement is still relatively small and utterly misunderstood has much to do with the above statistic. So the grassroots push to educate the electorate on that one point would be slow going, even without the armed and dangerous opposition. But what else matters? Go door-to-door, person-to-person. Hand out literature for Palin (or your candidate). Encourage folks to vote — message: We want you to vote for [Sarah], but above all, we want you to get out and vote! Push the primaries! Push for November!
But reinforce first and foremost that the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution. Otherwise, all other efforts will be moot, for democracy without the Constitution is four jihadis and a libertarian voting on who gets to be the suicidal bomber.
•
•
•
•
•
Problems are sometimes simple. More often problems are compound and complex, and complicated.
Problems are sometimes simple. More often problems are compound and complex, and complicated.
Part 1 - Simple, compound, complex, and masking
Simple example
Trying to reconcile a bank statement. (If you don't know how to reconcile a bank statement, learn. Meanwhile, just go with it. It's about addition.) There's an error of $3.95. Go back through the records, and, aha! there's a check for $3.95 that wasn't entered, or hadn't been marked as returned. Voila! Simple problem, relatively easily resolved.
Compound example
Two checks were not recorded, one for $5.00 and another for $2.00. The bank reconciliation shows a $7.00 error. Searching for a $7.00 check is fruitless. Looking for multiple checks that add up to $7.00 works. Once one of the two errors is discovered, the compound problem becomes simple.
Complex example with partial masking
A check for $5.00 was not recorded. Another check for $2.00 was not marked as returned. The bank reconciliation shows a $3.00 error, but the error is really $7.00 in two different directions. Searching for a $3.00 check is fruitless. Looking for multiple checks that add up to $3.00 is fruitless. Finding the $2.00 check and marking it as returned seemingly increases the reconciliation imbalance from $3.00 to $5.00, but really the problem has been lowered from $7.00.
Complex example with total masking
A check for $5.00 was not recorded. Two other checks for $2.50 each were not marked as returned. The bank reconciliation does not reveal any error because the three errors combine to look like nothing. How would you even know there was a problem? You might not, until the next month when the unentered check clears.
Part 1 review
Errors can compound. The more errors compound, the harder to resolve each of them. Symptoms may partially mask each other, making it harder to know what the errors are. Symptoms may combine to utterly mask that there even is a problem. Until things get worse.
Part 2 - Compound, complex, and complicated considerations
Simple considerations
If the error is single, only two possiblities need be considered. Either the check was not entered, or the check was not marked as returned.
Compound considerations
With two errors, there are more possibilities to consider. Both might be un-entered. Both might be not marked returned. One might be not returned, one might be un-entered. The problems may mask each other, partially or completely.
Complex considerations with masking
A check for $5.00 and another for $3.00 were not recorded. A third check for $5.00 was not marked as entered. The reconciliation shows a $3.00 error. Recording the $3.00 check appears to make the account reconciled, but there are really two $5.00 errors remaining totally masking one another.
False resolutions
The foregoing examples suppose two possible ways to err, not entering a check, or not marking a check off as returned. In reality, there are so many ways to err! The check was written for $3.95 but was entered as $3.85. Searching the records and the bank statement diligently will never disclose why the reconciliation is off by a dime. Only going outside the registry to the original document will disclose the real error.
Understanding complexity
Attempting to reconcile an account statement discloses $3.00 in error. At the outset, there is no clue how many errors exist, of what amounts or in which directions. Consideration is given first to the simple error, then to the complex possibilities, then to compound and masking possibiliites.
First, there must be awareness of the problem even existing. Then, consideration must be given to all the possibilities of compound and complex. Masking may make it seem that resolving one error was sufficient, but others lurk undetected.
All these account-reconciliation examples result in one symptom, addition error. Most real-world problems have multiple causes and multiple symptoms.
First in a series on perception and awareness.
Second: Perceptual Pareidolia — In order to imagine an alternative to your perception, you must admit to the possibility of perceptual confusion.
Second: Perceptual Pareidolia — In order to imagine an alternative to your perception, you must admit to the possibility of perceptual confusion.
•
•
•
•
•
Human understanding of justice progresses. Ideals of justice constantly draw us forward.
A Mindful Webworker comments upon a post by Bridget on HillBuzz praising an Iranian court that literally endorsed "eye for an eye" justice.
Here is a copy of the original HillBuzz comment.
upon a post by Bridget on HillBuzz praising an Iranian court that literally endorsed "eye for an eye" justice.Here is a copy of the original HillBuzz comment.
Breaking from self-imposed lurk to object strenuously.
Bridget! I appreciate your degree of outrage, but think! This is not "justice," this is disgusting! Barbaric! If you want to get Biblical about it, the Lord says "vengeance is mine." God's early attempt to inform us that vengeance is not ours to exact. (It's a bit of divine humor, really, talking down to the primitive human soul, for we find in heaven that God is never actually vengeful like animalistic mortals; God can only be just.) That crazy homeless man who beheaded a woman in a supermarket this week, would you have the woman's relatives stab him to death and run down the street with his bloody head? Followed to its logical conclusion, why wait for the tedium of evidentiary hearings and all that delay of the courts? If thy neighbor offend thee, haul out the AK-47 and start blasting! That's the path you're praising! Mrs Webworker adds, the concept that this will be good for women, that she will be better off because she's done this to someone else is [I'll substitute the word, misguided].
It is precisely because such horrific offenses as this woman's mutilation blind us (no pun intended) with rage and affect our judgment that we have as a society moved beyond personal vendetta to (ideally) impartial judges and juries, standardized imprisonment or (in the case of the crazy homeless man) incarceration with whatever medical and chemical help he might need, if only to protect his jailers.
I'm not a Fundamentalist so I don't have to try to make God say "eye for an eye" out of one side of his mouth and "Turn the other cheek" out of the other. Without the scriptural literalists' strained exegesis, there's an obvious progression from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek," representing, not a bipolar or capricious Deity, but rather the development — improvement — of human understanding of the justice and mercy the Spirit would reveal through us.
Once, justice was an individual matter. Later, courts — the will of the group — replaced personal revenge, a decided advance even if the forms of "justice" still involved vengeance. That's the level of society you're posting about & praising. Most of our "justice" system — and most of the population — has not progressed far beyond that desire for vengeance, but our rejection of "cruel and unusual" punishments represents a vast and Jesusonian advance over "eye for an eye." Fines, incarceration and not exacting eye for an eye have replaced bloody vengeance in modern justice.
Someday, our meager and in-name-only "rehabilitation" efforts may actually rehabilitate many who choose criminality but could be reformed. The criminally poor we will have with us always. Some few we might even really, in the balance of mercy and self-protection, remove as life forms from among us (merciful, painless state execution), but in no case should we step backward into the cesspools of this kind of mentality.
Want to walk that back a bit, darlin'?
I later posted a reply to myself (always a bit weird):
to myself (always a bit weird):(Speaking of walking back, I see some edits I might've made if I could've, but I can't, so, sorry if my own hastily-toasted comment offended anyone's beliefs or seemed scolding, Bridget.)
To expand upon that and other points, I add this, from discussing the above with a cousin.
"Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know."
Meher Baba must have taken that to heart, because he said, "Love one another" and never spoke again. What a way to emphasize the message! (He had a great smile.)
![[*]](http://wasteland.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/meher_baba.jpg){kind=small}
Lao Tzu's statement is hardly without exception, but there's a lot of good advice in his remark. I post in haste, and regret at leisure.
Our humble human efforts can never catch up to our advancing idealism, so to be in the realm of ideas is to increasingly accept being one who "speaks but does not know." To act, to move, to engage, we usually more or less err, fall short of the perfection to which we are compelled. However right our purpose or deliberate our method, we are mortal, and we could almost always have done it better.
Your reply said some things I'd thought of but didn't include, and some things I wish I'd said.
Hey! I should run all my posts by you first! (Cousin's hair stands on end.) Mrs Webworker tries to be my editor, but often shares my passions or opinions of the moment so she can't tell any better than I do where I may be right in message but wrong in spirit.
Paul clearly teaches that it is right and proper for government officials to "bear the sword." ...
"government officials... are under no obligation to turn the other cheek."
Indeed, although that "proper response" of turning to law, was followed in the Iranian case.
Seeing "justice" that's a notch above personal revenge but still below the mercy-based prohibitions on "cruel and unusual" punishment is like seeing fists fly in Congress. Old joke: I'll believe we evolved from apes when we finally do.
I know you (and Paul!) mean that they rightly use force (vs mercy) because they're employed to do so on society's behalf, but judges, jailers, police, soldiers, all those given power and engaged in confrontation on behalf of social justice are actually under all the greater burden to turn the other cheek -- in their case meaning keeping supreme self-control, doing things by the book, by the rules of engagement, even when under fire. Talk about tricky, yowch, and nigh-impossible! Thus, well worth every prayer for the job they do!
I am forbidden to hate him.
Yes! Revenge is hate in action. That's the core problem of Bridget's message. My reply addressed social justice, but not so much the personal and divine forgiveness upon which rests the "blind justice" aspect of our system. Maybe it's best; I already felt I laid into Bridget too personally.
My wiseacre remarks on Biblical literalists concerned me because the road to severe misunderstandings is paved with attempts at humor gone horribly wrong, many of those stones of my hewing. Not all Bible believers of my experience see the progression of social understanding that I see in scripture. What the anthropologist calls social evolution this believer understands as the unfolding revelation of God to and through us. But I sure don't want to get into open debate on the web about it! I'm out of practice on public speaking.
Back when I could better withstand the heat in the kitchen, I frequently engaged in extended "discussions" :) of approach to scripture. With inerrancy evangelists, I always concur, all scripture is good and valuable for study, but if the scriptures are all perfect the way some folks interpret them, it just hasn't sunk in that way for me. ;) (Therefore if I've got it wrong, I pray to be forgiven my benighted understanding!)
Frequently, such evangelists being ardent students of scripture, enthusiastically living and preaching the Gospel, and strong in faith, my relative position is (or ought to be) as listener, student -- one who does not know.
I have to keep re-learning restraint. All commenters replying so far support returning cruelty for cruelty, and against my better judgment, and I have left another reply. I'm swearing off after that, though. Really!
If you skip the sidebars, it's not such a long message. :-/
Why do I get into these things? Emotionally driven thinking I suppose. Well, my comment generated unexpected responses. One correspondent picks up on the nit of "a difference in a premeditated crime vs a crazy homeless guy going off..." and still says that "the punishment should fit the crime." Another agrees, "this is one way to teach those men a much needed lesson." The same commenter actually says, "I think that you are taking the Bible out of context in order to justify your position." Okay. I replied once more.
[For my prior abusive invocation of scripture, I am rightly admonished and regretful.]
Dear friends, I have no heart for this debate, but consider how badly thinking can be unprincipled when emotionally driven. Hasn't similar ends-justifying-means emotionalism been remarked upon as the error of liberalism?
Shall we cut off the hand of the thief, too, or would that be two eyes for an eye? How about just a fingertip for petty theft? (Where's Kevin? Was Bridget just baiting us? What is going on here?) Look, friends, when we say that the punishment should fit the crime, do we rape the rapist, eat the cannibal, murder the family of the person who murders a family? Of course not! "That'll teach 'em" doesn't and revenge is lust that will never bring spiritual satisfaction.
Society must behave like a sober, loving, patient, but firm parent, even like the divine parent. Exacting judgment, yes, and when we're dealing with returning stolen value and paying fines, recompense (not revenge) can sometimes be achieved. In violent crime, there really cannot be recompense. One cannot bring back the murdered, repay for wounding, undo terror and pain.
Exacting justice never involves cruelty for cruelty. We forbid cruel punishment in the heart of our Law. We forbid vigilantism and vendetta, the means of revenge when barbaric people are unsatisfied with civil judgments. We leave whatever "vengeance" there may need to be to the Higher Judge.
The appropriate combination of punishment and rehabilitation is set by a wise and impartial arbitrator. Not always possible, but the ideal, the principle, to which we aspire. While society must protect itself, we can only stop the crime, and if we're not going to execute then hold the prisoner until "rehabilitated," if ever. (As if.) Our justice system is poor, fails to exact justice perfectly and those who operate in it are too often more concerned with dollars than principles, but it's the best we've got to separate us from anarchy. We strive for true justice and do not sink to the level of the criminal to do so.
Late-breaking news. Along comes Pam, succinctly saying in six sentences of less than sixty words what takes me sixty thousand.
succinctly saying in six sentences of less than sixty words what takes me sixty thousand.The success of Western jurisprudence is that is is based on taming man's lowest nature. As satisfying as it would be to have acid poured into that man's eyes as punishment, it would not be justice. It would be revenge. There's a difference. And it does not lift mankind to seek revenge instead of justice. It keeps us low.
Think I'll go back to doing abstract wallpapers.
•
•
•
•
•