Re: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

[Guest guest]

...read after Christmas...

You state:

"

>>Overall, I adopt the habits, attitudes and values of the WASP, patriarchal, Connecticut upper-middle- class circa 1948. When I do, things get better in a hurry.<<

You have no idea of the conditions others live in and how it affects their judgment of "getting ahead" in the American sense. It is middle class values that you have been inculcated with from earliest days.

There is little of that in the ghetto's and "inner city" because it is to most a "hopeless situation" and they see few possibilities of success.

Only your "superiority' in attitude to be a success would make you envision all people as people who know, judge,have the same outlook as WASP.

Perhaps a job teaching in the inner city schools or doing social services there, unjudgmentally will teach you that hopelessness is ramped...and there is no one to encourage many many youths.

Do not judge others by your standards...WASP indeed

Your preaching is only to other WASP's As Dan correctly said:

""If everyone was just willing to act like me, things would be great". That's never been a viable solution.

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Dan says:

>> The thing is, the criminals is supposed to lose his freedom, his agency. He, having proved himself a natural slave, is to become a slave in fact - subject to our will, not his own.<<

--That mindset would necessarily lead to more crime. I don't want anyone to be my slave. I want people to learn from their actions, and that does not happen if you take away agency. Instead, you produce criminals who blame society for their circumstances rather than learning from their mistakes. Believe me, criminals aren't going to fear you if you hide behind the authority of the state and punish them from a safe distance.

>>When he takes his own life, he exerts his own agency and cheats us.<<

--"Us"? Speak for yourself. I get no pleasure from a criminal being put to death, or killing himself. Either way, violence wins over humanity.

>>Hence he must be prevented from suicide.<<

--"Must"? Where does this "must" come from? I must have missed the memo.>>Have you been married? Do you know the answer to the question, Do I look fat in this?, lol.<<

--The correct answer is "to me, yes" if you actually think she looks fat. The wrong answer is, "No, of course not". That produces women who don't know if anyone is being honest with them, therefore they have to ask over and over, driving men crazy. Not that it's easy to be honest. Hypocrisy is rampant. Trying to spare someone's self esteem with dishonesty only leads to lower self esteem later on, so the real purpose in lying is to prevent your spouse from seeing you as a bad person. If you're projecting shadow, you can't tolerate being put in the "bad guy" position, but that creates new problems. >>Catholics do well precisely because Catholicism frowns on divorce.<<

--Protestant conservatives also frown on divorce. But they have a higher divorce rate. It's not the beliefs. It's something else. The most consistent predictor of divorce is the male not accepting influence from the female. Perhaps there is more of the feminine in Catholicism, and more fear in men of accepting the influence of women among Protestant males. It's not enough to condemn divorce. People condemn a lot of things. It's just words.

>>But theft is unjust regardless of consent.<<

--If I consent to give you something I own, it's a gift. Consent makes a huge difference. It's possible for people to cosent to be punched repeatedly in the head. They call it boxing. Try that on the street without invitation, and you're in jail.

>>But the first thing I do is avoid bad men - if that means celebacy forever, so be it.<<

--Yes, avoid anyone with a "Bad man" tattoo on his forehead. Of course, you know that "bad men", as you call them, almost universally project shadow onto other "bad men" and then attempt to save women from the other bad men. It's not nearly as simple as you seem to think.

>>I finish school - GED if necessary.<<

--Good teachers and mentors are important. It's finding one that takes work. Some people cannot pass a GED on their own, without a good teacher. Reduce teacher/student ratios until students can reasonably consider their teachers to be mentors, and you'll change the system.

>>Overall, I adopt the habits, attitudes and values of the WASP, patriarchal, Connecticut upper-middle- class circa 1948. When I do, things get better in a hurry.<<

--Better for whom? Patriarchy can be toxic for some, and a lot of people don't feel very welcome, no matter how they dress or talk, in white upper class culture. It's always been possible for people to say, "If everyone was just willing to act like me, things would be great". That's never been a viable solution.

Which things get better when you, personally, act like a WASP, and which values matter most in getting which results?

>>Need a start? Watch the Huxtables on afternoon TV, and resolve to be as much like them as possible.<<

--Yes. It's a wonder Brady Bunch didn't teach the 60's generation to behave, isn't it?>>Ethics = "habits," so in a sense you are right. But law (among other things) inculcates habits.<<

--I believe that relying on habit for your ethical foundation is unethical. Law can inculcate rebellion, if it is inconsistent or discriminatory.>>The "sexual revolution" was a freakin' disaster. Don't think I'm against it, though.<<

--The more disastrous elements of the sexual revolution were a consequence of the extreme conformity and materialism of the 50's. Extremes constellate extremes. If you want people to have healthy relationships, stop making them everyone else's business, and give them access to counselling when they need help resolving conflicts. Working multiple jobs also erodes marriages, so it's good to have a lot of free time to work on the relationship and bond with family. Not everyone finds it so easy, espcially now with a flattening global economy.>>By this reasoning, anyone who ever smoked pot can't be against drug bans now. Yuppie parents won't warn their children against drugs because of the fear of "hypocrsiy," lol - the liberals' mortal sin.<<

--I will note that you value hypocrisy as a tool (one I believe backfires over time, destroying the immediate advantage of using it). But it's perfectly consistent to say, "I smoked pot, and enjoyed it, and I want you to know the health consequences of smoking any substance, so that you can make an informed decision. I don't expect you to do everything I've done, without knowing that there are risks." That's what I would say if I had kids. I wouldn't lie, and I wouldn't resort to hysterical claims about the dangers of drugs. Kids know that alcohol is more dangerous than pot. They've seen people drink, they've seen people smoke pot. They see the hypocrisy of lawmakers taking money from the tobacco and alcohol lobby while telling kids that pot is a gateway drug (alcohol and tobacco are THE gateway drugs, according to researchers). I have no problem with anyone using any drug as long as they aren't violating my rights in the process. I am consistent on the issue, and consistency is a requirement of authority, or authority ends up a paper tiger, getting no respect and using fear to try to buy it back.>>When I was kid I street raced on occasion. If I now tell my nephew that street racing is stupid and wrong, am I a bad 'ole hypocrite?<<

--Street racing carries a risk to the driver and to pedestrians. That remains true, no matter who has done it. So it's consistent to say, "I was stupid once and drove way too fast because I wanted to beat some other kid, and I put people at risk in the process. My advice is not to be as stupid as I was, I want this family to learn from mistakes". There is no hypocrisy in that position. Hypocrisy is condemning what you do yourself and refuse to be honest about, not conemning mistakes you've learned from. When conservative Protestants condemn gay marriage but are soft on straight divorce, that's hypocrisy. And it's almost guaranteed that they'll be soft on divorce, so as not to scare away the sizeable number of divorced churchgoers who might switch congregations as a result. And of course, if the boss gets a divorce, it's his business... don't want to lose any money by condemning what the boss does. The underlying issue is not which moral code is the one and only correct way to live, but consistency. Consistent codes survive, inconsistent ones breed rebellion and shred the social and political fabric. If we consitently excuse the behavior of people who benefit us financially or politically while loudly condemning the behavior of political opponents or groups we don't have any connection with, things fall apart because of double standards. Authority ends up with no real power, and religion becomes a political tool devoid of authenticity or spiritual gravity.

C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- Aird"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." -- Unknown

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I am a Jew by heritage, but a sort-of liberal type christian ( small c)" by faith. I had an early Catholic start at the age of 7, when I did not know anything about our Jewish heritage. It was too late later to stop believing much I HAD LEARNED. I remember and adapt much of our Jewish heritage, but I could not in faith forget my somewhat Christianized environment.I did have to give up literalism altogether.

I celebrate Christmas as a reminder that peace and goodwill is possible...not worldly peace, but inner peace which is rarer than secession of violence.I do not take any religion literally, and find I do best by myself in bridging the gap. I remain a proud member of the tribe, except I am what many would call a secular Jew.( Not G-d help me, A Messianic Jew" as the term is now used by a small bunch of people who understand neither the Jewish faith nor the Christian.)

I give allegiance to my own understanding of G-d, as much from the Old Testament as the New. I doubt any Christian congregation would want to claim me. I perhaps see Jesus Christ differently than they.

So wish me both...we celebrate both since my oldest daughter (after 13 years of catholic schooling and upbringing) and family, once aware of her heritage became a committed Jew...which I encourage and applaud.

It is the true sense of giving that I wish for all those who celebrate. No people of the Book ever endorsed complete materialism, but do find teachings that finds possessions "good" as long as one is not attached very much to them, not a problem.

In fact my faith is concentrated upon "gratitude and thanksgiving" which is very important to both religions, and my own spirituality. I do not worry about name tags...indeed I doubt either Jews or Christians would claim me. I will have to stick to the "Unknown G-d", the G-d of The Cloud of Unknowing whom all the great prophets have given different names to, but with whom I feel a deep relationship.

So wish me a joyous......( Scripture scholarship denies the Infancy narratives as included in Scripture, by the way...so Christmas is a

myth of not so long a tradition of celebration. Even the great Catholic Scripture Scholar, E. Brown , as well as others, denies the authenticity of the Nativity Narratives.

Toni

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>Please have a joyous and happy Christmas. We are so blessed in a land without bombs falling or starvation beckoning.<<

--We are very lucky. I have a feeling this Christmas will bring a lot of questioning about the balance of materialism and compassion in our culture. Maybe we'll even rediscover the meaning of "peace on earth", not as a holiday cliche, but something deeper.

Merry Christmas (I use that greeting only because I can't spell chaunakk...haunik....channika... aw, hell. Merry Christmas!)

C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- Aird"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." -- Unknown

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Lockhart wrote:

dear ,

Have to go out of town for a week, will answer this on return. Merry,

merry.

Best,

dan

Dan says:

>> The thing is, the criminals is supposed to lose his

freedom, his agency. He, having proved himself a natural slave, is to

become a slave in fact - subject to our will, not

his own.<<

--That mindset would necessarily lead to more crime. I don't

want anyone to be my slave. I want people to learn from their actions,

and that does not happen if you take away agency. Instead, you produce

criminals who blame society for their circumstances rather than

learning from their mistakes. Believe me, criminals aren't going to

fear you if you hide behind the authority of the state and punish them

from a safe distance.

>>When he takes his own life, he exerts his own agency and

cheats us.<<

--"Us"? Speak for yourself. I get no pleasure from a criminal

being put to death, or killing himself. Either way, violence wins over

humanity.

>>Hence he must be prevented from suicide.<<

--"Must"? Where does this "must" come from? I must have missed

the memo.

>>Have you been married? Do you know the answer to the question,

Do I look

fat in this?, lol.<<

--The correct answer is "to me, yes" if you actually think she

looks fat. The wrong answer is, "No, of course not". That produces

women who don't know if anyone is being honest with them, therefore

they have to ask over and over, driving men crazy. Not that it's easy

to be honest. Hypocrisy is rampant. Trying to spare someone's self

esteem with dishonesty only leads to lower self esteem later on, so the

real purpose in lying is to prevent your spouse from seeing you as a

bad person. If you're projecting shadow, you can't tolerate being put

in the "bad guy" position, but that creates new problems.

>>Catholics do well precisely because Catholicism frowns on

divorce.<<

--Protestant conservatives also frown on divorce. But they have

a higher divorce rate. It's not the beliefs. It's something else. The

most consistent predictor of divorce is the male not accepting

influence from the female. Perhaps there is more of the feminine in

Catholicism, and more fear in men of accepting the influence of women

among Protestant males. It's not enough to condemn divorce. People

condemn a lot of things. It's just words.

>>But theft is unjust regardless of consent.<<

--If I consent to give you something I own, it's a gift. Consent

makes a huge difference. It's possible for people to cosent to be

punched repeatedly in the head. They call it boxing. Try that on the

street without invitation, and you're in jail.

>>But the first thing I do is avoid bad men - if that means

celebacy forever, so be it.<<

--Yes, avoid anyone with a "Bad man" tattoo on his forehead. Of

course, you know that "bad men", as you call them, almost universally

project shadow onto other "bad men" and then attempt to save women from

the other bad men. It's not nearly as simple as you seem to think.

>>I finish school - GED if necessary.<<

--Good teachers and mentors are important. It's finding one that

takes work. Some people cannot pass a GED on their own, without a good

teacher. Reduce teacher/student ratios until students can reasonably

consider their teachers to be mentors, and you'll change the system.

>>Overall, I adopt the habits, attitudes and values of the

WASP, patriarchal, Connecticut upper-middle- class circa 1948. When I

do, things get better in a hurry.<<

--Better for whom? Patriarchy can be toxic for some, and a lot

of people don't feel very welcome, no matter how they dress or talk, in

white upper class culture. It's always been possible for people to say,

"If everyone was just willing to act like me, things would be great".

That's never been a viable solution.

Which things get better when you, personally, act like a WASP,

and which values matter most in getting which results?

>>Need a start? Watch the Huxtables on afternoon TV, and

resolve to be as much

like them as possible.<<

--Yes. It's a wonder Brady Bunch didn't teach the 60's

generation to behave, isn't it?

>>Ethics = "habits," so in a sense you are right. But law (among

other

things) inculcates habits.<<

--I believe that relying on habit for your ethical foundation is

unethical. Law can inculcate rebellion, if it is inconsistent or

discriminatory.

>>The "sexual revolution" was a freakin' disaster. Don't think

I'm against it, though.<<

--The more disastrous elements of the sexual revolution were a

consequence of the extreme conformity and materialism of the 50's.

Extremes constellate extremes. If you want people to have healthy

relationships, stop making them everyone else's business, and give them

access to counselling when they need help resolving conflicts. Working

multiple jobs also erodes marriages, so it's good to have a lot of free

time to work on the relationship and bond with family. Not everyone

finds it so easy, espcially now with a flattening global economy.

>>By this reasoning, anyone who ever smoked pot can't be against

drug bans now. Yuppie parents won't warn their children against drugs

because of the fear of "hypocrsiy," lol - the liberals' mortal

sin.<<

--I will note that you value hypocrisy as a tool (one I believe

backfires over time, destroying the immediate advantage of using it).

But it's perfectly consistent to say, "I smoked pot, and enjoyed it,

and I want you to know the health consequences of smoking any

substance, so that you can make an informed decision. I don't expect

you to do everything I've done, without knowing that there are risks."

That's what I would say if I had kids. I wouldn't lie, and I wouldn't

resort to hysterical claims about the dangers of drugs. Kids know that

alcohol is more dangerous than pot. They've seen people drink, they've

seen people smoke pot. They see the hypocrisy of lawmakers taking money

from the tobacco and alcohol lobby while telling kids that pot is a

gateway drug (alcohol and tobacco are THE gateway drugs, according to

researchers). I have no problem with anyone using any drug as long

as they aren't violating my rights in the process. I am consistent on

the issue, and consistency is a requirement of authority, or authority

ends up a paper tiger, getting no respect and using fear to try to buy

it back.

>>When I was kid I street raced on occasion. If I now tell my

nephew that

street racing is stupid and wrong, am I a bad 'ole hypocrite?<<

--Street racing carries a risk to the driver and to pedestrians.

That remains true, no matter who has done it. So it's consistent to

say, "I was stupid once and drove way too fast because I wanted to beat

some other kid, and I put people at risk in the process. My advice is

not to be as stupid as I was, I want this family to learn from

mistakes". There is no hypocrisy in that position. Hypocrisy is

condemning what you do yourself and refuse to be honest about, not

conemning mistakes you've learned from. When conservative Protestants

condemn gay marriage but are soft on straight divorce, that's

hypocrisy. And it's almost guaranteed that they'll be soft on divorce,

so as not to scare away the sizeable number of divorced churchgoers who

might switch congregations as a result. And of course, if the boss gets

a divorce, it's his business... don't want to lose any money by

condemning what the boss does. The underlying issue is not which moral

code is the one and only correct way to live, but consistency.

Consistent codes survive, inconsistent ones breed rebellion and shred

the social and political fabric. If we consitently excuse the behavior

of people who benefit us financially or politically while loudly

condemning the behavior of political opponents or groups we don't have

any connection with, things fall apart because of double standards.

Authority ends up with no real power, and religion becomes a political

tool devoid of authenticity or spiritual gravity.

C. Lockhart

http://www.soulaquarium.net

Yahoo! Messenger: grailsnail

Blog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of

human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible

warning." -- Aird

"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." --

Unknown

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

MY only judgment of you is that you did not read or did not understand my post at all.

Superiority, like elitism, in my sense is a matter of loving and caring for the welfare of others. Please next time read and think first.Neither Brains nor money make one superior or elite...you are fighting a non existing problem here.

The word "superiority" and "elitism" push your buttons. All people are not equal in their concern for others or how they love.

And your qualifications to preach are somewhat limited here I imagine with the wisdom , experience and learning already here assembled.

( I committed the same sin of hubris most of my life, so I know what I am talking about.)

( my perception of "middle class" comes not only from experience but also psychology and sociology and common sense as I observe others. Middle class is not a derogatory term.

Toni

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>Those who actually are the "elite" must hide from the general public so not to be stoned.<<

--Probably true. "Elites" are generated by social networks, and elitism cuts people off from learning they desparately need, by isolating them from those who have some knowledge or connections and use their "elite" status to insulate themselves from the rest of the world. If those "elites" gain political power, they can do a lot of damage because they are so out of touch with aything or anyone outside their social web.

Real elites are people who think and feel deeply. There's nothing special about them, except that their eyes and/or hearts are open. And they do tend to hide, knowing what happens to people who see too much and speak without holding their tongues.

>>You have no idea of the conditions others live in and how it affects their judgment of "getting ahead" in the American sense. It is middle class values that you have been inculcated with from earliest days.<<

--I just spent a month in Ukraine, without working toilets or hot water most of the time. My values are a mixture of middle class security and poverty level resource juggling. I've spent a lot of time with people who have money, people who have no money, and people who don't care one way or the other about money. Let's not make assumptions about ourselves, here.

>>There is little of that in the ghetto's and "inner city" because it is to most a "hopeless situation" and they see few possibilities of success.<<

--What they see is that thinking long term doesn't make a person in that environment much safer or happier, and that those who are happy and empowered are often those who live in the moment. They also face a constant barrage of potential threats and intrusions into their attention span, which makes academics more difficult and prevents clear thinking about complex, emotionally volatile circumstances. The natural gradient would be toward short-term evaluation of meaning, with community bonds difficult to keep alive because of the polarization between "moral voices" who judge and "rebels" who value freedom, and the inevitable conflicts over who gets to be boss and who has to adapt to someone else's game. There is no way money alone could change that, but changing communication flow and addressing short term and long term values without being judgmental or preachy about it can make a difference. Poverty is a social problem, amplified by economics. It's not purely a result of having no money, but of having no hope, as you said.>>Only your "superiority' in attitude to be a success would make you envision all people as people who know, judge,have the same outlook as WASP.<<

--By "superiority" do you mean a higher quality of information processing, or a feeling that one is "better" than others? Sometimes people get very nonspecific when using words like "superior" and aren't clear about what it means to be superior, in what areas, at what time. It does't help to be a superior golfer if you're playing chess, or vice versa. Superiority depends on goals, which depend on context and values. Are there superior values? Yes, if you have goals that require a certain set of values to become possible. Are there superior ways of teaching value? Yes, and they're in very short supply, in poor and rich neighborhoods alike, although rich neighborhoods can afford a few top-notch teachers and programs that address the way kids really learn. The difficulty is in teaching teachers to teach value. >>Perhaps a job teaching in the inner city schools or doing social services there, unjudgmentally will teach you that hopelessness is ramped...and there is no one to encourage many many youths.<<

--I spend a huge amount of time with people who do that kind of work. Hopelessness is systemic, we contribute to it when we cut each other off from communication, resources and opportunities. We live in a very competitive society in which people in general, rich and poor alike, are trying to "take care of number one", and that inevitably leads to hopelessness among those whose neurology predisposes them to communal cooperation, teamwork or avoidance of people rather than win-lose strategy. The way to give hope to somone is to approach them as an equal human being and offer free information exchange, help with whatever needs to be done, and connections to people and resources. It is only social stratification that makes that kind of help difficult to find or keep around.

>>Your preaching is only to other WASP's As Dan correctly said:""If everyone was just willing to act like me, things would be great". That's never been a viable solution.<<

--That was me who said it. I don't preach to WASPS, but to anyone who is paying attention. My values are based on social dynamics and personal experience, and I've never been much into middle class job competition, so my experiences are not at all typical of middle class people. I'm more of a hybrid, somewhere between middle class academic culture, poverty level resource management and the culture of retired peace and reconciliation volunteers. I'm also heavily influenced by inernet intellectual subcultures, which tend to be a mixture of classes, not solely middle class. Don't judge me by your perception of "middle class", and I won't judge you for judging me

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Once you have been persecuted because you are Jewish, then you will have a right to tell Jews whatever you wish. First walk in their shoes.Your opinion of Messiahnic Jews is fine...it just isn't the jewish one and it is a contradiction in terms.

Please try to refrain talking about fairmess and justice and what Jews "ought to do".Just you do what you think is right, and allow others the same privelege.

You are so far out of your element that I will not answer.

However, I didn't explain my histrory for you to comment on, agree with or disagree. It is mine. I do not open myself up for someone who doesn't even know me to judge..nor comment. I was purely allowing you to see reality from my spot, not yours.

please do not approve or disaprove.I really do not care one way or the other. I am sorry I tried to explain myself at all. NO COMMENT needed or desired. I ws answering your remark about Hanukkah.

Toni: Lockhart

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:14 PM

Subject: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>I remember and adapt much of our Jewish heritage, but I could not in faith forget my somewhat Christianized environment. I did have to give up literalism altogether.<<

--Good decision. I respect anyone who makes the transition from literalism to allegory without losing the meaning. Religion means something, but not the division of mankind into faith groups, not literal miracles or prophecies, and not moralizing. It takes some emotional and intellectual work to get out of that trap. Congratulations!>>I celebrate Christmas as a reminder that peace and goodwill is possible...not worldly peace, but inner peace which is rarer than secession of violence.<<

--If you detach inner peace from worldly peace, you might miss the point of inner peace. If spirituality were about serving one's own need for peace, there would be no such thing as religion. Nobody would be a Jew, a Christian or anything else.

>>I remain a proud member of the tribe, except I am what many would call a secular Jew.( Not G-d help me, A Messianic Jew" as the term is now used by a small bunch of people who understand neither the Jewish faith nor the Christian.)<<

--I have no problem with "Messianic Jews" except that all Jews are Messianic. If I were into labeling people, I would call them "Jewish Christians". I think the resentment toward Jewish Christians is both unchristian and unjewish, and they should be free to believe whatever they want without losing their status as Jews. If a person can be a secular or atheist Jew, then one should also be allowed to be a Christian Jew. It's only fair, and religion is very much about fairness, whenever it addresses morality, economics and justice.

Messianic Jews often understand both Judaism and Christianity, some of them better than you do (statistically likely, anyway). If you look down on them and lock them out, you'll miss out on some good people and good ideas. Blending faiths, interfaith marriages, conversion and multi-faith tendencies all contribute to a deepening of faith, whenever they don't produce a watering down of faith. As long as humanity is divided into tribes, those who live in two worlds will suffer persecution, seen as traitors. Messianic Jews are treated as traitors by some Jews who do not understand the meaning of Judaism. Some Christians treat Jews as traitors, for the same reason, and it's unchristian for the same reason.>>I doubt any Christian congregation would want to claim me. I perhaps see Jesus Christ differently than they.<<

--Always a good sign. It takes courage to stand apart from the herd and speak honestly. Most people stay in church but remain silent, troubled but not willing to risk argument.>>So wish me both...we celebrate both since my oldest daughter (after 13 years of catholic schooling and upbringing) and family, once aware of her heritage became a committed Jew...which I encourage and applaud.<<

--What has she been taught a committed Jew does, in terms of relating to the world, to other people, to family, etc? I'm guessing there are different ideas about what it means to be a "real Jew" just as there's an argument in Christian circles about what a "real Christian" does in relation to war, politics, poverty, etc. I find those arguments about identity revealing and more interesting than arguments about what to do or who gets what... the question is, "Who am I, who are we, and who is the Other to us?">>No people of the Book ever endorsed complete materialism, but do find teachings that finds possessions "good" as long as one is not attached very much to them, not a problem.<<

--As long as one's possessions are in good shape, there's no problem. It's when things have to be sacrificed that priorities come out. For example, we all know that walking, carpooling and public transit are an alternative to SUVs that eat a lot of gas, alter the climate, and prop up dysfunctional dictatorships that harm our reputation as a nation. But how many people love the independence, feeling of security and sense of control that comes with having your own environmentally-controlled, massively heavy, tinted-windowed tank?

Economics is all about relative value. It is when economies collapse or business as usual runs into serious obstacles that spiritual values come to the foreground. What does it mean to be a "real Jew" or "real Christian" or "real Muslim" in a world where small actions by one group can have consequences for other groups? It would not work for each group to take care of itself at the expense of everyone else, and as the world gets more interconnected and power more evenly distributed, religious identities will be challenged and likely unergo an evolutionary leap or two. Those who derive their sense of specialness and security by belonging to one group looking down on another will have serious problems, no matter what they believe about God.>>I do not worry about name tags...indeed I doubt either Jews or Christians would claim me.<<

--Sounds like you're in a good spot. Harder for people who belong solidly to one group or the other.

>>Even the great Catholic Scripture Scholar, E. Brown , as well as others, denies the authenticity of the Nativity Narratives.<<

--The trick is to be able to question the historical accuracy of scripture, without losing the symbolism. Symbolism is important, literalism is expendable. But for a lot of people, giving up literalism means giving up meaning altogether.

C. Lockharthttp://www.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." -- Aird"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." -- Unknown __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I read your post below. well a little of it anyway.....no comment except to wish you a blessed Christmas.

From the eternal optimist who thinks "someday" she might get through even though she knows it probably will never happen.One day we will all really know ourselves if we try hard enough...all of us.

So since I cannot change your mind, I will change , once again my heart.

You don't need to fight me any longer, if I can just remember to love you instead of reason with you....that reasoning seems totally useless....

Toni

Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Toni says:

>>Once you have been persecuted because you are Jewish, then you will have a right to tell Jews whatever you wish. First walk in their shoes.<<

--I already have the right to tell Jews whatever I wish. I can tell ANYONE whatever I wish. Isn't freedom of speech a gift?

Once you have been persecuted for being a Messianic Jew, judge Messianic Jews.

>>Your opinion of Messiahnic Jews is fine...it just isn't the jewish one and it is a contradiction in terms.<<

--Which Jew in particular determines the "Jewish opinion"? I'd like to ask this person myself, if he's got some authority to speak for Jews as a mass. Or are you speaking from your own opinion when you say Jews can't be Christian on top of being Jewish?

If a Jew can be an atheist and still be Jewish (ethnically or culturally) then by the same logic, a Jew can be Christian. If "Jewish" refers only to religious Jews, then a lot of people currently calling themselves Jewish would have to sever themselves from their culture and history, having given up religion altogether. There are plenty of religious contradictions between Orthodox and Reform Jews, but since Israel is a small place and Jews a historically threatened minority, I suppose it's ok for them both to consider each other "Jews, but maybe not as Jewish as us." But if that excludes Messianic Jews (again, all Jews are messianic, it's only a question of whether they think the Messiah already showed up or will appear in the future, or both), that seems unfair to me, it would hurt me if I were in their shoes, and prejudice against them seems very much against the spirit of pragmatic tolerance and acceptance of debate that I admire in Jewish tradition. Don't take out of Judaism the things I most appreciate about Judaism, all that's left is ceremonial get-togethers and ethno-networking, if you take out the parts about extending justice to all mankind and speaking truth to power. Granted, it's easier to put up a Christmas tree or Menorah than it is to oppose a genocide or treat all people as equals, but could we get together as a species just once for something other than symbolism and ritual?

Maybe the current generation of young people, who are more likely to judge people as individuals than by their ethnicity, religion or nationality, will overcome the darker aspects of religious identity, and rediscover the meaning behind all religion, which is unity in the face of threats to the tribe, with the boundaries of the tribe expanding to include humanity, and the threat being recognized as systemic and transpersonal. As our species wobbles on the brink of Godlike technological domination, it will have to learn peace, and all religious identities will be pulled, painfully if shadow is projected onto other groups, to converge on some common truths and possible agreements for living sanely in a world where tribes have only symbolic, not real, boundaries.

>>Please try to refrain talking about fairmess and justice and what Jews "ought to do".<<

--Jews ought to brush their teeth, or they'll get tooth decay. I am not a dentist, so you should probably ignore what I just said. But what if it's true that Jews, and everyone else, need to stop punishing "traitors" who blend faiths, skin colors or cultural symbols? What if that's the only way for the species to survive? I'm not a Muslim, but I'll tell a Muslim the same thing. I'm not a Christian, but I think Christians should love their enemy. I won't send them to hell for disagreeing with me. Free speech, again.

>>You are so far out of your element that I will not answer.<<

--You are answering. And you have no idea how far out of my element I am.>>However, I didn't explain my histrory for you to comment on, agree with or disagree. It is mine.<<

--There are always two histories: history as it happened, and history as it is remembered. Everyone's history happened in the same reality. All histories are intertwined and connected. All spoken history, personal or tribal, is a mixture of references to what really happened and stories about what it meant that it happened. The objective reality is what really happened, regardless of how you remember it or tell the story.

>>I do not open myself up for someone who doesn't even know me to judge..nor comment. I was purely allowing you to see reality from my spot, not yours.<<

--How kind of you. It might work better if you see reality from someone else's spot first. Imagine being a Messianic Jew. You don't have to understand their beliefs, just that it's their identity, and if you tell them they're not Jewish, you're cutting off half their identity. How does that feel to a person? Any person, not just a Jew. I don't mind if you insult me, but I've met some Messianic Jews who were really hurt by the rejection they experienced from Jews who regarded them as traitors to Judaism, as some kind of spy for the Christians. It's a cruel game, no matter who plays it, and it's not limited to one religious group but is a universal pattern of identity politics. It hurts interfaith couples and their children most, so some true believers compromise by discouraging interfaith marriage, by enforcing social segregation. That is not a viable solution. People are going to intermarry, there will be more and more Jews married to Arabs, Jewish Christians, Jewish Buddhists, Muslim Christians and every other combination you can dream up. If we treat them all as traitors, shame on us. They're the ones who are in a position to teach peace, rather than demonization, victimized outrage and ethnic cleansing, so typical of the last century.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Last night we watched a newly-released French movie, Joyeaux Noel, about the Christmas eve truce in Alsace in 1914. It's obvious the movie takes some poetic license but is otherwise historically accurate. Shows what can happen when we stop seeing others as The Other and see their humanity, too.

Blissings,

Sam

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.~ Rumi

[Guest guest]

Lockhart wrote:

Dan says:

>> The thing is, the criminals is supposed to lose his

freedom, his agency. He, having proved himself a natural slave, is to

become a slave in fact - subject to our will, not

his own.<<

--That mindset would necessarily lead to more crime.

How?

I don't want anyone to be my slave.

Doesn't matter what we want. Some men are slaves by nature.

I want people to learn from their actions, and that does not

happen if you take away agency.

Very many people cannot learn from their actions, at least not in the

way I think you mean. Like horses or dogs, they are to be trained (not

unkindly), not educated

Instead, you produce criminals who blame society for their

circumstances rather than learning from their mistakes.

In a sense, to the degree that "society" has not inculcated them with

the right habits, attitudes and values from the get-go, they are right.

In American society, for example, the Hustables are the example.

Failure fully to inculcate Huxtablism results leads not only to

criminality, but to things like, for example, the Katrina mess. If your

dog poops on the carpet, it is not its "fault" (it is beyond, or rather

below, good and evil), but yours, because you did not train it. If

people haven't got enough sense to get out of the way of a class-5

hurricane with three days notice (I could walk to Baton Rouge from New

Orleans in three days, and I am an overweight, sedentary man of a

certain age), it is because of lack of requisite training. Then why

blame the "victims," you ask? Because blame is part of the training ( I

never said that politics is without a certain tragic element). Your dog

cares if you blame him.

Believe me, criminals aren't going to fear you if you hide

behind the authority of the state and punish them from a safe distance.

Criminals of the violent -as opposed to the doofus - variety, fear only

the armed.

>>When he takes his own life, he exerts his own agency and

cheats us.<<

--"Us"? Speak for yourself. I get no pleasure from a criminal

being put to death, or killing himself. Either way, violence wins over

humanity.

It's not a question of pleasure one way or the other, and violence is a

part of humanity - not s strictly deplorable part, either.

>>Hence he must be prevented from suicide.<<

--"Must"? Where does this "must" come from? I must have missed

the memo.

Proceeds from my prior argument. Justice demands that he forfeit his

agency. Suicide is an act of agency. Therefore justice demands that his

suicide be prevented.

>>Have you been married? Do you know the answer to the question,

Do I look

fat in this?, lol.<<

--The correct answer is "to me, yes" if you actually think she

looks fat. The wrong answer is, "No, of course not".

I see. So the answer to my question is no, you have not been married,

lol.

That produces women who don't know if anyone is being honest

with them, therefore they have to ask over and over, driving men crazy.

Your argument assumes that most women are rational. They are not

(neither are most men). It also assumes that the question, Do I look

fat in this?, is really a literal quest for information, rather than

meaning "Do you still find me attractive?, Do you still love me?", etc.

How could we live without our lies and self-deceptions? It doesn't bear

thinking about.

Not that it's easy to be honest. Hypocrisy is rampant. Trying to

spare someone's self esteem with dishonesty only leads to lower self

esteem later on, so the real purpose in lying is to prevent your spouse

from seeing you as a bad person.

Polite fictions exist throughout society to avoid or ease friction. I

say

'How do you do?" when I feel like saying "Leave me alone!" Do you

really want to fight all the time, esp. with your spouse?

If you're projecting shadow, you can't tolerate being put in

the "bad guy" position, but that creates new problems.

>>Catholics do well precisely because Catholicism frowns on

divorce.<<

--Protestant conservatives also frown on divorce.

Fair enough. Catholicism forbids it (except, in certain cases, as a

strictly legal exercise), makes it a mortal sin to remarry. In the eyes

of God, per the RCC, you are married for good, legal status

notwithstanding, and if you marry another, you are guilty of adultery,

period.

But they have a higher divorce rate. It's not the beliefs. It's

something else. The most consistent predictor of divorce is the male

not accepting influence from the female.

I should have thought that the best predictor would be how easily

divorce is to obtain. Almost everyone who has been married more than

ten minutes has thought that he/she really could not take it any more.

Surely it matters how easy it is to act on that thought/impulse.

Perhaps there is more of the feminine in Catholicism, and more

fear in men of accepting the influence of women among Protestant males.

It's not enough to condemn divorce. People condemn a lot of things.

It's just words.

How about, "Divorce and remarry, and you will know the unending

tortures of hell." Do you think that would be effective, assuming that

the person believed it?

>>But theft is unjust regardless of consent.<<

--If I consent to give you something I own, it's a gift.

If it's a gift, it's not theft.

Consent makes a huge difference.

But consent is not the foundation of justice or government. I know that

modern political philosophers have said that it is. Modern political

philosophers were lying, for their own ends.

It's possible for people to cosent to be punched repeatedly in

the head. They call it boxing. Try that on the street without

invitation, and you're in jail.

>>But the first thing I do is avoid bad men - if that means

celebacy forever, so be it.<<

--Yes, avoid anyone with a "Bad man" tattoo on his forehead. Of

course, you know that "bad men", as you call them, almost universally

project shadow onto other "bad men" and then attempt to save women from

the other bad men. It's not nearly as simple as you seem to think.

It's simple enough: for starters, they do have tattoos, often enough.

Other red flags:

Don't work.

Use drugs.

Drink heavily.

Been in prison, even once, even for a day (doesn't matter why, or how

much he protests that he didn't do it or was done wrong).

Didn't finish high school.

Low income.

Disrespectful to women.

Frequent fighting.

Low intelligence.

Illiteracy.

Motorcycles.

Rule out any guy with any one of these traits, and the woman is a long

way toward avoiding bad men. Of course, using my scheme you might get a

fairly large number of false positives, but what's wrong with that? In

this case, better safe than sorry. You can judge a book by its cover.

Read the cover.

>>I finish school - GED if necessary.<<

--Good teachers and mentors are important. It's finding one that

takes work. Some people cannot pass a GED on their own, without a good

teacher.

In my obsevation, low intelligence and criminality are positively

correlated.

Reduce teacher/student ratios until students can reasonably

consider their teachers to be mentors, and you'll change the system.

Where are all these excellent teachers supposed to come from? No point

having a mentor if he can't teach, or teaches the wrong things. Or if

the student can't learn (much). The notion that every child can learn

just as much as every other child if only given the right "resources'

is nonsense, and the reason why "no child left behind" is doomed to

fail.

If you were a first class mechanic, would you rather work on Ferraris,

or Yugos?

>>Overall, I adopt the habits, attitudes and values of the

WASP, patriarchal, Connecticut upper-middle- class circa 1948. When I

do, things get better in a hurry.<<

--Better for whom?

Better for me. Better for the one who adopts them. Some ways of life

are objectively superior to others.

Patriarchy can be toxic for some, and a lot of people don't

feel very welcome, no matter how they dress or talk, in white upper

class culture.

I said "better," not perfect. And I am speaking of the many. Those few

with minds of peculiar structure will have to look out for themselves.

It's always been possible for people to say, "If everyone was

just willing to act like me, things would be great". That's never been

a viable solution.

Which things get better when you, personally, act like a WASP,

and which values matter most in getting which results?

You get self-respect, the respect of others, economic security, good

children, better health, all sorts of good things.

>>Need a start? Watch the Huxtables on afternoon TV, and

resolve to be as much

like them as possible.<<

--Yes. It's a wonder Brady Bunch didn't teach the 60's

generation to behave, isn't it?

I didn't reference them, I referenced the Huxtables. The Huxtables look

and act like a real family (well, except you never see the maid, and

somebody's got to clean - but that's a small point).

>>Ethics = "habits," so in a sense you are right. But law (among

other

things) inculcates habits.<<

--I believe that relying on habit for your ethical foundation is

unethical.

Then you are doomed to political failure. This is like thinking you can

fly by not believing in gravity.

Law can inculcate rebellion, if it is inconsistent or

discriminatory.

If there are bad laws, it does not follow that there cannot be good

laws. And not all rebellion is just. Usually, in fact, it isn't.

>>The "sexual revolution" was a freakin' disaster. Don't think

I'm against it, though.<<

--The more disastrous elements of the sexual revolution were a

consequence of the extreme conformity and materialism of the 50's.

Extremes constellate extremes. If you want people to have healthy

relationships, stop making them everyone else's business, and give them

access to counselling when they need help resolving conflicts.

If I'm "giving them counselling," I'm making it public business, aren't

I. Most counselling is crap. That said, you minimize conflict by

prescribing roles. If everyone knows what the man's job is, and what

the woman's job is, conflict is reduced. You won't fight over who is to

do the dishes and who is to drudge off to the factory every day, if

those questions are already a pre-answered matter of social consensus.

Working multiple jobs also erodes marriages, so it's good to

have a lot of free time to work on the relationship and bond with

family. Not everyone finds it so easy, espcially now with a flattening

global economy.

You, I , Pat Buchanon and Phyllis Schafly are in agreement on that

point.

>>By this reasoning, anyone who ever smoked pot can't be against

drug bans now. Yuppie parents won't warn their children against drugs

because of the fear of "hypocrsiy," lol - the liberals' mortal

sin.<<

--I will note that you value hypocrisy as a tool (one I believe

backfires over time, destroying the immediate advantage of using it).

But it's perfectly consistent to say, "I smoked pot, and enjoyed it,

and I want you to know the health consequences of smoking any

substance, so that you can make an informed decision. I don't expect

you to do everything I've done, without knowing that there are risks."

That's what I would say if I had kids.

What you would say depends on the kid. They vary widely. Some will say,

Dad got away with it, I can too. I note that here you also give your

child implicit permission to break the law. When he calls you from

jail, whom will you blame?

I wouldn't lie, and I wouldn't resort to hysterical claims

about the dangers of drugs. Kids know that alcohol is more dangerous

than pot. They've seen people drink, they've seen people smoke pot.

I hope they haven't seen people smoke pot.

They see the hypocrisy of lawmakers taking money from the

tobacco and alcohol lobby while telling kids that pot is a gateway drug

(alcohol and tobacco are THE gateway drugs, according to researchers).

I have no problem with anyone using any drug as long as they aren't

violating my rights in the process.

But no problem with their violating the laws, apparently. Fact is,

tobacco and alcohol are legal substances. Lobbying is legal, too. Don't

like it? Change the law. You can't countenance law breaking with regard

to drugs, and then object when the kid steals a car - at least, not if

you would avoid "hypocrisy," lol.

I am consistent on the issue, and consistency is a requirement

of authority, or authority ends up a paper tiger, getting no respect

and using fear to try to buy it back.

>>When I was kid I street raced on occasion. If I now tell my

nephew that

street racing is stupid and wrong, am I a bad 'ole hypocrite?<<

--Street racing carries a risk to the driver and to pedestrians.

That remains true, no matter who has done it. So it's consistent to

say, "I was stupid once and drove way too fast because I wanted to beat

some other kid, and I put people at risk in the process. My advice is

not to be as stupid as I was, I want this family to learn from

mistakes". There is no hypocrisy in that position.

How about, "It's stupid, it's wrong, don't do it." Will that do?

Hypocrisy is condemning what you do yourself and refuse to be

honest about, not conemning mistakes you've learned from. When

conservative Protestants condemn gay marriage but are soft on straight

divorce, that's hypocrisy.

It isn't really. It would be hypocrisy to condemn gay marriage while

being gay and married. It would be hypocrisy to be hard on divorce,

while retaining the prerogative to divorce oneself. That's why they're

soft on divorce, I expect. Better to be hard on divorce, and forego

divorce themselves, imo.

And it's almost guaranteed that they'll be soft on divorce, so

as not to scare away the sizeable number of divorced churchgoers who

might switch congregations as a result. And of course, if the boss gets

a divorce, it's his business... don't want to lose any money by

condemning what the boss does. The underlying issue is not which moral

code is the one and only correct way to live, but consistency.

Political life will not accommodate the kind of consistency that you

consistently demand - at least, not apart from a strong-arm tyranny.

You expect too much.

Consistent codes survive, inconsistent ones breed rebellion and

shred the social and political fabric.

I don't know any regimes that have embodied that kind of consistency.

Jewish law, maybe.

Rome lasted a thousand years by making all kinds of accommodations.

If we consitently excuse the behavior of people who benefit us

financially or politically while loudly condemning the behavior of

political opponents or groups we don't have any connection with, things

fall apart because of double standards.

That's true, but you, it seems to me, demand much more than that.

Authority ends up with no real power, and religion becomes a

political tool devoid of authenticity or spiritual gravity.

C. Lockhart

http://www.soulaquarium.net

Yahoo! Messenger: grailsnail

Blog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

"The most dangerous things in the world are immense accumulations of

human beings who are manipulated by only a few heads." -- Carl Jung

"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible

warning." -- Aird

"LOVE PEOPLE AND USE THINGS - NOT LOVE THINGS AND USE PEOPLE." --

Unknown

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You wrote:

Dan asks how depriving criminals of agency would promote more

crime. Answer: by destroying the capacity for making responsible

decisions,

How can one destroy what was never there?

making reparations impossible,

Speaking for myself, if a loved one were murdered, the only

"reparation" I would accept would be the life of the murderer.

and eroding mercy,

This is, I believe, the first time we have spoken of mercy , at least

in this thread. Mercy is fine, but mercy requires repentance. More

bluntly, mercy must be begged for. Further, while extending mercy may

be gentlemanly, I am not certain that justice requires it. Modern

liberalism, though, seems to me to try to make it a requirement of

justice. Pity - "compassion" has somehow become the prime moral virtue,

and out of compassion comes mercy.

without which a society eventually fragments into warring

clans.

Every neighborhood in Iraq is a gang neighborhood, for that

reason.

Iraq was already warring clans, held together as an erstatz "nation" by

a series of strong men, the most recent being the tyrant Saddam. Now

that the tyrant is removed, I suppose they will fight it out for

dominance, with the "coalition of the willing" trying to impose order.

Forget democracy, Iraq is clearly not suited for democracy. The Kurds

may end up benefiting the most, esp, if Iraq splits up for good.

The death penalty is not a deterrent in gang neighborhoods,

because whether one is or isn't involved in criminal activity, one

risks death on a daily basis simply by existing, and the fear of death

goes numb when people find outlets for power after feeling powerless.

I doubt that it is a deterrent anywhere, because it is rare and not

swiftly administered. I was impressed that the Iraqis executed Saddam

right now, and not after 147 appeals. As far as I can see, though, when

thinking about the death penalty, its effectiveness as a deterrent is a

trivial consideration, if not altogether irrelevant.

Criminals tend to be people who are disempowered in society's

normal games

Is political life a game?

I haven't got any power, have you? I don't resort to violence. But by

power, here, I am going to assume that you mean the "power" to become

middle class. Job skills, social skills, "education, " etc. The answer,

imo, is education in the older sense - education in character, to a

regime. In our case, universal (well, near- universal) Huxtablization.

The Huxtables represent that to which nearly all Americans should

aspire, and should be taught to aspire.

and use violence to re-empower themselves (changing the rules

to suit themselves), and the prison environment encourages gang

organization and power trips, not introspection and transformation, so

it becomes part of the problem. The way out is to provide criminals

with role models they feel accountable to, which may include some

coalition of family members, experts in a field of interest, or people

to teach skills that make playing society's normal games bearable.

"Bearable"? Do you find modern life hard to bear? I should have thought

it was almost unbearably easy. Even if you fail, there is a "safety

net."

As long as we throw criminals in the tank and forget about them,

they'll feel toward us exactly as we would in their position, and act

accordingly.

They need to be made to understand that it is their own damned fault.

The world is creating an underclass of angry young men and

women,

The "world"? What is "the world"? It is true, I must admit, that the

corruption of the regime has exacerbated these age-old problems to a

significant degree. We destigmatize unwed motherhood, even subsidize it

with welfare (hence also undermining the work ethic), then wonder at

what we get. The answer, it seems to me, is to re-stigmatize bad

behavior. We need to resume using the "scarlet letter." Salutary terms

like "slut" and "bastard" (in its literal sense) need once again to

become respectable, and used seriously by respectable people. A young

man needs to know that, if he gets the girl pregnant, he will marry her

and support her, and if that interferes with his dreams, too bad. We

need, in short, to return to the sexual mores of the 90's - the 1890's.

If we can't or won't do that, then I guess we need to build a prison on

every corner and fill 'em up..

and we are insane if we think we don't have to approach them as

human beings but can keep disposing of them as problems. Politicians in

the US and Iran both use appeals to vengeance and fear of predators to

gain applause and keep themselves under a veil of untouchability. When

you're calling for someone's head, you feel invulnerable, because

you're really not dealing with that person at all,

Why should I deal with him as a person at all? He has, in my view, lost

his "personhood" - i.e., his right to a place in society. (I note that

these days thepro-abortionists don't deny that a fetus is a human being

- they deny that is is a person.)

just using him as a prop. That pattern ties members of the

criminal class to people who are calling for justice but without a

sense of what justice really means. Justice is resolution.

How is execution not a resolution?

It's not escalation, no matter how satisfying one step in the

cycle, an execution or long prison sentence, may feel on a temporary

basis.

It is very difficult for anyone, including a person guilty of

violence, to change himself while under threat or pressure to conform

to a pecking order.

Well, then that is a problem, since the "pecking order," as you call

it, is perfectly natural to human beings, who are not created equal in

any meaningful sense.

Something else is needed, if we want to really address the

problem of violence and crime,

I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I will see that there are worse

things than some violence and crime - and equality of condition so as

to eradicate envy would be one of them.

unless we prefer the rush of adrenalin when we hear about

someone being executed, that rush being part of an avalanche of

stimulation that leads others to commit violent acts while we watch

from a distance, calling for blood. We deny our own agency, and

everyone else's, pretending the pattern we're all a part of is how it's

supposed to be.

>>Doesn't matter what we want. Some men are slaves by

nature.<<

--By nature, or by indoctrination? Children are naturally

curious and rebellious, God bless them.

They are spontaneously so - whether or not they are naturally so is

another question. But I spoke of men. Many children will, by their

nature (the child is the father of the man) grow into adults who will

need to be ruled for their own benefit and the benefit of the city.

Justice demands it. "Do your own thing" is a disastrous presecription.

They tend to grow out of it in proportion to the punishment

attached to being an individual and taking individual responsibility

for decisions.

What exactly is meant by "responsibility"? In dealing with many

individuals, you might just as well hold a dog or horse responsible.

Lacking prudence or the capacity to look ahead, it make no sense to aks

them to be responsible.

If responsible behavior is punished and risk-taking and

domination are rewarded, the results are predictable, and I don't think

they need to be chalked up to genetic nature. Germans are not Nazis by

nature, they went through a fascist phase based on centuries of

indoctrination with antisemitism and authoritarianism, fear of

contamination, and perfectionism.

By "nature" I do not mean "necssity." One's nature is more along the

lines of what one is meant to be, as per, for example, jungian

psychology.

The perfectionism is still there, but in the auto industry

where it belongs.

I think you have them confused with the Japanese, lol.

Whether Germans are perfectionistic by nature or by cultural

habit, it's clear that they aren't inherently "evil", and I doubt

anyone is born a slave, or born evil,

I said nothing about evil. You are insinuating an association between

Aristotle's "natural slave" (of which I speak) with evil (of which I

did not speak), I suspect for a rhetorical purpose

or born to be anything but curious and experimental, qualities

that can be adapted to just about any goal from robbing banks to

building skyscrapers.

One wonders which is actually the worse. Promiscuous curiosity and

experimentation are grossly overrated, in my observation.

>>Very many people cannot learn from their actions, at least not

in the way I think you mean. Like horses or dogs, they are to be

trained (not unkindly), not educated<<

--I know a little bit about the reinforcement methods used with

animals. The most accurate and motivating method is called clicker

training, and it's based entirely on positive, noncoercive

tactics ("negative reinforcement" refers to the absence of painful

stimuli used to reinforce positive changes in behavior, although many

people misperceive it as punishment after an act).

Yes, I think I remember that distinction from Psych 101, many years

ago, but thank you for reminding me.

In contrast, punishment and coercion tend to backfire when

they're not effective, and to get less accurate and more stereotyped

behavior when they work in the short term to get compliance.

Every human being CAN learn from his or her actions, but only if

the right environment is present. While under threat, attack,

accusation or demand, people tend to lock up and resort to habitual,

almost ritual responses.

Since I have not recommended that approach, I am not sure how it is

relevant to my argument.

So if you've always dealt with attack by freezing, you'll freeze

when attacked. If you've always dealt with accusation by saying, "Fuck

you, I don't have to listen to you", you'll continue that pattern while

being accused. It is when the environment relaxes and provides enough

space and silence for introspection to develop that people really

change. Prison is sometimes that environment, and sometimes not, so it

gets inconsistent results and high numbers repeat offenders. Then we

conveniently say, "They don't want to change, or can't change" and our

hands are washed clean of the environment we helped criminals and

politicians create. Never assume that what people can't do in one

environment at one time can't be done ever, anywhere. A lot of kids

with learning difficulties have been thrown out in the same way, it was

just too expensive or inconvenient to figure out how kids really learn,

and those who didn't learn in the ways that were taught were regarded

as unmotivated or flawed.

As a practical matter, it is not clear that everyone deserves

everything, but in any event - in my observation, the best thing one

could do to help many children is to take them away from their parents.

It's a bad pattern, whether we apply it to criminals or kids.

Often the results are related.

>>In a sense, to the degree that "society" has not inculcated

them with

the right habits, attitudes and values from the get-go, they are

right.<<

--The problem is, society often says one thing and does another.

We tell people not to use violence to solve problems, and what do we do

as a culture?

We tell them, or should tell them, to obey the law. It's all about the

law, and none about what *you* think is just - that is what we should

tell them. The law can use violence, where you can't - it can also

levy taxes and fines where you can't. So what? You don't rule. What's

the conceptual problem?

Of course, people who feel unsafe are going to buy guns,

Feeling unsafe is just good reality testing.

some of them are going to shoot pre-emptively, some of those

with guns will be addicts and do something stupid to prevent massive

chemically-deprived suffering, and some will use the immediate power

that comes with holding a gun to feel powerful after being thrown away

by some person or group. We know all this will happen, and we know that

when we use violent rhetoric to "solve" problems, we teach criminals

that society is really a dog-eat-dog pyramid,

But it isn't - where do you get this idea?

not upholding any kind of virtue or righteous authority.

Criminals are just doing what everyone else is doing, with a relaxation

of rules about who is or isn't an appropriate target. We try to contain

the bloodlust and rage of crowds by channeling it into state-sanctioned

executions.

Rather into sports, or so I am told in these parts lately. Not very

many executions, but football is on all the time.

How well does that work in Iraq? 80 people died in addition to

Saddam, and the only one whose name we will remember will be Saddam's.

Again, I don't take your point. You so often leave me with the "so

what?" response, although I usually try not to express it. We remember

Saddam because Saddam was a somebody (a bad somebody, perhaps, but a

somebody) and the others are nobodies. So what? we remember the

extraordinary, not the ordinary.

The media is full of real and simulated violence, and as long as

the crowd enjoys it (they watch the same violent, deviant programming

in Southern Christian neighborhoods as they do in nasty old Hollywood)

the crowd gets more of it, real and simulated. When we give people who

show virtue as much attention as those who imprint their faces and

names on us with violence, violence will taper off.

Agreed. Huxtables.

When we start seeing criminals as people who are afraid rather

than evil, the purpose of crime, which is to appear unafraid and

confirm one's ability to stay on top to avoid becoming prey, will be

undermined and crime will also taper off. We keep cycles going, and

then absolve ourselves of responsibility for them, and that has never

worked and never will. We live in a violent world because we've never

wanted to look differently at what violence means, and problems that

can't be looked at honestly are never solved.

We have not yet determined that a violence-less world would be good.

>>In American society, for example, the Hustables are the

example. Failure

fully to inculcate Huxtablism results leads not only to criminality,

but

to things like, for example, the Katrina mess.<<

--Is there a black undertone to this example?

I don't know what you mean by a "black undertone." The Huxtables are

black, the Katrina victims were mostly black. If the Katrina victims

had been mostly white, the lesson would be the same.

The Huxtables are a model family, and a great example, I agree.

But what are the real factors that punish kids who imprint on the

Huxtable model and reward immediate dominance or self-interest? If

every kid who acts like a Huxtable were rewarded with money, attention,

and respect, I imagine Huxtability would be as popular as basketball

among the "inner city" kids whose color we aren't mentioning.

One assume. So how do we bring that about?

>> If your dog poops on the carpet, it is not its "fault"

(it is beyond, or rather below, good and evil), but yours, because you

did not train it<<

--The whole approach of fault-finding makes some problems

impossible to solve, especially when the "problems" are people. I don't

care whose fault it is. I only care what actions I can take or

encourage others to take that would make a difference. More blame isn't

going to make a difference, blame and shame have become so widespread

that they no longer have any discernible impact on people's actions.

Just the opposite - they are not too strong, but too weak. Praise and

blame are the tools with which one brings up decent human beings.

When one thing isn't working, try something else.

>If people haven't got enough sense to get out of the way of

a class-5 hurricane with three

days notice (I could walk to Baton Rouge from New Orleans in three

days, and I am an overweight, sedentary man of a certain age), it is

because of lack of requisite training.<<

--I suspect his suffering won't be much consoled by accusing him

of not preparing.

But I will not willingly succor his suffering until he acknowledges,

publicly, that it was his own fault, and he resolves to do better in

future. I want to hear some mea culpa's. I don't want to hear any "you

owe me's."

Our entire culture has failed to prepare for global warming,

preferring the immediate sense of security that comes from driving a

huge car.

Oh, come on. There are hurricanes every year. Usually they peter out

without damaging anything that anyone cares about, and nobody notices.

Once in a while they hit something, like a city, that people care

about, and then people notice and get upset. We remember the

extraordinary. I do note that last year was a mild year for

hurricanes, despite predictions to the contrary. Climatologists can't

predict Atlantic hurricanes one year in advance, but I'm supposed to

get all in a tizzy about their dire predictions for world climate fifty

years from now. We shall see what we see.

Katrina was similar, people just didn't take the warnings

seriously because they assumed they were hysterical or only given to

prevent lawsuits.

There is something to that. I have ridden out a hurricane warning or

two (never class 5 with a mandatory evacuation, however), but had I

been wrong, and my house blown down and my life endangered, I would

have blamed *myself* and not you. That is what I call "taking

responsibility."

We don't listen to people who talk about global warming either,

for the same reason. We think they're saying the sky is falling, and we

think they're wrong. I don't think all the (color unmentioned) people

in New Orleans were much stupider than society in general. We're taking

a lot of warnings as if they were overblown, all of us. Perhaps it

speaks to the lack of credibility on the part of authority, we don't

listen when authority tells us we need to change, we stick to our guns,

or our property, trying to stay the course.

A problem with hurricanes is that, if they don't come, and you

evacuate, people break into your house and steal your stuff. That had a

lot to do with it.

>>Then why blame the "victims," you ask? Because blame is

part of the training ( I never said that politics is without a certain

tragic element). Your dog cares if you blame him.<<

--Who trained YOU to think that way?

Plato, Aristotle and the Catholic church (not nec. in that order, lol).

That's one of the LEAST effective (in the long term)

reinforcement methods.

Blame is not to be used alone.

Yes, a dog will do what it takes to avoid having a displeased

owner. But people have higher expectations than dogs, and even with

animals, positive reinforcement is more effective and motivating, and

the results are generally much more accurate when the behavior you want

is complex or subtle. With humans, the focus on punishment, rather than

resulting in a generation of young men and women adoring their punitive

mentors, results in a generation of young men and women rebelling

against those who used manipulation, coercion and punishment to control

them. Welcome to the 21st century, Dan. You can't rule today's kids

with an iron boot, because they're smarter than you and better at

analyzing and responding to threats, they outclass you because they've

been training for it on video games, while you've just been sitting

there judging them. For you, at least, the "discipline and punish" model

But this is not my model - it is only part of my model. You are

attacking a straw man. The Huxtables are my model. as for the rest -

well, you know what they say about old age and treachery ;-)

will result in your isolation and a sense of powerlessness over

a tide of chaos,

I appreciate the flattery, but it is really not up to me whether there

is chaos or not. I don't have that kind of power, one way or another.

not an orderly world where the Huxtables reign as role models.

Not that I blame you.

>>Criminals of the violent -as opposed to the doofus - variety,

fear only the armed.<<

--They tend to fear having a reputation as weak. They believe

that backing down is impossible, because it will lead to their own

victimization. When they have no power to respond (being fired from a

company that doesn't see them as a person, being rejected from a

relationship, or being talked about by a group), they take whatever

action allows them to feel in control and in power.

I might be willing to go along with the idea that random firings are

imprudent and bad for the republic - but what to do?

They will back down if outgunned. Then they will feel ashamed

for having backed down and given in to fear, and then they will try to

repair the shame by taking control in some area. The less and less

control people feel over their jobs, relationships and social status,

the more crime.

Perhaps if we had a little less creativity and experimentation, things

might be more stable. Meanwhile, you can't solve this problem by

"empowerment," because people differ in their natural ability to use

power well. Jeeves can see the future and knows what to do - Bertie

can't, and doesn't. Forever and ever, amen.

So pull your gun, if you're in a situation where someone needs

to be intimidated out of taking unhealthy actions. But if that's your

ONLY response, you're doomed, and if your mindset is the one that

guides our political and social system, we're all doomed. Fortunately,

I have faith in people, including Americans, to solve problems the

right way when all the wrong ways have failed.

Now, if shame were such a useful tool, here is where I'd shame

you for having such a stupid, wasteful, fearful and short-sighted

mindset.

But I wouldn't do that,

Oh, I think you just did - or tried to. For shame to be effective, it

has to come from the right source. The criminals you spoke of are

shamed by their weakness, yes?

because shame just makes people dig in their heels and try to

outclass you for shaming them. You see that kind of thing in protests,

when people for or against whatever end up shouting "shame slogans",

getting nowhere, making the world a more hostile place, and not solving

any problems.

>>It's not a question of pleasure one way or the other, and

violence is a

part of humanity - not s strictly deplorable part, either.<<

--Violence is a response to boundary violation, and all animals

with boundaries that can be threatened are capable of violence if it

suits their ecological niche.

Is that what accounts for Napoleon or alexander? "Boundary violence?"

If we could get rid of it, would that be a good thing?

Humans included. But much of what we see as natural, even

praiseworthy violence, is really short-sighted and a result of cultural

indoctrination or political correctness. The "honor code" that tells

young males they'll become prey if they back down or show weakness

results in much more violence than backing down.

But also more honor. The key is not to get rid of honor, but to manage

it well.

It's a risk-management strategy, and humans are notoriously bad

at evaluating complex risk factors, especially when short term and long

term risks have to be evaluated at the same time. So kids get into

shooting wars because they can't back down, and then we say they're

violent kids who should be thrown away. We too are afraid from backing

down, and once we've committed to punishing criminals, we rarely see a

better way to reduce harm. It's an animal response that is deliberately

and systematically cultivated, cutting off all other avenues of action.

Why, I wonder, do you always assume without argument that the higher is

derived from the lower?

We keep calling people weak if they love their enemy or believe

there are nonviolent ways of resolving conflict or dealing with

tyranny. It takes a lot of suffering to prove current thinking doesn't

work, and only then do people invest in better responses. Again, look

at Iraq. Everyone's so afraid of backing down that they've backed

themselves into a corner, feeling forced to use violence where violence

is clearly counterproductive to their interests.

It is not clear to me, but in any event, I agree that pride should not

be allowed to overcome prudence. It is not clear, however that Bush is

a prudent man.

That environment has been systematically cultivated, it's not

something people just do by nature.

Again, "natural" does not equal "spontaneous."

>>Justice demands that he forfeit his agency. Suicide is an act

of agency. Therefore justice demands that his suicide be

prevented.<<

--No, YOU demand that he forfeit his agency. Justice does not

demand it, and I don't demand it.

Imo, justice demands it. Perhaps I am wrong, and am open to an argument

to that effect. But it is not a matter of consensus, of who demands

what. Justice, like good government, does not proceed from consent of

the governed.

Instead, I demand of myself that I find a way that works and

preserves my own conscience.

There is no such thing as "conscience." There is only prudence,

practical wisdom. I don't claim to have it. Few people do have it.

I cannot side with the stoning mob, yelling, "Kill him, he

deserves it!" If I did, I'd be giving in to peer pressure, fear or

shadow projection. Instead, I'm willing to talk to criminals as if they

were real human beings,

I am willing to be civil to them.

which does not mean approving of their bad decisions, but

regarding them as decisions made with flawed preparation, respecting

their agency and ability to learn from mistakes when those mistakes are

presented clearly, without the distorting filters of punitive

retaliation or fearful attempts at manipulation or control. I don't

want to control criminals. I want to give them other options. If that

makes me a bad person in your mind, that's fine with me. I see your

mindset as being no less toxic than some of the attitudes I've seen in

the criminal class. In many cases, the mindset was passed on by an

authority figure who couldn't control himself, who was hypocritical or

projected his own shadow onto his kids, who then decided society just

works that way, having numerous examples of hypocrisy or betrayal to

point to. Criminals believe that society is willing to lie, cheat and

steal to control them, just as they lie, cheat and steal to feel

independent and in control of their own fate. Proving that it's in

their interest to play by the rules means proving that the rule-makers

aren't just playing the same games they are, from a different position.

It is in their interest to be noble, regardless of what "society" does.

"Everybody does it" is a slavish way of thinking. I doubt your ability

to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, however. I think that you are a

decent person, but mistaken.

That can be difficult, especially with people who have been

repeatedly betrayed and assume any kind of lecturing or moralizing is

one more attempt at putting them in a position of weakness. Those who

dominate fear being dominated, and society's fear of being dominated by

crime is an exact mirror of the widespread feeling among criminals that

if they don't stay on top, they'll be roadkill. The toxic mindset is

social darwinism,

Yes, well. You can hardly embrace Darwinism without embracing Social

Darwinism. Darwin referred to Herbert Spencer (somewhere in _Descent of

Man - , don't have the reference in front of me now) as "our

philosopher." The "enlightenment" mongers have sown that wind, and now

we reap the whirlwind - speaking of hurricanes.

with or without the cover of morality, authority or religion.

>>So the answer to my question is no, you have not been married,

lol.<<

--Yes, I'm married.

>>Your argument assumes that most women are rational. They are

not

(neither are most men).<<

--Everyone has the ability to think rationally, and the ability

to act on lines of reasoning that are less clear under analysis.

No, they don't. That is like saying that everybody has the ability to

understand nuclear physics, or to compose great symphonies. Human

beings differ in their taletns, clearly and distinctly.

Everything people do makes sense,

Well, everything is done for the purpose of achieving an apparnet good

- but usally only an *apparent* good.

some of it logical in relationship to stated goals or beliefs,

some of it goal-oriented but not as obvious. What men and women do a

lot is stereotype each other and make bad decisions after doing so. Men

who think, "Women are irrational" will act in ways that provoke women

to act more irrationally.

You will note that I said that most women, like most men, are

irrational.

Women who think, "Men are pigs" end up creating more pigs.

People co-define each other in relationships whenever one person needs

the other's approval or cooperation. What most people lack is true

independence, the ability to be okay with or without the attention or

approval of others.

>>It also assumes that the question, Do I look fat in

this?, is really a literal quest for information, rather than meaning

"Do you still find me attractive?, Do you still love me?"<<

--Right. So the culturally-ingrained

How do you now that it is "culturally ingrained," whatever that is? I

presume it means "taught." Fine. Women are taught they must be thin to

be attracitve - but everybody everywhere wants to be attractive. That

is not taught.

willingness of women to speak in code pushes men to respond in

code, rather than using straight communication. It's like an arms race.

Sometimes you can just decide not to play.

You seem to think that human beings care nothing for pride, or should

care nothing. Where would we be without our self-deceptions? How could

an ordinary person even tolerate life?

It depends on the balance of dependencies and the willingness

of one side or the other to stop using code and speak honestly, and ask

honest questions. "Do you still love me" is an honest question, and "do

I look fat in this" is an honest question, but if one question is

disguised as another, it produces confusion and erodes relationships as

much as it protects them.

>>How could we live without our lies and self-deceptions?

It doesn't bear thinking about.<<

--I think you're just being dramatic there. You'll survive

without self-deceptions.

Nothing could be less "dramatic," and more real. Put it this way -

everyone wants honor, few deserve it. How to cope?

You just haven't had that proven to you, so you wait for those

deceptions to be stripped away by your environment instead of preparing

ahead and removing them yourself.

>>Polite fictions exist throughout society to avoid or ease

friction.<<

--That would make a great rap lyric.

I might make an OK rapper, but would make a better TV evangelist. I

missed my calling.

Better than polite fictions are rituals designed to communicate

non-threat and willingness to cooperate, without resorting to

convenient lies.

Polite fictions *are* convenient lies.

The function of polite fictions is to de-escalate threat when

dealing with groups not immediately related. There are other ways to do

that, besides lying.

Name three. name one.

But societies tend to be politically correct by inertia if not

by nature, and social fictions are one form of political correctness.

Woe to the ones who talk straight.

Now you got it. I make an experiment of talking, well, semi-straight

here on this list. It doens't always go over well :-).

>>I say 'How do you do?" when I feel like saying "Leave me

alone!" Do you really

want to fight all the time, esp. with your spouse?<<

--That implies you have no agency or control over your own

emotional state.

I guess that's why they call 'em passions. I have some agency over my

own actions, that's all.

Which leads others to believe they too have no agency or

control. And so on...

How about just changing your state of mind so that you can show

geniune interest, and then get on to other things? That's one

alternative that becomes possible when you accept real agency. Easier

to accept agency for others than for onself, or to deprive others of

agency rather than using one's own. That's why (in addition to fear of

crime) we keep trying to deprive criminals of options. It's therapy for

those of us who feel controlled by our own minds.

>>Catholicism forbids it (except, in certain cases, as a strictly

legal exercise), makes it a mortal sin to remarry.<<

--Like that's going to stop anyone.

It has stopped many. "Anyone" doesn't mean "everyone," lol.

Love feels right, and authority feels wrong when it tries to

control expressions of love.

Goodness. I never knew you were such a romantic.

Of course people will rebel against those kinds of rules, which

are designed to work in small groups of men, many of whom are gay and

have no reason to worry about marriage. What works for an all-male

priesthood will NOT work for everyone, and the Catholic Church's

authority is undermined by sticking to those rules. The reason Jesus

said remarriage was equivalent to adultery was to emphasize that

adulterers were not necessarily more evil than men who found legal ways

to get around the rules and be with whatever women they wanted. But who

cares why Jesus said it, if you can use the letter of the law to

dominate over other people, while covertly doing whatever you want. In

any case, if I wanted people to respect my authority, I'd never tell

them they couldn't make their own decisions about marriage. That's a

recipe for losing authority, as the Catholic church has discovered.

For better or worse, the church held its authority for many hundreds of

years. I believe that it is science that is killing the church. Soon,

though, science will succeed in undermining the political conditions

necessary for its own existence, and then we will see what we see. Who

knows? maybe global warming will do it.

Or having religious authority married to political authority,

which leads to persecution and loss of respect for authority, as Iran

has discovered.

>>In the eyes of God, per the RCC, you are married for

good, legal status notwithstanding, and if you marry another, you are

guilty of adultery, period.<<

--Of course, God doesn't necessarily judge as we do.

No. I doubt that god judges at all. I don't believe in particular

providence. God doesn't care who wins the Army - Notre Dame game.

God may determine that it's necessary for someone to divorce his

wife in order to marry someone who is a better fit, enabling a higher

level of spiritual cooperation as opposed to habitual duty. But that

assumes God actually has a plan and the same flexbility and insight

that a good king or general would have. Perhaps there are many who

don't really believe in God but believe it's necessary to pretend one

exists, which makes organized religion perpetually at odds with the

actual will of God. One reason organized religion needs Satan as a

foil... if religious people realized they've made laws and scriptures

into idols, they'd freak out, fearing punishment by a vengeful deity

rather than assuming said deity is on their side against an enemy.

My deity, which exists somewhere between fiction and reality,

acknowledges that divorce can occasionally free up people's energy and

is worth the emotional pain. Emotional pain is not a primary concern,

except to people who want to maintain control over relationships and

fear separation out of proportion to what separation means. There is

also the irony: if we loved everyone as God allegedly does, we'd have

less need for absolute, secure marriages, having the ability to adapt

to change in relationships by forming new relationships on a constant

basis. People who love everybody tend to be less faithful, not because

they're bad people but because they have less

dependency and less fear of being hurt by one person.

Ironically, the New Testament regards marriage as a somewhat

inconvenient arrangement that makes spiritual progress more difficult,

dividing one's attention. Today's "family values" people don't seem to

be reading the Bible, but their children do read it, and they are

learning how often authority uses scripture to its own advantage,

rather than staying with the spirit and meaning of the faith. The more

Christian and Muslim parents clamp down on their children ideologically

or physically, the more they'll rebel and find faith outside the lines

drawn by previous generations. It's happening in Iran, where religious

authority keeps banning popular media, and in the US, where children of

conservative evangelicals are becoming environmentalists, gnostics or

freethinkers. Curiousity and experimentation, unlike repression and

paranoid hierarchies, are natural. They erode authoritarianism after a

few generations. That's why we have democracy -- we know the king has

to die, and it's easier to leave him a graceful way out, without

bloodshed.

>>I should have thought that the best predictor would be how

easily divorce is to obtain.<<

--Divorce is always easy to obtain. There may be sacrifices one

has to make in order to leave, but as soon as the heart says it's time,

people leave. Or they cheat.

Jung was not divorced. A parable.

All that happens when you make divorce difficult is that people

start noticing the wealthy or well-connected have an easier time making

the arrangements. It would make more sense to focus on amicable divorce

as an alternative to hostile, chaotic divorce. But we tend to do what

makes us feel more in control, not what actually works to make life

easier.

>>Almost everyone who has been married more than ten

minutes has thought that he/she really could not take it any more.

Surely it matters how easy it is to act on that thought/impulse.<<

--That puts people in the position of children, and that leads

to rebellion.

Not among good children.

People are responsible for their actions and for cleaning up

after their actions. If you want people to be faithful, make marriage

look so rewarding that nobody would want to trade it for the pain of

turbulent attachments. If you just try to make divorce look bad, you

won't save marriage, you'll just turn it into a political institution

rather than an arrangement

It *is* a political institution. It's not about personal pleasure, any

more than the army is for the personal pleasure of the soldiers. You

might enjoy it, you might not, but it is not ultimately primarily about

you

that works for the people involved.

>>How about, "Divorce and remarry, and you will know the unending

tortures of hell." Do you think that would be effective, assuming that

the person believed it?<<

--Does that actually work? It doesn't work in the American

South, where Christian conservatives have a higher divorce rate than

agnostics.

Christian conservative fundamentalists (protestants) don't believe one

goes to hell as a punishment for actions. You're either "saved" by

personal faith in JC, or not. You don't go to hell for particular sins,

as you do in Catholicism.

It doesn't work in Iran. Why on earth would you use fear of hell,

Worked in the Middle Ages. Jung says so. Life made sense, he says -

your purpose was to get to heaven or to get to hell. Now, life makes no

sense to many people.

one of the LEAST effective tools for changing people's

behavior? Just because it feels good, feels absolute and certain?

That's not a good reason.

Fear of a real blowtorch might get some temporary compliance,

but that kind of motivational strategy has never worked well. We've

gotten so used to using fear to control other people that we're living

in a world practically defined by fear. Oops. Try something else? Is it

time yet?

Why try something else when there is nothing wrong with the old way, or

any reason to think that the new way will be better. the "new way"

hasn't even examined its ends, as far as I can see.

>>But consent is not the foundation of justice or

government.<<

--I'm not so sure about that. I've read some documents, some

regarded almost as holy, that mention "the consent of the governed".

Without some kind of consent, no government survives.

That's true, but it is one thing to say that consent of the governed is

a practical necessity (ancient view - hence Roman emphasis on 'control

of the plebs"), and another to say that legitimacy proceeds from the

consent of the governed (a certain modern view). I am reluctantly

compelled to conclude that certain of the American founding principles

and teachings are deeply flawed.

It's usually a question of whether the consent is coerced or

given to people the public trusts. Consent is a huge part of law, it's

the determining factor in theft and rape cases. I don't see any way to

talk about justice without also talking about the right to

self-determination and consent.

I know. You could, however. I believe you are educable.

Watch what happens to governments that lack real consent from

the governed.

Again, this is a question of necessity only, not real legitimacy.

>>Modern political philosophers were lying, for their own

ends.<<

--Politicians lie for their own ends, whether disguised as

philosophers or priests. Philosophers don't lie on purpose, they take

the hemlock, whatever price gives them truth and a clear conscience.

Sure they do. They hate the lie in the soul, not all lies simply. It

has been suggested that, had Socrates been thirty or forty instead of

seventy, he might have accepted exhile or escaped to start over in

another city.

If you use philosophy for political ends, you destroy meaning

in language, and then have to wade through a morass of postmodernism

and cynicism, the use of language as a blunt instrument rather than a

lens to illuminate what matters.

If you don't use philosophy for political ends, philosophy beomces

impossible. The people hate philosophy, because it challenges the

ancestral, the old gods. If forced into enlightnement, they will kill

the philosopher, just as Socrates says. The sage tells Zarathustra that

he is lucky the mob laughed at him, found him ridiciulous, for

otherwise they would have killed him. Some people, like professor

Dawkins, for example, haven't gotten this and ignore it to their peril.

It is true that modern philosphy has been able to come to a kind of

accommodation with the many, but at great cost to itself.

Good postmodernism doesn't pretend to be safe, bad

postmodernism is

practiced in the name of God or some national ideal. Bad

postmodernism regards religion as a necessary lie, rather than a source

of heartfelt faith. Bad postmodernism lies to the young, and then the

young take revenge by abandoning the ideas that have been used as tools

for control.

>>It's simple enough: for starters, they do have tattoos,

often enough.<<

--I'm sure a high percentage of the prison population has

tattooes, but it does not logically follow that people having tattooes

is a "bad sign". I've had quite a few friends with tattooes who were

very ethical and had nothing to do with prison or gangs. You'd be

getting a false sense of comfort if you made judgments based on the

presence of tattoes, unless they are specifically gang-related.

\

>>Motorcycles.<<

--It sounds like you're trying to feel safe by filtering out a

lot of people. Jay Leno rides motorcycles. Motorcycles are hugely

popular right now. Associating them with crime is ridiculous.

Motorcycles do represent freedom, so of course they'll be popular among

people who have been to prison and lost their freedom. You're using a

common logical fallacy, that if most members of a set are in another

set, that the reverse must be true. Venn diagrams help with that.

No, I am not. I am making rules useful for people without prudence,

unable to make subtle judgments, in order to aid them in avoiding

mistakes. As I said before, a high number of false positives seems

acceptable to me, given the circumstances. I would like to have a

motorcycle myself, although it has been forbidden :-). The rule still

stands.

>>Rule out any guy with any one of these traits, and the woman is

a long

way toward avoiding bad men.<<

--People go to bed with the options they have, not the options

they want. Those

And no man at all is always an option, and not the worst. and think how

many men would shape up if women adopted my principles.

who have options and are aware of them, take them. Those who

take bad options believe that's all they can get. If you look down on

women who make bad choices about men, what are you doing? You're

telling her, "You're no good. Why do you keep choosing bad men" and the

metamessage wins over preaching. Tell them they're making bad choices

all you want, but if you want to help them, convince them they have

access to better options, and prove that access is real, that they

won't just get rejected (again) by the better option.

How is it that my rules don't do exactly that?

>>Of course, using my scheme you might get a fairly large

number of false positives, but what's wrong with that?<<

--Depends on how badly a person needs to choose. What skills

would enable young women who have experienced repeated rejection that

they can hold out for better men, men like the ones who rejected them,

but who won't reject them? False positives are bearable if you have a

lot of opportunity, not so easy if you have no sense that opportunity

exists.

If a young women reads _The Rules_ and follows them, she can't not

improve her self-respect and confidence, man or no man.

Whatever happend to "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,"

anyway? I always sort of liked that.

>>In my obsevation, low intelligence and criminality are

positively correlated.<<

--Of course. People who are perceived as stupid are often told

they're stupid, and eventually they give up. They do whatever gains

them respect, and if they are consistently humiliated in academics,

they go to auto mechanics, music, or crime, depending on what

environment enables them to feel confident and in control. I would

*never* tell a criminal he's stupid.

I wouldn't either, even if it wre true. he might kill me.

That would be the absolute stupidest possible thing to say. I'd

tell him he has a different learning style.

LOL! And I have a "different" golfing style. Tiger Woods isn't

*better*, he's just *different*. No child left behind. All have won and

all must have prizes. Tiger, I'll be expecting a check.

People labeled "stupid" are often kinesthetic learners who have

a block in visual or auditory processing.

And often not. Typically low in one is low in another, although

perhaps not *as* low. The kid with an 80 VIQ and a 120 PIQ is very

rare, in my experience.

That can be worked around or changed, but only by exposure to

the notion that what the world regards as stupid isn't necessarily

stupid, just different. Kinesthetic learners (like W. Bush) can

be very good leaders, as long as the people around them are ethical and

present good information. I wouldn't call Bush "stupid", and I wouldn't

label anyone else that way. It's stupid.

I wouldn't either, because his known test scores say otherwise. Based

on his SAT's, his Wechsler IQ should be around 120 - top 10%. He might

not be smart enough for his job, but he is not stupid.

>>Where are all these excellent teachers supposed to come

from?<<

--I could name about 20 retirees who would make excellent

teachers.

Twenty. We'd need five hundred thousand. And how many of your twenty

would put themselves through that?

They're there, they're just not being encouraged. Maybe some

kind of tax incentive for mentors would work better than assuming all

teachers have to be trained for years to do what they can do naturally.

>>No point having a mentor if he can't teach, or teaches

the wrong things.<<

--That's why it may be necessary for programs to connect the

right mentors to the right kids. Without such programs, odds are it

won't happen.

And who will progam the programmers?

>>The notion that every child can learn just as much as

every other child if only given the right "resources' is nonsense, and

the reason why "no child left behind" is doomed to fail.<<

--If every child is given the *same* resources, some percentage

will fail. If every child were given the *right* resources, it would be

entirely different.

Nah. Regardless of resources, I can't learn to be a good golfer, never

mind a great one. I lack the talent.

>>If you were a first class mechanic, would you rather work on

Ferraris, or Yugos?<<

--Whichever paid better, probably.

Philistine.

>>Some ways of life are objectively superior to others.<<

--My way is better than yours. Thank you for giving me

permission to say so

Thank you for acknowledging that you needed my permission. there is

hope for you yet.

>>Those few with minds of peculiar structure will have to look

out for themselves.<<

--Social darwinism, again? Okay, if you insist... "look out for

number one" is one of the most common axioms among criminals, working

class or corporate.

I only meant that Socrates and the few can look out for themselves, the

many require care. The very opposite of social darwinism.

>>And not all rebellion is just. Usually, in fact, it

isn't.<<

--Just about everything we believe began with an act of

rebellion, an idea spoken against the grain of the time. If it were not

the case, we'd all be following the same tribal gods that were killed

by monotheism.

>>Most counselling is crap. That said, you minimize

conflict by prescribing roles. If everyone knows what the man's job is,

and what the woman's job is, conflict is reduced.<<

--That's not what research says. Rigid roles lead to divorce,

not better marriages.

Thanks to feminism and other pernicious doctrine undermining the

prescribed roles. It's not difficult to stir up trouble. That doesn't

make it good.

Rigid ideas about authority lead to rebellion.

No. Belief that one is unjustly used leads to rebellion.

It's necessary for people to find more elegant ways of dealing

with conflict, rather than repressing it with rigid rules until it

explodes. Counseling is as good as the counselor, generally.

>>You won't fight over who is to do the dishes and who is

to drudge off to the factory every day, if those questions are already

a pre-answered matter of social consensus.<<

--But they're not, and never will be. There will *always* be

disagreement about roles, and disagreement about how to reward or

punish those who color outside the lines. If society could all agree on

ANYTHING, it would simplify things, but you go into life with the

society you have, not the society you want.

Doesn't have to be "all," just a sufficient majority. We have been

there, and could maybe get back.

Living in imaginary castles doesn't make people safe, and it's

leading to more conflict, not less. Now we have churches slandering and

gossipping each other (against the teachings of Jesus) based on

differences of opinion about gender roles or marriage. One conflict

suppressed, another created. That's how it works.

>>You, I , Pat Buchanon and Phyllis Schafly are in agreement on

that point.<<

--A stopped clock is right twice a day. Glad we agree on

something.

>>I note that here you also give your child implicit permission

to break the law.<<

--You just lied about me. I gave no such permission. Instead,

you equated something I said with an excuse, which shows both fear and

a willingness to falsely accuse others of things they have not done.

You might want to take it back.

Sorry, but I am under the impression that smoking pot is till against

the law.

>>When he calls you from jail, whom will you blame?<<

--If someone calls me from jail, I'll do whatever I feel would

lead to the most positive results. Blame may be irrelevant. I might

bail him out just to prevent the possibility of being hurt in prison,

depending on the level of violence at the particular prison. But the

decision would be based on likely consequences, not blame. It is

recognition of consequences that changes actions, and blame often

stands in the way of an accurate assessment of consequences. If people

are piling on artificial, manipulative consequences, they may obscure

the consequences that are most likely to produce change.

>>I hope they haven't seen people smoke pot.<<

--Smoking pot isn't a problem. Alcohol can be, depending on the

individual. Kids are going to see people smoking pot, and they're going

to see the hypocrisy of lawmakers being paid with tobacco and beer

money while putting pot growers in prison. It will undermine respect

for authority, same as alcohol prohibition. Everyone still drank, they

just had to know the password to drink in clubs.

Difference is, ETOH had been both legal and widespread. Pot smoking was

never too acceptable, even when legal.

Focus on actual consequences of behavior. If you drink and

drive, you could kill someone and have to live with that for the rest

of your life. If you smoke pot, you probably won't have a lot of

problems.

Known any stoners? come on.

Kids see reality better than adults, often, and they notice

hypocrisy too.

Ah, yes, the Amy principle. Experienced statesmen can't stave

off nuclear war, it is the innocence of the uncorrupted children that

will do it.

>>But no problem with their violating the laws, apparently. Fact

is,

tobacco and alcohol are legal substances.<<

--I don't follow all the laws, because the laws are not always

rational.

Ah. Yet you blame me, and even demand an apology, when I say the very

same thing.

You don't get to decide which laws you follow. When you do, you make

yourself a criminal. You are not the decider. Sorry.

I follow laws that protect life and limb. If you want people to

respect law, give them authority worth respecting, or don't complain

when people break the law as it suits them. I won't call the police on

people smoking pot. I'll call the police if someone is getting violent

and nobody there can handle it. There's a difference.

>>Lobbying is legal, too. Don't like it? Change the

law.<<

--If a pot farmer lobbies too well, his name goes on a list and

he's investigated.

A pot farmer, as opposed to a would-be pot farmer, is an habitual

criminal. Of course he is investigated.

Diminishing respect for authority is a natural result.

DRA is a result of habitual law-breaking, i think.

You forget, we live in a "managed democracy" where people who

smoke pot can't openly talk about it for fear of losing their jobs or

some other reprisals.

It's against the law. If I smoked pot, it could ruin me. So I don't

smoke pot. Simple.

If everyone could talk openly and freely about pot, it would

end up being treated no differently from alcohol, perhaps with fewer

restrictions due to the minimal damage done by pot relative to hard

liquor. If law were consistent, it would judge acts by their

consequences, not by what is politically fashionable or who is cowed

into silence.

All of this amounts to saying that you are right and the law is wrong .

Maybe, but not your call to make.

>>You can't countenance law breaking with regard to drugs,

and then object when the kid steals a car - at least, not if you would

avoid "hypocrisy," lol.<<

--Sure I can. I don't advocate following all laws, I don't

believe law should be an idol. If you were Chinese or Iranian, I would

advocate violating some laws in the persuit of freedom (reading banned

books, for example). America itself violates international law,

destroying respect for international law, and then uses international

law as justification for punishing those who violate it (selectively).

There is no such thing as international law. That said, you appear to

demand perfection, and when you don't get it, you appropriate the right

to petty tyranny to yourself.

I hardly think my hypocrisy is as corrosive as that of the

government. Your hypocrisy says, "Respect the law because it's the law"

and then you undermine that respect by supporting laws that can't

possibly earn the respect of the people. I prefer mine to yours... mine

says, "Break some laws, as long as you're not hurting anyone else. But

even if an act isn't illegal, avoid it if it hurts someone." Gossip can

be hurtful, but not illegal. I discourage it for reasons other than

respect for law.

>>How about, "It's stupid, it's wrong, don't do it." Will that

do?<<

--Not if you have to manufacture consequences to prove it's

stupid. Jumping off a cliff is stupid, and anyone can see the

consequences. Smoking pot is not necessarily stupid, any more than

drinking beer. You can say it's against the law and talk about what

happens if a person is caught, but that may focus them on finding ways

to avoid getting caught. Focus on consequences that are likely, and

explain them without moralizing, if you can.

It's not up to Joe Lunchbox, or you, or me, or my nephew, to calculate

consequences in this fashion. I have a tendency to break speed limits,

I have been doing it for more than thirty years, and no bad

consequences have ensued. I'm still in the wrong.

>>It would be hypocrisy to condemn gay marriage while being gay

and married.<<

--It's hypocrisy to condemn in public what you are doing in

private. However, one can always talk about consequences, no matter

what one is doing. It is not hypocritical for a gangster to discourage

people from becoming gangsters, many have done so, and it does help.

How does this not contradict your first sentnece?

>>It would be hypocrisy to be hard on divorce, while

retaining the prerogative to divorce oneself. That's why they're soft

on divorce, I expect. Better to be hard on divorce, and forego

divorce themselves, imo.<<

--Yes. And who will forego options they might want for

themselves?

Gentlemen.

best,

dan

Easier to be hypocritical, and wait until respect for authority

dies.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Dan and ,

>Pity - "compassion" has somehow become the prime moral virtue, and out of compassion comes mercy.<<

:

"--Compassion is something you either experience or repress. If you repress it, you are likely to repress shadow as well, and then you will constellate shadow around you, so that you can judge it from a "safe" distance. But that distance isn't really safe. Repressed shadow can magnetically pull you into conflicts you can't win. I prefer to openly experience compassion, it is no threat to me and it has made me a lot smarter about people, including people I would otherwise fear. You couldn't pay me to give up my compassion for people you are proud to feel nothing for (I think you're repressing more complex feelings toward them, but I can't prove that either). Compassion is a sense, giving it up is like giving up an eye or a thumb. People who repress shadow fear compassion, for the obvious reasons."{

Toni:

Maybe the use of compassion is wrong in this vein, and empathy might be better, sympathy or pity.

Compassion has the meaning of genuine love, and a sense of wanting to suffer along with the sufferer. It goes way beyond what you both label "compassion.

Com=with

passion, in this sense= means suffering as in "the passion of Christ"

It is not an emotion that one expresses and then goes about one's daily business. If you are suffering WITH someone, real genuine love is part of the term, and we are suffering along with the one who suffers.

lets not "cheapen" terms. Empathy is the wholesome emotion of understanding the other is recognizing his feelings and feeling sad about it. We cheapen words so much in our time that we have to go to extremes to make something beyond "normal". One doesn't have to repress it, because it will not be there to repress in ordinary living...how many people do you actually suffer with, or are willing to suffer with?

I do not see compassion as merely "mortal virtue" Compassion is beyond morality and in the spiritual realm for most people. since the love in it is agape, and not easily entered into. In fact not many people are capable of it, unless they are dealing with a loved one in pain.

Seeing others as human beings, , does not in itself remove the threat of danger...it is man's "inhumanity to man" that is the universal problem, so seeing someone as a human being as he is prepared to mug me, does not lessen the perceived threat.

Mercy, my friends means unconditional mercy...it isn't measured by the size of the injury, nor is it given only when others ask for forgiveness. That isn't mercy, just justice to forgive injury.

WE cheapen our reactions to the troubles of others because we do not put ourselves in their shoes. I see no reason for a pat on the back for anyone rendering justice....that is what human beings are expected to do...and that is moral.

Also when discussing criminals wouldn't it be necessary to separate "wrong-doers" from sociopath? Understanding, and helpful actions do nothing for a sociopath, but a lot for just a "wrong doer" People go to prison for non violent crimes and can be redeemed by love and understanding. Sociopath couldn't care less about how you felt about them...or do I read different books than you do?

Some people may well deserve the name "evil" I sure wouldn't make blanket statements or judgments, but I do know evil exists and people may perform it.

Done some reading on the subject , and our insufficient, deficient prison system, almost always filled with the lower economic classes and the uneducated need lots of work. I do agree that society killing someone is beyond the pale. A great way to teach our kids non violence!

If people actually want revenge to get "closure" they need understanding , love and therapy.

All the above is my personal opinion. I have a hard time with the two of you, but Dan you at least are as "one way" as they come, and I am used to it. It is honest, even when it makes me want to try to change you....I cannot..so,.bless you.

, I beg you, use the appropriate words for description so I may understand what you are really saying. Being a liberal as we both are is easy as long as we only work with words and concepts. It is a bit harder when we put our lives, or at least our self-image on the line.(The answer to your unasked question is yes)

I would really believe it , if experience had fashioned your views. Like if you or some family member you love would be threatened by violence by other human beings...really threatened with great danger. Or you were on the front lines...that is when compassion is usually really practiced when someone kills or wounds a friend or comrade.

Or if sometime we spend real time with the awful images we see on TV and think what those victims are going through while we live in security.---Prayer and compassion are then ready to be in play.

You made a statement:

I am willing to be wrong in following Gandhi or Jesus, and I am willing to be as responsible for taking that path as they were, although I have no plans to die in the process.

Do you actually believe you know their suffering? both of them? That is pretty rarified company...and yet we really never know how we will behave until we are tested.

Oh well, I have spoken from the heart, and all is my considerd opinion only.

Toni

-- Original Message -----

From: Lockhart

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:36 AM

Subject: Re: Compassionate Listening Project - Germany trip

Dan says:

>>How can one destroy what was never there?<<

--You're saying criminals are genetically incapable of making responsible decisions? I have to disagree, based on the criminals I've known. Most people in prison make responsible choices all the time, it just takes one or two bad decisions to undo a run of good decisions. Maybe we've known different criminals, in different contexts. If I were charged with controlling criminals, I'd probably have some unhelpful beliefs about them, given the utter stupidity of charging humans with controlling other humans and all the stress it causes the controllers and controllees alike.

>>Speaking for myself, if a loved one were murdered, the only "reparation" I would accept would be the life of the murderer.<<

--If you were willing to take that life yourself, I would probably find it easy to forgive you. But I won't participate in *systematic* killing of that type. Self-defense and simple, animal rage are easier to tolerate, since they come from an authentic, biological impulse to lash out at what threatens one's own biological boundaries. But when it gets to the point of systematic revenge, some machine-like qualities of culture come in, and I'm much less comfortable with that, especially when people start moralizing and grandstanding, talking about how they'd like to torture people who have earned the label "evil". There's a game in that, and I won't play it. Play it yourself, if you are willing to take responsibility for the game.>>Mercy is fine, but mercy requires repentance. More bluntly, mercy must be begged for.<<

--I think you may be confusing mercy with sadomasochism. Mercy is the recognition that your enemy is no longer a threat and that seeing him as a human being rather than an obstacle or danger is permissible and/or worthwhile on any level. I find it worthwhile to understand people well enough to feel merciful toward them even if they haven't repented. In terms of politics, it is only my job as a voter to support policies that will lead to greater public safety and lower the systemic risk of violence. It is not my business to force people into repentance, to take revenge for crimes that are not mine to avenge, or to push others to harm those I see as harmful. Although I can see how it might make some people feel safer or more certain to talk about punishment and "breaking the will" and all that fun stuff that might be better suited to a Mel Gibson movie.

>>Further, while extending mercy may be gentlemanly, I am not certain that justice requires it.<<

--Take it up with Christianity. Personally, I think Jesus got it right, and so did Gandhi, Luther King and some others. I can't prove they were right. Follow the role models you are willing to be responsible for. As I said, self-defense is permissible in my frame of reference. Revenge is not, unless there is somehow a loss of free will in a state of animal rage. That's always possible, and I wouldn't punish someone for taking immediate revenge on someone who has hurt someone close to them. I just won't advocate that kind of thing as a system, as a fixed way of responding to violence. It doesn't work, and I don't feel it's right.