| The American Dream |
[10 Jan 2009|10:33pm] |
"The American Dream is the alleged freedom that forces all citizens and most residents[1] of the United States to pursue their goals in life through hard work and free choice (see Immigration to the United States).[One must keep in mind, however, that each choice is subject to unnatural punishment due to the hostile climate of society and unjust laws which prohibit certain business ventures as part of the underground economy]. One proud individual may place monetary gain as their highest goal in life, and thus strive for this in a very American way; gaining through one's proclaimed ability, or self-worth (rather than by means of equality); only to spend their lives slaving away tobuild a product they don't own and not being paid enough to buy the said product upon completion. For another person, the American Dream could consist in achieving a state of pure freedom from the choke-hold of money and social structure. However, the results of this freedom usually lead to a pathetic life on the streets with no job, no money,and no place to stay. Those who "choose" this kind of lifestyle are persecuted and belittled by those who take the fist route, the self-proclaimed "upper-class" members of the working class. They cost the government billions of dollars a year on welfare, but the feds are willing to subsidize these unemployed individuals to avoid a resulting genocide by financial neglect. Why? Uncle Sam collects most of his taxes through the working class, so it wouldn't hurt to give away that which isn't theirs in the first place. Besides, the vast majority of elected officials have great benefits and a very decent salary (not to mention the countless under-the-table corporate lobbyist payouts).These examples of the American Dream are only drops in anever-expanding spectrum of possibilities, nearly all of which involving the elements of pride, selfishness, oppression, or a combination of the three.
The phrase's meaning has evolved over the course of American history. The Founding Fathersused the phrase, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Itbegan as the opportunity to achieve greater material prosperity thanwas possible in their countries of origin. However, this never workedout to full extent. See, the three L's mentioned by Thomas Locke (theoriginal founder of the philosophy used to create the U.S.Constitution) were Life, Liberty, and Land. In our modern-day society,all three of these concepts seem to have been brutally undermined by asystem that gave up on it's working class years ago. The God-given right to "Life" is lost due to federally-advocated war. "Liberty" has yet to be seen in places such as our semi-educational workforce training facilities (schools),industrial plantations for working-class peasants (factories), and those who take part in the enjoyable consumption of ganja every now and then (stoners) [restricting the freedom to practice the Rastafari religion and possibly preventing a future cure for glaucoma]. "Land"was even literally replaced by our founding fathers with the words "pursuit of happiness," which can be translated into "Land... if you can pay for it sucker!" The ideals of democracy were grand, but the ground work just doesn't match up with that glorious description of itall. The American Dream can be summed up as a non-existant fragment of imagination misinterpreted as reality by those delusional members of society who have been brainwashed into believing the lies.
In the words of George Carlin... "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream
|
|
| The Pawns |
[03 Jan 2009|11:44pm] |
They have considered all the variables, and all they can be is a pawn.
But a pawn for who?
A pawn for me or you?
Or a pawn for someone else who hides behind the front lines, never sacrificing but always profiting?
Who do these pawns serve exactly, and how should they be remembered?
As self-sacrificing heroes? Or the enablers of tyrants?
Well that depends. Of course.
On why they decided to be pawns.
Did they do it after much research, though discussion. Did they consider the matter in public. Did they ask those, of great ideals, those who they know would die for their ideas, of they should be pawns, and to whom,
Or did they just, out of emotional frustration, decide to be pawns to whoever was most convenient. Those who gave orders and asked the fewest questions.
If the former they are heroes, if the latter, they are trash and scum and traitors to all good.
The truth is, nobody should ever consider his, or her self, a mere pawn. There are of course heroes, who sacrifice all for the greater good, but they do it intelligently. They KNOW what they are giving up, and they have thought it through.
In all probability, if all you can do, is evaluate yourself as a mere pawn, you have made a grave mistake in your reasoning. You have done it for selfish reasons, and superficial reasons, and you, in the long scheme of things, are less then nothing. You are a pathetic tool.
|
|
| Do not trust the Stalinists! |
[03 Jan 2009|11:27pm] |
Do not trust authority blindly. No matter how strong you are it can use you:
"Boxer is one of the main characters. He is the tragic symbol of the working class, or proletariat: loyal, kind, dedicated, and physically the strongest animal on the farm, but naïve and slow. His ignorance and blind trust towards his leaders leads to his death and their profit. In particular, his heroic physical work represents the Stakhanovite movement. His maxim of "I will work harder" is reminiscent of Jurgis Rudkus from the Upton Sinclair novel The Jungle. His second maxim, "Napoleon is always right" is an example of the propaganda used by Squealer to control the animals. It was not adopted until later in the book. Boxer's work ethic is often praised by the pigs, and he is set as a prime example to the other animals. When Boxer is injured, and can no longer work, Napoleon sends him off to the knacker's and deceives the other animals, saying that Boxer died peacefully in the hospital. When the animals cannot work, Napoleon tosses them aside, for they mean nothing to him."
Napoleon turns boxer to glue and betrays the revolution!
|
|
| An example of utter dysfunction in the Linnaen system |
[05 Dec 2008|08:46am] |
"As part of their work, [Gauthier and de Queiroz] created a lizard family tree, but when they began to assign names to the important branching points on the tree, they realized there were more groups to name than there were ranks in the traditional system. "I started using these exotic ranks like parvorder, cohort, and microorder, and all that kind of crap," Gauthier says. "Then we'd learn more about the tree, and all the names would have to change. I thought, 'That sucks. All these ranks, they're a problem.'" (Foer 2005:48-49)"
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/phylocode_2005.html
This is a problem I've thought about for a while also, ever since I was learning Mesozoic mammals and encountered exotic taxonomic ranks like "tribe" and "domain." Unlike suborder and infraorder, many of these give no indication at all about where they belong in the phylogenetic hierarchy. If this complication actually helped organize species, that would be forgivable. But even the extension to thirty or more ranks is not enough to encompass all the possible groupings in some phylogenies, especially where extinct species must be placed in a hierarchy including living species and their ancestors."
Why am I so interested in the Phylocode? One reason, the sheer idiocy of my opponents on the issue. I had to deal with so much stupidity and ignorance, and I don't mean naivety but ignorance (actively ignoring data as opposed to not knowing) that I cannot help but feel a huge sense of triumph at its ascension. Especially since my opponents were so damn dishonest it boggles the mind to this day. Were they intentionally being dishonest? Unintentionally? Were they just completely presumptuous? Do they simply lack sufficient imagination to realize progress?
It reminds me of an interview with William Gibson where he noted that a group of experts can make dozens of technical objections as to why it the internet would not come to be, objections like there isn't sufficient bandwidth:
"How do you account for your ability to identify and write about things before other people perceive them?
It sometimes must have involved leaps of induction that I wasn’t conscious of. And the way I experience it myself, it’s like pattern recognition. Something fits in a certain way. For instance, I remember the first time I saw a picture of a personal computer of any kind: It was sort of portable-looking, and it had a little handle. I knew that everybody would have one of those, and from that, knowing nothing about the technology and all the things they would have to overcome to get there, I just took it for granted that everybody’s machine would be connected with everybody else’s and that they’d be typing to one another, or whatever it was they did. In that regard, I guess I got it right, but I think I got it right because of the profundity of my ignorance. Because when I was doing that, there were guys who already had their own kind of Radio Shack computers that they’d built, and I knew some of those guys, and I would talk to them and say, “Yeah, they’re going to hook them all up, and then, and then. . . .” And they would always say: “But there’s not enough bandwidth!” I never knew what bandwidth was, and I probably don’t really know today, but I just knew that they were wrong—that it wasn’t going to matter about the bandwidth. It was amazing to me: These guys were so smart, so technical. They were doing this stuff, but they couldn’t see its potential."
In any case I've already scored three points on them. First, the Phylocode has been established as a superior system. Second, it has been shown that it can replace the Linnaen system with respect to establishing names. Third, it has been shown that the Linnaen system is not even functional in the modern era.
|
|
| Phylocode overview for naming species |
[28 Nov 2008|10:25am] |
"Outline of the proposed methods for naming species in phylogenetic nomenclature, organized as a dichotomous key. A converted name is a name established under the PhyloCode and derived from a preexisting Linnaean binomial. A new name is a name established under the PhyloCode for a species that has no preexisting Linnaean binomial (i.e., a newly recognized species). "
http://phylocode.miketaylor.org.uk/misc/species.html
|
|
| Osaka homeless community- an ideal society? |
[23 Nov 2008|07:34am] |
Osaka homeless find they must help selves
OSAKA -- Visit Yoshisune Nagamine at his office beside Osaka Castle and you're in for a surprise.
As is the case at most Japanese offices, the guest is greeted warmly, ushered into a waiting room and brought hot tea by an office lady. Nagamine's office, however, is not a plush modern building but a makeshift tent with battered furniture serving as the waiting room. A metal trash can stuffed with burning wood serves as a stove.
.. --> MooterMedia Javascript Ad Snippet start -->..tr>..table> .. --> MooterMedia Javascript Ad Snippet end here -->
Neither is the office lady of the designer handbag brigade. Providing the tea is an elderly homeless woman who belongs to Tomo no Kai, a volunteer group formed by Nagamine and run for the homeless of Osaka Castle Park.
"For years I had been living in the park after construction work dried up in the early 1990s," Nagamine said. "Finally, last February, I decided it was time to do something to help the other homeless."
Although the homeless community's transient nature makes its size difficult to judge, about 900 to 1,000 people currently live in the park.
Nagamine set up Tomo no Kai by dividing Osaka Castle Park into six zones and asking members in each zone to choose a representative to report problems within the zone to Nagamine on a daily basis. Nagamine also contacted sympathetic local merchants who donated unsold food for the soup kitchens that Tomo no Kai operates on Mondays and Fridays.
"We get along very well with local police and keep them apprised of any trouble in the homeless community, especially 'bosozoku' bikers," he said.
While Tomo no Kai is a new concept for Osaka, it is one that is receiving increasing community support. As the homeless situation in Osaka continues to worsen, those living on the streets have begun organizing themselves without the aid, or, in Tomo no Kai's case, official approval.
And officials, ranging from Mayor Takafumi Isomura to Gov. Fusae Ota, admit the situation is the worst it has been for many years.
About 10,000 homeless roam the streets of Osaka and blue vinyl sheets serving as makeshift homes can be seen in almost every park. Most homeless are in their 60s or 70s and can no longer work. Many are in need of medical care.
They are also in need of protection. Reported attacks on the homeless have risen sharply. In July, a homeless man living near the Yodogawa River was slain in his tent when it was burned up by three other homeless men.
A few days later, another homeless man, Toshiharu Kobayashi, was found dead in the streets of south Osaka, also apparently slain.
Police said at the time they believed a roving gang of youths had killed him. A few weeks later, four high school students, aged 15 to 17, were arrested in the slaying.
The sheer number of homeless means police alone have been unable to curb the violence. Thus, volunteers now patrol Airin -- better known as Kamagasaki -- as well as other districts, such as Abeno, Tennoji, Nipponbashi and Shinsaibashi on a regular basis.
Between last March and July, some 44 attacks on the homeless in the Nipponbashi district alone, an area of about 1.2 sq. km, were reported to the volunteers. Attacks were made with wooden swords, and even air guns. Other attacks involved fire extinguishers, and arson.
"It has become extremely dangerous for the homeless," said Sen Arimura, a Kamagasaki volunteer and "manga" comic artist who has chronicled the plight of Osaka's homeless.
The traditional area for Osaka's day laborers is Kamagasaki, which had over 6,000 homeless located in an area just over half a square kilometer in 1998. Today, officials and residents agree that number is higher and is unlikely to decrease anytime soon.
For years, Arimura said, Kamagasaki had operated as a quasi-independent ward. While massive urban renewal efforts took place in other parts of Osaka, Kamagasaki remained an area of cheap bars, hotels and small shops.
Nearly 90 percent of the area's 20,000 residents are men. The death rate for the area is estimated at nearly 1,000 people a year, and deaths are usually due to sickness and disease.
In response to the crisis, local efforts are now being made to both revitalize the area and bring the homeless in off the streets. One way this is being done is to turn cheap hotels into living quarters.
"Those living in Kamagasaki have drawn up an urban renewal plan that calls for 2,000 hotel rooms in the area to be converted into welfare mansions for the elderly," Arimura said. "At present, three former flophouses now operate as welfare mansions."
Monthly rent is just over 41,000 yen for a single room, the amount people with social security receive for apartment rent. There are no restrictions on who may apply for a room and no limit on how long they may stay.
At Ohana, a former flophouse that was turned into a welfare mansion in November, the atmosphere is reminiscent of a medium-priced business hotel or "ryokan" inn. Clean, bright and freshly painted, Ohana is now a showcase apartment complex with a communal living and reading room for its 94 residents.
The city operates several temporary homeless shelters, including those in the Nanko harbor district, the north Umeda district and in Nagai Park. Despite this, Arimura believes Osaka is making a halfhearted attempt to address the homeless problem.
He believes one reason for the progress of volunteer efforts in Kamagasaki is that city bureaucrats and politicians don't care what happens there.
"The mayor and most Osaka politicians only care about the tourist areas of the city, like Umeda, which are already developed," Arimura said. "They're only thinking about the image of the areas that foreigners will see. As a result, they've not attempted to interfere in our efforts."
Although some are concerned that the city will try to rid the streets of homeless before International Olympic Committee members arrive to inspect Osaka in late February, Nagamine, who lives in the shadow of the city's top tourist draw, Osaka Castle, is unconcerned.
"We aren't worried about being evicted by the city (from the castle site) because there are no major sports facilities in the area that are of interest to the World Cup or the International Olympic Committee," he said.
"We're more concerned about taking care of those who are already here," Nagamine said. "Once the Olympic hoopla dies down, the city is going to find the IOC dignitaries have left but we're still here."
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20010121a2.html
|
|
| Work Ethic complete, and edited with references! |
[17 Nov 2008|12:38pm] |
|
I just finished an entire story, seven chapters, with references. It is a satire exposing the absurdity of alienation, the Darwinian condition and the impotent whorish nature of religion in the emerging super-capitalist era coupled with a strong sense of animal liberation. I am rather happy today and would get drink if it weren't for my promise to cut down following the election of Barrack Obama.
|
|
| The Poor |
[14 Nov 2008|05:43pm] |
Excerpt from Empire
In each and every historical period a social subject that is ever-present and
everywhere the same is identified, often negatively but nonetheless urgently,
around a common living form. This form is not that of the powerful and
the rich: they are merely partial and localized figures, quantitate signatae.
The only non-localizable ‘‘common name’’ of pure difference in all eras is
that of the poor. The poor is destitute, excluded, repressed, exploited—and
yet living! It is the common denominator of life, the foundation of the
multitude. It is strange, but also illuminating, that postmodernist authors
seldom adopt this figure in their theorizing. It is strange because the poor
is in a certain respect an eternal postmodern figure: the figure of a transversal,
omnipresent, different, mobile subject; the testament to the irrepressible
aleatory character of existence.
This common name, the poor, is also the foundation of every possibility
of humanity. As Niccolo` Machiavelli pointed out, in the ‘‘return to beginnings’’
that characterizes the revolutionary phase of the religions and ideologies of modernity, the poor is almost always seen to have a prophetic capacity:
not only is the poor in the world, but the poor itself is the very possibility
of the world. Only the poor lives radically the actual and present being, in
destitution and suffering, and thus only the poor has the ability to renew
being. The divinity of the multitude of the poor does not point to any
transcendence. On the contrary, here and only here in this world, in the
existence of the poor, is the field of immanence presented, confirmed, consolidated,
and opened. The poor is god on earth.
Today there is not even the illusion of a transcendent God. The poor
has dissolved that image and recuperated its power. Long ago modernity
was inaugurated with Rabelais’s laugh, with the realistic supremacy of the
belly of the poor, with a poetics that expresses all that there is in destitute
humanity ‘‘from the belt on down.’’ Later, through the processes of primitive
accumulation, the proletariat emerged as a collective subject that could express
itself in materiality and immanence, a multitude of poor that not only
prophesied but produced, and that thus opened possibilities that were not
virtual but concrete. Finally today, in the biopolitical regimes of production
and in the processes of postmodernization, the poor is a subjugated, exploited
figure, but nonetheless a figure of production. This is where the novelty
lies. Everywhere today, at the basis of the concept and the common name
of the poor, there is a relationship of production. Why are the postmodernists
unable to read this passage? They tell us that a regime of transversal linguistic
relations of production has entered into the unified and abstract universe of
value. But who is the subject that produces ‘‘transversally,’’ who gives a
creative meaning to language—who if not the poor, who are subjugated
and desiring, impoverished and powerful, always more powerful? Here,
within this reign of global production, the poor is distinguished no longer
only by its prophetic capacity but also by its indispensable presence in the
production of a common wealth, always more exploited and always more
closely indexed to the wages of rule. The poor itself is power. There is
World Poverty, but there is above all World Possibility, and only the poor
is capable of this.
Vogelfrei, ‘‘bird free,’’ is the term Marx used to describe the proletariat,
which at the beginning of modernity in the processes of primitive
accumulation was freed twice over: in the first place, it was freed from being
the property of the master (that is, freed from servitude); and in the second
place, it was ‘‘freed’’ from the means of production, separated from the soil,
with nothing to sell but its own labor power. In this sense, the proletariat
was forced to become the pure possibility of wealth. The dominant stream
of the Marxist tradition, however, has always hated the poor, precisely for
their being ‘‘free as birds,’’ for being immune to the discipline of the factory
and the discipline necessary for the construction of socialism. Consider how,
when in the early 1950s Vittorio De Sica and Cesare Zavattini set the
poor to fly away on broomsticks at the end of their beautiful film Miracle
in Milan, they were so violently denounced for utopianism by the spokesmen
of socialist realism.
The Vogelfrei is an angel or an intractable demon. And here, after
so many attempts to transform the poor into proletarians and proletarians
into a liberation army (the idea of army weighed heavily on that of liberation),
once again in postmodernity emerges in the blinding light of clear day the
multitude, the common name of the poor. It comes out fully in the open
because in postmodernity the subjugated has absorbed the exploited. In
other words, the poor, every poor person, the multitude of poor people, have
eaten up and digested the multitude of proletarians. By that fact itself the
poor have become productive. Even the prostituted body, the destitute person,
the hunger of the multitude—all forms of the poor have become productive.
And the poor have therefore become ever more important: the life of the
poor invests the planet and envelops it with its desire for creativity and
freedom. The poor is the condition of every production.
The story goes that at the root of the postmodernist sensibility and
the construction of the concept of postmodernism are those French socialist
philosophers who in their youth celebrated factory discipline and the shining
horizons of real socialism, but who became repentant after the crisis of 1968
and gave up, proclaiming the futility of the pretense of communism to
reappropriate social wealth. Today these same philosophers cynically deconstruct,
banalize, and laugh at every social struggle that contests the universal
triumph of exchange value. The media and the culture of the media tell
us that those philosophers are the ones who recognized this new era of the
world, but that is not true. The discovery of postmodernity consisted in the
reproposition of the poor at the center of the political and productive terrain.
What was really prophetic was the poor, bird-free laugh of Charlie Chaplin
when, free from any utopian illusions and above all from any discipline
of liberation, he interpreted the ‘‘modern times’’ of poverty, but at the same
time linked the name of the poor to that of life, a liberated life and a
liberated productivity.
|
|
| Just finished my first story |
[10 Nov 2008|03:19pm] |
|
Work Ethic, from beginning to end, and sent it to several places to critique. Hopefully the reviews aren't too horrible, but I have a good feeling about it regardless. Even if I'm not the best of writers the theme is something I am proud of because it is subversive, progressive and moralistic.
|
|
| Obama World! |
[05 Nov 2008|03:03pm] |
I feel ecstatic. This is a major victory for the left. The election of Obama, referred to by people internationally as the world's first president represents a huge step forward in the democratization of politics and economics. This is a defeat for Bush, and the Republicans and all their cronies who, as elites, are always more then willing to pass legislation without any regard for democratic process. It is the effective end of any top-down induced economic recession. And it is the first time in decades that Democrats control both the Congress and the Presidency. And as our nation's first African-American president it is a sign of how far we have come, both as Americans and especially the African-American community which has thus far faced ceaseless struggle in the campaign to secure their sense of dignity in the face of seemingly overwhelming prejudice and injustice.
Again this is a major defeat for the right, and a clear victory for the left. The GOP just got very soundly beaten and humiliated, and unlike them we were able to do it the right way.
|
|
| Now that I have calmed down... |
[13 Oct 2008|04:05pm] |
|
I know what I said in my past entry may come off as rather cold, and I do not feel good about it but while I do care about Austin and wouldn't want to hurt his feelings (I have known him since I was 12, nearly 15 years), I do realize that part of being a real friend is letting them know when they erred, even if it seems hurtful in the short-term. Overall the first thing he must know, for his own sake, is that what he seriously hurt a person, and demeaned himself in the process. As I mentioned I don't feel good about any of what I said in particular, but for the sake of all involved I think it had to come out with it. Keeping it inside and hoping Austin would come out on his own, to apologize, or seek help, and seeing him just make more excuses for why it was all okay (such as how obesity is generally worse then anorexia for society, how it was her choice to be anorexic, how she already had a genetic propensity towards it), was tearing me up inside. I don't expect him to forgive me, but he should know much of what I said was out of concern for him as well.
|
|
| More arguments against Linnean taxonomy from a creationist debunking site |
[30 Sep 2008|05:44pm] |
http://iconsofid.blogspot.com/2005/01/icons-of-id-cambrian-explosion_08.html
Linnaean Hierarchy
A good review paper on the Linnaean hierarchy and its importance versus other proposed phylogeny based hierarchies is Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? by Michael Benton in Biol. Rev. (2000), 75, pp. 633-648. A good essay which looks at the Linnean hierarchy and a recent proposal called Phylocode is 'The future of biological taxonomy? Does the PhyloCode offer a viable alternative to traditional Linnaean taxonomy?' by Jake Alexander.
As I have already shown the Linnaean hierarchy is artificial and indeed has been subject itself to many changes. While most biologists accept the concept of 'species' as real, higher taxa are less well defined.
Formally, there is limited advice about how to define taxa above the species level, such as genera, families, or orders, although in practice all systematists have used diagnoses consisting of characters.
That Linnaean nomenclature is articificial is shown by the various modifications made since Linnaeus first proposed his hierarchy.
Linnaean nomenclature has been modified both before the advent of cladistics (e.g. exclusion of polphyletic taxa, insertion of additional category terms, inclusion of fossil taxa), and after (e.g. exclusion of paraphyletic taxa, use of indented lists, sequencing, plesions). All these modifications have shared a common principle : that classifications should adhere ever closer to current knowledge of phylogeny, while at the same time remaining conservative.
Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? by Michael Benton in Biol. Rev. (2000), 75, pp. 633-648
In other words, these classifications are human constructs and no true classification exists:
Biological classifications, then, are necessarily entirely human constructs. There is no single, true classification inherent in Nature that is there to be discovered. In this paper, I use the term ` classification' in two ways, as is common practice: first, a classification means an ordered list of species or higher taxa, and second, classification describes the process of achieving such an ordered list. The usages should be clear from context.
Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead? by Michael Benton in Biol. Rev. (2000), 75, pp. 633-648
The Linnaean hierarchy is a hierarchy of taxonomic categories. It should not be confused with a hierarchy of taxa, the members of which may (or may not) be assigned to those categories. Therefore, even if taxonomic categories (kingdom: division/phylum: class: order: family: genus: species) were to be eliminated, hierarchies of nested taxa (Animalia: Chordata: Aves: Anseriformes: Anatidae: Branta: B. canadensis) presumably would not also be eliminated - at least not under an evolutionary world view. Regardless of the Linnaean hierarchy, the principle of common descent implies that the relationships among taxa will be nested and hierarchical.
The concept of a 'phylum' is an arbitrary division, or classification of a group of organisms. The moment you define a particular species under the Linaean hierarchy, you have to define its genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. So contrary to some of the claims of ID, higher taxa arise first in a Linnaean hierarchy. But that's because of the somewhat arbitrary and artificial nature of this hierarchy.
Because of these issues people over time has proposed (better) alternatives. In Proposal for a standardized temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species John Avise and Glenn Johns, propose ways to rectify the nomenclature of biological classifications.
The Linnaean system of classification (3) has served biologists for more than two centuries. Originally designed to catalogue diverse works of the Creator, the hierarchical categories in this ordering scheme later became interpretable as natural outcomes of the nested branching structures in evolutionary trees. Yet most classifications in current use continue to group species according to some unspecified mix of similarity by resemblance (phenetic grades) and similarity by descent (phyletic clades). Apart from this epistemological flaw, the kinds of empirical data used to recognize grades or clades vary greatly among organismal groups, with no explicit attempt to normalize assayed characters, to equilibrate taxonomic assignments, or even to adopt any universally standardized criteria for taxonomic ranking (4, 5).
Proposal for a standardized temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species by John Avise and Glenn Johns in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 June 22; 96 (13): 7358–7363
Based on the shortcomings of the Linnaean hierarchy, people have proposed PhyloCode. The advantage of PhyloCode is that it references phylogeny, the disadvantage is that this nomenclature is far less universal and stable than the Linnaean nomenclature. Not surprisingly the PhyloCode is not without its critics.
Linnaean nomenclature is stable enough to say what we know, flexible enough to accommodate what we learn; independent of specific theory, yet reflective of known empirical data; compatible with phylogenetic theory, but not a slave to it; particular enough for precise communication, general enough to reflect refuted hypotheses. LN is an effective international, inter-generational, and trans-theoretical system of classification that was forged and tested by those describing the earth's biota, not touting political slogans. It has weathered more worthy adversaries than the Phylocode and will be in wide use long after the latter is a curious footnote to the history of taxonomy."
and this one and hotly discussed on this TaxaCom archive
Shortcomings of Conventional Taxonomic Practice A primary limitation of conventional taxonomy is that extant taxa placed at the same Linnaean rank are not necessarily equivalent in age, diversity, disparity, or any other consistent property of their biology or evolutionary histories. Current taxonomic anachronisms communicate almost no information as to whether, for example, a rank such as genus, tribe, family, or order in mammals is equivalent to its counterpart rank in fishes, insects, or any other assemblage. Thus, the ranks in current use do little to aid, and indeed often may hinder, comparative evolutionary studies.
Proposal for a standardized temporal scheme of biological classification for extant species by John Avise and Glenn Johns in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 June 22; 96 (13): 7358–7363
(Click image to enlarge) Fig. 1 Examples of gross disparities of taxonomic assignments in current classifications. The phylogenies depicted, based on an integration of molecular and paleontological evidence, come from information in refs. 43 (a), 26 (b), and 44 (c). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 June 22; 96 (13): 7358–7363
The authors propose an alternative
Proposal for a Standardized Classification Scheme We propose that the approximate dates of nodes in evolutionary trees should be the universal criterion according to which taxonomic classifications above the level of biological species are erected. Decisions about the particular window of time to be associated with each taxonomic rank are arbitrary, but the conventions adopted should reflect some agreed-to consensus (7) among practicing systematists reaching this initial consensus may be the most difficult part of the entire endeavor).
Under this alternative the species of the Ciclids, primates and fruit flies would be placed in a hierarchical taxonomy as follows
Fig.3 The temporal-banding concept as applied to produce a time-standardized classification for the three groups of organisms in Fig. 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 June 22; 96 (13): 7358–7363
The shortcoming identified by these authors is also exemplified by the arguments by ID proponents as to the nature of the evolutionary tree. Once phyla arose, they are often portrayed as remaining 'frozen' in diversity, disparity or morphological distance.
|
|
| Phylocode opponents gain creationist support |
[24 Sep 2008|11:55am] |
It looks like the inevitable has occurred, the creationist roots of the Linnean system has been exposed in the most vulgar and embarrassing of ways: by receiving direct support from creationist ministries.
To quote creation worldview ministries: http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=23
"Taxonomy is the science of classification; laws and principles covering the classification of objects; especially the classification of animals and plants into kingdoms, phylum, classes, orders, families, genuses, species and varieties. Linnaeus' system became the basis for the modern systems of the International Codes of Zoological or Botanical Nomenclature (ICZN and ICBN).
The system developed by Linnaeus was based upon his Christian faith and his belief that the Creator of the Bible was an orderly God. He believed that each kind of creature was a unique creation by God and therefore we should be able to pigeonhole each kind of creature as a specific species and group them by their kind. Obviously, the Biblical account in Genesis was the foundation for his thinking and his system.
In the preface of a late edition of his book Systema Naturae he wrote: “The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone.” Linnaeus believed that the study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a "natural classification" that would reveal this Order in the universe.
Today, however, there are evolutionists who believe that this system is no longer valid. They believe that the Linnaen-style classification system was fine for the static, divinely created universe of the 18th century, but it does not work for them in their constantly evolving, constantly changing world of today where there are no fixed points of reference.
For this reason, in Paris during the summer of 2004, a group of 70 like-minded evolutionists convened the first meeting of the International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature. They elected Dr. Kevin de Queiroz as their first president. For the next four days they debated the conventions for a new code of classification and proposed names and definitions for organisms under this new proposed code. The name for their new system? It will be called the PhyloCode.
To an evolutionist, to classify something by its phylogeny means to attempt to determine the “pedigree” of a species - the branches of the ancestral tree of species from which the current species derive. A related species is derived from a supposed common ancestor. There are two kinds of phylogenies - branching, or divergent, phylogenies, and merging, or reticulate, phylogenies. Hybridization of two species is a case of reticulation if the result is a viable and reproductively persistent form. Phylogeny deals with the evolutionary relationships within and between taxonomic levels, particularly the patterns of lines of supposed evolutionary descent.
There are key words that are used within this field of endeavor. These are: Phylogenetics - the taxonomical classification of organisms based on their degree of supposed evolutionary relatedness: and, Phylogenetic tree - a variety of dendrogram (tree branching diagram) in which organisms are shown arranged on branches that link them according to their relatedness and supposed evolutionary descent.
Evolutionists believe that one type of biological life form transforms into another type of biological life form over time. In essence, they believe that one type oozes into another type by random chance over millions of supposed years, through what are commonly called “missing links.” If this is true, then there are no real specific kinds in nature and, according to them, you cannot pigeonhole life forms. Therefore, they need a system that will allow them to classify organisms according to their worldview.
In a series of papers they wrote between 1987 and 1994, Drs. de Queiroz and Gauthier stated that this new system was necessary in order “to complete the Darwinian revolution” with a nomenclature based in evolutionary theory.
This concept is nothing new. Evolutionists have been doing the same thing since before the time of Charles Darwin. This is only another attempt to make an old and unworkable system sound more scientific to the general public. It is really nothing more than the older version, called cladistics, wrapped up in another wrapper. "
|
|
| Is Animation Liberation selling out? |
[23 Sep 2008|08:02pm] |
|
I should be getting back to the magazine after the semester is over, and maybe sooner given I already have a large article semi-written, but the more I think about the more I cannot help but feel that AL may not so much be a serious political or artistic magazine as much as it is a selfish enterprise by which I am making a dash for fame, popularity, etc. Am I detracting from the integrity of my art? Does the very fact that I ask the question already imply a fair degree of culpability if I should continue with the magazine?
What I mean to say is, I do not know how many people it can actually reach and influence. I suspect at most a dozen maybe, though I can reach more people with posts on Gaia. So if I write for AL will I be doing it for material reward, whereas on Gaia my contributions would be more altruistic? And is it not superficial that I could say, receive more credit for writing in AL much of the same exact stuff I write on Gaia, the only difference being one is on a forum and another a magazine? It makes me wonder about my own motivations.
Truth be told I feel good about releasing an issue of AL, but even then I can only really present it at cons, which I rarely go to. And while I do feel better about AL then posting, I wonder again if that goes back to the issue of selfishness. Strangely enough writing for AL feels like I am selling out, so even when I feel accomplished there is this lingering sense of being motivated by more superficial considerations.
I suppose I could just write goof off/pop articles for AL, but I have never really been too adept at such enterprises. I do love to read my material to the public so I can see their reactions, I will never forget the uproar that occurred with those memorable lines "viewed from any angle Osama bin Laden is a great man". Then there's Austin talking about AL merchandise--he never consulted me about AL merchandise. I'm not sure about his intentions at this point.
To summarize, I feel great about working on a magazine, especially if multiple people are involved, it has a strong activist-leftist message, it combines two topics I love (politics and anime) and it has a great plurality of articles from a multiplicity of writers and photographers. At the same time, I can't help but feel I am doing it for attention, whereas when I write for Gaia I am working for free (ideally I'd prefer to work for free and not for any monetary or social gain). I also can't help but feel it will have zero effect on public awareness. This is compounded by the fact that most people who tell me they love the magazine have yet to read a single one of my political articles.
Maybe my political sentiments are unbalanced and extreme. But at the same time as I am speaking we have likely lost hundreds of acres of rain forest and hundreds of thousands due to malnutrition and curable disease, so maybe if anything one could argue that my political sentiment isn't nearly as extreme as it should be.
Truth be told if I had my basic materials provided I would not mind writing to educate the public for free all day, which unfortunately is not possible in the states, though such a path is indeed rather lonely. Even writing an entry in this journal feels like a selfish indulgence that detracts from more important considerations.
|
|
| The Phylocode-replacing names |
[22 Sep 2008|11:32am] |
"The last twenty years of work on phylogenetic nomenclature have given rise to many names and definitions that are now considered suboptimal. In formulating permanent definitions under the PhyloCode when it is implemented, it will be necessary to evaluate the corpus of existing names and make judgements about which to establish and which to discard. This is not straightforward, because early definitions are often inexplicit and ambiguous, generally do not meet the requirements of the PhyloCode, and in some cases may not be easily recognizable as phylogenetic definitions at all. Recognition of synonyms is also complicated by the use of different kinds of specifiers (species, specimens, clades, genera, suprageneric rank-based names, and vernacular names) and by definitions whose content changes under different phylogenetic hypotheses. In light of these difficulties, five principles are suggested to guide the interpretation of pre-PhyloCode clade-names and to inform the process of naming clades under the PhyloCode: (1) do not recognize "accidental" definitions; (2) malformed definitions should be interpreted according to the intention of the author when and where this is obvious; (3) apomorphy-based and other definitions must be recognized as well as node-based and stem-based definitions; (4) definitions using any kind of specifier taxon should be recognized; and (5) priority of synonyms and homonyms should guide but not prescribe. Strict priority should not be observed in the pre-PhyloCode era, and should not determine which existing names are permanently established; precedence should begin only with the formal establishment of the PhyloCode. "
--Michael P. Taylor
Palaeobiology Research Group, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Portsmouth
|
|
| Towards a utilitarian, deterministic system of justice |
[16 Sep 2008|11:57am] |
Most ideas of Justice in the Western tradition are built upon the Official Doctrine, that is there is a body and soul, the two are absolutely separated and people choose their actions. As a consequence we find the legalistic tradition in which laws are based on ideas of punishment. In the 21st century this conception is hopelessly outdated, leading to problematic questions dealing with matters of insanity, accidental manslaughter (car accidents), drug use, and the boundary between morality, custom and law. This is because these conceptions of justice are based on the assumption of free will.
I have been working on a more scientific, materialistic, secular/determinist system of justice that can replace the old, both in terms of accuracy and in terms of function. This is done by means of certain elements:
Descriptive elements:
One: Recognizing fault as character judgment not choice:
In this new theory of justice judgments about a person's actions are not based on what choices the person makes but what these actions reveal about a person's character and the consequences thereof. According to this view for example, we don't judge child molesters as wrong because they choose to one day become a child molester, but in recognition of the fact that being a child molester is an aspect of the person's character and that child molestation is harmful.
This is more useful then the choice-Cartesian conception of justice for three reasons: 1- It allows us to more accurately assess the situation, thereby allowing us to better correct the problem. So long as people believe that child molesters are the way they are out of choice they will continue the negative cycle by which molesters are jailed until they learn their mistake, and then released. This is particularly problematic because it leads to a high rate of repetition, by which molesters do not so much alter their behavior so much as they learn how to better disguise it. That is because a child molester is not such out of choice so much as out of deeply rooted psychological problems. So it doesn't matter how much you lock them up, so long as their psychology remains the same they will continue to be child molesters and they will continue to molest children, save in a more intelligent manner. This is likewise the case with murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.
By understanding the problem more accurately we can then focus on questions like the rate of repetition of a crime, the causes of the psychology underlying the criminal's actions, and the manner by which we may alter these actions (without altering the person's psychology in a manner that is intrusive- intrusive being defined in the sense that it alters parts of their personality that has nothing to do with their criminal actions. )
2- It allows us to better understand the general causes of the crime and thus work on preventive measures.
3- It allows us to end the inhumane cycle of imprisoning people for crimes over and over again when such a system is ineffective. It is immoral to torture people for no reason, or for a society to torture people for reasons that the society can itself prevent. That would be like me knowing that a dog and cat will fight, and then throwing the two in the room together punishing them for fighting via severe beatings, throwing them back into the room together, beating them again for fighting and so on ad naseum.
The fact is this cycle re-occurs every generation because people, under the presumption of choice, presume that merely by making examples of certain criminals that the crime will be deterred. This makes sense under a choice conception of justice, because the criminals can just choose to change, but it does not make sense under a system in which the criminals are psychologically compelled to commit their crime. Under the latter, the very system by which these criminals are punished in a senseless manner can itself be considered criminal in a general ethical sense, as it constitutes needless torture as well as the continuation of crime (since no measures are actually taken to prevented (meaning the society is itself contributing to the commitment of the crime and failing to live up to its responsibility to prevent the criminal action). In other words, if social policy makers (which in a democracy is supposed to be the people, in a dictatorship the officials) know that by increasing poverty and inequality they will, as a matter of statistical and scientific law, lead to increases in the rates of rape and murder and do so anyways they are guilty of allowing those rapes and murders to happen.
We know that the use of mere punishment as a deterrent has questionable effect. Yet we continue to rely on such measures almost exclusively. If this is the case, it means that society is in effect contributing to the commitment of criminal action. Clearly such a system should change, and by understanding the real nature of crime and justice we can begin to take steps to enact such change.
Under this system of justice then, when we place blame, responsibility, or fault, we will not be arguing that the person is, say at fault because he or she made bad choices, but because the fault is a reflection of the person's psychological character. The compulsive liar is such not because they choose to be a compulsive liar but because some part of their neuro-chemistry causes them to be such. By recognizing this, we can take real steps to correct the problem in a humane manner.
Two: Distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic causes.
One area in which it will be important to make a distinction under this more scientific, deterministic system of crime will be that of finding out if the cause of a crime is intrinsic or extrinsic.
An intrinsic cause means that the cause of the criminal is is (mostly) within the person committing the crime. This can be genetic, neuro-chemical, or psychological.
An extrinsic cause means that the reason for the crime exists (mostly) outside the person, and is environmental.
Of course these categories are not absolute. Environmental factors can influence a person's DNA (i.e. radiation, the use of certain kinds of drugs) and people do indeed influence their environment (what friends they hang out with, etc). But the terms can have an operational use, in that we can discover whether it makes more sense to try and change the person's character, or the general social environment to reduce the commitment of said crimes.
This distinction, coupled with the standard of character judgment helps us solve a number of problems plaguing the current justice system.
Accidental crimes, such as a car accident, are not indicative of anything wrong with a person's intrinsic character, and must thus be approached differently to prevent their repetition.
Child molestation however often does have more of an intrinsic cause, suggesting that we perhaps lock the person up until a cure is discovered.
We can also recognize if the cause is unique to an individual (and thus requires we take measures particular to this individual to prevent recurrence) or if the cause is social (and thus demands a change in social policy to prevent recurrence). For example, a born sociopath is very much an individual disorder that cannot be changed by merely altering social policy, and thus, a sociopath that commits a crime will have to be cured if we are to believe that the said person will not commit the crime again.
People born in poor neighborhoods who commit crimes though are indicating that the crime is due to poverty, and this suggests that the best way to prevent such crimes is to reduce poverty.
Thus when placing blame or fault it is important to consider how much is intrinsic, and how much is extrinsic. The former suggests we have to alter an individual's personality, the latter suggests we have to change the social conditions.
Prescriptive elements:
Three: Corrective vs. Retributive vs. Fairness measures.
It is important to note here that under a deterministic conception of justice those who are charged with maintaining this justice are themselves determined agents. This is often ignored by determinist who argue that society should negate any conception of responsibility since the criminal was determined to commit their crime. Under determinism society is just as determined as the criminal to enact a punishment, and thus we must take into account this tendency to punish criminals if we are to have a more modern, accurate conception of justice. This demands I believe we distinguish between two prescriptive standards applied to criminal actions: Correctional (by which we help society better function in a more humane manner in accordance with our general senses and desire to live in a better environment in general) and retributive, (by which we are following our more instinctive desire of revenge). The former is a (more) objective standard, the latter a (more) subjective standard.
The latter is caused, in part, by our evolutionary heritage. In the past when there were few police, and man lived in the wild red tooth and claw (or perhaps even before man, when we just started as social animals) one needed to create a sort of deterrent against being attacked less one invite exploitation. Having a reputation for being vengeful created this deterrent, as it showed there was a cost associated with attacking one's-self. As society evolved it was known that allowing too many personal feuds and acts of retribution to occur ruined the harmony and reduced the overall function of society, and thus laws and organizations were developed to resolve matters by third parties (police and courts) in order to satisfy this instinct while simultaneously allowing society to continue functioning.
It is these contradictory impulses, that of desiring greater social function, coupled with the instinct of revenge that at one time was needed for our survival that serves as the basis of these two distinct conceptions of justice. The former demanded that we preserve social function, which would otherwise not be possible if we allowed crimes to go unpunished or corrected (widespread thievery would ruin societies wealth, widespread murder would negate social cohesion altogether). The latter stemming from our instinctive feelings, with us today, because they helped us survive in the past.
Recognizing this dichotomy, and how it relates to our conception of justice is important if society is to establish a system of justice it desires. Social policy must balance a need for policies which correct/prevent crime so that we can progress the general function and promote social order, while simultaneously recognizing that such policies must also satisfy our subjective need for revenge, less people become dissatisfied and decide to take matters into their own hands.
Simply put then a purely correctional system of justice that completely ignores the victims need for revenge is incomplete, and a system of justice purely focused on revenge will be dysfunctional. A simplistic balancing act (that of just going 50/50) is likewise inadequate, because it is composed of contradictory elements which may negate each other (punishing someone too harshly may make them more violent in the long-run) so what needs to be done is that all the elements are carefully examined by experts, who measure what sort of policy or balance will serve both to correct/prevent criminal action, and simultaneously satisfy the victims need for revenge in a manner which does not wholly undermine either.
One possible way is to study the causes of crime, implement what we know in a manner that prevents such criminal actions from recurring (if the cause is intrinsic we will have to focus on changing the individual, if extrinsic the social environment) while simultaneously studying a person's sense of retribution and how to satisfy such without undermining the function of society. This can be done by means of reparation for example, in that the criminal for a time gives a certain proportion of his or her wealth to the victim, thereby helping to alleviate the victim's sense of being wronged, while simultaneously improving social function. This can also be done by a combination of jail time (if immediate preventive measures are required), informing society of the nature of the crime (thereby harming the perpetrators reputation) and simultaneously enforcing reparations. This latter can likewise include informing society of whether or not the person is cured of his or her criminal tendency, coupled with reasons to believe why the person is cured so individuals can re-evaluate whether the person's reputation should be changed or not- one manner by which to do this would be to note rates of repetition, causes of the crime, and measures taken to correct/prevent such behavior (including why the measure is supposed to work, and the rate of remission).
It should be noted that there is likewise a third element, that of fairness, which we often tend to equate to justice. If someone works harder or longer hours then someone else, and yet receives the same pay we often decry that the treatment of the person is unfair, and demand that the person receive more pay.
This is important to consider because it effects our ideas of retribution and correction. We could probably correct most criminal action if we simply implemented the death penalty for every possible crime, however most would argue it is unfair to shoot someone over a speeding ticket. We likewise may want revenge, but most of us realize that locking up someone for ten years for stealing one's loaf of bread is too extreme to constitute a just punishment.
Four: Positive vs. Negative Justice.
Positive justice implying a conception of justice that not only punishes bad behavior (by which we protect social function) but rewards good behavior (by which we can progress social function).
Most of us already go by this conception of justice to an extent. If someone is not rewarded for working hard, or a heroic act most of us consider the lack of reward unfair and thus unjust. The basis of this sentiment is probably evolutionary as our sense of retribution, in the past those tribes which rewarded better behavior encouraged their individuals to perform better for the tribe i.e. tribes that rewarded hunters for acquiring large game by means of ceremonies and rewards were likely to have better hunters then those who merely took advantage of the resources acquired.
Thus a deterministic conception of justice not only allows us to create a more scientific conception of justice but also a more functional conception of justice. By such a system we may realize justice is about social function, not just vengeance, and thereby promote positive social programs instead of just punishing criminals. In other words the justice system should recognize whether or not certain companies or institutions are rewarding their workers fairly in accordance to their contributions, not just whether or not the employer is ripping his or her workers off (i.e. whether or not the workers are being under-paid).
This would be especially pertinent in America where an over-focus on justice as retribution has created various and extreme deformities in the justice system. Regularly street criminals are more often, and more harshly punished then white collar even though the latter crime costs more in terms of resources and often times lives by a far larger degree (more people die in work place accidents in which their employees and managers ignore safety laws then in street murders, and yet rarely does such a CEO face manslaughter charges). This is undoubtedly because white collar crime is far more general, and hence detached and invisible to most individuals and fails to en sense our feelings of retribution to equal measure. In other words, we simply don't get as emotional when we hear that people are dying in work place accidents, or from toxins being introduced into consumer goods as we do when a woman like Andrea Yates drowns her children to death. The former is simply too abstract for most of us. But by recognizing that justice isn't just about our feelings of revenge, but also social function, we should then realize that such white collar crimes are just as in need of correction, if not more in need of correction, then street crime in terms of social function.
This standard of justice being about social function instead of simply revenge is already tacitly accepted. We make laws to regulate traffic because we realize that without such laws our roads would be become impractically dangerous places. This is done even though nobody in particular may be harmed or punished.
Five: Intentional vs. Accidental causes
With respect to correctional vs. retributive standards we must take into account matters of intent. If somebody is insane, even temporarily, or permanently, we may realize that the actions are in a sense accidental, and not a matter of character in the same sense that someone who intends to commit the crime. If an autistic person breaks an object because he or she is prone to fits under which they lose control of their motor skills that is very different then someone who vandalizes property for the sheer rush of excitement they get for such destruction. Hence the basis for judging the insane from the sane with respect to crime lies in what they tell us about character, and whether or not a sense of retribution is appropriate. It makes no sense to be angry at a rock for causing you to trip, or the ground when you stub your toe. Likewise, it makes no sense to be angry at a person not in control of their actions. This can be taken into account better in a determinist conception of justice, under which we can recognize that such behavior may have to be temporarily restrained for sake of social function without necessarily being punished (in all probability the victim will simply have to be told that the perpetrator is insane, and being treated, and perhaps given treatment/compensation his or her self in order to alleviate the sense of loss, grief, and revenge).
This makes more sense then the Cartesian standard under which the question of insanity is a matter of choice. Choice cannot be measured, and it is highly dubious to claim a person chooses to be insane.
This standard of intent also brings into account the issue of power. It can be argued that those with more power, or control of the situation, are more at fault then those with less power because their actions speak more about their character and intent. Under this standard then it does make more sense to punish a person who is dealing addictive chemicals which he or she knows will lead to the commitment of a crime then the person committing a crime under the influence of such chemicals. The former is more in control of the situation, and his or her intent determines more then the latter who's actions are more automatic. To make an analogy, if someone throws a rock through your window it makes more sense to be angry at the person then it does the rock.
This is useful because if an act is intentional it can deterred by rational means i.e. if someone is murdering for profit you can merely threaten them with the death penalty. But if an action is being done unconsciously then it won't matter how much of a deterrent you make, the person will continue on his or her crime spree because he or she literally cannot change through rational deliberation.
Six: Custom vs. Morality with respect to justice.
Given then that justice is about character instead of choices, and that the goal is to improve subjective well being (that of social function, our sense of vengeance, and our sense of fairness) it should be noted that there naturally arises a distinction between matters of custom, under which a standard of justice is less appropriate, and morality, in which a system of justice is necessary.
The former refers to social behavior and social rituals d4eveloped by society for aesthetic reasons, such as shaking hands, specific greetings, etc. This should not be subject to social regulations such as laws, because such regulations would not serve to promote our idea of justice, and because such regulations would probably cause more harm then good. Matters of custom should be optional, or if violated, subject to sanctions via custom not law.
Matters of morality however, that which violates our sense of justice and causes individuals harm (either by disturbing social function, or causing an individual undue harm) should be subject to social regulation. This includes far more serious acts then failing to greet a person properly, such as rape, murder, theft, etc.
That being said there are of course grey areas where the formula does not easily apply. This includes the fact that not greeting someone may cause the person harm, and having sex too often can spread STD's. In such cases it is up to individuals and society itself to determine whether or not a certain action violates societies morals, or merely societies customs, and whether laws and police regulations are warranted.
The above distinction, between custom and morality helps us solve a number of issues currently being debated in the United States. One key issue being that of gay marriage. If it can be shown (as I suspect) that marriage is more a matter of custom, then that of justice or morality it can then be noted that there is no reason to ban gay marriage. Such marriage harms no one, and does not, unless people go out of their way to make it, undermine social function. This also ends another debate, whether or not being gay is a matter of choice (as such is a matter of custom regardless).
Conclusion:
To an extent a conception of deterministic justice is already largely implemented. We don't allow, or most of us don't think it wise to, allow a child molester to accept the job of teacher or baby sitter because we know such a person doesn't "choose" to be a child molester, and will likely repeat his or her crime. Indeed if you allow a convicted child molester to baby sit your kids, knowing that the repeat rate is 80% simply because the person says they have changed then you should be punished for child endangerment. We likewise take a similar attitude with other forms of criminality- murder, rape, theft. We wouldn't want to be in the same room, without observation, with a serial killer, even one who claims to have "chosen" to change, because we know at an unconscious level that the crimes are not committed out of some "choice" made by a disembodies soul but due to a psychological condition.
If crime was a matter of choice, it would make the most sense to punish a person until they claim to choose differently and let the matter settle at that. I mean, if the matter truly is one of choice, then who's to say tomorrow the criminal will not choose to be a police man, and the police man the criminal. Both are equally probable because choice, under the traditional- dualistic idea of free will, is absolutely undetermined and hence cannot be measured or predicted. We do however tacitly assume a certain measure of prediction, and hence a certain measure of determination.
We thus already, to a large extent, accept a deterministic conception of justice. All that remains is for us to implement it.
Key Concepts:
Justice as Character judgment, not choice.
The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic causes when determining fault.
The distinction between accidental and intentional.
The recognition of correction/prevention, retribution, and fairness as elements of justice.
Positive vs. negative justice as ways to improve social/individual well being.
The distinction between custom and morality.
|
|
| Learning Japanese- easier then expected |
[13 Sep 2008|10:12am] |
|
I've just started Japanese class relatively recently this semester and must say it is far easier then expected. It makes me wonder about people who have trouble with this class, are they just slow, or do they not study at all?
|
|
| Do girls compete with video games? |
[11 Sep 2008|12:33pm] |
I've noticed a pattern. I buy a new game, all of a sudden my gf who was perfectly fine with, if not constantly at odds with me about various matters needs more attention. The longer I play my new game the more attention she needs, and the sooner she needs it. This has happened on countless occasions, and after asking around it seems various male friends and relatives report similar experiences. I'm not sure why it is, but it appears as though girls compete with video games. It is as if having a man entertained by interactive technology makes them insecure. I am not sure why this is, but it is ridiculous. Why COMPETE with a machine? Does that make sense at any level? Can you even win if the matter is predetermined? Will you be able to win in the long run (I doubt it, seeing as vast amounts of resources and technology go into games, whereas people are pretty much genetically the same) and even if you win, what the hell will you win? Is there a "you out-competed the game" prize out there?
It makes me wonder if certain people just need attention, or feel that if they don't get attention often enough their survival is at stake. This causes one to wonder why this is. Do certain people 100% depend on other people, without which, they cannot survive?
My own thinking is that girls in the United States are have poor self-esteem, and are raised to be very materialistic. They are not taught to evaluate their sense of worth as an intrinsic given (I suppose because that would reflect the mythical generation of entitlement- entitlement being the newest proposed horror of horrors in the capitalist system). So they cannot say to themselves "my sense of worth is not determined by something stupid like whether or not I can take attention away from Warcraft 3." Instead they have to think to themselves "how much my life is worth depends on how well I can compete." Surely part of this is of course instinctive but culture can emphasize or reduce the role of specific instincts.
In our culture life is not seen as an intrinsic value but an object of utility. How much you are worth is literally determined by superficial standards such as how much money you have in your bank account, how big your house is, how hot your wife is, etc. The logical consequence of this is that you are basically treating people like commodities, objects, who's "worth" is purely that of an economic function. Such a mind set prevents people from forming genuine bonds, or esteem, because such comes from recognizing a qualitative difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
dermezel's journal