Hi Dan
Hi everyone
Dan wrote:
It would seem to depend on the situation. Letting intellectuals run
loose is very dangerous for a society and so in totalitarian regimes
they are often times locked away or exiled. So it's not that intellect
ignores society so much as it opposes it.
Richard:
I think the question is that of intent. Does the intellect INTEND to oppose society,
or does it intend to provide a system of power whereby the values of the individuals
are best regarded? I think your example is an unfair and loaded one, as a
totalitarian regime isn�t even a system ruled by society, it is ruled by one person.
Take Iraq, the United States� best friend Saddam Hussain rules yet he does not rule
for the will of his people and the people are too scared to throw him out of power.
Is that really an example of a nation lead by society? So by extention, is any
totalitarian system a fair example of such a thing? If you look at it from your own
nations history, and the values of the Victorians then you could never say that the
new intellectual values have sought to oppose the old values, it�s just that the old
society values have become outdated.
Dan wrote:
It would seem the only way to gain evolutionary ground is for the
intellect to stomp all over society, as you put it. Yet first, do no
harm. For society may just hang you by your thumbs!
Richard:
Society still has some power as we are in a transitional period, in a few generations,
there will be no society to hang me up by my thumbs, and since the intellect doesn�t
stomp it just ignores, society will not be able to stop the process. Question: Many
of those on this group seem to think society and intellect are at war, and intellect
is trying to forcefully gain ground on society. If this is the case, then since there
are so many people in society, why aren�t they using their power? If the process is
that of a battlefield, as seems to being suggested, then why aren�t politicians and
lawyers and policy makers using their physical power to appose it? I think the answer
is that the society isn�t aware of what is going on as it is NOT a war, and intellect
is not trying to stomp all over society it is just ignoring it and gaining ground
secretly by doing so. I see no evidence of the war between the two sides that people
here keep talking about.
> Dan:
We have police and soldiers to deal with moral conflicts arising between the
biological/social levels, which is how assault is seen in the MOQ.
> Richard:
> I think it is beside the point but maybe I should clarify what I mean. From the
>point > of view of a record, I agree that it should show, you�re right about that. I
>was
> thinking more about environmental standards. A criminal should be entitled to a
> healthy living environment even if that environment is provided by the state. I.E
> clean cell, nourishing food, some stimuli, access to education, access to exercise
>and > others and of course, the absence of torture!
Dan:
But can prisons really be a healthy living environment and also deter crime in the way
they are meant to?
Richard:
I think the problem is with the choice of words here, and since the choice of words
probably reflects your thoughts on the matter I�ll try explain it another way. You
say prisons should deter crime? Maybe they are simply a place to hold those that
commit crimes until such a time when it is thought that the criminal will not
reoffend? In which case, they should be allowed access to material and an environment
with which to better themselves and learn of their wrongdoing. Societies view of
power is an extension of that of a totalitarian government, to rule over wrongdoers
through fear and punishment. Is it not better to not have wrongdoers in the first
place? Continuing from part of mail I just wrote to Kenneth, the primary driving
force of the new power-system (in my opinion) is wealth. Those that don�t have it,
want it, those that can�t get it through legitimate means will try to get it
illegally. Is it not better to give them the chance to get it legally so they won�t
offend? How can you do this with a judiciary system whose main concern is fear and
punishment?
Dan wrote:
Why shouldn't society demand that a criminal pay for his or her own upkeep?
Richard:
Society has every right to demand it, but since intellect ignores society, it doesn�t
matter what they demand. From the intellectual point of view I just raised, how can a
newly released criminal have the chance to lead a normal life if he has $50,000 debt
from his incarceration? Isn�t he more likely to reoffend in this case?
Dan wrote:
Why should being a criminal entitle one to anything at all?
Richard:
Because it�s for the good of the rest of us. Give them nothing, and they�ll take what
they can get. The only other way out is to lock them up for good but what does that
solve? You�d simply be locking possible taxpayers up and having to pay for their
upkeep at the same time. That�s not economical!
Dan:
Rather all citizens in a society are entitled with certain rights as long as they
follow the rules of that society. As you say though, there is a fundamental sense of
decency also involved here; karma, if you will.
Richard:
What if they don�t follow them because they have no choice not to? Because they don�t
understand why they do wrong? Sense of decency is only a good fundament if you assume
everyone has one. What if there are medical reasons for a lack of this sense? Lock
them up and throw away the key just because they are Ill?
> Richard:
> Rehabilitation doesn�t work at present as we, as a species are only beginning to
> understand how the mind works. Until we fully understand this we can�t possibly
>hope > to treat all the illnesses and conditions that are responsible for criminal
>behaviour. > Do you think we should stop trying simply because we haven�t got it
>right yet? Once > we get the methods sorted out, there is no reason why
>rehabilitation won�t work, more > insight is needed in the area, and that isn�t going
>to happen overnight.
Dan:
Unsure in what context you're using "mind" here. If you mean mind as brain then we are
not on the same page, so to speak.
Richard:
I do mean brain, and I was taking it off on a tangent so apologize for not making that
clear! :o)
Dan:
I also question whether most crimes are inherently due to illness or any treatable
conditions. Perhaps a percentage. It seems to me many crimes are a case of just plain
stupidity. As far as stopping the rehabilitation efforts, I did not know any had
started yet!
Richard:
Assaults and that kind of thing I agree with you on the stupidity thing. But why do
people steal? Is the driving force of this poverty or stupidity? Is poverty
treatable? If the answer is �yes, get a job� then you need skill to get a job and if
you�ve already stolen because of poverty and throw them in the kind of prison you seem
to advocate, then how are they going to learn the skills they need? Consider sexual
assault, 75% of which is associated assault, I.E the attacker knew the victim. Why
would someone hurt someone they knew if they knew they were hurting them? The vast
majority of associate sex attackers lack the quality of empathy; they can�t read
people reactions to determine what they feel. The condition is treatable, and is
treated successfully (if you believe the few psychological reports written on the
subject). So there we have two crimes that are committed be people who can be helped
through a simple rehabilitation programme, they occur in most prisons in the UK, not
sure about he U.S. yet.
> Richard:
> As an aside, do you think that most of societies problems with criminals come about
> from the perception of a soul. A soul is considered by most western religions to be
>a > never changing thing, so of course wrong doers will never change. Perhaps if
>this
> view was changed to the more acceptable view of us being no more than animals that
> respond to the stimuli we receive then societies perception of others would move on
> leaps and bounds? I am interested in your view on this.
Dan:
I would say your suggestion of society's view changing to one of seeing humans as
being no more than animals is perhaps a ratchet leap down and not up, resulting in a
"Brave New World" of some sorts or another.
Richard:
I�m surprised you said this, Dan. How is viewing ourselves as animals a step down? I
see it the other way. The evolution of the discovery of our origins seems to be
taking us in this direction! The Ancient Greeks saw us being the center of the
universe, with God�s watching us. The Church after Galileo then says we are not the
center but God�s still watch the universe and us came into existence when God created
us! Darwin then says evolution creates species so God didn�t create us, surely the
next step is to accept that we are no more than animals that are now being controlled
by non-human power-system. Just my view, and perhaps a controversial one? :o)
Thank you for yet another thought provoking reply!
Kind regards
Richard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
