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the new intellectual values have sought to oppose the old values, it’s just that the old society values have become outdated.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 wi
th 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 - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST