Dialogues with myself

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salve,

As I have a strong vision on some matters I will post here some dialogues with myself...

Sounds philosphical, eh!?

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Q: What is the sence of life?

A: Well, this is the first question that comes across when thinking about life itsself. But it is a wrong question. The right one is: does life has a goal?

No it has no higher goal. religions always tried to fill in this question. But just the fact that there is more than one religion proves that religions are false.

But life itsself has a goal: to survive. Some insects only live one day, just long enough to reproduce itsselves, and to help its species survive.

But what happens if the reproduction is safe?
Look around. The (global) reproduction of the human species is safe. Maybe it is so safe that it becomes a danger... maybe later more on this subject. Humans no longer have to struggle for their survival. Unfortunately this is region-bound. In some regions in Africa people still have to struggle for their everyday survival, especially now that aids has found the power to rule large masses.

In the regions where the struggle for life no longer exists (often refered to as 'the west'), the biologial goal of life has been fulfilled. So our life has become biologically pointless. Is this a depressing fact? No, because now we can dedicate our lives to 'humanity'. Humanity i.e. being 'human', more specific: peaceful societies, sharing the wealth, integrating the weak, art, sport, ... . All the things we can't do while still struggling for survival.
So our life has not become pointless after all? Yes, if you look upon it as a biological fact. In that case irony, cynisism and sarcasm are allowed. We have won the battle. But sarcasm is only the first step. The next step is that, despite we have won the biological battle, there is still a sociological battle going on. The quest for surivival may be over, the quest for living together is still busy. Every person must decide for himself whether he will be remaining at the sideline, or step into that battle and help establishing a better society, what can be done in many different ways: helping the weak, not harming anyone else, but also by arts, sports, music, ...

The wrong way to deal with the sociologic question, is to fall into decadence. It is a danger that will be always watching. It is react to the philosophical by backing out to yourself. This creates selffish and intolerant persons, and blocks any kind of 'living-together', societies or communities.


As said above, we have won the global battle for survival. On that stage we have been uplifted above the normal biological standards. But these standards are not pointless! We must constantly be ware that our globe has only a limited supply of space, food, air and water (even with our scientific knowledge). We must regulate the reproduction ourselves now or... go and look out for other planets to colonize... but if that ever would happen, it will only be in a long time from now...

Now it is the duty of the regions that have reached the point of 'humanity' to help other regions to reach that point, by mutual interference.

So: people, think about the sociological question and no longer stand aside. Get moving!

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Ave Locate,

Sounds philosphical, eh!?

The least I can say is that you are in good philosophical company doing that kind of thing.

Heraclitus used to say "edizèsamen emeoouton" ("I consult myself") (Burnet, fragment 101), and Marcus Aurelius called his philosophical musings "ta eis heauton" (writings to himself).

I'm curious at what a cynic in the footsteps of Heraclitus and Aurelius will bring forth. Proceed !

Vale bene,

Q. Pomponius Atticus

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Basically a sound philosophy, I think, if summarized as "we have succeeded in delaying death, now let's turn life into more than a delay".

It is simply extroardinary after all, if you look at it from a historical perspective, how in less than two centuries (ca. 1800-1950), the West has developed from a society in which shortage of even basic goods was the rule into a world in which, with only a fraction of the labourers needed in earlier times, we are producing so much that getting our products sold has become the new challenge !

Now, the great task that lies ahead of us is to distribute the available wealth and labour, the latter one, with the spectacular rise of productivity, having become a scarcity, with which we should deal frugally !

After all, it is very queer to note that, while productivity in the primary and secundary sectors of our economy has multiplied several times since the 1920's, we still work as much as our great grandfathers did, to the joy and benefit of the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumps among us.

Our modern economy in my view is not as modern as it appears : it still works essentialy as a "scarcity economy", in which only the lucky few, the winners in the struggle for power and welfare, can achieve a well-of position, while in fact we live in an "affluent society" in which every one could be reasonably well off. The figures for Belgium e.g. show that, if our national income be distributed equally, every Belgian would have a app. 250.000 €/$ on his bank accounts, which would allow for quite a careless life.

If we could ever achieve this double distribution, a fulfilling life would finally be at hand for all of us. We would have the welfare of the moderns, and the spare time of the so called "primitives", of whom Marshall Sahlins, in his "Stone Age Economics" reminded us that they only have to "work" three to four hours a day, while enjoying a healthy diet and a happy life.

Valete,

Q. Pomponius Atticus

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

As an answer to you, Locate, amice:

The buddha, too, has said to his discipels to seek consult with themselves... I think that one can find a sense in life.

And further, I believe that a difference should be made between the two forms of religion. You have what we call in Dutch 'godsdienst', in which people come together to celebrate and pay hommage to a higher Being, and then you have the more personal form in which everyone has his own ways to act religiously. This is 'religie' in Dutch. It is a pity that English does not make that difference. Let me elaborate a little further on that. Everyone has eg. his own way to commemorate his ancestors. Piscinus has his ways, and I have mine. They have the same significance for us on personal level, even if there should be disparities between our ways. This is not dogmatised religion, but still I consider this a religious act.

In amicitia

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salvete,

I also think that to be fully human, one needs to be "religious", not an adherent of any specific religion that is, but "religatus" (from "religare": to connect, to bind together, not degrading into "to chain/to fetter" which also belongs to the meanings of "religare"...).

We need something higher/other than ourselves to connect with, to be part of, whatever that is : God, the Logos/Zeus, The Great Spirit, Tao, Nature, Humanity, Tradition, ... Personally, I must say I prefer the latter three. A humanistic form of immanent transcendence, if you like.

Perhaps the most perfect description of what the world religion means for me is this :

A sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man.

William Wordsworth, from Tintern Abbey.

Or this :

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

William Blake, from Auguries of Innocence

Valete optime !

Q. Pomponius Atticus

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Q: What should we do with criminals?

A: First: do criminals exist? What are criminals?
In the early days, when our species still had to struggle for their survival criminals did not exist. The strongest took it all. Simple and effective.
But now we have 'Humanity'. No longer survival of the fittest. We have found the reason for looking after each other.
Humanity created these criminals. Now there are laws that can be violated. In the early days there weren't. What use do these laws have? To protect the Humanity that installed them. What is a good thing, but the ultimate goal is Humanity without laws.

Now, what should we do with a criminal that violated the laws of Humanity? That's easy. Because in Humanity we believe that people can be shown their faults and that people can change.
A criminal should be judged by a court of professional judges, not by civilians (who are too sensitive). The penalties are fines, alternative punishments and detention.
Fines are used for minor infractions to the regulations. The money must be used for the benefit of society, i.e. the one that suffered. No fines that should be paid to individual citizens although because otherwise poeple would start trials just for gaining money or compensations (as is the case in some countries now). Fines are only paid to the government.
Alternative sanctions are the most common way of dealing with moderate violations of the law. These punishments should always serve the society and show the punished the benefit of living inside the Society (Humanity).
The severest punishment is detention. The use of detention is to isolate the criminal from the society for a while, to calm both society and the criminal down. Detention should not be repressive although, it should help the criminal to build new and stronger bonds with Humanity and society. The isolation may not be of a long duration. Soon the criminal must be instructed in a new life, a new career, a new role and a new environment. The easiest way is to re-educate the criminal, to (re)school him and to let him work within the 'prison' and to get paid for his work. In small steps he would be allowed to get a job outside the prison, to loan, to buy a new house, to make new friends etc. He should be allowed to invite these friends to his appartment in prison to create new bonds.
As you may have read, the criminal must loosen the bonds with his old environment (although not entirely, his mother stays his mother etc.). This is a very hard thing to do. That is why the criminal must be guided and supported by social workers during his time in prison and after his time in prison, until the (fromer) criminal is settled tightly within his new environment.

Q: appartment, in prison? How should a prison look like?

A: A prison should be very small and lies preferably in an area that is very dense populated. It should have three seperate spaces: an isolation part for the crisis centre (type 3), a part with spacious appartments where the criminal can live during his re-education (type2) and appartments outside the building where the prisoner can live during his re-integration (type 1).

Q: what with those dangerous psychopats? You forgot all about them!

A: First of all, there are not as much psychopats in this world as movies want us to believe. Secondly, I do not believe that most people now classified as psychopats are 'incurable'. There may be a very small percentage that really are psychopats, they must be guarded in a crisi centre (type 2) with much supervisors, and set to work there. Even when they only are capable of cleaning, they can be a benefit to society, e.g. by cleaning there own or other 'prisons'.


So, that's enough for today, later more.

[Tiberius Dionysius Draco]

Salve Locate,

Q: what with those dangerous psychopats? You forgot all about them!

A: First of all, there are not as much psychopats in this world as movies want us to believe. Secondly, I do not believe that most people now classified as psychopats are 'incurable'. There may be a very small percentage that really are psychopats, they must be guarded in a crisi centre (type 2) with much supervisors, and set to work there. Even when they only are capable of cleaning, they can be a benefit to society, e.g. by cleaning there own or other 'prisons'.

I hope you don't mind me asking a question. If those dangerous psychopats (even though there aren't thàt many) cost to much to become a benefit to society, why not simply kill them?

This may sound rather harsh, but if they can't give back enough to society without a lot of investing, then this may be the best solution.

Vale,

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salve Locate,

Q: what with those dangerous psychopats? You forgot all about them!

A: First of all, there are not as much psychopats in this world as movies want us to believe. Secondly, I do not believe that most people now classified as psychopats are 'incurable'. There may be a very small percentage that really are psychopats, they must be guarded in a crisi centre (type 2) with much supervisors, and set to work there. Even when they only are capable of cleaning, they can be a benefit to society, e.g. by cleaning there own or other 'prisons'.

Whereas - luckily ! - relatively few psychopaths of the type we see in the movies exist, many other kinds are present in civil life, often unnoticed, and they are far more numerous than we usually think.

I once saw a TV-documentary covering this subject. Based on sociological research, it showed that in the highest bodies of governments, in the managements of large companies etc. a disproportianate number of psychopaths (as medically defined) are found. Not the ones that kill people with axes, buth nevertheless people we describe as 'ruthless', feeling no emotions, unregarding of the consequences of their actions for others, though outwardly they may appear perfectly calm, rational and 'normal'.

I wonder if, based on specific characteristics described by ancient historiographers, we could find out which famous Greeks or Romans suffered from 'psychopathia', as it is clinically defined today.

Vale,

Q. Pomponius Atticus

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

If those dangerous psychopats (even though there aren't thàt many) cost to much to become a benefit to society, why not simply kill them?

Psychopats are killed in a society that has not yet reached the stadium of "Humanity". When it has reached the stadium of Humanity, it realizes that killing is a return to the 'survival of the fittest', i.e. eleminating the weak, the people that not fit within certain standards.

Whereas - luckily ! - relatively few psychopaths of the type we see in the movies exist, many other kinds are present in civil life, often unnoticed, and they are far more numerous than we usually think.

I'm convinced that this kind of psychopaths are 'made' by their environment. It will not be genetically. Thus by changing their environment, we can prevent these people to become psychopathologic ('= ill in the psyche').

We need something higher/other than ourselves to connect with, to be part of, whatever that is : God, the Logos/Zeus, The Great Spirit, Tao, Nature, Humanity, Tradition, ... Personally, I must say I prefer the latter three. A humanistic form of immanent transcendence, if you like.

I am convinced that we don't need something higher than ourselves, unless you mean the benefit of all the people instead of selfishness.

The buddha, too, has said to his discipels to seek consult with themselves... I think that one can find a sense in life.

That's right, and that's why buddhism is not a religion.

Everyone has eg. his own way to commemorate his ancestors. This is not dogmatised religion, but still I consider this a religious act.

This may sound harsh, but I'm pretty sure they don't need that commemoration anymore, because they're dead.
But maybe you need that commemoration to find hapiness.


Vale,

Locatus

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

I am convinced that we don't need something higher than ourselves, unless you mean the benefit of all the people instead of selfishness.

That would fall under the category "Humanity" in my list. I think we basically agree on this, we just word things differently. I imagine the words "transcendence" or "religion" in themselves give our cynical friend Locatus allergic feelings .

That's right, and that's why buddhism is not a religion.

All depends on what you call a religion, and what kind of Buddhism you mean.

I would certainly call it a religion in the "broad sense", i.e. in the sense that it provides a comprehensive ('religatus') worldview, comprising (meta-)physical, logical, ethical elements etc., and in the sense that it connects (religare once again) its adepts to a higher reality / goal (nirvana).

A philosophical religion if you will, not much different from Stoicism, Platonism etc. in that respect. I wonder if the rest of you also think of these ancient philosophies in this way. Criticism or debate, as usual, is welcome.

Also, I would call the 'popular' (= non-monastic, non-intellectual) forms of Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism in general religious in the "narrow sense" as well, i.e. comprising ritual, prayer, offerings, magical thought etc., elements we usually see as typically "religious".

Naturally, this dualism is a theoretical construction from a Western point of view. In reality, they are quite mixed up. Tibetan Buddhism e.g. also cultivates very advanced logic, which we would classify under "philosophy", academic philosophy even.

This may sound harsh, but I'm pretty sure they don't need that commemoration anymore, because they're dead.
But maybe you need that commemoration to find hapiness.

True. This is what, in my aforementioned list, I called the 'transcendence' of Tradition. I think that, to be fully human, we somehow need to connect with our past, our culture, our tradition, without - of course ! - losing our critical faculties in confronting those. Otherwise, I think we become rootless, homeless inhabitants of an increasingly hostile and incomprehensible world.

Vale !

Q. Pomponius Atticus