The Menagerie, Part 2 (a), or, Dimensions of Perspective Revisited

The Menagerie, Part 2 (a),

or,

Dimensions of Perspective Revisited,

by Liviana (Giovanna Laine)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

~ William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act I, Scene 5

INTRODUCTION

In a previous post here, I discussed seven dimensions of a given person's perspective, or seven axes on which such perspective could be plotted.  In the end of the post, I presented a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional object with what might be seen as an "allegorical" explanation of the image expanded into seven dimensions.  I here reproduce the image from the previous post:

As I explained it in the previous post, I included seven dimensions or axes:

We see the blue triple intersection as our traditional three-dimensional axes, with X representing depth, Y representing width, and Z representing height.  The other letters here are shown at the corners of the cube.  A line from A to H would symbolize a fourth axis, another line from B to E would symbolize a fifth dimension, another from C to F a sixth dimension, and one more from D to G a seventh dimension.  We might then say that the the X axis represents Politics in the sense of Statism vs Anti-Statism, the Y axis represents Economics, and the the Z axis represents Civil Liberties, just as in Max Barry's ideocube.  But then we have A-H, B-E, C-F, and D-G as well.  I will arbitrarily assign these as follows:  A-H = Centralization/Decentralization, B-E = Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism, C-F = Social Views, and D-G = Cultural Views.

FURTHER

The previous post takes account of the standard three dimensions and the four space diagonals of the cube.  I would like to expand upon this, as the allegory can be extended to twelve more dimensions by adding the face diagonals of the cube.  For the cube, a Platonic solid, there are six faces, eight vertices, twelve edges, and sixteen diagonals (four space diagonals and twelve space diagonals).  The face diagonals would be represented by lines connecting A-C, A-E, A-G, B-D, B-F, B-H, C-E, C-G, D-F, D-H, E-G, and F-H.

I have already assigned the previous seven to: Politics (Statism vs Anti-Statism), Economics, Civil Liberties, Politics (Centralization/Decentralization), Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism, Society, and Culture.  In assigning the twelve additional dimensions, intersections with some of the others would be nice, but challenging by virtue of what I am suggesting as the twelve additional dimensions.  However, I will assign the twelve as follows, and some intersections will be seen, but not in each case (for example, in the case of A-E, Globalism vs Localism, which intersects with concepts represented by both A-H, Politics (Centralization/Decentralization), and B-E, Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism, in that Globalism involves Centralization and Imperialism, while Localism involves Decentralization and Non-Interventionism):

A-C = Epistemology
A-E = Globalism vs Localism
A-G = Aesthetics
B-D = Ecology/Equality vs Exploitation
B-F = Idealism vs Pessimism
B-H = Ontology and Metaphysics
C-E = Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity
C-G = Ethics
D-F = Romance and Sexuality
D-H = Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)
E-G = Religion and Sacred Tradition
F-H = Mysticism

This, then, gives us a total of nineteen dimensions of perspective, as follows:

1. X = Politics (Statism vs Anti-Statism)
2. Y = Economics
3. Z = Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
4. A-H = Politics (Centralization vs Decentralization)
5. B-E = Imperialism vs Non-Interventionism
6. C-F = Social Attitudes
7. D-G = Cultural Attitudes
8. A-C = Epistemology
9. A-E = Globalism vs Localism
10. A-G = Aesthetics
11. B-D = Ecology vs Exploitation
12. B-F = Idealism vs Pessimism
13. B-H = Ontology and Metaphysics
14. C-E = Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity
15. C-G = Ethics
16. D-F = Romance and Sexuality
17. D-H = Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)
18. E-G = Religion and Sacred Tradition
19. F-H = Mysticism

Of these nineteen, numbers 1 to 7 were explained in the previous post.  That means that I have to explain numbers 8 to 19 in this post.  Without further ado, then, I shall do so.  Please note that I will generally be referring to "one side" and "the other side," rather than "one end" and "the other end" or "one extreme" and "the other extreme."  However, in some instances, I shall put names the extremes.  I should also state from the outset that a full treatment of each of these dimensions is beyond the scope of this discussion (although I will say more about some than others), but I have discussed some of them in greater detail elsewhere in my writings, and am likely to discuss others in greater detail in future writings.

8. Epistemology
Epistemology is the branch of Philosophy which deals with several related questions.  One of those, the key question, is "What is knowledge?" (in the sense of ἐπιστήμη or "epistêmê," which is to say "propositional or intellectual knowledge," as distinct from "relational knowledge," or "knowing about a thing" as distinct from "knowing a person;"  epistêmê is also contrasted with δοξία or "doxia," which means "opinion").  The answer to this is, amazingly, something on which all philosophers agree:  "Knowledge is justified true belief."  What that means is that if a subject S know a proposition P, then S believes P, P is true, and S is justified in believing P.  This is where the agreement ends.  From this point, Epistemology proceeds to seek answers to the questions "What is truth?" and "What justifies a person in believing a proposition?"  On these questions, philosophers disagree and diverge into four main schools of thought:  Rationalism, Empiricism, Pragmatism, and Skepticism.  These would be ranged with Rationalism on one side and Skepticism on the other side, with Pragmatism between Rationalism and Empiricism, and Empiricism between Pragmatism and Skepticism.


9. Globalism vs Localism
Globalism vs Localism seems to me to be self-explanatory, but in case my meaning in these terms is not entirely clear, Globalism would be at one end and Localism at the other.  In between would be varying stages including Continentalism, Nationalism, Regionalism, and ... "Provincialism" (for want of a better term, and with a meaning distinct from the Fallacy of Provincialism).


10. Aesthetics
Aesthetics is the branch of Philosophy which deals with the questions "What is beauty?" and "What is Art?" and in this context, I extend this to include personal preferences and styles, and not merely the dictates of the Academies.  This also affects one's views on Social, Political, and Economic matters to some extent, as, for example, in the case of those Social Conservatives who oppose Homosexuality because they find it "gross" or "disgusting" not in an Ethical sense, but in a purely Aesthetic sense (which, however, Social Conservatives tend to associate with Ethics for reasons not immediately apparent).  This has been demonstrated in psychological and neurological studies, such as Yoel Inbar, David A. Pizarro & Paul Bloom (2009), "Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals," Cognition & Emotion, 23:4, 714-725;  John A. Terrizzi Jr., Natalie J. Shook, and W. Larry Ventis (October 2010), "Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals," Personality and Individual Differences, 49:6, 587–592;  Jeanna Bryner (26 October 2011), "Conservatives Are More Squeamish than Liberals," Live Science;  and Jonah Queen (17 January 2012), "Disgust and a New Political Neuropsychology," The Neuroethics Blog (hosted by the Center for Ethics, Neuroethics Program at Emory University).


11. Ecology/Equality vs Exploitation
Ecology/Equality vs Exploitation refers to an idea which I see as one, but which could be separated into two distinct dimensions.  In each case, "Exploitation" is one side.  The other side in one idea is "Ecology," and in the other is "Equality."  What I mean here is (1) in terms of Nature and her resources (Ecology vs Exploitation, then, would refer to conservation of natural resources, sustainable and renewable approaches, and respect for Nature, as against Exploitation of Nature and her resources without concern for conservation, sustainability, renewability, and so on), or (2) in terms of People (as either Equal or as some lording over others, dehumanizing them, and treating them as mere exploitable "resources").  I personally include People within the category of Nature;  we are as much a part of our Ecosystem as any other lifeform in it.  Therefore, I see "both" of these as one, the exploitation of "Nature/Natural Resources" would include the exploitation of people, and the recognition of ecological concerns would also involve the recognition of equality of persons.  There will be some who will get their panties in a bunch, or their knickers in a twist, over my choice of the word "equality," and will insist that we are not all equal, because some are more capable than others inherently, and not due to any unfair advantages of wealth or the like.  I will suggest that they are committing the Fallacy of Equivocation, and attempting to use the term "Equality" in a sense other than what I intend.  Of course each person has his or her own talents or "gifts," as well as inclinations or interests or predispositions, and thus some will be extremely proficient in a given thing while deficient in some other given thing, and people will be arranged in hierarchies due to experience, greater training, and so on, but I am speaking of social, cultural, and political equality, of being treated as Human Beings no matter what one's status in a profession or vocation may be, and no matter how much or how little wealth a person may have.


12. Idealism vs Pessimism
Idealism vs Pessimism is an axis which I think is best explained thusly:

"People who are too optimistic seem annoying. This is an unfortunate misinterpretation of what an optimist really is.

"An optimist is neither naive, nor blind to the facts, nor in denial of grim reality. An optimist believes in the optimal usage of all options available, no matter how limited. As such, an optimist always sees the big picture. How else to keep track of all that’s out there? An optimist is simply a proactive realist.

"An idealist focuses only on the best aspects of all things (sometimes in detriment to reality); an optimist strives to find an effective solution. A pessimist sees limited or no choices in dark times; an optimist makes choices.

"When bobbing for apples, an idealist endlessly reaches for the best apple, a pessimist settles for the first one within reach, while an optimist drains the barrel, fishes out all the apples and makes pie.

"Annoying? Yes. But, oh-so tasty!"

~ Vera Nazarian, The Perpetual Calendar of Inspiration(italics in original)

What we see here is that Idealism and Pessimism are the two extremes, while Optimism lies somewhere in between the two.


13. Ontology and Metaphysics
Ontology and Metaphysics are also branches of Philosophy which are intertwined.  An ontological perspective will result in a certain metaphysical tendency.  Attempting to formulate a metaphysic without first considering Ontology will result in a metaphysic based on assumed and unexamined ontological views, which, however, will usually become apparent as the metaphysic becomes more developed.  Ontology deals with Essence and existence, with Being and is-ness.  Metaphysics deals with Reality and actuality, questions of "One or Two or Three or Many," and what Plato called "Ideas" or "Forms," which later, Scholastic philosophers in the Mediaeval era would often refer to as "Universals," contrasted with "particulars."


14. Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity
Diversity vs Uniformity/Conformity has to do with one's place in society; namely, does one maintain diversity, or conform with society's predominant comportment?  This also has to do with society's perspective on any given member thereof;  namely, does society accept diversity, merely tolerate diversity, or attempt to impose uniformity?


15. Ethics
Ethics is the branch of Philosophy which seeks to apply the concept of Justice to individual conduct.  Ethics in the context of Philosophy as discipline is the systematic study of conduct with regard to the virtue of conduct on the individual level;  it is concerned with "internal justice," by which is meant conformity of the individual's will to an external standard of conduct (see link below for differentiation between Ethics and Scruples).  A variety of schools of thought exist within the field of Ethics:  Situationism, Intentionalism, Consequentialism, and Legalism represent the most well-known.
a. Legalism: affirms that acts in themselves are good or bad (or "evil").
b. Consequentialism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, but rather, that consequences of acts are good or bad. A well-known type of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism, which affirms that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the aim of an ethically praiseworthy person.
c. Intentionalism: affirms that acts are not good or bad in themselves, and that consequences ignore motivations and so cannot be relied upon to determine good or bad, but that the intentions or motivations in which an act is done, or the attitudes behind the acts, are good or bad.
d. Situationism: affirms that context must be taken into account when judging good or bad.

Legalism insists on Laws (both positive injunctions as in "Do this," and negative prohibitions as in "Do not do this") as the standard of conduct, and tends to dualism of "good vs evil." Consequentialism, Intentionalism, and Situationism advocate Principles, rather than Laws, as the standard of conduct, and are less likely to accept a dualistic perspective, instead seeing "good and bad," or "good and an absence of good," or perhaps "Order and Chaos."

All of these have flaws:

Legalism is famous in the flaw of the Catch-22 situation, where one is in a situation in which no matter what choice he/she makes, she/he violates the ethical laws by which he/she seeks to live.

Consequentialism is famous in the flaw of expressing the notion that "the end justifies the means" (and Utilitarianism would rationalize harm to a minority based on its aim being fulfilled for the majority).  I will repeat another well-known critique of Consequentialism in two parts, which may perhaps help to convey more of the imperfection of Consequentialism:
1. If person S pointed a pistol at person P and pulled the trigger with the intention of murder, but the shell were a "dud," the consequentialist would say that person S had done no wrong. This is patently absurd.
2. If person S saw person P drowning and jumped into the water intending to save person P's life, but both drowned, the consequentialist would say that person S had done wrong. This is also patently absurd.
Obviously, therefore, consequences alone cannot be used to judge the rightness of behavior.

Intentionalism is flawed in that one may have entirely heroic motivations and still fail to accomplish good.

Situationism's flaw is that it tends to relativism, with extremely vague principles which fail to provide sufficient guidance for conduct.

I propose a fifth division, which should probably be called something like an "Holistic Ethic," which would not completely disregard the act itself, but which would subordinate the act to the consequences, and which would in turn subordinate the consequences to the motivation/intention/attitude and the context taken together, and which would advocate Principles as the standard of conduct.  Some might be tempted, based on a similar impetus in Epistemology which yields an epistemological school of thought named "Pragmatism," to refer to this as a "Pragmatic Ethic."  However, "pragmatic" is not a word that many would be comfortable using in the context of Ethics, as the very word in itself suggests ethical relativism (indeed, "Pragmatic Ethics" is a term already in use in the field of Ethics, and its use in the field is to name a particular type of relativistic ethic). To think in ethical questions "What is practical?" is to disregard "What is ideal?" and this turns Ethics in the sense of a standard on its head, for Ethics is concerned with the concept of "oughtness." Ethics asks "What ought to be?" and "What ought I to do?"

For some additional considerations related to Ethics, see my earlier discussion "Ethics, Morals, Scruples, and Folkways," here.


16. Romance and Sexuality
Romance and Sexuality (and no, I'm not going to separate this into two distinct dimensions, at least not here) both deal with intimacy, Romance dealing with emotional intimacy and Sexuality dealing with physical intimacy.  Some overlap exists, at least occasionally and/or for some persons, but the two are not coterminous.  Attitudes toward, and beliefs about, these types of intimacy have an effect on the individual's perspectives which may influence his or her views on social, political, and economic questions.  For example, if someone believe that Homosexuality is somehow ethically wrong, aesthetically repellent, socially harmful, etc, then she or he may favor efforts to legislate against Homosexual acts, public display of same sex affection, the legal recognition of same sex marriages, and/or efforts to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, etc.  On the other hand, one whose beliefs include no ethical condemnation of Homosexuality, who recognizes same sex relations throughout nature, who understands that social harm often has more to do with ignorance and prejudice than any flaw inherent in those subjected to ignorant and prejudicial attitudes, etc, would tend to take the opposition positions on such legislative questions.  Attitudes and beliefs pertaining to these types of intimacy may also influence a person's views on the legality of divorce, or the conditions under which it may occur, or the legal question of "fault" in a divorce, and so on.


17. Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy)
Politics (Democracy vs Autocracy) is here concerned with who has a voice in making decisions.  I touched on this briefly in the previous post, but focused on Politics in two other dimensions, one pertaining to Centralization vs Decentralization, and the other pertaining to Statism vs Anti-Statism.  Here, however, I will address Politics in the sense of voice in decision-making.  Does one person dictate to the majority, or do all members of a society have an equal voice?  Those would be the extreme positions.  In between are various stages including Oligarchy and Polycracy.  Here too could be included the question of just how decisions are reached.  In the purest form of democracy, decisions would require either unanimity or consensus;  unanimity would mean that all members of a society have to agree, while consensus would be a general agreement among all.  In the latter case, the peril of mob rule or "tyranny of the majority" is a factor.  Polycracy (also called Polyarchy), which means rule by many, is a form of government in which all members of a society vote to elect representatives, who then vote on decisions on behalf of their constituents, but here again, the question of how those representatives vote arises.  Do they make up their own minds, do they consult their constituents before casting a vote, or do they employ some blend of the two methods?  Also in a Polycracy, the question of eligibility for the position of representative must be considered.  Are all members of the society eligible, or must they meet certain conditions in order to be eligible.  An example would be the original conception of a Senate, that is, a council of elders (Latin "senatus," which means "senate," derives from "senex," which means "old," just as Old Irish "senad," which means "senate," derives from "sen," which means "old," both derived from Proto-Italo-Celtic *sen-, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *sén-;  the concept of a council of "elders," therefore, is likely an ancient one, but is by no means restricted to Indo-European cultures;  also worth noting in this context, however, is the related word "senile," which might suggest that elder status ought not to be considered alone and apart from the concept of competence), who would presumably have to be the older folk in the society.  Oligarchy is rule by a few;  an example of this sort of polity would be an Aristocracy (a government by nobles, who generally inherit their position from a family member, although this is typically not a completely closed system in that non-nobles may be elevated to the position of nobility).  Again, the question of how these persons reach their decisions must be considered, as in Democracy or Polycracy.  Typically, however, an Oligarchy does not take much thought of what the members of society may desire, and thus is a "top-down" government, while Democracy is a "grassroots" government, and Polycracy tends to be likewise (at least in its beginnings).  Finally, Autocracy is rule by a single person, who makes all decisions for the entire society.


18. Religion and Sacred Tradition
Religion and Sacred Tradition may on the surface seem to be identical;  they are not.  "Religion" is purely religion, separated (allegedly) from its culture of origin, and typically imperialistic in the sense that its adherents seek to convert others.  A "Sacred Tradition" is culturally specific, and while it includes elements which would be considered "religious" by Sociologists, Cultural Anthropologists, and Philosophers, is itself inseparable from the wider culture and cannot be reduced to its "religious" aspects alone;  practioners of a Sacred Tradition do not typically seek to convert others, unless the culture itself be imperialistic in a wider sense (that is, if that culture be one which engages in other forms of imperialism, such as military and economic conquest, its Sacred Tradition will likely also be imposed on the conquered along with other aspects of culture such as language).  However, this is not the extent of this dimension;  it also reaches to Agnosticism and Atheism.  Both Religions and Sacred Traditions include both doctrines and ethical teachings.  Agnosticism and Atheism are not devoid of ethical concepts, contrary to the rhetoric of some ... religious imperialists.  Discussion of this particular dimension could go on indefinitely, and so I will cut it short here and say simply that one side of this dimension would include religions and sacred traditions, and the other side would include Atheism, with Agnosticism somewhere in between, and various shades of each, the extreme end of one being "Militant Atheism" or "Anti-Religious Atheism" and the extreme at the other end being "One True and Only Way Intolerant and Imperialistic Religion."


19. Mysticism
Mysticism is the belief that a deeper union is possible, and incorporates various techniques designed to facilitate such union.  The union in question may be monistic or dualistic, which is to say, it may be akin to the idea of a drop of water falling into the ocean and thereby becoming one with the ocean, or it may be more like the union of two individuals in a dance, a romance, and/or a sexual encounter, where the two may at times mingle, but yet remain separate.  The "object" (if you will) of the union may be the divine, nature, the universe, humanity, something more precise, or something more vague.  On this axis will also be the opposite perspective, which is a denial that such a deeper union is possible, and/or a lack of interest in such a state;  this may be due to non-belief, a materialistic metaphysic, ennui, Angst, and/or Weltschmerz, to name a few possibilities.  Mysticism can also extend into the dimension of Romance and Sexuality, as well as other dimensions.


(to be continued in a later post)





The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 12;  episode 12 overall;  production code 16.


Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 


Copyright notice

All original content in this blog is © Copyright 2013-2017 & an. seqq. by "Liviana" (Giovanna Laine). 

Ethics, Morals, Scruples, and Folkways

Ethics, Morals, Scruples, and Folkways,

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

Ethics, Morals, Scruples, and Folkways all concern behavior/conduct, and overlap to some extent, but they are not synonyms (I realize that common usage treats the terms "ethics" and "morals" as more or less synonymous, but I contend that they should not be seen as identical in meaning).  Adding to the complication involved in distinguishing between these words is the fact that the discipline of Philosophy uses the term "Ethics" to refer to that branch of the tree of Philosophy which deals with the science of conduct, under which header all four of these terms should be placed.  I believe this can be resolved by bearing in mind that the use in Philosophy to refer to "the science of conduct" is an example of technical jargon and should be considered an umbrella.  So, how do I distinguish these terms, apart from (or rather, under the umbrella of) the technical jargon?

An ethic, or an ethical system, is part of a worldview (be it cultural, philosophical, or religious) and essentially static (although subject to interpretation), thus basically unchanging apart from exegesis and application.  Regarding an ethic as more or less objective would not be wrong, although it would be, perhaps, imprecise.  To elaborate on this latter notion, I should say that the underlying concepts of an ethic do not themselves change, but the interpretation, and thus, the application, of an ethic may vary over time or due to sectarian differences of perspective;  in order to hold this understanding, I must disregard hyper-literalistic legalism, which, I would insist, is an aberration of ethical thought due to the innate irrationality of such a perspective which invariably leads to self-referential incoherence, doublethink, and cognitive dissonance.

A morality is societal, and malleable with respect to time and place, thus relative.  Morals change as the society ebbs and flows in its education, experience, technological changes, exposure to other societies, migration, environmental factors, and so on.  What is regarded as moral by a given society will change over time, and this change is more than mere reinterpretation and application;  the underlying concepts themselves change.  If a social group emigrates to another geographic location, the physical environment of their new home, as well as their new neighbors, may affect their morality over time.  With technological advances, new challenges arise and new understandings are born, which may alter the underlying moral concepts of the social group.  Again, the quality of education in a society fluctuates over time, and this too can change basic concepts of a society.

Scruples are individual viewpoints on conduct and behavior, which are usually influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the morals of the society in which the individual lives, and potentially also by the ethics of the various worldviews with which the individual may have come in contact.  Scruples will, for most individuals, change over time due to various influences and experiences, as well as continuing education.

Folkways are either cultural or societal, or both, and tend to be rather conservative, although reasons which were their source may be forgotten or lost over time;  while some folkways have an origin in an ethic or a morality, if the original ethical or moral basis be lost or forgotten, they become mere traditional custom and thus are worthy of the name "folkway" for those who (semi-consciously) practice them without understanding of the reason(s) for their existence.  An example of this is the practice of walking on one side or the other of a sidewalk/pavement or hallway.  Originally, chariot drivers would veer left when meeting, so that the right sides of the chariot boards were turned toward one another as they passed, and the same conduct was in play when mounted riders or people on foot met.  Many concepts are behind these applications (among which was the fact that most persons are right-handed and thus would want their dominant arm turned toward a potential challenger;  consequently, turning the left side toward someone became regarded as an intentional affront or attempt to provoke), but the basic underlying reason was the belief that moving counterclockwise (or tuathal/widdershins) was harmful.  When the American colonies rebelled against British rule, a number of customs and the like were intentionally changed (although by this time, the original bases of many of these customs was long forgotten by most), and one of those was the custom of driving on the left side of a road.  Americans intentionally began driving on the right side of the road in order to distinguish themselves from the British.  As a result of this change in driving wagons, carriages, carts, and so on, an American folkway is to walk on the right side of the sidewalk or hallway, whereas in Britain, the folkway continues to be walking on the left side of the pavement or hallway.  Originally based on a variety of related religious and ethical concepts which were part of a worldview, these practices have now become, for most, semi-conscious traditional custom.  When a member of one of these societies visits the other society and walks down the "wrong" side of the hallway or pavement/sidewalk, natives will feel uncomfortable, will regard the foreigner with some aversion, but some will not be entirely sure why they have these feelings, and even those who get the realization that the foreigner is walking on "the 'wrong' side," will still be extremely unlikely to question why that is "the 'wrong' side" or (in the case of Americans) how it came to be regarded as such (indeed, most will be unaware that it even became viewed as such, while instead subconsciously assuming that it has always been "the 'wrong' side").

In summary, then, an ethic is a static and more or less objective aspect of a worldview (cultural, philosophical, or religious), a morality is a relative aspect of a given society, scruples are individual and generally variable, and folkways are socio-cultural and relative but usually change only very slowly within a given society and/or culture.

ΜΕΓΑΛΗ·Η·ΠΑΛΛΑC·ΑΘΗΝΑ

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty? Part 4, or Republican Hypocrisy in the News

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty?

Part 4,

Or, "Republican Hypocrisy in the News,"

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

(Disclaimer:  The following is not my general style of composition, but I'm currently too sleep-deprived and far too annoyed by all of this shit to be polite about it.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/18/1413186/-Missouri-senators-resign-after-scandals-Republicans-propose-fix-modest-dress-code-for-interns?detail=email

Because, yes, blame the woman instead of admitting your own responsibility.  Doesn't James I:14 say "each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire"?
His.  Own.  Desire.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of men trying to control what women wear, let's start early and enforce a ridiculous dress code in high school, because girls shouldn't wear clothes that reveal their collarbones (!!!), lest the boys engage in sexual harassment ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/18/1413216/-Facebook-post-exposes-ridiculous-high-school-dress-code?detail=email
I cannot make this shit up.

Why not just go all the way and institute Christian Sharia Law so we'll have to wear burqas, lest we somehow manage to entice males, who are apparently pathetically weak when it comes to ethics and self-control?  Because it's our fault, right?  We females?  Well, not according to James, but hey! that's not a very convenient passage for those who want a scapegoat so they don't have to admit that they are responsible for their own wrongdoing.

After all, women shouldn't (couldn't possibly) be equal to men, should (could) we?  At least that's what some people believe:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413545/-U-S-Army-takes-Facebook-trolls-head-on-after-two-women-make-history

On the other hand, there are women like this, who embrace the Right Wing's nonsensical economic theories and have a past as "successful" CEOs ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/18/1413047/-Public-service-reminder-Carly-Fiorina-was-one-of-the-worst-CEOs-in-tech-industry-history?detail=email
or, you know, maybe not so successful after all.

Speaking of the military, ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413372/-The-Biggest-Scandal-in-US-History-That-We-re-Still-Not-Talking-About?detail=email
Remember this one.  It's important when considering all the Republican (and especially Neocon and Theocratic) opposition to spending money on anything but the military.

Oh, by the way, since we were talking about education, did you know that Moses was one of the Founding Fathers of the USA?
Texas public schools are leading the way in presenting that bit of "education," and there are plenty of other examples of Republican ideas of how to rename indoctrination as "education":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/11/1392299/-The-Republican-war-on-education

Oh, and let's discourage people who might be good teachers from even trying to become teachers by making their working conditions even shittier:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413565/-Gov-John-Kasich-If-I-were-king-in-America-I-would-abolish-all-teachers-lounges?detail=email

Let's talk more about education, shall we?  Specifically, sex education:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413445/--Sex-is-like-pre-chewed-chewing-gum-Is-that-what-you-want-to-present-to-your-husband?detail=email
Because, you know, it's perfectly acceptable to invent "facts" and spew religious views in a public school under the guise of "education."
And of course, you can't ask fair questions that might include answers which suggest the possibility of having positive feelings after having sex.  Because ... sex is bad?  Really?  Never gonna convince this Succuba of that, ya pompous and pseudo-pious jackasses, especially in light of the dossiers this Succuba has on your own interesting sexual escapades -- but we'll come back to that anon (but without the anonymity many of you hoped for).

Hey, I know!  Let's review the record on education of some of the glorious candidates for the Republican nomination for the office of President of the United States of America.  That will surely shut this "virago" Giovanna up.

John Kasich:
First budget as Governor of Ohio cut $250 million from Ohio colleges and universities.
Cut half a billion dollars from Ohio public schools.
Tried to strip teachers of collective bargaining rights.

Scott Walker:
Made massive funding cuts to the University of Wisconsin system.
Decreased per-pupil spending at one of the highest rates in the nation.
Actually stripped teachers of collective bargaining rights.

Jeb Bush:
Oversaw a nearly 60% tuition increase while cutting public university funding.
Left Florida's graduation rate dead last after two terms as Governor.
Had his prized education reforms suspended by the Florida legislature.

And the clear winner in Republican hatred of education?
Ted Cruz:
Promised to abolish the Federal Department of Education.

Hmm, that's only the tip of the iceberg, and I'm not encouraged to shut up by this, boys.
No, I think I'll just shake my little tush on the catwalk instead,
and continue with this dizzying array of writings on the wall, so that you can read clearly:
"M'nei m'nei t'qeil u-pharsin."

Speaking of Christian Sharia Law, ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/20/1413850/-Woman-claims-she-was-fired-from-KS-sec-of-state-office-for-not-attending-prayer-services?detail=email
Because people who don't attend prayer services or church don't deserve jobs, right?

And of course, some who do attend prayer services and church don't either, if they aren't attending the "right" sort of church and came from elsewhere in search of a better life where drug cartels don't murder people constantly, but should instead be made into slaves:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/20/1413938/-Crazy-Republican-wants-to-turn-immigrants-into-slaves-Forget-the-13th-Amendment?detail=email
Because, you know, Republicans are all about Murka fer Murkans!  And brown people should be slaves in the Republican utopia, regardless of what the Constitution says.  But don't the Republicans talk a lot about how they love the Constitution and want to "restore" it and such things?

Well, as it turns out, the 13th Amendment is not the only bit of the Constitution of which Republicans do not seem to be very fond ...
The Daily Kos (from which most of these stories come) has a reputation for being a "liberal" news source, but Forbes magazine is a bastion of the Right Wing, and guess what they revealed?
Go on, guess.
No?  Alright, I'll tell ya.  Donald Trump believes that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional and doesn't agree that a new amendment would be necessary to overturn it, because, of course, in his pea-sized brain, the Supreme Court can just declare the Constitution unconstitutional (to which I reply:  "... wat?"):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2015/08/19/trump-throws-constitution-and-14th-amendment-under-the-bus/

Oh, and it gets "better" (worse) ...
Didn't you know?  People who support Trump are so passionate about Murka that hate crimes are excusable:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/20/1413904/-Trump-on-supporters-who-beat-Hispanic-man-People-who-are-following-me-are-very-passionate?detail=email
and racist slogans are acceptable:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/22/1414429/-They-Yelled-White-Power-From-the-Stands-at-Donald-Trump-s-Alabama-Rally
and if you think that was just one guy, think again:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/24/1415069/-Meet-Donald-Trump-s-base?detail=email

I mean, damn.  This guy is one of the three FRONT RUNNERS in the current campaign for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America.

Maybe the Republicans realize how little support they actually have, though, and that's why they keep trying to redraw the voting regions ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/17/1412973/-Virginia-Democrats-punk-Republicans-saying-no-to-gerrymandered-maps-and-conservative-judges?detail=email

After all, with nonsense like this, they can't really hope to retain power much longer ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/18/1413068/-A-Texas-Conservative-Openly-Call-For-Violence-Against-LGBT-People?detail=email
Because, you know, killing people who are different from you is such a moral act ...
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, nor even the most outrageous or most blatant ...
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/24/395070728/calif-lawyer-proposes-ballot-initiative-to-kills-gays-and-lesbians
But who exactly is this lawyer?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/matt-gregory-mclaughlin-kill-all-gays-california
Apparently, information about him is somewhat scarce.

But perhaps instead of looking at those whom some would consider a lunatic "fringe" in the Religious Right, we should look at how some of the other, more "mainstream" and "sane," Republicans who are "guardians of morality and decency" are so adept at practicing what they preach ...
Remember my earlier reference to dossiers?  Well, it's that time.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/17/1412848/-Michigan-State-Rep-Todd-Courser-takes-to-Facebook-to-Jesus-splain-away-his-disgusting-actions?detail=email
That story right there is the most amazing one of the lot.
This guy, a Tea Party Republican and Michigan State Representative, who is married, who advocates for "family values," has an extramarital affair with another Tea Party Republican who is also an advocate of "family values."
So when he finds out that the story is about to break, what does this "brilliant" man do?
He arranges for someone to accuse him of having hired a male prostitute, because ...
Yeah, I got nothin'.  What the hell was that supposed to accomplish?

Oh, hey, look at this fine example of practicing what one preaches:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413635/-Bwahahaha-Josh-Duggar-had-an-Ashley-Madison-Account-or-Two?detail=email
And there's more!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/21/1414136/-Louisiana-GOP-head-says-he-used-Ashley-Madison-account-for-opposition-research

"Guardians of morality and decency" are often like this, though, so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised.  More relevantly, I'm not sure why anyone allowed themselves to be deceived by the rhetoric.

After all, there's quite a history of this sort of thing ...

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/prostitution_scandal_has_still_not_gotten_david_vitter_down/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/us/illinois-senate-campaign-thrown-into-prurient-turmoil.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-0406260116jun26-story.html

Notice the mention of Dennis Hastert in that last story?  Well, guess what? ...
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/gops_obscene_sex_cop_hypocrisy_dennis_hastert_hillary_clinton_and_the_absurdity_of_the_clinton_impeachment_partner/

But we're not done yet.

http://www.salon.com/2007/08/28/craig/

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/another-republican-revealed-as-sex-pervert-gop-fundraiser-and-husband-of-dancing-with-the-stars-contestant/686-another-republican-revealed-as-sex-pervert-gop-fundraiser-and-husband-of-dancing-with-the-stars-contestant

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/13/256969/-Country-Music-Star-files-for-Divorce-from-GOP-Sex-Fiend-Hubby

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/tennessee-republican-who-pressured-mistress-to-have-abortion-votes-to-restrict-them-for-other-women/

Oh, no, we're far from done.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/the_gops_demented_family_values_from_the_duggars_to_david_vitter_again_and_again_the_social_conservatives_have_horrifying_hypocrisy_problems/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/11/356373/-GOP-Family-Values-Hypocrites-The-Complete-List-Updated

Bernie has a few words for these fakes:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/bernie-sanders-republicans-family-values/


See, there are Republican politicians from the past that I think did some good and were decent people, and at least generally devoid of hypocrisy.  But blessed Diana of the Ephesians! the Republican politicians these days seem to be drawn from the local asylums, or are so clueless, corrupt, and/or hypocritical they shouldn't be trusted with any sort of authority.  Mind you, I'm not condemning them for their sexual escapades.  I'm condemning them for their efforts to legislate their morality while not even living by what they're trying to impose on the rest of us.

I mean, seriously, you have Mike Huckabee, who seemed to have a conscience back when he was a pastor in Pine Bluff and even challenged the judgmentalism of the then-still-growing and not-yet-dominant Fundamentalist wing of the Southern Baptist Convention by preaching a sermon based on the XIVth chapter of Romans to a group of (mostly ministerial) students in Berry Chapel on the campus of Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia in the Spring of 1985, but after attaining some fame, he was seen jamming on his Fox television show with Ted Nugent (who has songs about rape and sexual predation and sex with underage girls), and now regularly engages in fear- and hate-mongering, catering to the ignorance and prejudices of those from whom he seeks support in his bid for the Republican nomination for President by spewing the same sort of judgmental nonsense he himself condemned in that very sermon.
What?  You didn't think anyone knew about that, Mike?  How you handed the Fundamentalists their own asses for being such asses toward those with whom they disagreed?  Surely you remember the sermon?  Others certainly do.  You were right then;  the sermon was exactly what those students needed to hear, whether it sank in for all of them or not (it unfortunately did not, but anyway, at least you said what you should have said).  You're wrong now.  You may have been a good preacher, but you have made a lousy politician.  Maybe you should be still and listen for a while, to find if you have a vocation or not, and to what.

You have Ted Cruz, who is quite possibly the stupidest fucking person to ever draw breath and who frequently affects a pitiful facial expression in order to seem ... what?  Pious?  Worthy of sympathy?  I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to do with those eyebrows in that position, but it's definitely an affectation.  He's not intelligent enough to have read and understood Machiavelli, but yeah, he's up to something with that facial expression.

You have Scott Walker, whose "brilliant" economic theories as governor have fucked his state.

You have Donald Trump, who made the compassionate (not!) expression "You're fired!" into a television show, who expresses sexist and racist views, and who may be even more of a verbally obnoxious douchebag than Chris (Republican Governor of New Jersey and Presidential wannabe) Christie.

You have Ben Carson, who pisses and moans about use of fetal tissue in medical research, yet who did the very thing he's now condemning and even published an academic paper about it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/13/1411768/-Ben-Carson-Used-Foetal-Tissue-in-Research-and-Published-Paper-about-It?detail=email

You have Rand Paul, whose first name was given in honor of Ayn Rand, the "philosopher" who was so weighted down by emotional baggage over her family being persecuted in the USSR that she couldn't come up with a rational philosophy or take an honest look at the fact that the USSR was never remotely Communist, and so instead came up with the nonsensical, illogical, and, frankly, anti-Christian "Objectivism," which declares greed a virtue.

And yet, all these "Christians" (perhaps more accurately, pseudo-Christians) of the Protestant Fundamentalist variety are running around sucking up her idiocy because although of course they insist that the bible is the "inerrant word of God," they're nevertheless willing to completely fucking ignore three chapters out of Matthew (V-VII) because those chapters are where the biggest chunk of Jesus' ethical teaching is found, and that chunk of teaching is almost pure socialism by today's economic standards, and that good Mormon crybaby Glenn Beck told them that the social gospel is something invented by modern Leftists.  You know, the Mormon?  Most Protestant Fundamentalists view Mormonism as a cult, or at least they did until a few Mormons decided to become well-known Republicans and/or "Objectivists."
Oh, and that's the same chunk of Matthew where Jesus said that praying in public was a bad idea, too, but these same jackholes want to make laws to require public-led public prayer in public schools.  And of course, those aren't the only "inconvenient" passages in their "sacred" book that they ignore, but let's save that for another discussion.

I am totally at a loss as to how these people can in any seriousness consider themselves American OR Christian.

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty? Part 3

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty?

Part 3,

or, "Abusive ad Hominem in Partisan Politics,"

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

Earlier this afternoon, in an internet chat group which I founded, someone criticized something based on the source of the something.  To him I replied, "Even Hitler did one or two good things, [REDACTED NAME]."

After some preliminary reactions, I continued (the following has been expanded for this blog post, but most of these points were covered in my discussion):

Nobody here denies that he was a horrible, horrible person, and did all manner of wrong.  What I'm saying is that the source of the request shouldn't matter, if what they call for is a good thing.  Kinda like how when the Democrats do something the Republicans would have liked if a Republican had done it, if it's good, it's good, regardless of who did it.

Remember all the hell they gave Clinton over Bosnia?  But if Reagan or Bush the Elder or Bush the Lesser had been CiC at the time and got American troops involved, it would have been another great example of Murkans wavin' our dicks in ever'one's faces, because MURKA!

And look, they elected Mitt Romney to be their candidate for President last go around, and he's the guy who did Obamacare before it was 'Obamacare.'  And even though popular opinion is against them on the question of the Affordable Care Act, they continue making the untenable claim that 'most Americans' are opposed to it, and they continue to waste time trying to overturn it.

And that's not all!  If you order now, you also get the dying gasps of inequality, in which they claim that they would use the military to prevent women from exercising freedom of choice guaranteed by the Supreme Court, call for laws to enable citizens to shoot anyone they merely suspect of being Gay, and gerrymander voting districts in an effort to disenfranchise minority voters, while praising the fascist bully boys for shooting yet another unarmed kid who happened to be non-Caucasian.

And they'll also throw in a bonus of astoundingly anti-American theocratic rhetoric and posturing, in which they argue that they have a "right" to decide what individuals in their communities can and cannot do (in spite of the evidence that so-called "dry counties" do not prevent residents from purchasing alcohol elsewhere, and in spite of the evidence that the same situation actually promotes driving while intoxicated), attempt to legalize discrimination under the guise of "religious freedom," advocate (in direct violation of Jesus' teachings in Matthew VI, 1-6) for public-led prayer in public schools, and pretend that science is a lie from the devil, so that they can justify allowing the petroleum industry to continue destroying our lives, prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools, and continue to ignore the evidence which says, 'Yes, Virginia, Homosexuality and Transsexuality are no more matters of choice or alternative lifestyles than Intersex conditions are.'

And the list goes on, and on, and on.  I'm not sure if they actually believe the lies, irrational horseshit, and blatant insanity they're spouting or are merely engaging in showmanship in an effort to win more support from the ignorant and prejudiced, but that ship has sailed.

But they're still fighting FDR over Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, 80+ years later, all because FDR was a Democrat who did the things that their sorry asses would not do because they were too busy pimping the citizens out to the corporatists.

'AMG, Soshulizm!'  Yeah, so?  It saved your beloved Capitalism from dying the death it so richly deserved, after it attempted suicide in the 20s with all the voodoo economics, anti-labor policies, tax breaks for corporations, encouragement of bubble economies, opposition to any help for the workers, and so on.  The same shit, by the way, which the Republicans have been trying again ever since Reagan.  Verily, Santayana was right.

More to the point, the so-called 'socialism' which FDR brought to the table was the right thing to do for the people, whether he were Democrat or Republican.

But even causes which the Republicans embraced in the past have now been abandoned by the Republican Party, because Democrats got on board.  Teddy Roosevelt and Ike Eisenhower believed in protecting the environment.  Ike Eisenhower opposed racial inequality.  For Mike Huckabee to speak of using the military to prevent abortion is an insult to heroes of the nation like Ike.  I like Ike.  (Hell, I'm even somewhat fond of Barry Goldwater, Dick Nixon, and Gerry Ford.)  I loathe the Right Wingnuts, Would-be Theocrats, and Social Reactionaries, just as I loathe ignorance, prejudice, superstition, and irrationality.

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty? Part 2

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty?

Part 2,

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
FROM GIOVANNA

We want a choice, not between two options which are both right of center and more authoritarian than libertarian, but between two distinct options.  We want you to stand up straight and proud, and fight head on against the irrationality, the ignorance, the prejudice, the superstition, the Machiavellian false show of religiosity, the fear and hate mongering, the pimping of us out to corporate interests, the greed.  We need Logic instead of rhetoric.  We need people who will stand up for authentic American values instead of theocratic tyranny.

We need people with a conscience, people with intestinal fortitude, people with spines.  We need you to fight for the people, and not for the wealthy.  We need you to expose the crass hypocrisy, and not join in on it.  We don't care what your religious beliefs are;  the way to beat the nutjobs is not by going on the defensive with claims like "I'm a Christian, too," but rather with explanations of why the separation of church and state is a good thing, and why false piety is worthy of condemnation.  We need you to face the impetus for a return to the dark ages and defeat it.  We need you to stand up for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, women, people of color, the LGBTI community.

We need freedom, and not the promotion of ignorance.  We need education, not indoctrination.  We need you to stand up for veterans, and not for spending more on senseless imperialistic penis-waving militarism;  take care of those who have served, rather than wasting money on $640 toilet seats, $7,600 coffee makers, $436 hammers and other overpriced spare parts used by the military.

We don't want to see another second wasted on futile feel-good legislative efforts like attempts to make the burning of flags illegal.  We need more money for education, and less for law enforcement;  address the causes of crime first, and deal with the symptoms secondarily.  We need those who understand honor to serve as our police, not those whose first inclination is to pull out a pistol and empty it into a citizen.

We need you to tell Texas that Thomas Jefferson was a hero of the nation, and not someone who should be written out of our textbooks.  We need you to tell Texas and other states that a woman's right to choose should not be subverted.  We need you to tell Texas that truth is greater than fiction, that a scientific theory is not simply a baseless speculation.

We need you to fight for liberty, justice, and equality for all, including LGB and Trans and Intersex persons.  Do not assume that the American people are too stupid or unsophisticated to distinguish between a good argument and fallacy.  We need social liberalism and more left-leaning economic policies.  We need you to stop running away from names like "liberal" and "leftist," and instead wear them proudly, educating the people as to why these are not "evil" words, why knee-jerk reactions based on propaganda from the 20s and 50s and 80s with its simplistic bifurcation fallacy are anything but beneficial.

We need Democrats to be Democrats, and not scared little children trying to fit in with a gang of bullies.

This is why I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and hope that Power to the People (instead of useless bloated leeches who are still getting fatter and fatter on our lifeblood) can be realized.

Stand for the people, for our liberty, for our equality, for our justice.  Give us progress, not regress.

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty? (Part 1)

Dea Libertatis

A Sense of Perspective on Liberty?

Part 1,

by Liviana (Giovanna L.)

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015, Wolf Blitzer's "Situation Room" on CNN discussed the diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Among those he spoke with was freshman Republican Senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton.  In the course of the discussion, Wolf Blitzer asked Cotton about the RFRA bill in Arkansas, which occasioned the following comments from Cotton (source here):

I also think it's important that we have a sense of perspective about our priorities. In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay. They're currently imprisoning an American preacher for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in Iran. We should focus on the most important priorities our country faces right now. And I would say that a nuclear armed Iran, given the threat that it poses to the region and to our interests in the region and American citizens, is the most important thing that we'd be focused on.

More recently (3 April 2015),. The Wall Street Journal published comments (article by Reid J. Epstein) made by former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina (who is reportedly considering "a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination"), condemning Apple CEO Tim Cook as "hypocritical" for expressing his opposition to the RFRA bills in Indiana and Arkansas.  From the article:

CEOs like Apple Inc.’s Tim Cook, who publicly objected to the Indiana law, have engaged in “a level of hypocrisy here that really is unfortunate,” said Mrs. Fiorina, who was CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 to 2005.

“When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” she said Thursday afternoon during an interview with Wall Street Journal reporters and editors. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

In both of these comments we see the same idea expressed (and rather explicitly), namely, the idea that injustice in foreign lands is a more pressing concern than injustice in our own nation.  Both of the people making the statements have attempted to appeal to Protestant Fundamentalists and Protestant Evangelicals (who have unfortunately become more like Protestant Fundamentalists over the past few decades), and also to Catholic Credalists.  Evidence of Cotton's efforts to exploit the religious beliefs of others in order to gain political power for himself have been well documented.  See, for example, this piece at The Washington Post.  As for Fiorina, the same piece from the WSJ quoted above has this to say:

Mrs. Fiorina, who made her name as a glass-ceiling-busting corporate executive, is fashioning herself a social conservative as she prepares to enter the 2016 race. She is staunchly opposed to abortion rights and has sought to own the religious liberty issue in recent days.

The Bible which both purport to be defending contains a number of statements which would be uncomfortable for Cotton, Fiorina, and numerous other far right wing extremists, social reactionaries, and would-be theocrats.  One such passage (I Timothy V, 8) relates directly to claims that the American people ought to be more concerned with injustice in other countries than in America itself, that injustice in America is somehow irrelevant due to foreign injustice:

If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Ms. Fiorina, who is being hypocritical?  Someone like Tim Cook who publicly speaks out about injustice in his own backyard, or someone like you who ignores the teachings of the religion she supposedly wishes to defend?  Mr. Cotton, who is the one who espouses Christian faith only when it is convenient for, or beneficial to, him?  Someone like Mark Pryor who understands that the Bible is capable of diverse interpretations and recognizes that legislation intended to impose one such interpretation on all is not only un-Christian, but also un-American, or someone like you who imagines that he is worthy to judge the faith of others in direct defiance of Romans XIV, as well as Matthew VII, 1-5, and goes on to subvert his own nation's interests in favor of the interests of his political party, the interests of those who financed his campaign, and/or the promotion of war?

Do you not realize that presuming to condemn the injustice of others, while wallowing in one's own injustice, is exactly the subject of Jesus' words in Matthew VII, 1-5?  Do you not understand that Christianity teaches you to be humble enough to recognize your own faults and mind your own business, since, as Romans XIV states plainly:

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. ... Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God ... So each of us shall give account of himself to God.  Then let us no more pass judgment on one another ...

Indeed, to be so presumptuous as to go around the world meddling in the affairs of every other nation on Earth in the name of justice, and yet doing nothing to address injustice in America, is not only hubris, but blatant violation of the teachings of your own faith.  Hypocrisy?  Woe unto you, for yours shall be the greater damnation.

Liberty is not something an unfree people can export.  Until liberty, justice, and equality are extended to all in America, efforts undertaken in the name of America purporting to spread those values to others cannot succeed, for the seed of a corrupt plant cannot produce a perfect fruit, no matter what soil it is planted in.

Or at least these are the implications -- if not the explicit statements -- of the words of the Bible you both wish for others to believe that you follow.

(To be continued ...)

A Plea to the Governor of the State of Arkansas to Veto HB 1228

Governor Hutchinson, Please Vote for Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All

by Giovanna (SuccubaSuprema)

The following is the complete text of a communication which I sent to Governor Asa Hutchinson of the State of Arkansas, sine my full name at the end:

Governor Hutchinson,

I will thank you in advance for reading this missive in its entirety, in spite of its length, and giving it due consideration.

I am writing to you to ask you to veto HB 1228, the euphemistically named "AN ACT TO ENACT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT TO BE KNOWN AS MARY'S LAW; TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND TO PROVIDE REMEDIES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING OR ABUSING RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS; TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

Many reasons exist for opposing this legislation.  Economic reasons may actually be more of a motivation for some than ethical and Constitutional reasons, but religious reasons also exist.  These latter I intend to discuss here at some length.  I will also be employing the academic discipline of Logic in this discussion.  I urge you to read this communication in full and give due consideration to what I will here state.

To begin, regardless of claims to the contrary, this legislation will allow discrimination, primarily directed at the LGBTI community, already marginalized, disenfranchised, and downtrodden for a considerable amount of time, under the guise of "religious freedom" or "conscience."    Such a law flies in the face of the very principles of Americanism, which philosophy advocates liberty, justice, and equality for all, and which philosophy originated in part due to religious dissenters who left Europe with its various state established religious sects.  Indeed, the doctrine of the "separation of church and state" used to be regarded with great respect by the majority of Christian sects in America, because it protected them from government-imposed religious requirements, and allowed them the free exercise of their religion unmolested by government-established sectarianism.

Laws ought never to deprive citizens of freedom, but only increase personal liberty, while protecting the rights of other citizens simultaneously.  Legalization of discrimination fails completely in the latter consideration, and violates many Biblical teachings, such as Romans XIII, 10, which proclaims "Love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."  Again, I John IV, 20 states "If any one says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen."  Further, Matthew XXV, 31-46 records Jesus speaking at length about the manner in which people treat other people, saying such things as "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." Moreover, Romans XIV, in its entirety, tells the believer, in rather verbose style, to mind his or her own business, and describes those who are "offended" by the behavior of others as "weak in the faith."  In addition, Philippians II encourages many virtues, including love, affection, sympathy, and humility, while discouraging selfishness and conceit, and goes on to tell the believer to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Matthew VI, 1-19 has something to say about pretending to be something you are not in order to have the approval of society, which, I believe, has strong implications for the LGBTI community and how others view them;  to pretend to be heterosexual, to pretend to be cisgender, to pretend to be anything one actually is not, in order to win the favor of other humans, is hypocrisy.  Jesus may have condemned nothing more often than hypocrisy.  Regardless of the teachings of this or that sect, scientific and medical authorities have found more than sufficient evidence that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate, and not the result of social conditioning, peer pressure, the way in which one was raised, or any other such thing.  The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the British Psychological Society, and similar organizations in the civilized world have been rather plain on this.  The Intersex (that's the I in LGBTI) are undeniably as they are due to biology, and not because of alleged choice.  Trying to paint any of these situations as "choice" or "lifestyle" is irrational.  Claiming that one particular interpretation of the Bible trumps the scientific evidence amounts to nothing less than superstition and willful ignorance.  Arkansas has a long and undeserved reputation as a backwards state, filled with ignorant, superstitious, irrational, and bigoted citizens.  This (largely Yankee, but not exclusively so) bias toward our state is not true.  While this HB 1228 is evidence that the state of Arkansas still has citizens afflicted with such vices, not everyone in the state is so unfortunate.  For the state of Arkansas to favor the ignorant, superstitious, irrational, and bigoted interpretation of Biblical teaching would not only violate the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, it would also be a state action which I would view as substantially burdening my freedom to exercise my religion.  It would further demean and defame the reputation of Christianity.

(I will add parenthetically, as it is off the topic of this missive, but occasioned by my reference to Matthew VI, that Matthew VI, 1-6 ought to be indisputable evidence that Jesus would not be pleased with efforts to legislate public prayer in public schools -- at the least.)

The excuse of "religious freedom" or "religious liberty" has been used in the past in efforts to justify racism.  Those attempts were not motivated by religion or faith, but by fear and hatred.  The same is true of these RFRA laws, but in these instances, the fear and hatred is directed at a different kind of "other," namely, people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and/or Intersex.  Rhetoric which denies this is simply disingenuous or misguided.  The truth is rather transparent to many who are watching Arkansas and other states as they attempt to pass laws in order to excuse so-called religious persons who wish to vilify, abuse, or even kill other people.  If any "Christian" uses the Bible to harm another or to justify harm to another, then that "Christian" is misusing the Bible.  As noted above, "Love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."  The hate and fear emanating from supposedly righteous persons these days is nauseating.  It is not remotely Christian.  Legislation which claims otherwise would *itself* be a "state action which substantially burdens the exercise of religion" for me and many others.

With regard to Article 2, § 24, of the Arkansas Constitution, which asserts that "[N]o human authority can, in any case or manner 10 whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience” as some supposed justification for HB 1228, this claim ignores the ruling in the Supreme Court case "Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith," 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which decided that the First Amendment does not grant the right to violate the law on supposedly religious grounds, with Justice Scalia declaring "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting the conduct that the state is free to regulate."

One of the motivations for this legislation is a supposed Christian view of marriage as a sacrament, and opposition to the growing Marriage Equality movement.  On the contrary, the vast majority of Christian sects do not teach that marriage is a sacrament at all.  One of the largest sects in the state of Arkansas is the Southern Baptist denomination, which teaches that only two sacraments exist, one being baptism, and the other being "the Lord's supper" (the eucharistic meal).  Those Christian sects which do teach that marriage is a sacrament invariably refer to this sacrament as "Holy Matrimony."  While "Holy Matrimony," or what some might refer to as "sacramental marriage," is indeed a type of marriage, it is by no means the only type.  Assertions that "Christian marriage" is between one man and one woman overlook both Biblical history and the history of Christianity.  The practice of polygyny among the Old Testament patriarchs is well known.  In early mediaeval Ireland, Christian polygamy was legal under Brehon Law, based in part on the practice among the Old Testament patriarchs.  To assert, then, that the only form of marriage, or even the only "Christian" form of marriage, consists of a union between one man and one woman is not only dogmatic, but also inconsistent with the Bible itself and with the practices of Christians in the past.  I have proposed occasionally that all instances of Holy Matrimony are well within the category of Marriage, but that not all instances of Marriage are within the category of Holy Matrimony.  This can be easily demonstrated with a pair of Boolean circles.  To express this in the language of Predicate Logic, one would say "for any x, if x is Holy Matrimony, then x is Marriage, and, there is some x such that x is Marriage and x is not Holy Matrimony."  To deny this is to be ignorant of history, inconsistent with the Bible, and, frankly, out of touch with reality.  No matter how much someone may dislike the idea of same sex marriage, it does exist, and refusing to refer to it as "marriage" betrays ignorance of even sectarian teachings, since, as I have stated, few Christian sects teach that marriage is a sacrament, and those which do have a special name for marriage which in fact distinguishes this "sacramental marriage" from other types, that being "Holy Matrimony."

While I could continue to enlarge this communication with additional Biblical evidence, logical argumentation, historical facts, and the like, I believe that what I have here stated ought to suffice to demonstrate to you that HB 1228 is not Christian, nor American, nor just, and thus ought to be vetoed as licensing acts which are un-Christian, un-American, and unjust.

Sincerely,
[REDACTED]

I have no idea how the Governor of Arkansas will feel about this, nor if he will even read it, but I have done what I could to promote liberty, equality, and justice for all citizens of the State of Arkansas by composing and sending it.  Let us hope that Arkansas will not be on the wrong side of history again, as the state was when President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent a different type of discrimination.

Mephistopheles: A Possible Etymology

Mephistopheles:  A Possible Etymology

by Liviana (SuccubaSuprema)

I recall reading Faust when I was 13, in a delightful edition which had the original German on one page, and the English translation on the facing page.  Within a year, I had come across some source (I believe it was Richard Cavendish, 1967) claiming that the name "Mephistopheles" was derived from "Lucifuge Rofocale," which I thought dubious, even back then before I was a language geek.  Over the years since then, I've encountered assorted other claims for an etymology of the name, some of which were also dubious, while others had a semblance of greater credibility.  Suggested origins for the name have included Mefitz-tofel (K.J. Schröer, 1886), Mephitis ("Philologos," 2010), Megist-Ophiel (Julius Goebel, 1904), and others.  I must admit that I've not actively sought out these discussions, and have actually done very little investigation, because the origin of the name "Mephistopheles" has not been a fascination for me, and I would only encounter such discussions incidentally as I was researching other matters.

As might be supposed (by someone familiar with the folklore and legends of southern Europe) from the handle I use here ("SuccubaSuprema"), I do have an interest in the pre-Christian myths and legends of the Italic peoples concerning those beings who started off as woodland spirits, became spirits of the field, then night spirits, and finally dream spirits known as "Incubi" and "Succubae" (before the Church came along and perverted the legends into the idea that a "Succubus" was actually an Incubus in false female form, because, in the patriarchal view of the Church, of course no spiritual being could possibly be female ...).  These dream spirits naturally were said to be involved in the wholly natural phenomenon known as a "wet dream."  When the Church came along, this association was predictably seized upon as evidence that the spirits in question were "evil" and so on.  Having already distorted the original meaning of the Greek word "daimon" into a concept of "fallen angel," this Latinized term "daemon" was (also predictably) applied to the Incubus (and the very existence of a Succuba was denied, except insofar as an Incubus was, according to the Church, able to engage in deceptive illusion in order to appear female).  As such, when researching these folkloric beings, the student or scholar will encounter references to other beings alleged to be "demons" by the Christian religion.

As I have also made plain several times in the history of this blog, I am not only a language geek, but also a gamer.  I started playing RPGs in the late 70s, when the hardback rule books for the first edition of AD&D were still being published.  With the newer editions and expansions and so on, the mythical aspects of what is now D&D have been expanded, including the "Powers" (Gods, Demigods, Devils, Demons, etc) of the "Outer Planes."  Three or four years ago, I came across a mention of the "Succubus Queen" in D&D (who didn't exist when I started playing, or at least had not been named or implied by the literature available then), known as "Malcanthet."  I did a little research on this character then, and filed it away for future reference.

This afternoon, I was talking with a friend and referred to Shendilavri (the home of Malcanthet), and this occasioned my revisiting the information I had already collected about Malcanthet, as well as looking around to see what new information I might find on the internet.  In the process, I noticed that her current consort is named as "Mastiphal the Hunting Sovereign."  Many of the names found in what was once The Deities and Demigods Cyclopedia were based on (or taken directly) from actual real-world myths and legends, so I thought to see if this "Mastiphal" might have some such real-world origin.  After some digging around in search engines, I eventually came to a pdf file of the 1902 translation by R.H. Charles, D.D. (Professor of Biblical Greek at Trinity College, Dublin) of a text (generally regarded as apocryphal) known as "the Book of Jubilees" or "The Little Genesis," which, quoted by the 11th century Byzantine historian Georgios Kedrenos, was supposed to be the origin of the name "Mastiphal."  On searching the text of the work, however, I could find no instance of that name.  A less precise search provided the reason for the lack.  Somewhere along the way, someone had apparently mis-rendered the name as given in Syncellus and Kedrenos ("Mastipham" or "Mastiphat," and called "the archon of the demons") as "Mastiphal."  The Ethiopic text from which Doctor Charles made his translation gave the name as "Mastêmâ."  In his note 8 at page 80 of the text proper, Dr. Charles states:

Mastêmâ.  In the Latin version this name appears as Mastîma, and in the Midrashic Book of Noah as [Hebrew letters which read ShR HMShTMH, that is, Sar ha-Mastemah, or "Prince Mastemah" -- although more likely intended as "Prince/Ruler of Mastemah," since "Mastemah" as a name would be a feminine name].  Hence the form in which it appears in Syncellus and Cedrenus as [this next is my rendering into Latin characters of the Greek letters:  Mastipham, ho archOn tOn daimoniOn, meaning "Mastipham, the Archon of the Demigods" the latter word which most will incorrectly translate as "demons" -- which is probably what Dr. Charles understood it to mean, and almost certainly what Kedrenos intended], or Mastiphat is less accurate.  Outside the Jubilee literature, as Römsch has remarked (p. 418), this word is not found as a proper noun except in the Acts of Philip (ed. Tischend., p. 98):  [more Greek I'll render into Latin characters as:  ho de MansEmat, tout' estin ho Satanas, hypeisElthen eis ton Ananian kai eplEpOsen auton thymou kai orgEs, which means something like "the  Mansêmat, which is the Satan,  entered into Ananias and seized him with wrath and anger"].  As a common noun it is found twice in Hos. ix. 7, 8 in the sense of "enmity."  The word appears to be the hiphil of [Hebrew letters which are ShTM (= ShTN)], i.e. [Hebrew letters MShTIM], and is therefore the equivalent of [Greek letters ho Satanas] in point of meaning and derivation.

   [Boldface floral lavender notes inside square brackets are mine, including the transliterations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin letters, as well as the translations given from Hebrew and Greek into English. -- Giovanna]

While reading all of this, the idea of a connection with the name "Mephistophiles" did not occur to me until after I had sorted and made some sense of the Hebrew and Greek and began then to wonder how "Mastiphal" had come about from these references.  I looked more closely at the name and these references, and decided that the spelling "Mastiphal" was most likely a Latin scribal error for "Mastiphat," and suddenly the connection hit me.  "Mastiphal" might be confused with some kind of Greek shorthand by someone who knew no Hebrew and was reading Syncellus or Kedrenos in Latin.  From that, "Mastiphiles" could easily be chosen as the probable name intended, which would mean "friend of scourges" or "lover of scourges."  Transposition of letters being an intentional practice when dealing with alleged names of spirits has a long and not unfamiliar history, and so "Mastiphiles" could naturally become "Maphistiles."  From that name, the change to "Mephistophiles" is rather obvious.  Many variants of this name have shown up throughout history, including (but not limited to) Mephistopheles, Mephistophilus, Mephistophilis, Mephostopheles, Mephisto, and Mephastophilis.

If the Muse has breathed in me as a result of these (admittedly somewhat cursory) investigations, then the mysterious "Mephistopheles" would have his name from "Mastiphiles" ("lover of scourges"), which in turn was derived by erroneous reading of "Mastiphat," itself an inaccurate rendering of "Mastêmâ," Hebrew for "enmity" or "hatred" and considered to be another name for ha-Shaitan, "the Adversary," originally viewed in Iyov (the book of "Job") as the Hebrew God's Prosecuting Attorney.

Copyright 2014 by Giovanna (SuccubaSuprema).  All Rights Reserved.