Ever since my arrest in 2005 people have been telling me that my thinking sounds a lot like existentialism. I usually just dismiss such observations because I know that my "thinking" is based primarily on my own first hand observances, not on anything I heard someplace, or read about in some book. What little I know about philosophy has given me a strong distaste for it. So calling me an existentialist seems just silly to me.
Recently though, the Education department on this prison set up a study program for the death row prisoners (SCU) called "A.C.E." (Adult Continuing Education) that allows us to have a DVD player in our cells so we can view education videos. Most of the videos that they have available for us are high-school and middle-school documentaries that aren't very interesting. But mixed in with those are a few college level lecture based coursed that I've found to be enjoyable.
After completing a six part biology course, that consisted of 72 lectures all together, I decided to do a two part lecture course (24 lectures total) on existentialism called "No Excuses" by professor Robert C Solomon (business and philosophy at the University of Texas at the time he did these lectures, but according to Wikipedia he is deceased now, having died of a heart failure while travelling). The education department provides only the DVD's and none of the texts meant to accompany these courses. Fortunately, because the material is a bit dated, I've been able to ask a friend to buy the main texts very inexpensively on Amazon.com (see "Books" "No Excuses" for a list of the books I read in accompany with this course). This has brought the educational value of these video courses up to a good level for me. In fact, while studying these materials in my cell I can easily forget where I am (and why) for hours at a time as I slip into the intellectual realms of intent concentration that I developed over years in various state colleges, both in and out of prison. This focused state of mind is my "comfort zone" or "happy place" that I've often found more relaxing than deep meditation. The fact that I am actually aquiring a useful education in the process is, and has always been, a mere added benefit. And in the case of this "No Excuses" course on existentialism, I also get the added benefit of finally understanding why people tell me that I think like an existentialist, so I can disagree more informatively.
Professor Solomon structures his lectures around the existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre. He spends most of the lectures discussing Sartre's predecessors and contemporary philosophers that contributed to, or otherwise helped shape (or at least influence), Sartre's thinking. But, the entire last six lectures of Solomon's course focus exclusively on Sartre, with clear emphasis on Sartre's ideas about freedom (free will) and individual responsibility; hence the title of the lecture series, "No Excuses".
But, when I read the same writings by Sartre that Solomon cites and discusses I come away with a slightly, but fundamentally different understanding of what Sartre is trying to say.
According to Solomon, Sartre emphasizes INDIVIDUAL responsibility. But, for me, Sartre emphasizes something else. He points to individual responsibility, but then emphasizes the SOCIAL aspects of that responsibility not the INDIVIDUAL aspect.
For example, in Sartre's well known lecture, "Existentialism is a Humanism", he says plainly, "... the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders". Solomon uses such statements to assert a kind of individual blame for what we do. But, if you continue Sartre's thought (i.e. the very next sentence in the same lecture) we find a critical qualification, "... when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men." The qualification is critical because it says that we are not INDIVIDUALLY responsible, but we are SOCIALLY responsible. If we follow Sartre's thinking through, then we find that his philosophy does not give us an excuse to blame others for what they do, but instead it only tells us that we are all responsible, entirely responsible, for what all men do!
This idea is so alien to our conditioned way of thinking, especially in the West, that it doesn't surprize me that such a preeminent contemporary expert on existentialism such as professor Solomon. would fail to see the significance of Sartre's carefully worded qualification for what is meant by "responsibility". Sartre himself never asserts that we have "no excuse" for our behavior (or thoughts for that matter). Instead he is merely pointing out that we have the freedom (a term that philosophers use to mean "free will") to CHOOSE, regardless of our excuses. Sartre's emphasis, according to what I have read myself of his works, is on freedom, not responsibility; especially not responsibility in the sense of "blame" that Solomon seems to take from Sartre's philosophy.
If I were a professor myself then I would put a lot more effort into supporting, defending, and clarifying this interpretation of Sartre's meaning. But, it is this very type of quibbling over language that I feel gets in the way of real understanding in the first place. If Solomon spent more time thinking for himself, instead of studying other people's thoughts, then maybe he would have seen what Sartre was trying to say in the first place.
(J.D. 9-15-2014)
Sunday, November 30, 2014
The Religion of Justice
Despite numerous studies and official investigations there is no evidence that capital punishment deters crime. This, by definition, makes "belief" in the death penalty an article of faith, not reason. It is just one part of the complex belief system we call criminal justice, which itself is a part of the more general religion of Justice.
Because the major religions of the past have fallen out of power, due primarily to their frankly antiquated belief systems, it is a common error today for people to fail to recognize the modern religious constructs that have stepped in in their place as political powerhouses.
Religion has always been first and foremost a means of political control over a large population. Today, as throughout history, wars are fought over resources, but justified through religious doctrine. Only today we don't recognize these doctrines for what they are: fabricated belief systems that are defended by legal decree (i.e. law); a.k.a. religion.
There are many (far too many to deny, through many people still deny it in attempts to defend their outdated beliefs) examples throughout history of religious authorities, (a.k.a. lawmakers, or "pharisees" as they were once called) attempting to defend their belief systems, which they saw as critical to the functioning of society itself, by outlawing and punishing anyone who offered evidence against or otherwise contradicted their articles of faith. It is easy to recognize these travesties of deceit against the truth that were propagated by the very people that society looked to in general to defend the truth. The same practice not only continues today, but does so rampantly under the same guise it has long used... "the best interest of the people."
There are too many examples of this to even begin to tell. The real problem is that, like all religions, the "belief system" that is being so defended by contemporary politics is based upon a complex of erroneous fundamental beliefs that are consistent with the "best evidence" available. That doesn't make them reasonable though. The "best evidence" one thousand years ago supported the fundamental belief that the earth was the center of the universe. And thus, the modern continued belief that humans are the "dominant" species on this planet is equally and erroneously believed by those who would defend the system of beliefs that extend outward from such a premise, such as the belief that humans must invoke order and justice through law.
But, there are some blaring examples of this practice of defending religious beliefs against new evidence that even the lawmakers themselves must admit (to themselves at least, or so one would hope) is done contrary to the truth in defense of the so-called "common good" (a justification for deception that Jesus himself warned against when he confronted the pharisees of his day). One such example is the Rind, et al. study.
Professor Rind, and a collection of highly reputed and respected colleagues, did a meta analysis of a dozen or so official studies on the long term effects of "adult-child sexual relations". The collection of studies they choose all met the most rigorous of academic and scientific standards (they were later criticized for not adhering to strict scientific standards, but these critics were later proven to be the ones in error, not the studies). Rind and his colleagues checked and double checked, even quadruple checked their sources and their results before they published the results of their analysis in a highly reputed scientific journal. They knew that their results were highly controversial, but they were scientists, and evidence was evidence as far as they were concerned.
The study showed with a high degree of statistical significance (i.e. "proved" in layman's terms) that there were no long term harmful effects of adult-child sexual relations on the child involved in the relationship. And by "no harmful effects" they were talking about negative psychological impact, i.e. emotional, intellectual, etc... And, as I've already suggested, they did not come to this conclusion based on circumstantial or incomplete evidence. The study accounted for numerous factors, using the best known control group and statistical techniques. (In other words, they did not base their conclusion on just one study or even one type of study. The Rind et al. study was a "meta study", which means it compiled and confirmed it's observations over several overlapping studies that could account for almost any anomalous findings.)
The result of their published study was predictable. It raised a maelstrom of heated controversy. The Rind study was attacked from all possible directions and for all possible reasons. It directly threatened one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice beliefs; that children are emotionally and psychologically vulnerable to sexual predators and must be protected at all cost (even if that means taking a man - or woman - away from their family and locking him in prison for 20 or more years, just because he uploaded pictures of naked children on the Internet). But the evidence that the study presented was solid and conclusive; children are not as vulnerable as we thought, and "sexual abuse" does not cause the harm we believe it does. And that's where the lawmakers stepped in.
Several states passed legislation, as a direct response to the Rind study, that decreed by law that adult-child sexual relations are abusive and harmful to the child. Then the Federal government jumped in and passed similar laws, and furthermore restricted any Federal funding of future research into such matters (i.e. the National Science Foundation funds and others, which pretty much shut down any further research by anyone on adult-child sexual relations).
And there you have it. Our so-called "Justice System" is no more than a system of beliefs that are defended by law, not available evidence. The Rind study and the death penalty studies are just two explicit and prominent examples of this fact. We live in a society that still centers around systems of legally defended false beliefs... a society of Baal-worshipers , in every sense. How tragic is that?
(J.D. 11-13-2014)
Because the major religions of the past have fallen out of power, due primarily to their frankly antiquated belief systems, it is a common error today for people to fail to recognize the modern religious constructs that have stepped in in their place as political powerhouses.
Religion has always been first and foremost a means of political control over a large population. Today, as throughout history, wars are fought over resources, but justified through religious doctrine. Only today we don't recognize these doctrines for what they are: fabricated belief systems that are defended by legal decree (i.e. law); a.k.a. religion.
There are many (far too many to deny, through many people still deny it in attempts to defend their outdated beliefs) examples throughout history of religious authorities, (a.k.a. lawmakers, or "pharisees" as they were once called) attempting to defend their belief systems, which they saw as critical to the functioning of society itself, by outlawing and punishing anyone who offered evidence against or otherwise contradicted their articles of faith. It is easy to recognize these travesties of deceit against the truth that were propagated by the very people that society looked to in general to defend the truth. The same practice not only continues today, but does so rampantly under the same guise it has long used... "the best interest of the people."
There are too many examples of this to even begin to tell. The real problem is that, like all religions, the "belief system" that is being so defended by contemporary politics is based upon a complex of erroneous fundamental beliefs that are consistent with the "best evidence" available. That doesn't make them reasonable though. The "best evidence" one thousand years ago supported the fundamental belief that the earth was the center of the universe. And thus, the modern continued belief that humans are the "dominant" species on this planet is equally and erroneously believed by those who would defend the system of beliefs that extend outward from such a premise, such as the belief that humans must invoke order and justice through law.
But, there are some blaring examples of this practice of defending religious beliefs against new evidence that even the lawmakers themselves must admit (to themselves at least, or so one would hope) is done contrary to the truth in defense of the so-called "common good" (a justification for deception that Jesus himself warned against when he confronted the pharisees of his day). One such example is the Rind, et al. study.
Professor Rind, and a collection of highly reputed and respected colleagues, did a meta analysis of a dozen or so official studies on the long term effects of "adult-child sexual relations". The collection of studies they choose all met the most rigorous of academic and scientific standards (they were later criticized for not adhering to strict scientific standards, but these critics were later proven to be the ones in error, not the studies). Rind and his colleagues checked and double checked, even quadruple checked their sources and their results before they published the results of their analysis in a highly reputed scientific journal. They knew that their results were highly controversial, but they were scientists, and evidence was evidence as far as they were concerned.
The study showed with a high degree of statistical significance (i.e. "proved" in layman's terms) that there were no long term harmful effects of adult-child sexual relations on the child involved in the relationship. And by "no harmful effects" they were talking about negative psychological impact, i.e. emotional, intellectual, etc... And, as I've already suggested, they did not come to this conclusion based on circumstantial or incomplete evidence. The study accounted for numerous factors, using the best known control group and statistical techniques. (In other words, they did not base their conclusion on just one study or even one type of study. The Rind et al. study was a "meta study", which means it compiled and confirmed it's observations over several overlapping studies that could account for almost any anomalous findings.)
The result of their published study was predictable. It raised a maelstrom of heated controversy. The Rind study was attacked from all possible directions and for all possible reasons. It directly threatened one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice beliefs; that children are emotionally and psychologically vulnerable to sexual predators and must be protected at all cost (even if that means taking a man - or woman - away from their family and locking him in prison for 20 or more years, just because he uploaded pictures of naked children on the Internet). But the evidence that the study presented was solid and conclusive; children are not as vulnerable as we thought, and "sexual abuse" does not cause the harm we believe it does. And that's where the lawmakers stepped in.
Several states passed legislation, as a direct response to the Rind study, that decreed by law that adult-child sexual relations are abusive and harmful to the child. Then the Federal government jumped in and passed similar laws, and furthermore restricted any Federal funding of future research into such matters (i.e. the National Science Foundation funds and others, which pretty much shut down any further research by anyone on adult-child sexual relations).
And there you have it. Our so-called "Justice System" is no more than a system of beliefs that are defended by law, not available evidence. The Rind study and the death penalty studies are just two explicit and prominent examples of this fact. We live in a society that still centers around systems of legally defended false beliefs... a society of Baal-worshipers , in every sense. How tragic is that?
(J.D. 11-13-2014)
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
The Meaning of Privacy
Privacy is a concept that I have often pondered. Why do people demand it? What's so important about it? Why can't we live happily without it? Isn't privacy just a polite word for secrecy? If so, then isn't it devious, and ultimately harmful? Well, I think I've finally come up with a way to think about our "need" for privacy in a way that could answer all these questions and more.
Ultimately, our desire for "privacy" is really a desire to not be judged by other people. When you look at it that way then our "need" for it starts to make sense. It is revealed as a pathological desire after all, for we only fear being judged when we have something to hide. That is, we only fear our loss of privacy when we have judged something about ourselves that we do not want others to judge likewise.
But, if we do not judge, then we have no desire for privacy. So, a world without judgement, i.e. a better more natural world, would have no hidden secrets, and no need for privacy.
Think about it.
(J.D. 10-24-2014)
Ultimately, our desire for "privacy" is really a desire to not be judged by other people. When you look at it that way then our "need" for it starts to make sense. It is revealed as a pathological desire after all, for we only fear being judged when we have something to hide. That is, we only fear our loss of privacy when we have judged something about ourselves that we do not want others to judge likewise.
But, if we do not judge, then we have no desire for privacy. So, a world without judgement, i.e. a better more natural world, would have no hidden secrets, and no need for privacy.
Think about it.
(J.D. 10-24-2014)
Sunday, October 19, 2014
The Convict Code and Nietzsche
It's four a.m. and I just finished watching the eleventh lecture of "No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life" by professor Robert Solomon. I like to watch these DVD lectures and read the accompanying materials I have to go with them early in the morning when it is mostly quiet (the noise on death row during the day is perpetual and extremely distracting, so I count myself lucky that I can sleep through it easily - but studying, or even thinking seriously with all that noise - mostly prisoners yelling at each other through the doors - is next to impossible). The title of this lecture was Nietzsche, the "Immoralist", and it reminded me a lot of something we "old school" convicts used to say about the so-called "convict code" of honor.
It seems the Nazis loved Nietzsche and adopted his philosophy - though mostly re-interpreted to match their own ideology - as their own. And with the way Nietzsche defines his "master" and "slave" moralities it isn't any wonder. According to Nietzsche, the Hebrew slaves in Egypt developed a kind of anti-morality specifically opposed to the morality of their "masters" out of jealousy and spite. So positive things like power and wealth became negative, even "evil", according to this "slave morality" that he describes in his book, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.
But, the more interesting thing about what Nietzsche describes is the "master morality". The "masters" were the aristocrats and rulers who, as a result of their leisurely existence, could focus much of their energy on becoming a more "perfected" person. This was the morality. It was a balance of virtue, power, education, beauty, etc. that they strove for. All this according to a set of principles, not "good" and "evil", which Nietzsche attributes to the "slaves morality" as a way for the slaves to judge and condemn their master's pursuit of perfection out of jealousy and resentment.
What Nietzsche describes is exactly what the "old school" convicts refer to as the "real" convict code. We'd say it's not a bunch of rules, like "don't be a rat", or "don't let anyone punk you out". A "real" convict was not a "rat" on principle, not because it was "against the convict code". In other words, he was a "convict" and convicts don't rat, period. There is no "reason" a convict is not a rat, no "code" or "rule" that requires he not be a rat. To a convict, a rat is a rat is a rat (a phrase that was often repeated). The basic idea of the difference between a convict and a rat is about principles, not the fact that the "rat" broke a rule, or told on someone. In fact, a person could (and commonly was) considered a rat, even if they factually never told on anyone, but WOULD tell on someone if put in a position to do so.
The amazing thing, for me, is to learn now that this "old school" convict code is exactly what Nietzsche describes as "master morality". He even points out that while the master morality has been overshadowed by the slave morality in our world (which the Nazis obviously took to mean the "Jew morality" that "infests" the modern world) it has managed to survive in a sublimated form. I'm certain he would have recognized the "convict code", as I understood it, to be one of those forms of master morality.
But, I've since come to realize myself that the "convict code" that I once prided myself so highly for understanding and respecting in myself (which, like Nietzsche's master morality, is the only place it can be genuinely respected) is as much a false morality as any other (such as the slave morality of "good" and "evil"). I no longer insist that I am a "convict", not merely because I "can't" (as a convicted child rapist/murderer, for example) but for the same reason no German would dare call themselves a Nazi, not even in private (though for sure some still might, but none who have realized the ignorance of the "master race" ideology). I no longer see myself as a superior in any way to other people (a requisit of the master morality and implication of the convict code ), not even those who still so ignorantly insist that they are superior to me, i.e. the "slave moralists". (Remember here that I only call them "ignorant" as a matter of plain fact, not judgementally, and see myself as plainly ignorant as well in many ways; so I condemn "them" not, lest I be condemned!)
(J.D. July 22, 2014)
It seems the Nazis loved Nietzsche and adopted his philosophy - though mostly re-interpreted to match their own ideology - as their own. And with the way Nietzsche defines his "master" and "slave" moralities it isn't any wonder. According to Nietzsche, the Hebrew slaves in Egypt developed a kind of anti-morality specifically opposed to the morality of their "masters" out of jealousy and spite. So positive things like power and wealth became negative, even "evil", according to this "slave morality" that he describes in his book, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL.
But, the more interesting thing about what Nietzsche describes is the "master morality". The "masters" were the aristocrats and rulers who, as a result of their leisurely existence, could focus much of their energy on becoming a more "perfected" person. This was the morality. It was a balance of virtue, power, education, beauty, etc. that they strove for. All this according to a set of principles, not "good" and "evil", which Nietzsche attributes to the "slaves morality" as a way for the slaves to judge and condemn their master's pursuit of perfection out of jealousy and resentment.
What Nietzsche describes is exactly what the "old school" convicts refer to as the "real" convict code. We'd say it's not a bunch of rules, like "don't be a rat", or "don't let anyone punk you out". A "real" convict was not a "rat" on principle, not because it was "against the convict code". In other words, he was a "convict" and convicts don't rat, period. There is no "reason" a convict is not a rat, no "code" or "rule" that requires he not be a rat. To a convict, a rat is a rat is a rat (a phrase that was often repeated). The basic idea of the difference between a convict and a rat is about principles, not the fact that the "rat" broke a rule, or told on someone. In fact, a person could (and commonly was) considered a rat, even if they factually never told on anyone, but WOULD tell on someone if put in a position to do so.
The amazing thing, for me, is to learn now that this "old school" convict code is exactly what Nietzsche describes as "master morality". He even points out that while the master morality has been overshadowed by the slave morality in our world (which the Nazis obviously took to mean the "Jew morality" that "infests" the modern world) it has managed to survive in a sublimated form. I'm certain he would have recognized the "convict code", as I understood it, to be one of those forms of master morality.
But, I've since come to realize myself that the "convict code" that I once prided myself so highly for understanding and respecting in myself (which, like Nietzsche's master morality, is the only place it can be genuinely respected) is as much a false morality as any other (such as the slave morality of "good" and "evil"). I no longer insist that I am a "convict", not merely because I "can't" (as a convicted child rapist/murderer, for example) but for the same reason no German would dare call themselves a Nazi, not even in private (though for sure some still might, but none who have realized the ignorance of the "master race" ideology). I no longer see myself as a superior in any way to other people (a requisit of the master morality and implication of the convict code ), not even those who still so ignorantly insist that they are superior to me, i.e. the "slave moralists". (Remember here that I only call them "ignorant" as a matter of plain fact, not judgementally, and see myself as plainly ignorant as well in many ways; so I condemn "them" not, lest I be condemned!)
(J.D. July 22, 2014)
What's So Bad About Death?
The following is the opening paragraph for an article I found in the September 25, 2014 London Review of Books. It expresses my view of death more concisely than I have yet been able to myself. While it does not express the profound implications of what it says, implications that usually end up clouding my own attempts to say the same thing, it does very precisely say something I have been trying to say for a long time.
"What's really so bad about death? Unlike heartbreak, debt, public speaking or whatever else we may be afraid of, our own death isn't something we experience. "Death", Epicurus said, "is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist." Death is not an event in life. It isn't, properly speaking, something that happens to us. It is, rather, the nullification of the self as experiencing subject. How can then death be a bad thing for the person who dies? What is there to be afraid of?"
The implied answer to that last question is, of course, "nothing"! Which is why the entire idea of a "death penalty" seems so silly to me. This paragraph (above) should make it very clear to anyone who cares to understand the reason I prefer to think of my so-called "execution" as my "release day". And I truly look forward to that day with all the excitement and anticipation as any release day in the conventional sense. Regardless of anything else that it may or may not be, it will be the end of this nightmare I call my life.
(J.D. 9-28-2014)
P.S. One should not mistake the joyful anticipation of my "release day" as a desire to die. No one can escape from life (i.e. by killing themselves for example). We must be "released" in one way or another, from our purpose for being here. I know I have a purpose if for no reason other than the fact that I have not been "released" yet. Attempting to "escape" life not only results in one's purpose being carried over into another life, or another "nightmare" as I would say. This is the principle of reincarnation, and it is a simple fact of life that is plain for anyone with an open heart and a clear mind to see.
(Note: the concept of reincarnation was central to the original Christian scriptures, but explicitly removed after the Romanization of Christianity, presumably because it undermined the rational of church and state authority. For this same reason even the Eastern traditional version of reincarnation has been perverted to imply some sort of continued individual existence, which infers then that social order must be imposed and inforced. Of course, any independently thinking person will realize sooner or later that order cannot be imposed, and all attempts to do so invariably result in more imbalance and chaos. Thus, those who would impose their idea of order onto others rely on the irrational fear of death - which the belief in some kind of continued individual existence naturally invokes - in order to promote their "authority". It was this very "insanity" that the fear of death invokes that I broke free of when I threw down the rock I had meant to kill Shasta with, and took her home instead.)
P.P.S. The above "note" is a pretty good example of how I frequently end up clouding my own words with "relevant implications". I just feel so often that the implications are at least as important, if not more important, than the point itself. If I were a better writer I'd be able to integrate the implications into the point itself, like "coloring it in", instead of adding all these cumbersom and destractingly detached sub-texts. At least I'm still learning!
"What's really so bad about death? Unlike heartbreak, debt, public speaking or whatever else we may be afraid of, our own death isn't something we experience. "Death", Epicurus said, "is nothing to us, since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist." Death is not an event in life. It isn't, properly speaking, something that happens to us. It is, rather, the nullification of the self as experiencing subject. How can then death be a bad thing for the person who dies? What is there to be afraid of?"
The implied answer to that last question is, of course, "nothing"! Which is why the entire idea of a "death penalty" seems so silly to me. This paragraph (above) should make it very clear to anyone who cares to understand the reason I prefer to think of my so-called "execution" as my "release day". And I truly look forward to that day with all the excitement and anticipation as any release day in the conventional sense. Regardless of anything else that it may or may not be, it will be the end of this nightmare I call my life.
(J.D. 9-28-2014)
P.S. One should not mistake the joyful anticipation of my "release day" as a desire to die. No one can escape from life (i.e. by killing themselves for example). We must be "released" in one way or another, from our purpose for being here. I know I have a purpose if for no reason other than the fact that I have not been "released" yet. Attempting to "escape" life not only results in one's purpose being carried over into another life, or another "nightmare" as I would say. This is the principle of reincarnation, and it is a simple fact of life that is plain for anyone with an open heart and a clear mind to see.
(Note: the concept of reincarnation was central to the original Christian scriptures, but explicitly removed after the Romanization of Christianity, presumably because it undermined the rational of church and state authority. For this same reason even the Eastern traditional version of reincarnation has been perverted to imply some sort of continued individual existence, which infers then that social order must be imposed and inforced. Of course, any independently thinking person will realize sooner or later that order cannot be imposed, and all attempts to do so invariably result in more imbalance and chaos. Thus, those who would impose their idea of order onto others rely on the irrational fear of death - which the belief in some kind of continued individual existence naturally invokes - in order to promote their "authority". It was this very "insanity" that the fear of death invokes that I broke free of when I threw down the rock I had meant to kill Shasta with, and took her home instead.)
P.P.S. The above "note" is a pretty good example of how I frequently end up clouding my own words with "relevant implications". I just feel so often that the implications are at least as important, if not more important, than the point itself. If I were a better writer I'd be able to integrate the implications into the point itself, like "coloring it in", instead of adding all these cumbersom and destractingly detached sub-texts. At least I'm still learning!
The Rise of Tentacle Sex
In Tokyo, Japan, Anthony Bourdain interviewed the creator and illustrator of a widely popular from explicit cartoon art called manga (sp?). According to Bourdain, all you need to do is type, "tentacle sex" into any Web search engine and you'll realize how prevalent this "art form" has become all over the world. But, it originated in Tokyo, and this man, the illustrator being interviewed by Bourdain for his popular series, "Parts Unknown", is the one who created it.
Bourdain asked him, "Why?"
The answer, according to the illustrator, is simple. Drawing a penis was against the law (i.e. censored for mass market comic books), so he drew tentacles instead, "as a way to get around the law", he says proudly.
He drew tentacled aliens violating boys and girls in ways that completely redefines the term "hardcore pornography". And because he never drew penises, it was perfectly legal, and even acceptable. The tentacle became a new, more powerful, more stimulating, and more arousing tool of personal violation.
And so, the so-called order imposed by human law once more results in a more perverse form of sexual expression. Go figure.
(J.D. 9-29-2014)
P.S. I wish I could tell you the effect that pornography restriction has in prison, but I wouldn't want to get anyone in trouble. Let's just say that tentacle sex would be a compromise well suited in here. So let's clamp down even harder (as the system always does) and see what happens. Maybe, just maybe, if we clamp down hard enough, we can stop men (prisoners, or anyone) from thinking about sex.
Yeah, right.
Bourdain asked him, "Why?"
The answer, according to the illustrator, is simple. Drawing a penis was against the law (i.e. censored for mass market comic books), so he drew tentacles instead, "as a way to get around the law", he says proudly.
He drew tentacled aliens violating boys and girls in ways that completely redefines the term "hardcore pornography". And because he never drew penises, it was perfectly legal, and even acceptable. The tentacle became a new, more powerful, more stimulating, and more arousing tool of personal violation.
And so, the so-called order imposed by human law once more results in a more perverse form of sexual expression. Go figure.
(J.D. 9-29-2014)
P.S. I wish I could tell you the effect that pornography restriction has in prison, but I wouldn't want to get anyone in trouble. Let's just say that tentacle sex would be a compromise well suited in here. So let's clamp down even harder (as the system always does) and see what happens. Maybe, just maybe, if we clamp down hard enough, we can stop men (prisoners, or anyone) from thinking about sex.
Yeah, right.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Masks of Insanity
The generally accepted definition of a psychopath is a person who is incapable of experiencing deep emotions. Or, in more traditional terms, a person with no soul. And the way we identify these "witches" today has fundamentally changed very little since the days when men burned such people at the stake. One of the most tried and true methods of the witch hunt was the trial by double standard. Today we use this same method, though due to the nuances of modern culture it tends to be a little less physical than the torture confessional, but no less impossible for the accused to prove their innocence over the insanity.
Modern witch hunters - excuse me, I mean psychologists - identify psychopaths by their ability to "fake" deep emotion. They even claim that many psychopaths can be more convincing than a genuine person at convincing other people that they have deep feelings, of love or remorse for example. But, how do these psychologists know that the psychopath is "faking" if they can fake better than the real thing? The truth is they don't know; they can't know. And that leaves the so-called psychopath in the same catch-twenty-two as a witch on trial. Just as the accused witch is considered more guilty if she refuses to confess, because only a powerful witch could possibly withstand the torture with her magic, the so-called psychopath is considered even more cold and heartless if he breaks down crying in court, because only a truly soul-less person could fake such emotion.
As an accused psychopath myself I know from first hand experience what I am saying. The few times that I have dared to show any emotion at all in court, the newspapers didn't hesitate to "unbiasedly" report comments from "witnesses" who said I was "obviously seeking sympathy" and "wasn't fooling anyone".
This is why I, like many accused psychopaths and witches alike, usually opt to remain stone-faced and "emotionless" in court. Showing my emotions (that are very real to me) only causes me more pain as they are rejected and turned against me by those who accuse me of being inhuman. The real insanity of it all is that my crimes themselves were the acts of a man who was given no other means of expressing his very deeply felt pain and suffering. It was only when I realized that my pain WAS KNOWN IN ITSELF that I no longer felt compelled to inflict my feelings onto others (i.e. seek justice) and hence ended my "rampage against society" (the faceless entity that kidnapped and raped me as a child myself - by sending me to prison for something I did not, could not, understand). And now, as I stand convicted of our societies worst kind of blasphemy against "innocent angels", and having admitted my own insanity, and confessed my own innocence (and hence responsibility) I am to be publically sacrificed to the false gods of justice, just as the man of legend once was, and still is, for all time. And thus the insanity of the fifth nail is exposed.
(J.D. August 25, 2014)
Modern witch hunters - excuse me, I mean psychologists - identify psychopaths by their ability to "fake" deep emotion. They even claim that many psychopaths can be more convincing than a genuine person at convincing other people that they have deep feelings, of love or remorse for example. But, how do these psychologists know that the psychopath is "faking" if they can fake better than the real thing? The truth is they don't know; they can't know. And that leaves the so-called psychopath in the same catch-twenty-two as a witch on trial. Just as the accused witch is considered more guilty if she refuses to confess, because only a powerful witch could possibly withstand the torture with her magic, the so-called psychopath is considered even more cold and heartless if he breaks down crying in court, because only a truly soul-less person could fake such emotion.
As an accused psychopath myself I know from first hand experience what I am saying. The few times that I have dared to show any emotion at all in court, the newspapers didn't hesitate to "unbiasedly" report comments from "witnesses" who said I was "obviously seeking sympathy" and "wasn't fooling anyone".
This is why I, like many accused psychopaths and witches alike, usually opt to remain stone-faced and "emotionless" in court. Showing my emotions (that are very real to me) only causes me more pain as they are rejected and turned against me by those who accuse me of being inhuman. The real insanity of it all is that my crimes themselves were the acts of a man who was given no other means of expressing his very deeply felt pain and suffering. It was only when I realized that my pain WAS KNOWN IN ITSELF that I no longer felt compelled to inflict my feelings onto others (i.e. seek justice) and hence ended my "rampage against society" (the faceless entity that kidnapped and raped me as a child myself - by sending me to prison for something I did not, could not, understand). And now, as I stand convicted of our societies worst kind of blasphemy against "innocent angels", and having admitted my own insanity, and confessed my own innocence (and hence responsibility) I am to be publically sacrificed to the false gods of justice, just as the man of legend once was, and still is, for all time. And thus the insanity of the fifth nail is exposed.
(J.D. August 25, 2014)
Friday, September 19, 2014
The Nature of Infinite Cause
The nature of infinite cause is not the same as finite cause. Infinite cause is manifest as the will and consciousness of all that exist. While finite cause is no more than an illusion that has no substance or meaning beyond the bubble of consciousness that it forms. This is self evident when considered carefully. It is a cartesian truth, i.e. a truth derived directly from Descartes "cogito ergo sum", though one must be sure to correctly interpret Descartes meaning as "I am cognizant, therefor I exist", and not the commonly misunderstood "I think therefor I am".
(J.D. July 14. 2014)
(J.D. July 14. 2014)
Here's A Crazy Idea
Normally I resist the urge to make specific suggestions about ways to reduce criminal behavior (especially sex crimes) because I don't feel it is my place to do so. My goal, amongst many, is merely to provide the information and hopefully insight necessary to allow society to develope effective solutions for itself. But sometimes a solution seems so obvious that I feel I must provide more than just a hint, and detail my thinking even knowing I will likely be ignored. I must at least offer.
I have said before that the "message" that gets "sent" by our criminal justice system, aimed at discouraging would be criminals, is seldom if ever the same "message" that is "heard". I point out that my crimes were intended to "send a message" as well. But as it turns out in both cases, the message received is nearly opposite of the one sent. Ask yourself, did you feel punished and ashamed for having been a part of a society that sent a sixteen year old boy to prison to be raped and terrorized for 20 years because he had forced another boy to have sex with him? Well, that's what I wanted you to feel, that was the "message" I wanted to send. And if you didn't get my message, what do you think the chances are that I got the message that society sent me before I even got out of prison, when it executed Westly Allen Dodd, for raping and murdering boys? Did I feel punished and ashamed for the thoughts I had about having sex with children? Did I "think twice" about my own plans to punish society for what it had done? Well? Did my crimes make you "think twice" about punishing sex offenders? Of course not. If you're like most "law fearing citizens" my crimes only made you want to punish sex offenders even more... to "scream" the "message" even louder!
The result of this "shouting match" between criminals and the criminal justice system should be obvious. But it's not, because nobody is listening to anything but their own screams. In the meantime crime statistics are manipulated by the very people doing all the shouting in order to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of their "messages" (i.e. penal laws). And if statistics have ever been used to deceive people then crime statistics are it. The truth is that when new "tough on crime" laws are passed there is a very predictable and consistent pattern of response in crime rates for the area of crime the law targets. The rates drop for a short period, which the press and advocates of the law proclaim loudly as evidence of the law's effectiveness. But, what they always fail to observe, and often take measures to cover-up in the name of protecting the integrity of the law (i.e. their "authority"), is the just as inevitable fact that as long as the cause of the crime is not addressed the crime rates rebound like they were bounced on a rubber sheet and usually don't resettle (statistically) until they've reached some higher rate than before the law was passed. Sometimes this effect is dramatic and obvious, such as with the prohibition of hard alcohol in the 1920's. Other times it is just as obvious but less dramatic (i.e. especially with the advent of political publicity experts) such as with the so-called "war on drugs". And even when it is not so dramatic, but just as certain, such as with all the sex-crime crackdown laws that have resulted in so much "deviant" sex in America that the only response possible was to start removing the laws that caused the increase, so that most behavior that was once considered criminally deviant, such as homosexuality, sodomy and public sex, is now considered legal and even "normal". The super self-righteous Christian right are the first to confirm this tendency (i.e. by claiming that if we legalize homosexuality that pedophilia will soon follow) though always the last to admit their responsibility for it (i.e. by pushing for more and tougher penal laws that consistently ignore the root causes of the behavior they target).
There are so many "critical links" in this problem that allow it to continue that it's amazing that it does continue. And yet it does. So to point out how easy it is to fix (assuming you can somehow get society in general to take responsibility for the problem) I'd like to make the following suggestion: Educate people, about this pattern of rebounding crime rates, instead of allowing politicians and law agencies to cover it up. I realize that is a lot easier said than done, but if it could be done then I'm certain all sorts of ideas will present themselves, offering the possibility of real solutions to the problem of crime.
Here's one idea that would become apparent as soon as people knew the truth: stop persecuting criminals and start "helping" them instead. Numerous (most) European countries take this approach to crime, and they do it because, despite some persistent public ignorance, studied show that it works. And if studies aren't enough to convince you then a quick glance at the statistics might help (i.e. The US incarcerates ten times more per capital than any other country on average, and has five times the crime rates than most (1)... and that's just for starters). Of course I'm not suggesting we help criminals commit crime (as some ignorant people are bound to "hear" me say). I'm only saying we should stop making criminals the "enemy" and start treating them like the "citizens" that they are!
Let me give you a couple of concrete examples, one in general and in fact, the second one personal and in truth.
Crime rates in New York city are today lower than they've been in a long time. The reason for this reduction in crime is well documented even if under reported (at least outside of New York - I found out about it after subscribing to the New York Times for one year a couple of years ago). The crime rates have dropped not because of tougher laws or more police. They've dropped because of campaigns aimed at increasing residential pride, and individual respect, even for the "dregs" of the city, instead of condemning and punishing people. Neighborhoods were cleaned up, painted, repairs were made, lights installed, artwork commissioned and advertisements taken out that promoted positive behavior rather than condemning negative behavior. The result was remarkable and nearly instantaneous. Even the police were amazed and brought on board (hesitantly I might add).
And now for a personal example, one you'll just have to look in your own heart to find the truth in. If I had known that I could get "help" for my "sickness" instead of condemnation and punishment, I would have turned myself in long before I hurt anyone. And I know first hand that nearly all men (and women) like me feel the same way. In fact, it was the condemnation and punishment - especially the social rejection that it implied - that pushed me further and further into the perverse dark corners of the insanity that infected me. And if it weren't for the incredible power of love and acceptance that I experienced from my last intended victim, Shasta, I would never have been able to mount the wall of fear and resentment that had been built systematically with penal laws and persecutorial social campaigns. It took more "courage" than anyone will ever know for me to bring Shasta home and allow myself to be "caught". But, as I have often pointed out since, the courage didn't come from me, it came through her, through Shasta (2). My hope has been ever since that someday society in general might find some similar source of courage to stop hating, fearing, and condemning it's own people, itself, and start trusting in love and forgiveness to heal the insanity that infects us all (3).
(J.D. July 26. 2014)
Notes: (1) I am citing these figures from memory, and I'm certain to be mistaken one way or the other. But, the point is just as valid either way. If you'd like to see the actual figures for yourself then look them up online, they shouldn't be hard to find, or check out a book like THE CELLING OF AMERICA.
(2) Shasta "gave me" the courage I needed.
(3) This is not meant figuratively or romantically. It is a simple statement of a very real and practical solution to a very real and insane problem. By "love" I mean open hearted acceptance and recognition that we all share the world together (in that sense, if no other, we are the same), and by "forgiveness" I do not mean the hypocritical Christian variety (that implies guilt even as it supposes forgiveness) but true forgiveness that accepts the truth of what has happened (i.e. ignorant and hence harmful behavior, a.k.a. crime) without condoning it or condemning it. I like to say that true forgiveness isn't something you do; it's something you DON'T do, i.e. judge and condemn. And such forgiveness restores sanity by removing the premise of insanity itself - the crazy idea that we can pass judgement on another person or even ourselves without knowing what God knows (or pretending to know what God wants).
(By God here I am only referring to the idea of infinite knowledge and wisdom; you can call it whatever you like, and for the purpose of this argument it doesn't even matter if such a thing exists; only that no one has the "authority" to judge anyone else unless they are infinitely wise and knowledgeable)
I have said before that the "message" that gets "sent" by our criminal justice system, aimed at discouraging would be criminals, is seldom if ever the same "message" that is "heard". I point out that my crimes were intended to "send a message" as well. But as it turns out in both cases, the message received is nearly opposite of the one sent. Ask yourself, did you feel punished and ashamed for having been a part of a society that sent a sixteen year old boy to prison to be raped and terrorized for 20 years because he had forced another boy to have sex with him? Well, that's what I wanted you to feel, that was the "message" I wanted to send. And if you didn't get my message, what do you think the chances are that I got the message that society sent me before I even got out of prison, when it executed Westly Allen Dodd, for raping and murdering boys? Did I feel punished and ashamed for the thoughts I had about having sex with children? Did I "think twice" about my own plans to punish society for what it had done? Well? Did my crimes make you "think twice" about punishing sex offenders? Of course not. If you're like most "law fearing citizens" my crimes only made you want to punish sex offenders even more... to "scream" the "message" even louder!
The result of this "shouting match" between criminals and the criminal justice system should be obvious. But it's not, because nobody is listening to anything but their own screams. In the meantime crime statistics are manipulated by the very people doing all the shouting in order to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of their "messages" (i.e. penal laws). And if statistics have ever been used to deceive people then crime statistics are it. The truth is that when new "tough on crime" laws are passed there is a very predictable and consistent pattern of response in crime rates for the area of crime the law targets. The rates drop for a short period, which the press and advocates of the law proclaim loudly as evidence of the law's effectiveness. But, what they always fail to observe, and often take measures to cover-up in the name of protecting the integrity of the law (i.e. their "authority"), is the just as inevitable fact that as long as the cause of the crime is not addressed the crime rates rebound like they were bounced on a rubber sheet and usually don't resettle (statistically) until they've reached some higher rate than before the law was passed. Sometimes this effect is dramatic and obvious, such as with the prohibition of hard alcohol in the 1920's. Other times it is just as obvious but less dramatic (i.e. especially with the advent of political publicity experts) such as with the so-called "war on drugs". And even when it is not so dramatic, but just as certain, such as with all the sex-crime crackdown laws that have resulted in so much "deviant" sex in America that the only response possible was to start removing the laws that caused the increase, so that most behavior that was once considered criminally deviant, such as homosexuality, sodomy and public sex, is now considered legal and even "normal". The super self-righteous Christian right are the first to confirm this tendency (i.e. by claiming that if we legalize homosexuality that pedophilia will soon follow) though always the last to admit their responsibility for it (i.e. by pushing for more and tougher penal laws that consistently ignore the root causes of the behavior they target).
There are so many "critical links" in this problem that allow it to continue that it's amazing that it does continue. And yet it does. So to point out how easy it is to fix (assuming you can somehow get society in general to take responsibility for the problem) I'd like to make the following suggestion: Educate people, about this pattern of rebounding crime rates, instead of allowing politicians and law agencies to cover it up. I realize that is a lot easier said than done, but if it could be done then I'm certain all sorts of ideas will present themselves, offering the possibility of real solutions to the problem of crime.
Here's one idea that would become apparent as soon as people knew the truth: stop persecuting criminals and start "helping" them instead. Numerous (most) European countries take this approach to crime, and they do it because, despite some persistent public ignorance, studied show that it works. And if studies aren't enough to convince you then a quick glance at the statistics might help (i.e. The US incarcerates ten times more per capital than any other country on average, and has five times the crime rates than most (1)... and that's just for starters). Of course I'm not suggesting we help criminals commit crime (as some ignorant people are bound to "hear" me say). I'm only saying we should stop making criminals the "enemy" and start treating them like the "citizens" that they are!
Let me give you a couple of concrete examples, one in general and in fact, the second one personal and in truth.
Crime rates in New York city are today lower than they've been in a long time. The reason for this reduction in crime is well documented even if under reported (at least outside of New York - I found out about it after subscribing to the New York Times for one year a couple of years ago). The crime rates have dropped not because of tougher laws or more police. They've dropped because of campaigns aimed at increasing residential pride, and individual respect, even for the "dregs" of the city, instead of condemning and punishing people. Neighborhoods were cleaned up, painted, repairs were made, lights installed, artwork commissioned and advertisements taken out that promoted positive behavior rather than condemning negative behavior. The result was remarkable and nearly instantaneous. Even the police were amazed and brought on board (hesitantly I might add).
And now for a personal example, one you'll just have to look in your own heart to find the truth in. If I had known that I could get "help" for my "sickness" instead of condemnation and punishment, I would have turned myself in long before I hurt anyone. And I know first hand that nearly all men (and women) like me feel the same way. In fact, it was the condemnation and punishment - especially the social rejection that it implied - that pushed me further and further into the perverse dark corners of the insanity that infected me. And if it weren't for the incredible power of love and acceptance that I experienced from my last intended victim, Shasta, I would never have been able to mount the wall of fear and resentment that had been built systematically with penal laws and persecutorial social campaigns. It took more "courage" than anyone will ever know for me to bring Shasta home and allow myself to be "caught". But, as I have often pointed out since, the courage didn't come from me, it came through her, through Shasta (2). My hope has been ever since that someday society in general might find some similar source of courage to stop hating, fearing, and condemning it's own people, itself, and start trusting in love and forgiveness to heal the insanity that infects us all (3).
(J.D. July 26. 2014)
Notes: (1) I am citing these figures from memory, and I'm certain to be mistaken one way or the other. But, the point is just as valid either way. If you'd like to see the actual figures for yourself then look them up online, they shouldn't be hard to find, or check out a book like THE CELLING OF AMERICA.
(2) Shasta "gave me" the courage I needed.
(3) This is not meant figuratively or romantically. It is a simple statement of a very real and practical solution to a very real and insane problem. By "love" I mean open hearted acceptance and recognition that we all share the world together (in that sense, if no other, we are the same), and by "forgiveness" I do not mean the hypocritical Christian variety (that implies guilt even as it supposes forgiveness) but true forgiveness that accepts the truth of what has happened (i.e. ignorant and hence harmful behavior, a.k.a. crime) without condoning it or condemning it. I like to say that true forgiveness isn't something you do; it's something you DON'T do, i.e. judge and condemn. And such forgiveness restores sanity by removing the premise of insanity itself - the crazy idea that we can pass judgement on another person or even ourselves without knowing what God knows (or pretending to know what God wants).
(By God here I am only referring to the idea of infinite knowledge and wisdom; you can call it whatever you like, and for the purpose of this argument it doesn't even matter if such a thing exists; only that no one has the "authority" to judge anyone else unless they are infinitely wise and knowledgeable)
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Squandered Choice
We are all responsible for what we do, but not by choice. The only "choice" we have is whether or not to be aware of our responsibility, and even that is more of a gift than a choice (though it certainly appears as more of a choice from the limited "individual" perspective). It is a gift that we are all born with; that is, all living things are fundamentally aware of their responsibility for what they do. But, in our present world, we humans systematically compel our children to squander this gift, usually in the name of some intellectual idea or another.
By responsibility I mean that everything we do has infinite consequence. It is only in this context that responsibility has any meaning at all. So-called "individual responsibility" is, by this definition, an oxymoronic contradiction of terms. You cannot be individually responsible when everything you do has infinite consequence for every living thing, not just you. Furthermore, everything you do is a consequence of what every living thing has ever done in the past. (I use the term "living things" for convenience only, and it does not matter in this case what I actually mean by "living" - I simply mean everything and anything capable of experiencing the illusion of choice, and it also does not matter how you define choice here either) Modern scientists refer to this as the butterfly effect, and it is a mathematically proven concept. But, few people realize the direct implication, that the "choice" to blink, or not blink, not only could have major consequences for everyone on the planet, but inevitably WILL have major consequences!
Most people who come to this realization run from it in fear. Because the next logical leap appears to go over a very dangerous cliff: If every choice, good or bad, has major consequences that are completely unrelated to the nature of said choice, then it ultimately can't matter what we do. In order to refute this "chaotic" view of destiny, most people resort to a system of adamant denial, usually in the form of some religious belief or another.
But, the abyss of chaos is only an illusion to begin with, created by our belief in a separate existence from the Universe. And inventing some god of order only ends up reinforcing the illusion of chaos; or as the Buddha says, "There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it."
The correct solution then is to surrender the illusion of individual responsibility and accept the universal responsibility that nature has endowed us all with. It is a responsibility that defies reason, and transcends life itself, making a mockery of death. Choice is seen as the illusion it is, and chaos no longer challenges order, but becomes one with it. Riddles for sure, but only for someone who still fears the abyss, and hence has not yet stepped into it with both eyes open.
(J.D. 7-1-2014)
By responsibility I mean that everything we do has infinite consequence. It is only in this context that responsibility has any meaning at all. So-called "individual responsibility" is, by this definition, an oxymoronic contradiction of terms. You cannot be individually responsible when everything you do has infinite consequence for every living thing, not just you. Furthermore, everything you do is a consequence of what every living thing has ever done in the past. (I use the term "living things" for convenience only, and it does not matter in this case what I actually mean by "living" - I simply mean everything and anything capable of experiencing the illusion of choice, and it also does not matter how you define choice here either) Modern scientists refer to this as the butterfly effect, and it is a mathematically proven concept. But, few people realize the direct implication, that the "choice" to blink, or not blink, not only could have major consequences for everyone on the planet, but inevitably WILL have major consequences!
Most people who come to this realization run from it in fear. Because the next logical leap appears to go over a very dangerous cliff: If every choice, good or bad, has major consequences that are completely unrelated to the nature of said choice, then it ultimately can't matter what we do. In order to refute this "chaotic" view of destiny, most people resort to a system of adamant denial, usually in the form of some religious belief or another.
But, the abyss of chaos is only an illusion to begin with, created by our belief in a separate existence from the Universe. And inventing some god of order only ends up reinforcing the illusion of chaos; or as the Buddha says, "There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it."
The correct solution then is to surrender the illusion of individual responsibility and accept the universal responsibility that nature has endowed us all with. It is a responsibility that defies reason, and transcends life itself, making a mockery of death. Choice is seen as the illusion it is, and chaos no longer challenges order, but becomes one with it. Riddles for sure, but only for someone who still fears the abyss, and hence has not yet stepped into it with both eyes open.
(J.D. 7-1-2014)
The Wisdom of Shit
I recently asked a friend of mine to check out an organization on the Internet for me called the "Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy". My friend laughed at my request because he thought it was a joke (the organization AND my request). After I assured him I was no joking he asked me, with a bit of chuckle remaining in his voice out of respect I suppose, why I would want to know anything about such an obviously "BS" organization. I told him, yes, it was obviously BS, but it was a real organization too, and as such I hoped to find some useful information about the nature of the "beast" (i.e. deception based organization) that shat such shit.
I realized after reflecting on this conversation that it is part of my own nature to question what I don't understand, even when the object of my confusion stinks to high heaven, as in this case (metaphorically speaking of course). Small children normally have no qualms about investigating a pile of dog poop in the grass. For some reason, that I do not rue, this kind of curiosity has never left me (thanks no doubt to my "psychopathic" nature). I still believe, and believe strongly, that the best evidence for understanding something, from organisms to organizations is the content (and hence "smell") of the shit that comes out of it. This is actually an established scientific technique that doctors and scientists have relied upon for hundreds of years. In fact, recent studies indicate that nature herself has been relying on it all along. Dogs for example identify all sorts of critical information about another animal simply by smelling its shit.
So, it shouldn't surprize my friend (and later in that same conversation he admitted that it didn't surprize him after he thought about it) that I would ask for information about an organization that in my opinion "stinks". I am simply concuring with Brian, the dog from the hit adult cartoon "Family Guy", when he once said, "Everything I need to know about a person I can gleen from (sniffing) their assholes."
(J.D. 6-19-2014)
I realized after reflecting on this conversation that it is part of my own nature to question what I don't understand, even when the object of my confusion stinks to high heaven, as in this case (metaphorically speaking of course). Small children normally have no qualms about investigating a pile of dog poop in the grass. For some reason, that I do not rue, this kind of curiosity has never left me (thanks no doubt to my "psychopathic" nature). I still believe, and believe strongly, that the best evidence for understanding something, from organisms to organizations is the content (and hence "smell") of the shit that comes out of it. This is actually an established scientific technique that doctors and scientists have relied upon for hundreds of years. In fact, recent studies indicate that nature herself has been relying on it all along. Dogs for example identify all sorts of critical information about another animal simply by smelling its shit.
So, it shouldn't surprize my friend (and later in that same conversation he admitted that it didn't surprize him after he thought about it) that I would ask for information about an organization that in my opinion "stinks". I am simply concuring with Brian, the dog from the hit adult cartoon "Family Guy", when he once said, "Everything I need to know about a person I can gleen from (sniffing) their assholes."
(J.D. 6-19-2014)
The Mother of Reality
If it weren't for certain forces of nature that we usually call "evil", merely because from our perspective they cause us to experience pain and suffering, then none of us would be here at all; which is to say, there would BE no experience.
I usually like to define evil as the product of fear and ignorance, which results in the emotion we call hate, and affects the behavior or other projection of reality that we call evil. But, that's just one way of defining it, and there are many.
Another way to define evil - keeping in mind that we're still talking about the same phenomenon - is as, anything that invokes inbalance, or "injustice" in a normally harmonious, or ordered, system, such as our personal life or social community. This definition is usually the one we use when we think about crime, and is commonly used by the aficionados of justice to justify their devotion to "restoring order" via their written (i.e. invented) laws.
One thing that both of these definitions have in common, indeed that all definitions of evil require, is the concept of disrupted order. Whether order is disrupted by an act of hate, or one of greed and avarice, or even by mere random chance, if our perception of order is disturbed then we experience the pain of the loss and suffer because of so-called evil.
Most people who use the "justice definition" of evil in order to justify doing evil to others (as I once did and as the entire so-called "Criminal Justice System" does routinely) seldom stop to consider the implications of what they are doing (i.e. propagating the very "evil" that they profess to be against). No one likes to admit that they are evil, especially not those who do the most evil of all (i.e. politicians, religious leaders, law makers, law keepers, etc...). But, something that even those who study and write about such human falacies (i.e. philosophers, social scientists, mystics, etc...) seldom consider is that this systematic and ignorant propagation of evil is also a fundamental and necessary part of nature, not just living nature, but all of nature, indeed. All of existence.
If there were no force in nature that could cause the disruption of order, or if such forces could be somehow completely suppressed (by other forces for example), then the Big Bang itself would never have occured.
We don't know a lot about the Big Bang, but we do now it happened, and we also know that whatever caused it to happen was something that disrupted the order of nothingness. Actually, the term "nothingness" is a misnomer in this context, but the very basic principles of known physics tells us that nothing can happen without a fundamental disruption of order. This is the core principle behind quantum physics, and is commonly referred to as the "uncertainty principle".
Basically, what I'm saying, is that "evil" is a critical and indespensible part of our reality. In fact, you could even truthfully say that evil is the mother of all reality!
(J.D. 7-4-2014)
I usually like to define evil as the product of fear and ignorance, which results in the emotion we call hate, and affects the behavior or other projection of reality that we call evil. But, that's just one way of defining it, and there are many.
Another way to define evil - keeping in mind that we're still talking about the same phenomenon - is as, anything that invokes inbalance, or "injustice" in a normally harmonious, or ordered, system, such as our personal life or social community. This definition is usually the one we use when we think about crime, and is commonly used by the aficionados of justice to justify their devotion to "restoring order" via their written (i.e. invented) laws.
One thing that both of these definitions have in common, indeed that all definitions of evil require, is the concept of disrupted order. Whether order is disrupted by an act of hate, or one of greed and avarice, or even by mere random chance, if our perception of order is disturbed then we experience the pain of the loss and suffer because of so-called evil.
Most people who use the "justice definition" of evil in order to justify doing evil to others (as I once did and as the entire so-called "Criminal Justice System" does routinely) seldom stop to consider the implications of what they are doing (i.e. propagating the very "evil" that they profess to be against). No one likes to admit that they are evil, especially not those who do the most evil of all (i.e. politicians, religious leaders, law makers, law keepers, etc...). But, something that even those who study and write about such human falacies (i.e. philosophers, social scientists, mystics, etc...) seldom consider is that this systematic and ignorant propagation of evil is also a fundamental and necessary part of nature, not just living nature, but all of nature, indeed. All of existence.
If there were no force in nature that could cause the disruption of order, or if such forces could be somehow completely suppressed (by other forces for example), then the Big Bang itself would never have occured.
We don't know a lot about the Big Bang, but we do now it happened, and we also know that whatever caused it to happen was something that disrupted the order of nothingness. Actually, the term "nothingness" is a misnomer in this context, but the very basic principles of known physics tells us that nothing can happen without a fundamental disruption of order. This is the core principle behind quantum physics, and is commonly referred to as the "uncertainty principle".
Basically, what I'm saying, is that "evil" is a critical and indespensible part of our reality. In fact, you could even truthfully say that evil is the mother of all reality!
(J.D. 7-4-2014)
Thursday, August 14, 2014
The Way, The Truth and The Life
I have recently said that the epiphany that caused me to stop killing and turn myself in didn't change any of my personal viewpoints about the world , but it did make me realize that my viewpoints were limited and selfish. That cause me to stop BELIEVING in my own views, and forced me to surrender to the "views" of the Universe. I didn't know what those views were, but I knew with a certainty that they DID exist, if only because I exist (the logic behind this statement is well established by minds far more astute in such things than mine will ever be; take Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" for example: I think, therefore I am, is the conclusion he came to based on this same line of reasoning). Suddenly my views became just that, MY views. I took responsibility for my own views for the first time. And, I no longer felt the need to validate my views by imposing them onto other people, either by argument or by force (e.g. I was imposing my views of justice by attacking society through the kidnap, rape and murder of children). I saw plainly via this epiphany that my views could never be validated. By their very nature they were inherently true only for me, and false in all other contexts. This is why I now insist that any real concept of God (i.e. the source of all being) must be direct and personal, not canned as with most religions. It seems plain to me when I read the Bible (as I have often) that Jesus wasn't trying to establish a new system of belief (i.e. religion), but was trying to free people from ALL belief systems, so they could experience the source of their being (i.e. God) directly through the Living Truth. He not only insisted he was the Way, the Truth and the Life, but he further insisted that we all are! Of course, most Christians will argue, and insist their view is the only correct one - but, such people don't concern me, I was once like them, and understand completely why it is so important to them that others believe as they do, and conversely, that they believe as others do, though now I only believe as I do, and express that belief without expecting others to believe the same.
(J.D. 7-2-2014)
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Realizing My Insignificance
When we fear death, we are really fearing the realization of our insignificance. Life is a struggle for significance. We often perceive this as a struggle for power, or control. Sometimes we see it as a desperate need to be loved, or at least understood. But beneath all of these is the quest for recognition and significance. And death is the ultimate threat to that quest.
I have sometimes referred to the epiphany that caused me to stop wanting to hurt the people who had hurt me (i.e. society) and consequently stop killing and turn myself over to the authorities of the present world, as the realization that what I was doing WASN'T wrong (as starkly opposed to the realization that it WAS wrong, as one might assume). But, as I have often said, whatever it was that I experienced (or realized) that day was something that I have struggled with ever since to put into words, and saying that I realized that what I was doing WASN'T wrong is an example of one more failed attempt to express what happened in my "heart" (or "inner mind") that day.
What I was trying to convey with those words was the idea that I had somehow come to understand that my attempt to hurt society was futile, because all I was really doing (and later came to further understand that all I, or anyone, was even capable of doing) was hurting myself, and then projecting the pain I caused for myself onto society (i.e. imagining that they would now "feel my pain").
I have since come to understand that this is a very common sickness, exhibited not just by criminals and so-called psychopaths, but by anyone who has ever failed to sincerely forgive their transgressors. Any attempt to punish for the sake of retribution is rooted in this error of perception; this delusion, or outright fantasy, of power and control over those who we blame for our suffering.
And now, with yet more words, I have found a slightly better way to say what I was trying to say before; or at least a way to fail saying what I want to say just a little less:
What I came to realize that day was that all my attempts to make myself SIGNIFICANT were futile. That is what I was really doing by raping and murdering children. I was trying to assert my own significance, which had been repeatedly, and officially, and systematically denied by the society I was born into all my life. I was taking it back, in my mind at least, the only way I knew how; the way we are all taught, with force (i.e. the exertion of power and control).
But in that moment of awakening that I have described many times as I was a mere instant away from crushing the skull of yet another small child I suddenly saw not only the futility of my struggle for significance, but I saw that futility in the light of my TRUE AND ONLY SIGNIFICANCE! In that moment I saw the significance of life itself; a significance that does not depend on anything we do as individuals. It was this true significance that set me free from my self-defeating quest for personal (i.e. selfish) significance. I realized what "seekers" have been realizing for thousands of years or more; that we are only significant when we have eternal life, and we can only have eternal life by surrendering our attachment to the temporal one.
On the day I stopped killing and surrendered to the authorities of this world I had also surrendered to the One True Authority. You can call that "Authority" anything you like. I have given it many names myself (my favorite is still, The Living Truth), but no matter what you call it, IT is the only source of significance any of us will ever have; and we all already have it! (This is why one of the manifestations of my "awakening" had been the repeated insistence that everyone, not just me, is already significant, by virtue of their existence alone! And my struggle ever since has been the one to find that significance for everyone I meet, within myself)
(J.D. 5-25-2014)
I have sometimes referred to the epiphany that caused me to stop wanting to hurt the people who had hurt me (i.e. society) and consequently stop killing and turn myself over to the authorities of the present world, as the realization that what I was doing WASN'T wrong (as starkly opposed to the realization that it WAS wrong, as one might assume). But, as I have often said, whatever it was that I experienced (or realized) that day was something that I have struggled with ever since to put into words, and saying that I realized that what I was doing WASN'T wrong is an example of one more failed attempt to express what happened in my "heart" (or "inner mind") that day.
What I was trying to convey with those words was the idea that I had somehow come to understand that my attempt to hurt society was futile, because all I was really doing (and later came to further understand that all I, or anyone, was even capable of doing) was hurting myself, and then projecting the pain I caused for myself onto society (i.e. imagining that they would now "feel my pain").
I have since come to understand that this is a very common sickness, exhibited not just by criminals and so-called psychopaths, but by anyone who has ever failed to sincerely forgive their transgressors. Any attempt to punish for the sake of retribution is rooted in this error of perception; this delusion, or outright fantasy, of power and control over those who we blame for our suffering.
And now, with yet more words, I have found a slightly better way to say what I was trying to say before; or at least a way to fail saying what I want to say just a little less:
What I came to realize that day was that all my attempts to make myself SIGNIFICANT were futile. That is what I was really doing by raping and murdering children. I was trying to assert my own significance, which had been repeatedly, and officially, and systematically denied by the society I was born into all my life. I was taking it back, in my mind at least, the only way I knew how; the way we are all taught, with force (i.e. the exertion of power and control).
But in that moment of awakening that I have described many times as I was a mere instant away from crushing the skull of yet another small child I suddenly saw not only the futility of my struggle for significance, but I saw that futility in the light of my TRUE AND ONLY SIGNIFICANCE! In that moment I saw the significance of life itself; a significance that does not depend on anything we do as individuals. It was this true significance that set me free from my self-defeating quest for personal (i.e. selfish) significance. I realized what "seekers" have been realizing for thousands of years or more; that we are only significant when we have eternal life, and we can only have eternal life by surrendering our attachment to the temporal one.
On the day I stopped killing and surrendered to the authorities of this world I had also surrendered to the One True Authority. You can call that "Authority" anything you like. I have given it many names myself (my favorite is still, The Living Truth), but no matter what you call it, IT is the only source of significance any of us will ever have; and we all already have it! (This is why one of the manifestations of my "awakening" had been the repeated insistence that everyone, not just me, is already significant, by virtue of their existence alone! And my struggle ever since has been the one to find that significance for everyone I meet, within myself)
(J.D. 5-25-2014)
The Intelligence Factor of Psychopathy
If you've read this blog with any understanding at all then you must know by now what I think about the whole idea of "psychopaths": they don't exist. Psychopaths are the witches of our era. They represent nothing more than an intellectual attempt to rationalize and categorize something about ourselves that we deeply fear and do not understand. But they aren't real, at least not in any sense that they are portrayed by the pseudoscience/religious zealots who call themselves psychologists.
But, I'm not going to go into all the reasons I believe so here. Instead I like to simply expound on an elephant in the room of psychopathy that I hadn't really noticed before now (so well ignored it is).
We all know that studies show that so-called psychopaths are usually very intelligent (albeit, not very highly educated). As a matter of fact, Hervey Cleckley (who wrote THE MASK OF SANITY and is considered the founding father of psychopathy) lists intelligence as the first identifying quality of a psychopath. And yet we know from modern brain science that intelligence is a highly emergent phenomenon that relies extensively on the complex relationships between all parts of the brain, not just the intellectual (e.g. prefrontal cortex) and emotional (e.g. amygdala) regions. So, if psychopaths are highly intelligent, as Cleckley and others observe, then they must also be highly functional - not disfunctional at all, not even some mythical social sense.
There is actually a relatively new book out now about psychopaths (THE WISDOM OF PSYCHOPATHS, by Kevin Dutton) that seems to admit this fact. Though Dutton doesn't go so far as to say that psychopathy is no more than an ideology bounded by fear and ignorance (a good definition for religion by the way), he does admit that our current definition of psychopath needs some serious reworking if it is to hold up to the current findings of scientific studies (and if that sounds familiar, it should, since that is exactly what all religions must do in order to survive; that is, redefine their terms and beliefs to fit the times).
But, Dutton's floundering admissions aside, the only point I'm trying to make here is that if psychopaths are more intelligent than most, then perhaps what psychologists are really trying to categorize is a class of people who see and understand more clearly than most other people, and as a result they behave (antisocially) in a manner CONSISTENT WITH this deeper understanding. Not all intelligent people would share this "deeper understanding" of course. It would be something, like all natural phenomena, that combines state of being (e.g. intelligence) with experience (the most intelligent person in the world might have trouble tying his own shoes, a la Einstein, if he never had to do so as a child).
I'm no scientist (or zealot for that matter), but I think this "elephant" is obvious enough to at least be pointed out.
(J.D. 5-23-2014)
But, I'm not going to go into all the reasons I believe so here. Instead I like to simply expound on an elephant in the room of psychopathy that I hadn't really noticed before now (so well ignored it is).
We all know that studies show that so-called psychopaths are usually very intelligent (albeit, not very highly educated). As a matter of fact, Hervey Cleckley (who wrote THE MASK OF SANITY and is considered the founding father of psychopathy) lists intelligence as the first identifying quality of a psychopath. And yet we know from modern brain science that intelligence is a highly emergent phenomenon that relies extensively on the complex relationships between all parts of the brain, not just the intellectual (e.g. prefrontal cortex) and emotional (e.g. amygdala) regions. So, if psychopaths are highly intelligent, as Cleckley and others observe, then they must also be highly functional - not disfunctional at all, not even some mythical social sense.
There is actually a relatively new book out now about psychopaths (THE WISDOM OF PSYCHOPATHS, by Kevin Dutton) that seems to admit this fact. Though Dutton doesn't go so far as to say that psychopathy is no more than an ideology bounded by fear and ignorance (a good definition for religion by the way), he does admit that our current definition of psychopath needs some serious reworking if it is to hold up to the current findings of scientific studies (and if that sounds familiar, it should, since that is exactly what all religions must do in order to survive; that is, redefine their terms and beliefs to fit the times).
But, Dutton's floundering admissions aside, the only point I'm trying to make here is that if psychopaths are more intelligent than most, then perhaps what psychologists are really trying to categorize is a class of people who see and understand more clearly than most other people, and as a result they behave (antisocially) in a manner CONSISTENT WITH this deeper understanding. Not all intelligent people would share this "deeper understanding" of course. It would be something, like all natural phenomena, that combines state of being (e.g. intelligence) with experience (the most intelligent person in the world might have trouble tying his own shoes, a la Einstein, if he never had to do so as a child).
I'm no scientist (or zealot for that matter), but I think this "elephant" is obvious enough to at least be pointed out.
(J.D. 5-23-2014)
Saturday, June 7, 2014
To Those Who Would Hate Something Evil
Hating something evil is like loving something good; the passion only makes the object stronger.
One of my favorite songs that I listened to often when I lived in Fargo, North Dakota, was "Down with The Sickness" by a group called Disturbed. The chorus goes something like this:
"Get up, come on get down with the sickness! Get up, come on get down with the sickness! Get up, come on get down with the sickness! Open up your hate and let it flow into me!"
This song was so close to the truth of the "sickness" that I kept hidden from even my closest friends that I kept it heavily encrypted on my computer and only listened to it in complete privacy for fear that if anyone ever found it in my possession it would point them directly to the "dungeon" where my sickness lay hidden. (To this day the FBI has been unable to crack this encryption code, though they testified in court that they dedicated an entire room full of computers for over a month trying. I laughed when I heard that, because if they had just asked I would have told them that the key was 248 bits, and the algorythm PGP (a program so tough to crack that the NSA tried to get it outlawed). A little math would have then told them that a billion of the most powerful computers in the world couldn't crack the encryption if they tried for the lifetime of a trillion universes like ours. I guess they had to try to make themselves feel better. But, like I said then, it will take a quantum computer to crack the encryption, and my hope is that by the time we have the tech to do that we might also have the wisdom to learn from what those encrypted files contain, instead of using them to propagate the "sickness" that made them in the first place.)
"Open up your hate and let it flow into me!"
The "sickness" (i.e. evil) feeds on hate. I did the horrific things I did specifically to make people hate me. I needed them to hate me in order to feel vindicated, and justified, for what "they" did to me.
I once lay hidden in some bushes down the street from a house that I had just invaded moments before with every intention of raping and killing the children who lived there. But just as I was about to kill the one adult (the mother) who stood between me and my hate feast, the father came in through the front door and I ran out the back then up the street and then panting heavily into these bushes to catch my breath.
My car and my escape was only a few yards away, but I needed to make sure nobody saw me get in and drive away. So I waited.
And while I waited I heard the man scream from the other end of the block. I can only imagine, by the time it took for this scream to happen, that when the man entered his home and found his wife bound hand and foot in the living room, and children (one already naked from the waist down) awaiting my pleasure in the master bedroom, that he probably grabbed a gun (most likely) or some other weapon and run out in the back yard (the direction his wife no doubt told him I had gone) to hunt me down.
But, a quick search turned up no clues of where I was or even which way I had gone (I was long gone, as they say, by the time he even realized what was happening). And that's when the reality of what had just happened finally sunk in, and the hate and rage instantly boiled up to the surface and he screamed.
The scream was nothing coherent. It was a purely primal scream of rage and frustration. It was a scream of powerlessness and helplessness. All that hate had to come out somehow, and it came out in that scream, which he knew, I'm sure, that I would hear. If he couldn't pour his hatred into me directly, then he'd do it indirectly with his yell.
I drank it up. As soon as I heard it I smiled. It told me everything I wanted to know (i.e. that the coast was indeed "clear") and gave me exactly what I needed, his hate!
I remember thinking, "Yeah, motherfucker, now you know how it feels!"
I was spreading the "sickness" by doing the "evil" things I did. I was given "them" (the faceless members of the society that infected me with their hatred) a taste of their own medicine. And that scream was better than sweet buttermilk ass waiting to be violated.
That was then. But on the mountain with Shasta I had an epiphany that made me no longer desire such "justice" or "revenge". I no longer saw that man, or his children, or society, as my victims. Suddenly I realized in the deepest sense, that "they" were ME!
I was only hurting myself. I was only hating myself. I was only projecting my pain and hate, and confusion, and "sickness" onto them. But it all came from inside of me. I was the only one who could stop my suffering, my fear, and my confusion. And the only way to stop it was to stop projecting it onto others. If I wanted peace, I had to learn to embrace the hate, pain and fear as my own; my choice, not theirs.
Now, if only "they" could somehow come to this same realization; then, only then, there might be real peace for everyone, especially our children.
(J.D. 5-16-2014)
One of my favorite songs that I listened to often when I lived in Fargo, North Dakota, was "Down with The Sickness" by a group called Disturbed. The chorus goes something like this:
"Get up, come on get down with the sickness! Get up, come on get down with the sickness! Get up, come on get down with the sickness! Open up your hate and let it flow into me!"
This song was so close to the truth of the "sickness" that I kept hidden from even my closest friends that I kept it heavily encrypted on my computer and only listened to it in complete privacy for fear that if anyone ever found it in my possession it would point them directly to the "dungeon" where my sickness lay hidden. (To this day the FBI has been unable to crack this encryption code, though they testified in court that they dedicated an entire room full of computers for over a month trying. I laughed when I heard that, because if they had just asked I would have told them that the key was 248 bits, and the algorythm PGP (a program so tough to crack that the NSA tried to get it outlawed). A little math would have then told them that a billion of the most powerful computers in the world couldn't crack the encryption if they tried for the lifetime of a trillion universes like ours. I guess they had to try to make themselves feel better. But, like I said then, it will take a quantum computer to crack the encryption, and my hope is that by the time we have the tech to do that we might also have the wisdom to learn from what those encrypted files contain, instead of using them to propagate the "sickness" that made them in the first place.)
"Open up your hate and let it flow into me!"
The "sickness" (i.e. evil) feeds on hate. I did the horrific things I did specifically to make people hate me. I needed them to hate me in order to feel vindicated, and justified, for what "they" did to me.
I once lay hidden in some bushes down the street from a house that I had just invaded moments before with every intention of raping and killing the children who lived there. But just as I was about to kill the one adult (the mother) who stood between me and my hate feast, the father came in through the front door and I ran out the back then up the street and then panting heavily into these bushes to catch my breath.
My car and my escape was only a few yards away, but I needed to make sure nobody saw me get in and drive away. So I waited.
And while I waited I heard the man scream from the other end of the block. I can only imagine, by the time it took for this scream to happen, that when the man entered his home and found his wife bound hand and foot in the living room, and children (one already naked from the waist down) awaiting my pleasure in the master bedroom, that he probably grabbed a gun (most likely) or some other weapon and run out in the back yard (the direction his wife no doubt told him I had gone) to hunt me down.
But, a quick search turned up no clues of where I was or even which way I had gone (I was long gone, as they say, by the time he even realized what was happening). And that's when the reality of what had just happened finally sunk in, and the hate and rage instantly boiled up to the surface and he screamed.
The scream was nothing coherent. It was a purely primal scream of rage and frustration. It was a scream of powerlessness and helplessness. All that hate had to come out somehow, and it came out in that scream, which he knew, I'm sure, that I would hear. If he couldn't pour his hatred into me directly, then he'd do it indirectly with his yell.
I drank it up. As soon as I heard it I smiled. It told me everything I wanted to know (i.e. that the coast was indeed "clear") and gave me exactly what I needed, his hate!
I remember thinking, "Yeah, motherfucker, now you know how it feels!"
I was spreading the "sickness" by doing the "evil" things I did. I was given "them" (the faceless members of the society that infected me with their hatred) a taste of their own medicine. And that scream was better than sweet buttermilk ass waiting to be violated.
That was then. But on the mountain with Shasta I had an epiphany that made me no longer desire such "justice" or "revenge". I no longer saw that man, or his children, or society, as my victims. Suddenly I realized in the deepest sense, that "they" were ME!
I was only hurting myself. I was only hating myself. I was only projecting my pain and hate, and confusion, and "sickness" onto them. But it all came from inside of me. I was the only one who could stop my suffering, my fear, and my confusion. And the only way to stop it was to stop projecting it onto others. If I wanted peace, I had to learn to embrace the hate, pain and fear as my own; my choice, not theirs.
Now, if only "they" could somehow come to this same realization; then, only then, there might be real peace for everyone, especially our children.
(J.D. 5-16-2014)
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
A Proven Alternative To Blame
I once saw a documentary about airplane accident investigations that illustrated an effective alternative to the counterproductive blame game that our System currently plays with crime. The subject of this particular episode was a mid-air incident that nearly cost the pilot his life, and much worse, but fortunately ended well (nobody suffered any permanent injuries). Regardless of the outcome, like all life threatening (and profit threatening) airline incidents, it was taken very seriously and became the focus of a major investigation by private investigators who work for the airlines, not the government.
Now, I emphasize here that the investigators work for the airlines, not the government, because this changes the primary goal of the investigation from pacifying the public to protecting profits, and as a result the string of resulting secondary goals change as well.
Government investigators must ultimately cater to public emotion, which motivates how people vote, and what opinions they hold about various public officials and issues. Because of this they are driven to find someone to blame, rather than a real cause of the problem. Blame, and the superficial cause that it represents, is the most expedient and simplest (i.e. least expensive) means of pacifying the simple mind of the masses.
But private investigators must typically answer to a small board of profit minded directors. They care almost nothing about who is to blame for the accident, they care only that the real cause be found so that steps can be taken to stop the same kind of accident from happening again. Why? Because they know that a repeat, and hence, preventable accident is far worse for profits than a new unavoidable one.
What happened was the windshield on a commercial passenger jet blew out of its frame by the internal cabin pressure as it reach attitude shortly after take off. As a consequence, the pilot was literally suck out of the plane and saved from certain death because his leg got caught on his seat belt strap, giving the co-pilot enough time to grab the pilot before he was blown away by the 500 mile per-hour wind. But, because of the wind, which pressed the captain's unconscious body back against the fuselage, the co-pilot couldn't pull the pilot back into the plane; not even with the navigator's help.
So, the co-pilot radioed in an emergency and quickly turned the plane around and landed it with the pilot still hanging outside the entire time.
The pilot survived, miraculously, and made a complete recovery. But everyone wanted to know how the hell a window just blows out of a plane like that. So the private investigators were called in.
As it turned out, the windshield had recently been replaced for some routine maintenance reason, and the wrong screws were used to bolt the window into its frame. And that's as far as any government investigators would have gotten. They would have blamed the mechanic who replaced the windshield for using the wrong screws, probably have him fired, fined, or maybe even criminally charged, and then act completely surprized the next time a window on another jet blows out in mid-flight.
But, the private investigators were only just getting started. They interviewed not just the mechanic who replaced the window, but also the tool room clerk, the other mechanics in the maintenance hanger, and looked at the design specifications of the plane, especially the windshield, and the maintenance procedures, in theory and practice. What they found out was that the screws that the mechanic used by mistake look almost exactly like the screws he was supposed to use. The only difference was that the wrong screws were just a few centimeters shorter. Maintenance procedure demanded that all the screws be replaced, which is why the old screws weren't used. Maintenance procedure also required that the mechanic verify that he has the correct parts by cross-checking the numbers with the tool room clerks records. But, in practice this was not done because it took too much time and the maintenance supervisors pressed the mechanics to rely on their experience and take short cuts.
So, in the final report to the money bags what do you think the investigators recommended? Fire the mechanic? Fire the tool clerk? Fire the maintenance supervisors? Sue the plane manufacturer and designers?
None of the above. Instead they thanked the mechanics for the information and for helping with the investigation, and made no suggestions than any actions be taken against anyone (i.e. they weren't interested in the blame game). They recommended that maintenance procedures be evaluated, and changed, so that part number confirmation was made practical and not time consuming for the mechanics. They also recommended that the mechanics be given more breaks in their work hours to reduce fatique and the urge to take short cuts.
As I recall, all of these changes were made; not just locally at that one maintenance hanger, but throughout the industry! The mechanic who made the mistake said later that he was always more careful than ever about making sure he had the right parts. By keeping him on as a mechanic, and allowing him to participate actively in the process of finding a solution, the airline not only kept an experienced and highly skilled mechanic, but they also got one who would remain hypervigilant for the rest of his career!
Perhaps there is something to be said after all for profit driven organizations as opposed to bureaucratic ones.
(J.D. 5-20-2014)
Now, I emphasize here that the investigators work for the airlines, not the government, because this changes the primary goal of the investigation from pacifying the public to protecting profits, and as a result the string of resulting secondary goals change as well.
Government investigators must ultimately cater to public emotion, which motivates how people vote, and what opinions they hold about various public officials and issues. Because of this they are driven to find someone to blame, rather than a real cause of the problem. Blame, and the superficial cause that it represents, is the most expedient and simplest (i.e. least expensive) means of pacifying the simple mind of the masses.
But private investigators must typically answer to a small board of profit minded directors. They care almost nothing about who is to blame for the accident, they care only that the real cause be found so that steps can be taken to stop the same kind of accident from happening again. Why? Because they know that a repeat, and hence, preventable accident is far worse for profits than a new unavoidable one.
What happened was the windshield on a commercial passenger jet blew out of its frame by the internal cabin pressure as it reach attitude shortly after take off. As a consequence, the pilot was literally suck out of the plane and saved from certain death because his leg got caught on his seat belt strap, giving the co-pilot enough time to grab the pilot before he was blown away by the 500 mile per-hour wind. But, because of the wind, which pressed the captain's unconscious body back against the fuselage, the co-pilot couldn't pull the pilot back into the plane; not even with the navigator's help.
So, the co-pilot radioed in an emergency and quickly turned the plane around and landed it with the pilot still hanging outside the entire time.
The pilot survived, miraculously, and made a complete recovery. But everyone wanted to know how the hell a window just blows out of a plane like that. So the private investigators were called in.
As it turned out, the windshield had recently been replaced for some routine maintenance reason, and the wrong screws were used to bolt the window into its frame. And that's as far as any government investigators would have gotten. They would have blamed the mechanic who replaced the windshield for using the wrong screws, probably have him fired, fined, or maybe even criminally charged, and then act completely surprized the next time a window on another jet blows out in mid-flight.
But, the private investigators were only just getting started. They interviewed not just the mechanic who replaced the window, but also the tool room clerk, the other mechanics in the maintenance hanger, and looked at the design specifications of the plane, especially the windshield, and the maintenance procedures, in theory and practice. What they found out was that the screws that the mechanic used by mistake look almost exactly like the screws he was supposed to use. The only difference was that the wrong screws were just a few centimeters shorter. Maintenance procedure demanded that all the screws be replaced, which is why the old screws weren't used. Maintenance procedure also required that the mechanic verify that he has the correct parts by cross-checking the numbers with the tool room clerks records. But, in practice this was not done because it took too much time and the maintenance supervisors pressed the mechanics to rely on their experience and take short cuts.
So, in the final report to the money bags what do you think the investigators recommended? Fire the mechanic? Fire the tool clerk? Fire the maintenance supervisors? Sue the plane manufacturer and designers?
None of the above. Instead they thanked the mechanics for the information and for helping with the investigation, and made no suggestions than any actions be taken against anyone (i.e. they weren't interested in the blame game). They recommended that maintenance procedures be evaluated, and changed, so that part number confirmation was made practical and not time consuming for the mechanics. They also recommended that the mechanics be given more breaks in their work hours to reduce fatique and the urge to take short cuts.
As I recall, all of these changes were made; not just locally at that one maintenance hanger, but throughout the industry! The mechanic who made the mistake said later that he was always more careful than ever about making sure he had the right parts. By keeping him on as a mechanic, and allowing him to participate actively in the process of finding a solution, the airline not only kept an experienced and highly skilled mechanic, but they also got one who would remain hypervigilant for the rest of his career!
Perhaps there is something to be said after all for profit driven organizations as opposed to bureaucratic ones.
(J.D. 5-20-2014)
Friday, May 30, 2014
"Psychopaths", And "Serial Killers" In Particular
One of the "shocking" traits of so-called "psychopaths", and "serial killers" in particular, is the "casual" nature in which they commonly discuss their crimes. But, what about the casual and frequently even sarcastic nature that forensic psychologists, police, and other "criminal justice" workers use to discuss the lurid details of their jobs (but only when in the presence of other so-called "professionals" of course).
If they persistently only expressed their experience in the morose tones that they reserve for public displays then their entire existence would be morose and they'd soon become so depressed that they wouldn't want to live, much less do their job.
So, why should "psychopaths" and "serial killers" in particular, be any less adaptive to the reality of their circumstances? Yes, we killed, tortured, and even mutilated the bodies of other human beings. But, if we steeped ourselves in this morbid reality by constantly expressing the memories of events, as we are so often required to do by those who insist on hearing it all over and over in order to better judge (though never dare "understand" or "comprehend") what we have done, then we too would become so morose that we would scarcely want to live.
Of course, there are those who do adopt this contrite and unadaptive response, and we well know where they end up (hint: morgues and psych wards). But those of us who wish to survive, with our sanity that is, must adapt, just as anyone else would, not just we so-called "psychopaths" and "serial killers" in particular.
(J.D. 5-17-2014)
P.S. I should observe that perhaps this "adaptive" response to morbid realities is in fact psychotic. But, whatever it is, it is practiced in various ways by all humans, not just "psychopaths" (oh, and "serial killers" in particular); and that's my only point.
If they persistently only expressed their experience in the morose tones that they reserve for public displays then their entire existence would be morose and they'd soon become so depressed that they wouldn't want to live, much less do their job.
So, why should "psychopaths" and "serial killers" in particular, be any less adaptive to the reality of their circumstances? Yes, we killed, tortured, and even mutilated the bodies of other human beings. But, if we steeped ourselves in this morbid reality by constantly expressing the memories of events, as we are so often required to do by those who insist on hearing it all over and over in order to better judge (though never dare "understand" or "comprehend") what we have done, then we too would become so morose that we would scarcely want to live.
Of course, there are those who do adopt this contrite and unadaptive response, and we well know where they end up (hint: morgues and psych wards). But those of us who wish to survive, with our sanity that is, must adapt, just as anyone else would, not just we so-called "psychopaths" and "serial killers" in particular.
(J.D. 5-17-2014)
P.S. I should observe that perhaps this "adaptive" response to morbid realities is in fact psychotic. But, whatever it is, it is practiced in various ways by all humans, not just "psychopaths" (oh, and "serial killers" in particular); and that's my only point.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
The Gist of Christian Hypocrisy
Not all, but most Christian denominations teach (directly against what the Bible clearly says over and over) that we "sinners" have some form of free will, given us by God, though usually "limited" to some extent (these limitations are imposed purely for the purpose of resolving, superficially at best the numerous contradictions and enigmas that arise immediately when we claim to have any will at all, but as we will see in a moment, it is a thin veil indeed). They insist we have free will in order to explain their "worthiness" of salvation.
They will tell you that you must choose to believe that Jesus is your "personal Lord and savior", or you will be condemned for eternity in hell. Forget that this is not what their Bible teaches; at all! (I actually respect the Bible in the exact same sense that Mahatma Gandhi indicated he did when he was asked what he thought about Christianity and stated that he had no problem with Christianity, as taught in the Bible; it was the Christians he could do without). The contradiction comes when they turn right around and tell you that forgiveness is a free gift, offered to all men, women, and children, that must only be accepted in order to be invoked.
... IN ORDER TO BE INVOKED? Again, forget that this isn't what the Bible says either (i.e. forgiveness does not need to be invoked, it is granted to everyone whether they "accept it" or not). The problem is that if we have the ability to "invoke" God's forgiveness (e.g. by choosing what we believe), and even if that were the only free will choice we had at all (i.e. the most extreme limitation), then the so called "God" who gives us this choice has in fact established a condition on his "gift" of forgiveness by requiring that we believe in Him in order to receive it.
But isn't "believing in God" (specifically, "believing in Jesus", i.e. the so called Christian God) a high price? In order to hold this belief one must abandon and outright ignore all empirical experience, or any other evidence that contradicts what you are told to believe (by other people who are always eager to "interpret" the Bible for you, or even "speak to God" for you and tell you what He says). A high price indeed! In order to have this "forgiveness" and the "eternal salvation" that usually goes along with it, all you have to do is prove your "worthiness" by choosing to IGNORE the very Truth that Jesus Himself claimed to BE!
And THAT, is the very essence of the raw hypocrisy that must be embraced if you call yourself Christian (in particular a Christian that believes you have the ability to choose your fate in one way or another).
(Incidentally, the few Christian denominations that still adhere to the "no free will" - or, as they say, "One God, One Will" - position are the remnants of a great theological war that took place in the Middle Ages over whether or not men had free will at all. Unfortunately, the "deceiver" seems to have one that one).
(J.D. 3-28-2014)
They will tell you that you must choose to believe that Jesus is your "personal Lord and savior", or you will be condemned for eternity in hell. Forget that this is not what their Bible teaches; at all! (I actually respect the Bible in the exact same sense that Mahatma Gandhi indicated he did when he was asked what he thought about Christianity and stated that he had no problem with Christianity, as taught in the Bible; it was the Christians he could do without). The contradiction comes when they turn right around and tell you that forgiveness is a free gift, offered to all men, women, and children, that must only be accepted in order to be invoked.
... IN ORDER TO BE INVOKED? Again, forget that this isn't what the Bible says either (i.e. forgiveness does not need to be invoked, it is granted to everyone whether they "accept it" or not). The problem is that if we have the ability to "invoke" God's forgiveness (e.g. by choosing what we believe), and even if that were the only free will choice we had at all (i.e. the most extreme limitation), then the so called "God" who gives us this choice has in fact established a condition on his "gift" of forgiveness by requiring that we believe in Him in order to receive it.
But isn't "believing in God" (specifically, "believing in Jesus", i.e. the so called Christian God) a high price? In order to hold this belief one must abandon and outright ignore all empirical experience, or any other evidence that contradicts what you are told to believe (by other people who are always eager to "interpret" the Bible for you, or even "speak to God" for you and tell you what He says). A high price indeed! In order to have this "forgiveness" and the "eternal salvation" that usually goes along with it, all you have to do is prove your "worthiness" by choosing to IGNORE the very Truth that Jesus Himself claimed to BE!
And THAT, is the very essence of the raw hypocrisy that must be embraced if you call yourself Christian (in particular a Christian that believes you have the ability to choose your fate in one way or another).
(Incidentally, the few Christian denominations that still adhere to the "no free will" - or, as they say, "One God, One Will" - position are the remnants of a great theological war that took place in the Middle Ages over whether or not men had free will at all. Unfortunately, the "deceiver" seems to have one that one).
(J.D. 3-28-2014)
It's Not About Me Anymore
One of the first things I told Shasta (the eight year old girl I had kidnapped, raped and intended to kill, but took home before surrendering to the police instead) after I had the epiphany that made me stop wanting to hurt everyone who ever hurt me - namely society in general - was, "It's not about me anymore."
I told her that right after I had picked her up and was carrying her back to the stolen Jeep so I could drive her home. But what exactly does that mean? Or, at least, what did I mean? Well, the answer seems so obvious to me that it has taken this long (almost ten years) for me to realize that it's not obvious to everyone; so let me explain.
Most people will tell you, if asked, that they realize they are not the center of the world, but few people actually realize that not only are they not the center of the world, but they aren't even the center of their OWN world! It's one of hardest things for a human being to realize because 99.9 percent of everything we experience is egocentric. How can we even begin to understand that the story of our lives ISN'T about us when the only central character we ever experience IS us? Anyone who has ever experienced a pure experiential bond (a.k.a. True Love) with another person has a powerful clue; and anyone who has experienced that same kind of bond with the Universe itself knows well the answer!
(J.D. 4-18-2014)
I told her that right after I had picked her up and was carrying her back to the stolen Jeep so I could drive her home. But what exactly does that mean? Or, at least, what did I mean? Well, the answer seems so obvious to me that it has taken this long (almost ten years) for me to realize that it's not obvious to everyone; so let me explain.
Most people will tell you, if asked, that they realize they are not the center of the world, but few people actually realize that not only are they not the center of the world, but they aren't even the center of their OWN world! It's one of hardest things for a human being to realize because 99.9 percent of everything we experience is egocentric. How can we even begin to understand that the story of our lives ISN'T about us when the only central character we ever experience IS us? Anyone who has ever experienced a pure experiential bond (a.k.a. True Love) with another person has a powerful clue; and anyone who has experienced that same kind of bond with the Universe itself knows well the answer!
(J.D. 4-18-2014)
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Biting Myself
Most of the other prisoners here on death
row are fairly preoccupied with their appeals and other legal work. So I’ve had
to invent ways to politely parry conversations that head in this direction
since I have no interest in that kind of stuff at all. I’ve managed to come up
with an explanation for my unusual lack of interest that I think most other
prisoners can understand. I do it by putting it in terms that they are all
familiar with.
I tell them that in my view the system is
the worst criminal of all, in every sense of the term. Then I ask them to
imagine what they would do if a gang of prisoners accosted them in the shower,
put a shank to their neck and said, “If you suck our dicks we might let you
live.”
And, before I get a response I sometimes
remind them (depending on how far I want to take the conversation) that they
actually have three choices. They can suck dick, and hope to live, or accept
their death with at least some dignity, or play along long enough to try to
bite off a dick, and then die knowing they at least hurt someone in the gang.
Most prisoners quickly embrace this third
option. So, I tell them I tried that already, and there are drawbacks. First of
all, you have to take the dick in your mouth before you can bite it, and
secondly, it’s a lot harder to bite off someone’s dick that it sounds, even
under those circumstances (I say, “trust me, I know”).
Most prisoners seem to get my point, but
insist that they’re going to fight and bite first chance they get, and the
conversation either turns, or just ends right there. But, what I have yet to
tell any other prisoner, simply because I have not me tone who has asked, is
that the reason I did the insane things I did (i.e. rape and murder children)
was because I was trying to bite off as many dicks as I could before “they”
killed me. But then something happened that allowed me to “see” that I was only
biting myself.
[J.D. 3-7-2014]
Saturday, March 22, 2014
No Excuses, And No Reasons
Sometimes I think that maybe I just got weak, and that's the real reason I brought Shasta home and turned myself in instead of killing her the way I intended. But, if the truth were as simple as that I would have embraces it and killed myself a long time ago.
The real reasons that I stopped killing people remains as much a mystery to me as to anyone. And yet even though it is a big mystery to me, I can't help but feel I somehow KNOW the reason on some level that words, or even thoughts, can't touch.
If I say it was because I got weak, and caved in to my human sentiment, or if I say I had a revelation - even just a psychological one - and realized the horrific error I was making, then I am still only inventing reasons - or "stories" as any neurologist would tell you - to explain something that happened that there is simply no "rational" explanation for.
After I was arrested I kept telling anyone who would listen that there was no excuse for the terrible things I had done. But, what I didn't tell people, because I did not yet understand, was that there was also no reason (that words will ever express) for why I stopped doing those things and turned myself in. And yet at least when I did try to articulate a reason I invariably qualified it with statements about the ultimate ineffable nature of the reason I was attempting to express.
But now I can finally admit, just as there is no excuse for my crimes, there is no reason for my surrender. And yet, despite this truth, the fact remains that I did stop killing, and I did turn myself over to the police, and I did freely and truthfully confess to my crimes with no coersion or benefit for me (i.e. I made no plea deals in exchange for a confession I hadn't already confessed). Something caused me to make a radical change in my behavior, and numerous brain scans, and psych tests show conclusively that it wasn't psychological (or at least not neurological).
So what happened? When the world (i.e. society in general) knows the answer to that question - without words or reasons, as I do - then, and only then, will there be hope for real peace.
(J.D. 3-2-2014)
The real reasons that I stopped killing people remains as much a mystery to me as to anyone. And yet even though it is a big mystery to me, I can't help but feel I somehow KNOW the reason on some level that words, or even thoughts, can't touch.
If I say it was because I got weak, and caved in to my human sentiment, or if I say I had a revelation - even just a psychological one - and realized the horrific error I was making, then I am still only inventing reasons - or "stories" as any neurologist would tell you - to explain something that happened that there is simply no "rational" explanation for.
After I was arrested I kept telling anyone who would listen that there was no excuse for the terrible things I had done. But, what I didn't tell people, because I did not yet understand, was that there was also no reason (that words will ever express) for why I stopped doing those things and turned myself in. And yet at least when I did try to articulate a reason I invariably qualified it with statements about the ultimate ineffable nature of the reason I was attempting to express.
But now I can finally admit, just as there is no excuse for my crimes, there is no reason for my surrender. And yet, despite this truth, the fact remains that I did stop killing, and I did turn myself over to the police, and I did freely and truthfully confess to my crimes with no coersion or benefit for me (i.e. I made no plea deals in exchange for a confession I hadn't already confessed). Something caused me to make a radical change in my behavior, and numerous brain scans, and psych tests show conclusively that it wasn't psychological (or at least not neurological).
So what happened? When the world (i.e. society in general) knows the answer to that question - without words or reasons, as I do - then, and only then, will there be hope for real peace.
(J.D. 3-2-2014)
Thursday, March 13, 2014
I Was
I was, therefore I am and will always be.
Albert Einstein once wrote in a condolence letter to the family of a good friend who had died, "For us who are convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."
The point he was making is the same as the one I am making with the statement above, "I was, therefore I am and will always be."
If we exist at all, in any moment in time, then we exist for all eternity. This is what a "convinced physicist" realizes. It is a self evident truth, but one that only becomes apparent when we are able to see past the illusion of time, as Einstein so precisely articulates. Mystics have been seeing beyond this illusion for eons, and they have been saying the same thing as well as our illusion-based languages would allow. But only recently have physicists been developing a new language that allows us (THEM actually) to discuss these "scientific" truths directly for the first time. As a result, these truths are seeping into the consciousness of everyday people, and soon an awakening will occure on a global scale, exactly as the prophets have long foretold.
In fact, from the correct perspective, the awakening has already occured. As I realized shortly after my arrest in 2005, and have asserted many times since, "If it has an end, then it already has."Which is just another way of saying the same thing.
(J.D. 2-25-14)
Albert Einstein once wrote in a condolence letter to the family of a good friend who had died, "For us who are convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent."
The point he was making is the same as the one I am making with the statement above, "I was, therefore I am and will always be."
If we exist at all, in any moment in time, then we exist for all eternity. This is what a "convinced physicist" realizes. It is a self evident truth, but one that only becomes apparent when we are able to see past the illusion of time, as Einstein so precisely articulates. Mystics have been seeing beyond this illusion for eons, and they have been saying the same thing as well as our illusion-based languages would allow. But only recently have physicists been developing a new language that allows us (THEM actually) to discuss these "scientific" truths directly for the first time. As a result, these truths are seeping into the consciousness of everyday people, and soon an awakening will occure on a global scale, exactly as the prophets have long foretold.
In fact, from the correct perspective, the awakening has already occured. As I realized shortly after my arrest in 2005, and have asserted many times since, "If it has an end, then it already has."Which is just another way of saying the same thing.
(J.D. 2-25-14)
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Somebody's Watching (Over) Me
Sometimes I think there is an entity that
exists somehow in the netherlands of my mind that uses very little conscious
energy but whom I respect and obey nonetheless. By “very little conscious
energy” I mean that I am only fleetingly every consciously aware, of any actual
thoughts that come from this entity. But, when the thoughts do come they are
distinct, without rational or even clear emotional explanation, and I for some
reason invariable obey. I think an example might make these “fleeting glimpses”
a little more clear.
When I got back from Boise, Idaho, early
last year (2013), after having been gone from Terre Haute USP/SCU (i.e. Federal
death row) on a court order for some eight months (in 2012), most of which time
I spent at the SeaTac FDC/SHU (i.e. segregation) I found out that in my absence
the USP/SCU prisoners got new color HDTVs (to replace the old CRT B/W TVs) and
could also now purchase an MP3-player on commissary and buy music for it on the
“Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System” (TRULINCS). Wow! Two great new
improvements to my living conditions at the same time! And that was when that
little voice in my head said simply, “One at a time,” and I obeyed.
In other words, even though I had the means
to buy an MP3-player right away, the “watcher” knew that I would be able to
enjoy each new privilege much more if I took them one at a time. I didn’t actually
think all this through, I just “obeyed” the voice and trust its wisdom without
much thought or question. I was sorely tempted to buy an MP3-player right away,
I enjoy my own brand of music as much as anyone, but the voice said, “not now”.
So, I waited. I didn’t even know how long I would have to wait, but I knew ---
without actually thinking about it --- that the watcher would let me know when,
if not why.
So, ten months go by, and I’m thoroughly
enjoying my new color T.V., even more than I would have enjoyed it if I had the
distraction of an MP3-player to go with it. But, as with most things, I
eventually became less and less interested in the T.V. (especially as I started
realizing how little anything on it is worth watching) and turned once more to
my books for the comfort and solace they provide. I didn’t give much thought to
buying an MP3-player yet, because the “voice” was still being quiet on the
matter.
But, then the end of the year came, along
with the holidays, which always puts extra emotional stress on any prisoner,
and the long awaited decision from Idaho (concerning the court ordered “competency”
hearing, which is why I was there last year and held in SeaTac for eight
months). I told a friend just before the judge’s ruling was finally issued that
if the judge ruled as everyone expected (i.e. that I was in fact competent)
then I would buy an MP3-player. The reason I gave for this at the time was some
lame excuse about not wanting to buy an MP3-player because if the judge ruled I
was not competent then I would most likely (eventually) be transferred off
death row to some other Federal prison. I told my friend that I was concerned
that the MP3-player could get lost or damaged during such a transfer (which is
when most prisoner property gets lost or damaged). So, I was waiting for the
judge’s decision before I bought one.
At the time I had this conversation with my
friend (over the phone) I was not thinking consciously about my “inner voice”
(it goes by about as many names as any preternatural phenomenon), but instead I
felt (thought) that I was just making a suitable excuse to finally buy an
MP3-player. But then I got a letter from another friend/penpal who came right
out and offered to order an MP3-player for me from Amazon.com. Of course I had
to let her know that such orders are not allowed by the prison, but her offer
--- completely out of the blue like that (I had never mentioned my desire for
an MP3-player to her, or even my love for music; she just offered all on her
own) and corresponding with the phone call to my other friend about finally
purchasing an MP3-player for myself --- all seemed to chime of Jungian
synchronicity (the experience of two or more events as meaningfully but not
causally related). So I started paying closer attention, as is my habit when
things like that occur, to see if there were any more signs, or meaning, to be
relatedly discerned; and, of course, there were, or I wouldn’t be writing this
now.
At first there were no particularly
meaningful coincidences other than when I asked the prisoner in the cell next
to me about the procedure for buying an MP3-player and registering on TRULINCS
to be able to buy songs (I wanted to know how long the registration process
took, and it turned out to be very quick and automatic, so as soon as I got the
player I could stay) he, my neighbor, offered to let me borrow his MP3-player
for a couple of days so I could see how it worked. He had over 800 songs on his
player (only halfway full memory-wise), mostly country, but many songs I liked
too. If I wasn’t already sold on the idea of buying one, then actually getting
to use one for a couple of days did the trick.
That same week I bought my own player, and
had my first dozen songs or so loaded onto it later the same day. I was a happy
camper, and that brings me back to that “little voice” in my head.
You see, without realizing it consciously I
had been depressed by the judge’s ruling of competency. On the surface (i.e.
consciously) I was happy with it. The finding meant not only that the rational
for all my own decisions regarding my case was formally validated (which the
judge did explicitly in the explanation for his ruling), but also that my one
and only hope for “early release” (i.e. execution) remained alive. But, on a
deeper lever, that I did not become aware of until recently, a part of me was
saddened, greatly, that “they” had passed up yet another chance to back out of
a terrible mistake (i.e. killing another human being without genuine cause).
You see, other than my selfish personal hope for “early release”, I have a much
deeper altruistic hope that people will somehow come to realize that I am a
human being, not a monster; and either way that my past behavior (i.e. rape and
murder) was a reflection on all of us, and not the sole volitional acts of one
deranged man. If such a realization were to somehow make it into the collective
consciousness of society in general, then I believe strongly that it would
change not only how we treat so-called criminals, but in turn it would change
how so-called criminals ultimately treat society (the most common intended victim).
In other words, it would drastically reduce what we presently call “criminal
behavior”, though we probably wouldn’t call it that any more (the very term
solicits the behavior it purports to identify).
This is my deepest hope, and one I am only
aware of at all because of the consistent choices I have made that reflect it,
and the numerous dreams I have had that express it directly (some of which I
have blogger about at 5Ndreams.blogspot.com). This hope is also reflected (at
least in my opinion) in many of the posts I have written in this blog, though I
don’t generally ever set out with the conscious intention to do so.
So, what does all this have to do with my “guardian
angel” telling me to put off buying an MP3-player until now? Simply this: It
seems to me that some part of me (the “watcher”, “inner voice”, “angel”, etc…)
knew that I would be unconsciously depressed when the judge ruled for my
competence. So, that part of me, using intelligence that goes way beyond my own
as an individual, made arrangements for me to have some powerful medicine (in
the Native American sense) to help me get through it. I feel this to be true
because since I have gotten the MP3-player, and 40 or so songs so far with it, I
have noticed a very distinct lifting in my spirits; which surprised me, because
I didn’t think they needed lifting! Apparently, some part of me not only knew,
but knew it over ten months ago!
[J.D. 2-2-2014]
Saturday, February 22, 2014
The Mother Of All Child Abusers
What if the one you trusted as a child, the one whose sole job it was to protect you and nurture you, the one you thought cared for you and even loved you, was also the one who lied to you, betrayed you, and abused you day after day and year after year? What if this authority over you betrayed you, and told you that you must be punished for being a bad boy, or girl, in order to justify its sick need for power and control over someone else's life because they had so little control over their own? And what if this perverse monster intentionally allowed you to be forcibly raped and repeatedly used by more man than you could count, and refused to lift a finger to help even when you cried and begged? What if they kept you locked away from those who loved, and who genuinely loved you, and promised that if you are good and do everything they tell you without question that they'd let you go home, but then never do? And what if as you grow up and begin to mature you start to realize what a living hell this life that you thought was "normal" really was, but you could find no escape, and no relief from the torment, or tormentor?
Now imagine that the beast over your private hell had managed to convince the gullible society in which you lived that it had the right to do all these things to you, and said society let them do it, even legally sanctioning your living nightmare. Would the idea of poetic justice then appeal to you? Wouldn't you want this monster, and the society that abandoned you to its whims, to experience at least a taste of the misery and confusion that has been your life because of them? And in a world where the law only supported such an authority as this beast, wouldn't taking justice into your own hands be your only option? And if your life is such a living hell to begin with, don't you think you'd be willing to give it up for even a chance at such justice?
I did.
(J.D. 2-3-14)
P.S. I did, but then something happened that caused me to see through the even bigger lie we call "justice", and suddenly all of my pain had meaning, and purpose, that it never had before. I have since stopped wanting "justice" and now seek only the Truth within myself; which the tormentors in my life unwittingly only help me to do; and that's what I call real justice.
Now imagine that the beast over your private hell had managed to convince the gullible society in which you lived that it had the right to do all these things to you, and said society let them do it, even legally sanctioning your living nightmare. Would the idea of poetic justice then appeal to you? Wouldn't you want this monster, and the society that abandoned you to its whims, to experience at least a taste of the misery and confusion that has been your life because of them? And in a world where the law only supported such an authority as this beast, wouldn't taking justice into your own hands be your only option? And if your life is such a living hell to begin with, don't you think you'd be willing to give it up for even a chance at such justice?
I did.
(J.D. 2-3-14)
P.S. I did, but then something happened that caused me to see through the even bigger lie we call "justice", and suddenly all of my pain had meaning, and purpose, that it never had before. I have since stopped wanting "justice" and now seek only the Truth within myself; which the tormentors in my life unwittingly only help me to do; and that's what I call real justice.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Reality Is The Dreamer, Not The Dream
The fear of death only arises when we presume that our existence has some value beyond the Now. Such a presumption is based on the illusion of our existence outside of the Now, which occures when we focus our conscious energy on our memories of the past and/or fantasies of the future. Of course our ability to remember and to anticipate circumstances are critical to our survival (as individuals and as a species). We intuitively recognize the importance of these abilities, but when hubris takes over we forget that they are only tools that allow us to live more effectively in the now, and instead we mistake our imagined perceptions of the past and of future to be even more "real" than the present, and we suffer greatly as we try to live there.
A big reason for this common mistake is that we have been taught to forget what reality even is. Reality is not what we see, touch, taste, hear, or otherwise experience outside of ourselves. Reality isn't even what we think or feel "inside". Reality is much deeper than all of these things which depend on the organics of our brains and nervous system to happen. Reality is the underlying awareness of all of it; or simply, the ability to be aware. Reality is the dreamer, not the dream. When we remember this basic truth - I mean, really remember - then our fear of death will be void, because in the context of the Really Real death has no meaning.
(J.D. 1-24-14)
A big reason for this common mistake is that we have been taught to forget what reality even is. Reality is not what we see, touch, taste, hear, or otherwise experience outside of ourselves. Reality isn't even what we think or feel "inside". Reality is much deeper than all of these things which depend on the organics of our brains and nervous system to happen. Reality is the underlying awareness of all of it; or simply, the ability to be aware. Reality is the dreamer, not the dream. When we remember this basic truth - I mean, really remember - then our fear of death will be void, because in the context of the Really Real death has no meaning.
(J.D. 1-24-14)
Saturday, February 15, 2014
On Being A Hypocrite
If you don't think you are a hypocrite then you are probably the worst kind. I know I am hypocritical about lots of things, but I try hard not to be. Being aware of my own hypocrisy helps me be less hypocritical, and more honest about being hypocritical when I am.
If you're not willing to admit that you are a hypocrite, then you are just allowing your hypocritical nature free reign, and reign it will!
(J.D. 2-4-14)
If you're not willing to admit that you are a hypocrite, then you are just allowing your hypocritical nature free reign, and reign it will!
(J.D. 2-4-14)
Monday, February 10, 2014
A Common Misconception
Most people think that criminal lawyers have to do what the criminal defendant wants them to do in regard to the legal handling of the case against them. But, that's not true at all. Any criminal attorney knows that, aside from hiring or firing their lawyer, defendants get to make only three legal decisions in the case: whether or not to accept a plea bargain agreement (that the lawyers draft with little or no input from the defendant), whether or not to take the witness stand at trial (all other witnesses are chosen regardless of the defendant's wishes), and whether or not to waive the "right" to a "speedy trial": And even these decisions are severely restricted. For example, a defendant cannot enter into a plea agreement that their attorney does not agree to. And, if a defendant does decide to take the witness stand, the attorney is the one who decides what the testimony will be about. Also, once a defendant waives their "right" to a "speedy trial" the lawyers can then file for as many extensions to that delay as tehy like, even against their clients' wishes.
In fact, the attorneys are empowered to do almost anything they want in the client's name with or without the client's consent. They can file motions, subpoena witnesses and documents, review evidence that the defendant is not allowed to see (or sometimes even know about), and even speak in court on their client's behalf, all without ever checking to see if their client concurs with them or not. Even the decision to hire or fire an attorney is frequently restricted by the judge, especially when public defenders are involved.
In my case I told my attorneys explicitly on several occassions not to file certain motions (e.g. motions to suppress evidence that I felt was tantamount to suppressing the truth), or subpoenas (e.g. for Shasta's therapy sessions notes, which I felt was an unnecessary invasion of her privacy), and requests to delay the trial (which they did several times against my wishes). I wasn't even allowed to plead guilty at my arraignment hearing the way I wanted to because "the judge wouldn't allow it". So I remained silent instead and my attorneys entered a "not guilty" plea on my behalf.
From that day onward the judge, the newspaper and the T.V. reporters, even my own attorneys insisted on refering to motions "filed by the defendant", "Mr. Duncan's not guilty plea", and "the defendant's choices" that were all made by my attorneys against my explicit requests. They even contacted and spoke to many of my family members, and friends, that I had asked them not to contact, and later even subpoenaed them against my boisterous protests. At one point I even sent letters to as many people as I could (friends, family, landlords, college professors, etc...) warning them that if they spoke to the "defense team" investigators that they could end up being subpoenaed to testify in a very public trial (I found out later in court that many defendants have felt the need to write such letters before me, and doubtlessly many more will do so in the future). It was clear to me that I had no say in such matters, so I wanted to warn the people I cared about to stay clear, or they too could get pulled into the vortex of deception that passes for a justice system.
It was because of all this deception, that was being perpetrated in my name, that I finally decided that I had to represent myself. I had told my attorneys that they should sign any agreement necessary with the government prosecutors in order to keep Shasta from having to testify at the trial. When i found out that the government would agree to not put Shasta on the witness stand only if "the defendant" agreed to certain stipulations that my attorneys felt were too damaging for me and would not agree to (in my name of course) I said, enough is enough, and I requested to represent myself because it was the only way to keep Shasta from having to testify. (The first thing I did once I was allowed to make my own decisions in court was sign an agreement with the government prosecutor in which Shasta would not be compelled to testify unless she herself wanted to do so under no compulsion. To this day I'm not sure what I "gave" the government in exchange, because it didn't matter to me (it had something to do with agreeing to certain facts in the case, or something like that, I honestly don't remember).
So, the next time you're watching one of those phoney baloney popular cop shows that shows some criminal yelling at his attorney and telling him what to do I hope you'll realize that the entire show is just as phoney as the attorney-client relationship they depict. I can't tell you how many first time arresties come to jail insisting on all their "rights" that they think they have because their idea of "rights" comes from what they see on T.V. in shows like "Law and Order", "NCIS", or "Criminal Minds". As you may know, I have already blogged before about how completely detached from reality these shows are. The phoney "attorney-client" relationships that they depict should let you know how fake they are in general, if you can't see how phoney they are otherwise.
[J.D. 1-10-14]
P.S. Every attorney I have ever had knows full well how I feel about the above, but they also know that I hold none of it against them. They are compelled by law to do what they do, and my only criticism against them --- a criticism that I have openly expressed to each one --- is that they kid themselves into thinking they serve their clients, much as cops kid themselves into thinking they serve the victims; they are sworn to serve the System (i.e. the "Law" first, and in the end the System only serves itself. This doesn't mean I think they (my lawyers, or the police) are "bad" people. I absolutely do not think that at all. But, they are deceived, and I make no bones about reminding them of that every chance I get. I care about them as genuinely as they care about me --- and I believe they (most of them) do genuinely care about me; and that's more important to me than what they do int he name of the "Law", or even in my name for that matter.
In fact, the attorneys are empowered to do almost anything they want in the client's name with or without the client's consent. They can file motions, subpoena witnesses and documents, review evidence that the defendant is not allowed to see (or sometimes even know about), and even speak in court on their client's behalf, all without ever checking to see if their client concurs with them or not. Even the decision to hire or fire an attorney is frequently restricted by the judge, especially when public defenders are involved.
In my case I told my attorneys explicitly on several occassions not to file certain motions (e.g. motions to suppress evidence that I felt was tantamount to suppressing the truth), or subpoenas (e.g. for Shasta's therapy sessions notes, which I felt was an unnecessary invasion of her privacy), and requests to delay the trial (which they did several times against my wishes). I wasn't even allowed to plead guilty at my arraignment hearing the way I wanted to because "the judge wouldn't allow it". So I remained silent instead and my attorneys entered a "not guilty" plea on my behalf.
From that day onward the judge, the newspaper and the T.V. reporters, even my own attorneys insisted on refering to motions "filed by the defendant", "Mr. Duncan's not guilty plea", and "the defendant's choices" that were all made by my attorneys against my explicit requests. They even contacted and spoke to many of my family members, and friends, that I had asked them not to contact, and later even subpoenaed them against my boisterous protests. At one point I even sent letters to as many people as I could (friends, family, landlords, college professors, etc...) warning them that if they spoke to the "defense team" investigators that they could end up being subpoenaed to testify in a very public trial (I found out later in court that many defendants have felt the need to write such letters before me, and doubtlessly many more will do so in the future). It was clear to me that I had no say in such matters, so I wanted to warn the people I cared about to stay clear, or they too could get pulled into the vortex of deception that passes for a justice system.
It was because of all this deception, that was being perpetrated in my name, that I finally decided that I had to represent myself. I had told my attorneys that they should sign any agreement necessary with the government prosecutors in order to keep Shasta from having to testify at the trial. When i found out that the government would agree to not put Shasta on the witness stand only if "the defendant" agreed to certain stipulations that my attorneys felt were too damaging for me and would not agree to (in my name of course) I said, enough is enough, and I requested to represent myself because it was the only way to keep Shasta from having to testify. (The first thing I did once I was allowed to make my own decisions in court was sign an agreement with the government prosecutor in which Shasta would not be compelled to testify unless she herself wanted to do so under no compulsion. To this day I'm not sure what I "gave" the government in exchange, because it didn't matter to me (it had something to do with agreeing to certain facts in the case, or something like that, I honestly don't remember).
So, the next time you're watching one of those phoney baloney popular cop shows that shows some criminal yelling at his attorney and telling him what to do I hope you'll realize that the entire show is just as phoney as the attorney-client relationship they depict. I can't tell you how many first time arresties come to jail insisting on all their "rights" that they think they have because their idea of "rights" comes from what they see on T.V. in shows like "Law and Order", "NCIS", or "Criminal Minds". As you may know, I have already blogged before about how completely detached from reality these shows are. The phoney "attorney-client" relationships that they depict should let you know how fake they are in general, if you can't see how phoney they are otherwise.
[J.D. 1-10-14]
P.S. Every attorney I have ever had knows full well how I feel about the above, but they also know that I hold none of it against them. They are compelled by law to do what they do, and my only criticism against them --- a criticism that I have openly expressed to each one --- is that they kid themselves into thinking they serve their clients, much as cops kid themselves into thinking they serve the victims; they are sworn to serve the System (i.e. the "Law" first, and in the end the System only serves itself. This doesn't mean I think they (my lawyers, or the police) are "bad" people. I absolutely do not think that at all. But, they are deceived, and I make no bones about reminding them of that every chance I get. I care about them as genuinely as they care about me --- and I believe they (most of them) do genuinely care about me; and that's more important to me than what they do int he name of the "Law", or even in my name for that matter.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Fifth Nail Conundrum
What we do, or believe, in the name of salvation may be the very thing that condemns us. And the thing we condemn ourselves for may very well be the thing that saves us. This is what I could call the conundrum of the fifth nail.
Religious faith is not the solution, because it only redoubles the quandary. Philosophy will never solve the problem, because by its own admission it is limited by the bounds of human intellect and experience. If the solution is to provide salvation then it must do so independent of station and reason. Science is no more than a religious glorification of human reason, and so must also fail to save us.
There is only one direction left to turn. But, if at this point you need to be told what that direction is then you obviously have not been reading the Fifth Nail blogs, or otherwise even asking the right questions (i.e. doubting everything you have been taught to believe). The fifth nail is a symbol for the right questions, and this blog is an attempt to expose the meaning of that symbol, and perhaps the most important question of all, which is more of a conundrum than a question.
(J.D. 12-20-13)
P.S. I started the original Fifth Nail blog, "Blogging the Fifth Nail" (fifthnail.blogspot.com), back in 2004 while I was living in Fargo, North Dakota, after reading about the legend of the fifth nail on the Internet. The legend, as I recall, says that a band of Gypsies (wandering blacksmiths) were commissioned with making the nails that were used to crucify criminals in Jesus's day. In Jesus' case five nails were ordered by the Roman soldiers, and five nails were actually forged, but for reasons unknown to anyone but God (and Jesus I suppose) only four nails were delivered. The Gypsies withheld the fifth nail, which consequently became one of those miraculous religious artifacts that circulated amongst the early Christian churches. But here the story splits, and two versions of the legend lived on. In one version, the Gypsies who withheld the fifth nail were rewarded by God for preventing the Romans from defiling the heart of Christ with the fifth nail. And in the other version, the Gypsies were punished by God for withholding the nail that would have been driven into Christ's heart in order to end his suffering.
So, the quandary of the legend is clear; were the Gypsies rewarded or punished for what they did? We will never know by any effort of intellect or reason, and thus the conundrum of the fifth nail is perfectly expressed by this legend.
Religious faith is not the solution, because it only redoubles the quandary. Philosophy will never solve the problem, because by its own admission it is limited by the bounds of human intellect and experience. If the solution is to provide salvation then it must do so independent of station and reason. Science is no more than a religious glorification of human reason, and so must also fail to save us.
There is only one direction left to turn. But, if at this point you need to be told what that direction is then you obviously have not been reading the Fifth Nail blogs, or otherwise even asking the right questions (i.e. doubting everything you have been taught to believe). The fifth nail is a symbol for the right questions, and this blog is an attempt to expose the meaning of that symbol, and perhaps the most important question of all, which is more of a conundrum than a question.
(J.D. 12-20-13)
P.S. I started the original Fifth Nail blog, "Blogging the Fifth Nail" (fifthnail.blogspot.com), back in 2004 while I was living in Fargo, North Dakota, after reading about the legend of the fifth nail on the Internet. The legend, as I recall, says that a band of Gypsies (wandering blacksmiths) were commissioned with making the nails that were used to crucify criminals in Jesus's day. In Jesus' case five nails were ordered by the Roman soldiers, and five nails were actually forged, but for reasons unknown to anyone but God (and Jesus I suppose) only four nails were delivered. The Gypsies withheld the fifth nail, which consequently became one of those miraculous religious artifacts that circulated amongst the early Christian churches. But here the story splits, and two versions of the legend lived on. In one version, the Gypsies who withheld the fifth nail were rewarded by God for preventing the Romans from defiling the heart of Christ with the fifth nail. And in the other version, the Gypsies were punished by God for withholding the nail that would have been driven into Christ's heart in order to end his suffering.
So, the quandary of the legend is clear; were the Gypsies rewarded or punished for what they did? We will never know by any effort of intellect or reason, and thus the conundrum of the fifth nail is perfectly expressed by this legend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)