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)
Sunday, October 19, 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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)