The Pages of My Life

Updates

2012-01-04T19:24:00.000-08:00

Since I am using the date of creation/acquisition as my posting date on each item as I post it, it makes it a bit cumbersome for you, dear Readers, to find the latest posts. Therefore, I'm going to list here a brief description of whatever I've posted plus how to find it, as I post new items.

30th December 2011: Finished posting all academic papers written after 2001. Click Academic Papers tag to find these items.
2nd January 2012: Assorted postcards from my travels posted, click the Letters tag to find these, or search on Postcard.
3rd January 2012: Diary entries, postcards, souvenirs from Haiti. Click the Haiti tag to find these items.
4th January 2012: Assorted items from the time I was in Germany. Click the Germany tag to find these items.
5th -8th January 2012: Have begun to post the Death Row series of letters from former Florida death row inmate Dan Routly. Click the Death Row tag to find these letters. Will finish posting them in the next day or two.

Busting the Myth: The Use and Misuse of Myth in Historical Philosophy (Senior Thesis)

2007-04-30T16:29:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, my Senior Thesis is too big to post as text on Blogger! While I prefer to post the text versions of my documents here (with links to the scanned originals for legacy's sake), this document, one I am very proud of and that was very highly received, I can only embedd through Scribd.

This paper was written as my Senior Thesis for the Bachelor's of Arts in Philosophy Degree at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs. It was presented to the Faculty on the 30th of April, 2007, and successfully defended. It was also selected to be presented at a state-wide symposium and was very well received.

Busting the Myth - Laura DiFiore

The Admonitions of Ipuwer: Lamenting Progress

2007-02-28T01:22:00.000-08:00

In the Admonitions of Ipuwer, the author paints a bleak portrait of massive social disruption and change occurring in ancient Egypt. The text, found on Papyrus Leiden 344, dates to approximately 1300BCE, and is believed to be a later copy of an earlier work.[1] It is generally believed by current scholars that Ipuwer does not deal with specific actual historical events, as often argued in the past, but is instead more of a literary work on the theme of “national distress”[2] A close reading of Ipuwer, however, provides tantalizing hints at a society that has indeed experienced significant social change, regardless of the specific historical details, and should be read more as a work of social commentary over that of a strict historical or literary reading.

Social change is rampant throughout Ipuwer – total social change on a scale that is nearly unimaginable. The poor are now rich, the hungry are full, and slaves become owners, amongst other changes.[3] Because there is no historical evidence of Egypt experiencing social change on the massive scale described by Ipuwer, numerous historians have concluded that the work is one of hyperbole and simply a literary piece following the style of a popular genre, namely, that of “historical romance” on the theme of “national distress.”[4] Somewhere between the two interpretive extremes of “pure” historical work and that of simply a literary work is far more likely to be realistic. Social change had occurred in Egypt in the time period during which this was likely written (and definitely before the Papyrus Leiden copy was created); specifically, changes in who received the most complex burial rites, increasing immigration, a lessening of homage to the gods and tributes at the temples, and a lessening (albeit small) of the chasm between the lowest and highest social classes..

Traditionally, complex and expensive burial rites were reserved only for the pharaoh himself, along with a few close high-ranking officials and family members. Over time, there was a “democratization” of burial rites, especially mummification, opening up the possibility of the afterlife to a larger percentage of the general population.[5] This particular social change is evident in Ipuwer, along with tomb raiding and diminishing respect for traditional religious rituals. “He who puts his brother in the ground is everywhere” could be read as meaning there are many dead, such as from war or famine, or it could, more likely, be a comment on those who are now purchasing previously limited burial rites,[6] especially when read with lines such as “(o)ne can’t distinguish the son of man from the pauper.”[7] Is this a comment on the tombs of the “son of man” and the graves of the “pauper” no longer being distinguishable from one another? Likely. Throughout Ipuwer, comments on the “son of man” should be contextually read as the pharaoh or other high-ranking royal personages, comparisons between “son of man” and other, less-royal persons are rife and more often than not in a religious reference throughout. The lamentation against the “democratization” of burial rites to those of less than royal personage becomes more even apparent later:

“Lo, the private chamber, its books are stolen,

the secrets in it are laid bare.

Lo, magic spells are divulged,

Spells are made worthless through being repeated by people.”[8]

The private chamber referred to is likely that of the priesthood, those who knew and invoked the special spells intended to open the afterlife to the worthy. The last line referenced above is the most intriguing point Ipuwer makes regarding the leveling of burial rites: the magic is losing its power through overuse. This comment is a compelling insight into the mind of the author, likely someone who believed strongly in the prior existing social order of strict stratification both in the here-and-now and in the afterlife. The pharaoh was king and god, only those closest to him, and only those most deserving at that, could ascend to the afterlife; now many were ascending (or attempting to). Much like overusing and abusing any natural resource, Ipuwer is claiming that the magic necessary for entering the afterlife itself is being overused and abused, and therefore likely to run out.

Ipuwer later questions his god in an intriguing early argument-from-evil.[9] He wonders why god would create men “when the timid is not distinguished from the violent?”[10] This is a direct reference to permitting those of less-than-perfect-moral lives burial rites ensuring entrance into the afterlife. How can god (pharaoh) permit this blasphemy, this upheaval to the social order, especially in the afterlife where god himself lives? If anyone who has the economic resources to afford proper burial can get into the afterlife, how can one distinguish the good and deserving from the evil? Ipuwer further questions the very creation of mankind: “If only he[11] had perceived their nature in the first generation! Then he would have smitten the evil, stretched out his arm against it, would have destroyed their seed and their heirs![12]

In a society of previously unquestioning faith in the gods, this is a remarkable statement questioning the perfect, all-knowing nature of their gods. If the gods are perfect and all-knowing, wouldn’t they have known that mankind’s nature is mean and hateful? And knowing such an evil nature, wouldn’t the gods have destroyed their creation (mankind)? But god didn’t destroy mankind, despite their evil nature, and as more and more crimes occur against the gods and the traditional belief system, why doesn’t god do something about it?

This questioning of the perfect nature of the gods is simply remarkable, but is not to be assumed to be atheistic. To question the nature of god/gods has easily occurred since the very earliest human first looked up at the stars and wondered why; religion is the answer to the why question. To refine the question and answer is human nature; however, Ipuwer is not committing blasphemy when he questions how god can permit the social evils he bemoans, he is simply wondering why god doesn’t do something to stop it.

“Authority, Knowledge, and Truth are with you – turmoil is what you let happen in the land, and the noise of strife. Lo, one man assaults another, and one transgresses what you commanded.”[13]

Ipuwer concludes that turmoil happens because god permits it to happen, for whatever reason is unstated except simply that god(s) let it happen. This conclusion is not as simplistic nor fatalistic as it may appear at first glance, it is, instead, a rather comprehensive understanding of the nature of his god: yes, we can question, yes, we can bemoan, but ultimately, we can never understand why such turmoil occurs simply because god wants it to occur for reasons that are outside our ability to comprehend.

Interpreting Ipuwer and other ancient pieces outside of their social, cultural, and historical context is difficult at best, especially when attempting to interpret a translation instead of the reading it in its original language. One cannot read a text without viewing it through one’s own social paradigm. We know that during the late Old Kingdom through the First Intermediate Period there was a great deal of social upheaval, the historical evidence is strong for this.[14] Why this occurred is less well known, although speculation is rampant. Could it be simply a reflection of the lessening of centralized political power? Or could it be economic – the more people permitted the most sacred of burial rituals, the more money made by those involved in the expensive rituals? Increasing social secularization? Or a combination of these or some other, currently unknown reason? We don’t know, but we have seen such changes occur in other cultures, and have experienced the social changes caused by increasing social secularization and economic demands within our own country’s history. The reasons for such social change in Egypt at this time are likely a combination of economic, political, and social changes similar to those of other cultures and our own.

For someone living during this time, especially someone who probably was already middle-aged or elderly, experiencing such changes in one’s society would easily be lamented, and that is what Ipuwer apparently is: the lamentation of an older citizen, criticizing the changes wrought in his society by the younger generation. While Ipuwer is more of an allegorical work, one that does not reflect specific, actual, historical events[15], it draws on actual historical social changes within the Egyptian culture during the time period Ipuwer likely references. The social changes are historically real, albeit not as extreme as depicted in Ipuwer, but real nonetheless. .”What the ancestors foretold has happened” and happens to this day.[16]

Works Cited

Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. (Blackwell: Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 1997).

“Ipuwer Papyrus.” Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus

Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms Vol. 1. (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2006)

Wilson, John A. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1956)

[1] “Ipuwer Papyrus.” Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus

[2] Miriam Lichtheim. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms Vol. 1. (University of California Press: Berkeley, 2006) 149

[3] Ibid 150-161.

[4] Ibid 149-150.

[5] John A. Wilson. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1956) 104-124. Those that could afford mummification, such as middle and upper class persons. It is unlikely that the very poor could afford such burial rites, but supposedly if they could save up enough resources, there was no longer any social or religious onus against them receiving rites intended to insure their own afterlife.

[6] Miriam Lichtheim 152.

[7] Ibid 153.

[8] Ibid 155

[9] Argument from Evil: how can evil exist if god/gods are all-knowing, perfect, and benevolent? The Catholic church “reconciled” this contradiction by the notion of “free will,” Epicurus reconciled the problem by determining that the gods simply are too busy with pursuing their own happiness to be concerned with the happiness of mankind. Reconciling this conflict continues today.

[10] Miriam Lichtheim 159

[11] “He” refers to god/gods.

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid 160.

[14] Nicolas Grimal. A History of Ancient Egypt. (Blackwell: Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 1997) 136-154.

[15] Such as the events depicted later in Exodus. There are tantalizing parallels between Ipuwer and Exodus, but the parallels are simply that: tantalizing. They are far too few and infrequent to conclude absolute correlation, although the possibility that some of the more compelling images of Ipuwer were later integrated into Exodus for dramatic purposes exists.

[16] Miriam Lichtheim, 150.

Note: Written for Professor Duvick's Ancient Egyptian History class at UCCS, 28th February 2007

Flushed Away: Water Conservation and Buddhist Philosophy

2006-12-14T16:56:00.000-08:00

After four weeks (in the Outback), we’ve reached Cooper Pedy and I never thought I’d be so happy to see civilization in my life! Although it’s a stretch to call this civilization…everything is so run down and dusty, but it’s cool how the buildings are 3/4^th buried. We got out of the Jeep and bought fresh bottles of water at a corner store – nearly $5.00 for a liter! – but never has anything tasted so good! We were standing outside laughing as we drank, and for some reason, I splashed some of my water at Mike. This woman walked out of the store just as I did so, with a little boy holding her hand, and she looked at me horrified, shouting “What are you doing? That’s precious drinking water!” I mean, after four weeks of living on three liters of water a day per person I know damn well how precious drinking water, especially ice-cold, fresh, unboiled and unsterilized water is, but sheesh! To get all bent out of shape over a small splash! I think that was over the top for her… but still… somehow, I feel, um, I don’t know… ashamed.

Personal Diary Entry, December 2, 1993[1]

Australians, especially Aboriginal Australians, understand the significance of water in a way the average American may never know. Their understanding of water’s importance to life, much less the frailty of the earth’s still-abundant water supply, along with their attitude of preciousness towards water is distinctly Buddhist, although it is unlikely they would ever claim it as a Buddhist viewpoint. More likely, Australians would say they are simply being smart and pragmatic. From ultra-low-flow toilets to grey-water recycling, Australians use technology in simple and ingenious ways to best use and preserve their limited water supply. While their reasoning may be simple survival, their attitude and outlook towards water is not only distinctly Buddhist, it is one that should be emulated by Americans, if not all of the world.

While it may be obvious why Australians must be concerned about their water use, why would Americans need to be? Don’t we have a virtually unlimited supply of safe, clean, fresh drinking water? Well, yes, we do… today… but that is unlikely to last forever, and it is most definitely not unlimited. It is, in fact, likely that within our lifetimes, there will be a serious worldwide water crisis. Water is, contrary to popular belief, not necessarily a renewable resource – especially ocean water. To the extent that it is renewable, the costs are quite often prohibitive. According to the Christian Science Monitor[2],

- 1.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water

- 4,700 people die every day due to lack of potable water (mostly children under the age of 5)

- Per-person water use more than doubled compared to the rate of population growth during the last century.

Not only is clean drinking water inaccessible to nearly 16% of the world’s population, we are using up our supply of drinkable water at an unsustainable rate. This is not only obvious in desert regions of Australia and Africa, it is happening right here in America. Aquifers throughout the country are drying up. The High Plains Aquifer, covering and supplying water to parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, New Mexico, Wyoming and Texas provides 30 percent of the water used for agriculture within the United States.[3] From 1940 to 1980, the level of this aquifer dropped as much as 100 feet in many places – that’s 100 feet of water covering an area of several thousand square miles gone forever to the high demands of modern agriculture. Gone forever because much of this water was poisoned with heavy metals, fertilizers, and other poisons commonly used to increase agricultural yields at the expense of the future sustainability of the ground wells the water came from. We are not only hurting our water supply, we are destroying it and ultimately our own survivability.

The average American’s attitude towards water use is unfathomable to a Buddhist. Americans are just five percent of the world’s population yet we use 15 percent of the world’s water supply annually.[4] For such a small set of the population to consume – and abuse – such a large amount of available drinking water is contrary to basic Buddhist principles. For starters, by hurting our water supply, we are hurting our planet, ourselves, and every other living and nonliving creation. We are creating a state of suffering – in a world where all life is suffering – to such an extent that we risk our own ultimate demise because we “grasp” more and more water everyday. We use drinking water to flush our toilets: that is simply obscene! We use drinking water to water grass simply to improve the appearance of our front yards – up to 30% of our drinking water is used on front lawns. We wash our cars and trucks with drinking water… we use drinking water to fill up our radiators and hose down our streets. To use precious drinking water for such non-life-vital purposes is not only obscene, it violates virtually every precept of the eight-fold path[5]. By no stretch of the imagination is flushing our toilets (often with up to four gallons!) with fresh drinking water a good example of right action, much less right living.

For Buddhists, water is not only essential to life, it is a elemental symbol of life, one that is used throughout Buddhist practices. Buddhists consider water one of the five basic elements (earth, water, fire, air, space[6]) and much Buddhist symbolism revolves around water. The cone portion of many stupas represents water, and the cone portion is usually the uppermost portion of a stupa[7]. This uppermost portion – the highest-reaching part – of a stupa serves to highlight the importance of water to not only all other elements, but to all of life. Water is one of the “Eight Offerings,” offered to cleanse one’s mouth, face, or feet.[8] We are created in our mother’s womb in a water-filled sac, without water we could not exist much less end the cycle of rebirth! The lotus, another important Buddhist symbol, can only grow in water[9]. It is not by accident that Buddhists chose the lotus flower as one of their more important and prolific symbols. Like a human growing in a mother’s water-filled womb[10], the lotus grows in water, as do all fish (the Golden Fish is a symbol of good fortune for Buddhists)[11]. Many insects and animals require water to grow… frogs, for example, start their lives out as water-living tadpoles. All mammals gestate in water, many reptiles spend part of their lives in water, often their eggs are laid in water or near water. The water-growing lotus is such an important symbol to Buddhists that Buddha is routinely represented as sitting on the bloom of a lotus.[12] Water, especially clear, pure, tranquil water is often a symbolism for a untroubled mind, a symbol of not only mindfulness, but a symbol of nibbana, the cessation of all that poisons our mind, the Buddha-nature.[13] Water is not just a sacred symbol to Buddhists, its use as a symbol is common throughout most world religions.[14] From Orpheus’s reformation of the Dionysian religion to modern-day Christianity, water is used in sacred rites worldwide.[15] The sacred symbolism of water is nearly universal.

Buddha recognized the importance of water conservation; in fact, he “set down rules forbidding his disciples to contaminate water resources.”[16] Monks are forbidden from throwing waste, trash, food and other contaminants into water, and they were extolled to protect the lives of all animals (obviously, including humans) that rely upon any water supply for survival[17]. The Vinaya Pitaka explains how to safely build toilets (so as not to contaminate local water supplies) and recognizes water and the ocean as the home of other sentient beings, that being fish.[18] Anyone who damages water supplies does “so at great karmic peril.”[19] For a Buddhist, to damage essential water is not only to cause (and increase) suffering of all life, it puts one’s own future life and future enlightenment at risk.[20]

Why is it that Americans use so much water – more than 420 liters a day – compared to the 30-50 liters generally considered the basic daily amount of water necessary for cleaning, cooking, and drinking?[21] Why do we believe it absolutely necessary to flush our toilets with drinking water? Suggest to the average American that they reuse their shower water to flush their toilets and you will likely get a very squeamish response, along the lines of “eww, that’s gross.” Ask yourself as you read this: How many times today did you flush your toilet with drinking water? Does even one of those flushes contain more water than you drank today? Very likely. At between 1.5 and four gallons per flush, most of us flush much more water than we drink. It seems at first that, for a Buddhist, this would be a prime example of grasping, but American’s abuse and misuse of water cannot simply be explained as simply grasping. It is not caused by greed or hatred, or even delusion[22] (that water is a renewable, endless resource): all are convenient explanations but not enough. Our abuse of our water supply is truly an example of mindfulness, rather, lack of mindfulness, and our inability to recognize the essential interdependence of all beings – including water. We simply do not recognize that we are hurting other beings, our planet, and water itself. We are not being mindful when we automatically flush the toilet without thinking about what we are doing, much less about where the water we so cavalierly flush away came from nor where it is going.

No joke, sign on the hostel bathroom says “If it’s yellow, let it mellow. If it’s brown, flush it down.” How funny – how gross! Actually, the toilets are kinda cool. They use compressed air and a few OUNCES of water to flush, make a big swoosh sound…loud! The shower, though, is really weird. You get one shower token per day for 75 seconds of water. There is two buttons, one for hot, one for cold, you gotta push and hold them with both hands to get the shower to work. I ran out of water before I could get shampoo out of my head, ended up just wiping it off with the towel. Hair never been so shiny before!

Personal Diary Entry, December 4, 1993

Water may be the best example of the Buddhist concept of interbeing, and the importance of interbeing to Buddhists. Interbeing, the interconnection of everything to everything else, implies not only creative forces behind each being’s existence (we cannot “exist” without having something create us, nor do we actually ever cease to exist as from us becomes new creation), it also implies “the idea of mutual obligation between nature and humanity, and between people.”[23] Water is not just an essential element of interbeing, it is a member of the Buddhist sangha, as is all of the earth.[24] Water, as does everything else in existence, is imbued with “sacred power” essential to all of life.[25] Everything is interdependent, especially water, and this is particularly true to Buddhists. Water is not just essential to the health of plants, animals, and humans, it is essential to the very health of the earth itself and its atmosphere. We, “are an active part of the Earth’s atmosphere, constantly circulating the breath of this planet through our bodies,”[26] and as an essential part of the atmosphere which contains not only air but water vapor, it is vital to the future of the Earth itself that we continue to have access to clean water not only for drinking, but for breathing.

It is not enough to blame “wrong” mindfulness as the reason for our misuse of water; we must face the fact that our mindset towards water “derives from a dysfunctional and pathological notion of the self.” [27] Those 1.1 billion people without access to clean water are denied this essential element of life not just because its uneconomical to provide them with the means for a clean water system, it is our self-centered, competitive and consumptionistic view of the entire world, along with our misguided belief in our own (cultural) superiority that has warped our sense of self to the point where we simply do not recognize that every other human is a part of our own “self.” Every time one flushes four gallons of water down the toilet with a few small squares of bleached paper[28] you are flushing away four gallons of water that could mean the difference between life and death for at least one other person on the planet. But we don’t think about thirsty people in other countries…the idea that anyone may actually die of dehydration is pretty much alien to the average American. This is not just a result of general lack of understanding of non-self, it is not just a lack of mindfulness or understanding of interbeing, it is also a result of competition[29].

Americans view just about everything as competition, but then so do many other animals and even plants. We are biologically ingrained to compete with one another for limited resources – whether we are a noxious weed or a prehistoric human – there is a strong survival instinct within every living thing on the planet. This competitive nature, especially over resources necessary for survival, however, has led to much of our ingenious technological advances. Water treatment itself – the actual technology to provide abundant, clean drinking water – is a result of our competitive nature’s desire to survive. However, at the same time, these technological advances also came about through a sense of cooperation. The Romans would not have thrived as they did without their aqueducts; those aqueducts could not have been built without cooperative human thinking and action. From the Romans to today, technology has led to much of our misuse and abuse of water; however, it is that very technology that could potentially save our water supply.

… beer is cheaper than water! $1.10 for a beer, $4.90 for 12 ounces of water! Speaking of money, some guy offered me $10 for my shower token today…an American, of course!

Personal Diary Entry, December 7, 1993

If we try to change the mindset of most Americans towards one of non-self and interbeing to change their attitude towards water use, we will fail: America’s consumerist mindset is too deeply ingrained. But these same Buddhist concepts can successfully be put to use to change our view and usage of water, albeit in a more artful manner. Appealing to the idea of saving money as one saves water could be successful[30] – showing people how the use of technology (low-flow shower heads, low-flow toilets) can reduce their personal costs is one good idea. Through public-service announcements and appeals to the wallet, we can begin to slowly change the mindset of America to one that at least considers water as approaching the precious nature that Buddhists and Australians alike share. Ironically, however, grey-water recycling[31], a very “low tech” technological advance, one that could greatly reduce our abuse of drinking water, is actually illegal in many parts of the country – water that falls from the sky (rain) is often legally considered the “property” of the local water authority. To encourage the installation and use of grey-water recycling, we will also have to change the mindset of local utility companies, politicians, and the public at large, which tends to view grey-water recycling as “gross.[32]” Grey-water recycling is already used in some parts of the world by municipal water suppliers, even in the United States, but overall its usage is very small, especially compared to the amount of water misused.

The adoption and use of water conservation technology – especially drip-irrigation systems – must be strongly encouraged to the agricultural industry, which uses up to 70% of all drinkable water, according to the EPA[33]. Many agricultural companies are loath to upgrade their irrigation systems, usually using the argument that it would make their costs too high (consumers don’t want to pay a penny or two more for their vegetables). This argument can be countered by pointing out that using less water would reduce costs, and create a positive public-relations situation for companies that choose to do so.

Using the concept of interdependence, we can change some attitudes towards water usage. Show ducks dying from drinking pond water poisoned by the runoff of a local car wash can effectively point out our responsibility for that animal’s life, at the same time shaming that car wash owner into more responsible disposal of its poisoned runoff. Take it a step further, and perhaps that same car wash owner can be persuaded to change to an ecologically safer soap and wax, or even the concept of recycling the water it uses. Slowly but surely, however, we can alter the American mindset to be more aware of our water use and reduce our abuse.

Water conservation is not just about sustainability and habitat protection for water-dependent animals, it is also about energy conservation. A significant amount of electrical energy is used to treat, supply, and dispose of water. To extend the availability of the gas, coal, and oil used to provide us with electricity, reducing the energy consumption of water providing industries must be addressed. We must do so. The future of our future is at risk.

We cannot live without each other and we cannot live without water. We – water and virtually every single other living thing on the planet – are absolutely dependent upon each other for survival. This is not to say that water can’t survive without humans – it most definitely can – but at our current rates of consumption and pollution, water cannot continue to survive with humans. The future life of water is absolutely dependent upon humans changing their mindset and actions as regards water. If we do not change our attitudes – our mindset – about water, we are not only “capable of suffering with our world,” we are destined to suffer with our world.[34]

Works Cited

Abram, David. “Perceptual Implications of Gaia.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 76-77.

Abraham, Ralph. “Orphism: The Ancient Roots of Green Buddhism.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 39-49.

Christian Science Monitor. “Backstory: Tapping the World.” Online edition of the March 22, 2006 article found at http://www.csmonitor.com.

DeSilva, Padmasiri. “Buddhist Environmental Ethics.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. P 17.

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. “How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively.” http://www.epa.gov/ow/you/chap3.html

Halifax, Joan. “The Third Body.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. P 25.

Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Heart of Buddha’s Teachings: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy and Liberation. New York: Broadway Books, 1999. Pp. 236-140.

Harderwijk, Rudy. A View on Buddhism. http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org. Stupas can be small, to sit on a desk, or very large, as when an entire temple is built in the form of a stupa. Stupas represent “the enlightened mind of the Buddha.”

Hayward, Jeremy. “Ecology and the Experience of Sacredness.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 72-73.

Kabilsingh, Chatsumarn. “Early Buddhist Views on Nature.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990.

Kumar, Nitin. “The Lotus in Buddhism.” Exotic India Arts. Reprinted at ReligionFacts.com. http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/symbols/lotus.htm

Levitt, Peter. “An Intimate View.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 93-96.

Macy, Joanna. “The Greening of the Self.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. P 57.

Olson, Carl. Original Buddhist Sources: A Reader. 2005. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London.

United States Geological Survey. Water Level Changes in the High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 1994. USGS, 4 March 1996.

[1] I spent four months traveling throughout Australia in 1993-1994, four weeks of that in the Outback. Six of us traveled together, and carried 3 liters of water per day per person for all water needs – cleaning, cooking, drinking - on our journey. When I checked into the hostel in Cooper Pedy, I was stunned to learn that we were limited to 1.5 liters per day per person!

[2] “Backstory: Tapping the World.” Christian Science Monitor. Online edition of the March 22, 2006 article found at http://www.csmonitor.com.

[3] United States Geological Survey. Water Level Changes in the High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 1994. USGS, 4 March 1996.

[4] Christian Science Monitor.

[5] Olson, Carl. Original Buddhist Sources: A Reader. 2005. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London.

[6] Sometimes the elements are listed as only four – space being excluded. I don’t know why.

[7] Harderwijk, Rudy. A View on Buddhism. http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org. Stupas can be small, to sit on a desk, or very large, as when an entire temple is built in the form of a stupa. Stupas represent “the enlightened mind of the Buddha.”

[8] Harderwijk.

[9] Kumar, Nitin. “The Lotus in Buddhism.” Exotic India Arts. Reprinted at ReligionFacts.com. http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/symbols/lotus.htm

[10] Levitt, Peter. “An Intimate View.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 93-96.

[11] Harderwijk.

[12] Kumar.

[13] Hanh, Thich Nhat. The Heart of Buddha’s Teachings: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy and Liberation. New York: Broadway Books, 1999. Pp. 236-140.

[14] Abraham, Ralph. “Orphism: The Ancient Roots of Green Buddhism.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 39-49.

[15] Abraham, p 44-45.

[16] Kabilsingh, Chatsumarn. “Early Buddhist Views on Nature.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990.

[17] Kabilsingh, p 11.

[18] Kabilsingh, p 11.

[19] Kabilsignh., p 11.

[20] Kabilsignh.

[21] Christian Science Monitor.

[22] DeSilva, Padmasiri. “Buddhist Environmental Ethics.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. P 17.

[23] deSilva, p 18.

[24] Halifax, Joan. “The Third Body.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. P 25.

[25] Halifax, p 24.

[26] Abram, David. “Perceptual Implications of Gaia.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 76-77.

[27] Macy, Joanna. “The Greening of the Self.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. P 57.

[28] I will not get into how many billions of gallons of water are irrevocably poisoned and destroyed during the process of manufacturing toilet paper...that is for another paper!

[29] Hayward, Jeremy. “Ecology and the Experience of Sacredness.” Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Ed. Allan Hunt Badiner. Berkely, California: Parallax Press, 1990. Pp 72-73.

[30] In Colorado Springs, the utility company is raising the cost of water and sewer service for most of its customers by about $6.00 per month this year. As a (surprisingly effective) “public relations” ploy, many of their advertisements emphasize that this cost will be used to reduce future costs for the public, along with increasing usable water supplies.

[31] Grey water recycling is a systematic approach of reusing water as much as possible before treating/re-treating it for human consumption. Typical systems reuse shower and sink water in toilets, dish and clothes washing machine waters in gardens. Some use roof gutter water to flush toilets or store water for gardening purposes.

[32] Shortly after I bought my house in 1999, I remodeled my bathroom. Along with an ultra-low-flow toilet and shower head, I installed a grey-water recycling system that uses a combination of sink and bathtub runoff to flush the toilet. Every single one of my friends reacted to this system with the word “gross.” Logical appeals – “yes, it’s water from my shower, but I’m just urinating in it, so what does it matter” simply didn’t work to convince any of them that this was a superior system to the flush-my-drinking-water system at the time. Seven years later, I am still teased about my “weird” toilet…however, five of my friends have asked my help in installing their own systems.

[33] EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. “How to Conserve Water and Use It Effectively.” http://www.epa.gov/ow/you/chap3.html

[34] Macy, p. 57

Written for Professor Bender's Buddhist Philosophy class at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, on the 14th December 2006.

Flushed Away - Academic Paper - Laura DiFiore

Does He or Doesn’t He?

2006-12-14T01:34:00.000-08:00

Sextus Empiricus, a physician and Skeptic philosopher (c. AD 200) created a rather lengthy argument against the arguments for the existence of god(s) that, despite his stated belief that god exists, is intended to neither prove nor disprove the existence of god(s), but is instead intended to point out the problems inherent in other philosophical school’s logical reasoning for the existence of god(s). While the argument against the dogmatists’ arguments is craftily worded to avoid contemporary criticism, much less make an affirmative statement one way or the other, Sextus creates a very strong argument for the non-existence of god(s), while conflicting with the Skeptic goal of freedom from disturbance and avoidance of dogmatism.

Do Skeptics believe or not believe in the existence of god? Reading Sextus, it is hard to say for certain. On face value, for the Skeptic’s, god exists. However, to say one way or another whether god(s) exist would be dogmatic, as any such statement would be assenting to “something non-evident investigated by the sciences,” another contradiction of the skeptic stance (Inwood, 305). Even discussing the existence or non-existence of god is a contradiction of the skeptic stance, as there are no generally agreed-upon “self-evident” appearances or perceptions of god for the skeptic to dispute and/or investigate. Any such argument, regardless of outcome, is a contradiction of the stoic’s goal of “freedom from disturbance with respect to matters of belief” (307). Yet Sextus clearly states a belief in the existence of god(s): “…we say undogmatically that gods exist and that we revere them and we say that they are providential[1]” (362)

In fact, Sextus opens his entire argument against the (dogmatic) school’s arguments (for/against existence of god) with this statement. It is unlikely that Sextus is making such a statement solely for politically-correct purposes, or for purposes of stating his actual true personal beliefs: it is abundantly obvious Sextus intended to attack only their argument, not their belief one way or the other, but the result is an argument that is a strong statement for the non-existence of god.

Using skepticisms’ logical framework, how something appears is almost always uncertain because everything appears differently to everyone. Investigating how something appears is a waste of time; only “whether it really is such as it appears” can be investigated and determined (306, emphasis added). Sextus asks “how shall we be able to acquire a conception of god when we do not agree about his substance nor about his form nor about his location?”, a question still asked today (362). Since neither the appearance or non-appearance of god can be agreed upon, nor can any investigation to date determine whether god really is as he appears (assuming any sort of agreement ever being reached about whether any appearance actually exists); therefore, a skeptic should, for the sake of ataraxia (αταραξια), choose to suspend any judgement.

Sextus thoroughly empasizes the importance of suspending judgement throughout all of his writings; his statement that gods exist should not be taken to be his true belief based on all his following arguments. . When there is “equal force” to both sides of an argument, one must suspend judgement, yet Sextus does not suspend judgement

As to the nature of god, whether or not god exists, Sextus’ argument against an incorporeal god is compelling and a logically strong argument for the non-existence of god (371). An incorporeal existence implies an existence outside of matter, one that cannot interact with the physical world as we know it. Since it is assumed (actually strongly believed by most people world-wide) that gods can and do interfere and intervene in human life, they cannot be non-incorporeal[2], because to do so would require the ability to interact with the physical world: they must have a body of some sort. Just because the common “conception of the gods…has always existed” doesn’t necessarily mean gods do exist, much less common conceptions of appearances (366). Regardless, being incorporeal implies to a certain extent weakness, but “it is counter to the [common] conception of god that he should be weaker than anything” (364). So if god is not incorporeal, god must have a body…but having a body implies mortality and a certain amount of weakness, which doesn’t fit the common “conception” of god any more than an incorporeal existence does (364). It is, at least to date, “self-evident” that gods do not have a body, because if they did have a body, the nature of their appearance (is it really as it appears) could be investigated. Since it is impossible for god to be incorporeal and interact as is widely believed, and since “god’s existence is neither self-evident on its own” (no body), one should suspend judgment (363). God’s nature, much less existence, is ungraspable, especially because of the “equal force” of both sides of the argument (303). In fact, Sextus does state that it is “necessary to suspend judgment concerning whether he exists or not” (362).

One of the other arguments that Sextus discusses for the existence of god is “that which generates rational and prudent beings is itself certainly rational and prudent” is unfounded logic The argument is simple: we exist, we are (supposedly) rational and prudent, therefore something rational and prudent created us. While structurally this is a valid argument, it still defies a certain amount of logic. The Greeks, including apparently Sextus, believe not only that god created man, but that god created everything. To state that something “rational and prudent” will create something else that is “rational and prudent” to some extent implies that “rational and prudent” beings can only create “rational and prudent” beings and that non-rational beings/objects can only create other non-rational beings/objects (367). Yet god (according to the Greeks) created trees, stones, grass, and other (generally agreed upon) non-rational objects. Rational beings can create irrational beings/objects: a child born in a vegetative state is undoubtedly non-rational. Of course, this assumes human rationality. For Sextus, “man cannot be the absolutely best animal, considering just the fact that he conducts his whole life in vice,” therefore there is no certainty on the appearance of man’s rationality so this also something that judgment should be suspended on. If one suspends judgment on the rationality/irrationality of mankind, then one must suspend judgment on the rationality/irrationality of god (366). The argument for the existence of god goes further by using the cosmos itself as an argument for god. The cosmos moves in an “orderly and harmonious way,” and if something moves (is moved) “in an orderly and harmonious way, it will be something divine and supernatural” (369). Since the cosmos moves in an orderly and harmonious way, such movement must be caused by something “divine and supernatural;” therefore, it must be god. As there are other things that move in an orderly and harmonious way (i.e., ants heading towards the picnic basket) and do so without the aid of either an incorporeal or noncorporeal god, the cosmos-based argument for god cannot work. One must still suspend judgment on the existence of god.

In fact, every argument for (or against) the existence of god that Sextus disputes ends with the same result: one must suspend judgment, at least. Sextus points out so many weaknesses[3] and flaws in the dogmatic arguments for the existence of god that the argument is not even one of “equal force” anymore: one must go further and determine that since the arguments for the existence of god are so weak¸ one must conclude (or at least consider) that god does not exist. God is not incorporeal nor corporeal, god is neither weak nor strong, god is neither rational nor irrational; in fact, regardless of which dualistic combination one applies to any hypothetical appearance or conception of god results in a null answer.

Works Cited

Inwood, Brad and L.P. Gerson. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. Second Edition: 1997. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis/Cambridge.

[1] This statement is very clever. The use of the word “undogmatically” is an obvious attempt to avoid criticism from Sextus’s fellow skeptics, while appeasing the political powers with “revere” and the religious powers with “providential.” Sextus, like others before him, is doing his best to avoid the fate of Socrates but also make another point as discussed above. It is amazing that, even today, in our separation of church and state culture, it is still not only politically correct but politically and socially wise to pay lip service to the dominant cultural believe in the existence (or non-existence) of god.

[2] Of course, modern physics would argue that an incorporeal entity – energy-based existence – is capable of moving objects, given a strong enough amount of energy…

[3] My personal favorite of Sextus’ arguments was the one about worship. People worship god, so therefore god must exist. Very funny (no offense intended)! People – well, kids – worship Santa Claus but we know without doubt that Santa Claus does not exist! Granted, to claim that people are foolish for worshiping something they know does not exist, or cannot assert with confidence would likely get one in a lot of social and/or political trouble.

Written for Professor Tanner's Hellenistic Philosophy class at UCCS, December 14, 2006

Elucidating Electra

2006-11-07T17:34:00.000-08:00

Within the myth of Electra, multiple elements of virtually all theoretical approaches to mythology are found. The various incarnations of the Electra myth generally go like this: Agamemnon marries Clytemnestra and together they have three children: Iphigenia, Electra, and Orestes. Agamemnon goes off to fight in the Trojan War; he and his men get stuck – the wind won’t blow so their ships won’t sail – so he sacrifices his daughter, Iphigenia, as restitution for killing a stag sacred to Artemis. Clytemnestra is so angry at her husband for killing her daughter that she takes up with another man (Aegisthus) and, upon Agamemnon’s return, murders him. The murder of the father angers Orestes and especially Electra. The god Apollo orders Orestes to avenge his father’s death by killing his mother and stepfather, which he does so with the help of Electra. In summary: father kills daughter, wife kills husband, son kills step-father and mother. While the psychological approach seems to apply most fully, to gain the fullest possible understanding and appreciation for this (or any other) myth, one must approach it from multiple perspectives.

Applying the psychological approach to Electra, Freudian elements are rampant. The most obvious is that of “imaginative alleviating:” a face-your-fears therapeutic effect (7). The plot of Electra demonstrates several absolutely abhorrent situations, no one of which at face value is necessarily more or less abhorrent than the other. What mother would want to face her husband, knowing he killed his daughter, even if it was a “sacrifice” to appease a god and therefore potentially save the lives of many? Much less be the son ordered by a god to kill your own mother to avenge your father’s death? Through the myth of Electra, the reader/viewer can put themselves – safely – into a atrocious situation, ask themselves what would they do in the same situation, and find relief at the knowledge that it is not themselves who are in the situation. The thought of one’s mother killing her husband, your father, is a horrible tragedy no one would want to face, especially as the role of mother is one traditionally of nurturing and caring. The therapeutic effects of role-playing – even in roles as horrendous as those of these characters – are well known.

While not necessarily as obvious, elements of Freud’s Oedipus complex are also extant, and Jung’s Electra complex even more so (7-9). Orestes is conflicted between his love (and duty) for his mother with his hatred of her actions, Electra loses all love for her mother and “becomes hostile” to her mother somewhat as a rival but more so as the person who destroyed her first “true” love: her father (8). For Electra, Clytemnestra’s actions are “…most shameful thing of all…[to] sleep with the murderer with whom you … killed my father…” (453). From a Jungian perspective, Electra’s role is perhaps the most clear-cut, her reaction the most understandable: Mom killed Dad, my first love, the man she created me through, therefore Mom must atone (9). Electra’s stance is further supported by the fact that her mother not only killed her father, she betrayed him by cheating on him, in effect forcing her son into exile and imprisoning her daughter; multiple crimes of which any one of might be forgiven, but taken all together are unforgivable in Electra’s eyes.

Orestes faces perhaps the most difficult dilemma. Apollo orders him to avenge his father’s death – something that one is usually on fairly solid moral grounds in doing – but the person he must avenge his father’s death upon is his own mother. To kill one’s mother is beyond repugnant, but he must follow the law of the god Apollo. From a Jungian perspective, this is “(m)ost important of all, from the ensuing sense of guilt and sin for parricide emerges the conception of God as Father who must be appeased and to whom atonement must be made” (8). Orestes must “appease” Apollo and by extension, “appease” his father (8). Orestes’ role clearly exemplifies the “collective [unconscious] embrac[ing] political and social questions involving the group”: in this case, which law is more important (9)? The law of the gods (to avenge your father’s death) or the law of man and to a lesser extent the gods: that of not killing your mother? Is Orestes acting as a model “who teach[es] us how to behave” (9)? For the Greeks, yes, Orestes is teaching us how to behave: The avenging of the death of one’s father is of highest priority; one that is higher even than that of honoring the woman who gave birth to you. Orestes asks “How can I escape the curse of my father, if I do not act” (448)? This shows the conflict and moral doubt that Orestes faces, although his question is also one of decision: he must act; he has no choice regardless of the repercussions.

To gain a full understanding of the Electra myth, it is not enough to only view it through the psychological paradigm. Levi-Strauss’ structuralist theoretical approach provides further insight. For Strauss, myth is “a mode of communication,” one filled with the binary elements reflecting the binary nature of the human mind (12). Within Electra, binary elements are extensive: mother/daughter, father/son, brother/sister, mother/father, right/wrong, law of the gods/man, and love/hate, to name just a few. For Strauss, “myth … is a mode by which a society communicates and through which it finds a resolution between conflicting opposites” (13). Orestes faces, most compellingly, the battle between the “conflicting opposites” of law of the Gods and law of man. He chooses, as would be expected ultimately within the culture of the Greeks at the time, to choose to follow the law of the gods. Orestes and Electra both face the binary choice of father/mother, and both choose the side of the father, which also further supports the cultural expectations of the time of the father as “god” of the household, the ultimate authority within the family. By expressing these opposites as defined by Levi-Strauss, Electra provides further “imaginative alleviating” via Freudian methods. Through facing situations and decisions involving these “conflicting opposites,” Orestes in particular and the reader/viewer by osmosis must not only question their place and roles in the world, they must question the moral authority they live under and the choices they make based not only on social but also divine influence.

What is particularly compelling within this myth is that the duty to avenge the death of one’s father seems to apply equally to both the daughter and the son. Electra is under the same compulsion as Orestes, although without the obvious divine authority that Apollo has given Orestes. Her worldview is remarkably clear-cut and without the ethical ambiguity that Orestes faces of which law to follow: that of the god Apollo to avenge or of man not to kill. However, for Orestes, Apollo’s order is not as capricious as it may at first seem. Orestes is not only avenging his father’s death, he is also acting as the agent of punishment for Clytemnestra’s decision to act without divine authority. Clytemnestra in effect went against the wishes of Artemis by killing Agamemnon, who “simply” was providing restitution for the death of her sacred stag with the sacrifice of his daughter. Agamemnon was essentially clean in the eyes of Artemis and therefore Apollo; his debt to the gods was paid with his daughter’s sacrifice. Clytemnestra’s hands were “dirty,” however, for she chose to kill the “clean” Agamemnon on her own authority, with no word from the gods nor even authority from man-made laws. Her act was vengeful murder, pure and simple.

Walter Burkert (structuralist) points out that “classical myths have a “historical dimension” with “successive layers” of development … during which the original tale has been modified to fit the cultural or other circumstances of the time of its retelling” (15). This is particularly true of the myth of Electra, a myth that has been retold in one form or another for centuries; that has profound impact on not only the Greeks, but successive cultures since. For Burkert, all myths have “reference to ‘something of collective importance,’” and this is as true today of Electra as it was when first compiled (15). We are horrified when newscasters report on stories such as the case of Nancy Kissel who poisoned and bludgeoned her husband (who was cheating on her with other men) . This and other modern cases point out the very similar dilemmas as Electra: is it ever right for a wife to kill her husband, especially without divine authority? It is of cultural and “collective importance” to virtually all human societies that we feel safe within our own family structures. Death at the hand of a loved one – especially a mother or wife – is of the highest repugnance to our sensibilities. By providing us with examples such as Electra, we can see not only that “evil actions present a foil to enhance the good for all to see,” we can explore and define for ourselves both individually and as a society what exactly is not only evil and good, but how one should respond to both (461).

[1] Other cases I’ve seen recently on CNN: In Gambia, a 26-year-old wife has been arrested for killing her 76-year-old husband. In Tennessee, a woman and her lover were found guilty of murdering her husband. Then there is the Menendez brothers case …enough said!

Works Cited

Morford, Mark P.O. and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical Mythology. 8th Edition. Oxford University Press: New York. 2007.

Written for Professor Tanner's Greek & Roman Mythology Class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 7th November 2006.

Exploring Death in Epictetus

2006-11-02T01:32:00.000-08:00

Epictetus’ teachings provide significant amounts of clear, easy-to-understand practical advice on living day-to-day life. One of the strengths of Epictetus’ teachings is in dealing with suffering, pain, hardships and other negatives of live. Epictetus views the various sufferings of one’s body as something to be viewed as outside of our control; in fact, one is to carry one’s pain with equanimity. For Epictetus, death is not to be feared, as it is inevitable. Epictetus also views suicide and euthanasia [1] to end unendurable suffering as acceptable and good. Throughout his teachings, Epictetus provides many logical foundations to help his followers endure suffering with equanimity, especially when facing death. However, despite his belief in the existence of god, Epictetus does not provide for any sort of rebirth or afterlife. In a philosophy heavy on providing people with the means to face the hardships of life with a certain level of comfort, the lack of an afterlife to provide hope and comfort to both the dying and their survivors is a serious weakness.

Epictetus is correct to claim that death is nothing to be feared because it is inevitable. “Death…is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates” (Encheiridion 5). It is our fear of death, not death itself, that causes us hardship (5). Death is absolute – “(T)ell me where I can escape death … show me the men whom death does not visit” (Discourses 4:7). . Because death is absolutely outside of our control and cannot be avoided by anyone, it not only should not be feared but also welcomed – although not necessarily rushed to, with the exception of suicide and/or euthanasia in cases of unendurable suffering. For Epictetus, not only is death absolute and inevitable, it “is a necessary thing” (Encheiridion 14). Even the very human simple wish to avoid death, to live forever, is a waste of emotional energy:

If you wish your children, and your wife, and your friends to live for ever, you are stupid; for you wish to be in control of things which you cannot…(14)

This view of death is pragmatic, but also uncomfortably harsh, especially for our Western sensibilities. There is, of course, a certain logic to it: “I cannot escape from death” is stating the obvious: we do all die (Discourses 4:7). Stating it is not something to fear, perhaps, expects the superhuman from mere humans, but at least it is an ideal to aim for that can provide comfort to some, especially those in extreme pain facing death.

What about death itself? What exactly is death and what happens after we die? For Epictetus, death is “a greater change” one in which we become “something else, of which the world now has need” (3:24). What it is that the “world now has need” is the components of which we are created from – the minerals, elements, atoms, and chemicals of our body. At death, they return to the earth, for the universe now “has need” of our components to use to make something else (3:24). The same is true when we were created: we were born because the “world ha(s) need of” us; at death, the world’s need for us ceases and it now has need for something else (3:24). We are, in essence, upon death simply raw material for the universe to put to its use as it deems necessary. Even though Epictetus views our “will” as separate from our body, our “will” – our soul – faces the exact same outcome as our body: worm food (3:24). Our essence, our spark of life, ceases just as our body does. This does create a conflict within Epictetus’ teachings: How can one reconcile the idea that the will, the soul, is separate from the body throughout life, that the pains of the body are not the pains of the soul, but yet at the same time claim that when the body ceases to exist, so does the soul? If it is outside of the body, separate from the vessel that contains it, why doesn’t Epictetus provide for some other outcome for the soul that is outside of and separate from the eventual outcome of the body?

Epictetus’ lack of an afterlife is problematic. We are human: we need hope and some sort of comfort when a loved one dies that we may be with them once again. The need for “something” after death is virtually universal within the human condition: even many self-proclaimed Atheists will express some sort of belief in reincarnation or other form of afterlife. Without the psychological necessity of hope for one to be together with their loved ones after death, there can be extreme difficulty in dealing with the death of a loved one. “I have returned it,” Epictetus’ attempt to provide comfort, does offer some comfort to the grieving, but not necessarily enough (Encheiridion 11). “I have returned it” makes death sound like one is returning a pair of shoes to the store because you decided you didn’t like them when you got home.

What exactly does it mean to return it, to give it back?” Are we simply giving back the atoms and other chemical components of the body to the natural world to be broken down and reconstituted into a future plant, mineral, animal or even human, as Epictetus professes? Or are we giving back the essence, the “soul” of the person? While giving back the body may make logical sense, the soul, just like the body, eventually ceases to exist: it cannot be given back because it no longer exists. To give the soul back implies returning it to the gods, as if the loved one was a gift from the gods. Yet how can one give something back to the gods if it no longer exists? Can you give water back after you have drunk it? No. Even if the soul did still exist but just in a different form of some sort, as the body becomes a different form (its atoms), Epictetus does not provide a place for the soul to go to – no “home” of the gods for them to return to. He recognizes the existence of gods and the “fact” that we are “sprung from God, and that God is the Father of men” but denies humans the ability to become one with the gods – or ascend to a god-like existence (Golden Sayings 1:ix). To claim God creates us but we never return to God is a contradiction within Epictetus’ philosophy, one that is very contrary to contemporary Greek thought and modern Western thought.

Accepting the idea that our body breaks down and its components are returned to the universe to be recombined into something else is reasonably easy to accept – and scientifically sound (Encheiridion 4:7). Accepting the idea that our soul ceases to exist just as our body does is uncomfortable – both for then-contemporary Greek thought and modern Western thought – but it does make logical sense: if the vessel (body) is destroyed, the contents (soul) of that vessel also are destroyed. However, there is no comfort in this, no matter how logical and even scientifically sound it may be. We need comfort, we need hope, and we need some sort of framework to rest upon when we are in grief: it’s simple human nature. Epictetus not only fails to provide us with this necessity, he views grief itself as something to avoid, especially highly emotional, public forms of grief. He also expects us to not grieve with those who are grieving! “When you see anyone weeping in grief because his son … is dead…(A)s far as words [of comfort] go … don't reduce yourself to his level, and certainly do not moan with him. Do not moan inwardly either. (Encheiridion 16, emphasis added). Not only are we to face death with equanimity, not only are we to view death as simply giving back, we are not to grieve nor are we to grieve in sympathy with one who is grieving! This seems not only excessively harsh; it seems humanly impossible.

For Epictetus, how we die is not necessarily important, the fact of death is of near lowest possible importance since it is absolutely inevitable, but how we face death is of utmost importance. We are to face death the same way as we face a stubbed toe or the burning of a house: with equanimity, poise, and near unconcern. But at least with stubbed toe we have hope it will eventually cease to hurt, we have hope that a burned house can be rebuilt; death of a loved one or our self can never be rebuilt. Death is permanent. Epictetus’ view of death may be consistent with his view of all other suffering, but it does not give one hope and hope is essential to human nature. Recognizing the inevitability of death is worthy, but failing to provide for some sort of hope of life after death, some sort of future reconciliation with a lost loved one, negates not only a very essential part of being human and an absolutely necessary emotion (grief), it makes it seem like there is no meaning whatsoever to life itself. Death without a meaning, without purpose, begs the question: does life itself have meaning, purpose? Although Epictetus provides our lives with purpose – living virtuous, living with equanimity – he does not provide a psychologically comforting purpose to our deaths.

Works Cited

Epictetus. “Discourses.” Constitution Society. Trans. George Long. 18 Oct. 2003. 30 Oct 2006. .

Epictetus. “Encheiridion.” Constitution Society. Trans. Elizabeth Carter. 30 Oct 2006. .

Epictetus. “Golden Sayings.” The Internet Classics Archive. Translator unstated. 30 Oct. 2006. .

[1] Contrary to popular opinion – and most dictionaries – the root of euthanasia does not mean “mercy killing;” it means “good death.” From the Greek: Eu = good thanatos = death.

Note: Written for Professor Tanner's Hellenistic Philosophy class at UCCS, 2nd November 2006

Redemption: The Ultimate Prize - Freedom

2006-10-31T19:29:00.000-08:00

In the Fall semester of 2006 at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, I enrolled in a class entitled "History of TV Programming." In this class, which was surprisingly academic, we learned about TV scheduling, budgeting, programming, contracts, market research, and audience appeal, along with other related information.

There was a number of assignments and practicals we had to accomplish in the class, but one project really stood out: We had to invent a new television show and "pitch" it to the class as if we were pitching a show idea to a real television network. This was a group project, which I and my fellow classmates, DeEtte Atwood and Aaron Muncy, decided to work on together.

After much debate, we choose to jump on the "reality show" bandwagon and invented a show called Redemption, where convicted criminals compete for full pardons. Needless to say, our show idea garnered the most heated debates of all the invented TV show ideas.

Below is posted the PowerPoint presentation we created to pitch Redemption. Please note that other than our imaginably selected host, "Dog the Bounty Hunter," whose name and image is used solely for academic purposes, all names and backgrounds are fictitious and products of our imaginations.

Redemption: The Ultimate Prize - Freedom!

Greek Creation Myths: What’s Love Got To Do With It?

2006-09-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

Without doubt, every culture has a creation myth of one sort or another, most with remarkable similarities and parallels. These myths – especially their parallels - reflect not only their originating culture, but also demonstrate elements of the cultures they came into contact with. By comparing creation myths of separate cultures, one can discern social and cultural elements of both cultures. One overwhelming parallel within otherwise differing creation mythologies is the concept of all creation involving some sort of love figure/character. In the Greek creation myth as presented in Hesiod’s Theogony, love in the form of Eros is not only the primary creative force, but also the primary origination of all self-awareness.

Hesiod’s Theogony states that “very first of all Chaos came into being” (Morford 56) but does not elaborate on how Chaos originated, nor does he describe Chaos much. From this Chaos, eventually all other material and non-material objects, including love, within the universe are brought forth (56-59). Chaos is not a god, nor is Chaos a self-aware figure of any other archetype. Chaos simply is. From Chaos comes Gaia and Tartarus and Eros, all apparently simultaneously. Gaia (Earth, female) and Eros (Love, male) are apparently the first self-aware gods, and “dark Tartarus in the depth of the broad land” represents the bowels of Earth, possibly a primary underworld which is not self-aware. All are asexual creations from the essential foundational void without the use of a partner.

What may be remarkable to our modern-day sensibilities is that Gaia is female. For the Greeks – a highly patriarchal society – to create a female figure as the first self-aware god is not without precedent. According to Morford, “comparative studies of iconography from primitive societies provide abundant evidence to confirm this archetype of the primacy of the feminine” (59). It seems that only in later (example: Christian) traditions that the primary consciousness becomes masculine.

Having the first self-aware figure be female may not be unusual, but why do the Greeks create earth, “hell”, and love all at the same time? What is fascinating about the Greek creation myth is that love is created, essentially, at the same time as (nurturing, self-aware) Earth/Gaia and the dark bowels (hell) of Earth. Are the Greeks implying that love is the foundation/birthplace of all, much as Earth is the foundation/birthplace of all plant and animal life? Or are they implying that love is solid – like Earth? Or is love a darkness, a “hell?” (56) It could be that Eros – love – is not exactly the specific emotion as we (or the Greeks) think of it but represents far more than just love. It may be that what came forth from Chaos is consciousness and self-awareness in the form of love – or even that without love, there cannot be consciousness. Love may indeed be the origin of all self-awareness: after all, we are most aware of ourselves when we are in love. It is through and because of love that we work and sacrifice much of our own personal needs, whether one is an ancient Greek or a modern American, this holds true. Chaos’ “creation” of love is creating not only self-awareness, but higher concepts of sacrifice for the greater good (of the loved one, the family, the clan/tribe/community, the state, the country).

Later Greek works such as Aristophanes Birds uphold and expand the concept that love is not just “love,” but actual conscious self-awareness. There are some differences within Aristophanes account of creation, specifically the order of creation. In the Birds, Chaos, Tartarus (bowels of Earth), Erebus (the “gloom of Tartarus,” which may be the consciousness or self-awareness of Taratarus), and Night were all first (57). Within Erebus, Night “brought forth an egg, from which Eros…burst forth” (57). Like Hesiod’s Theogony, all of this is created essentially from nothing – even Chaos – without the use of sex or partners. What is particularly telling about both Hesiod’s and Aristophanes’s version of the Greek creation myth is that Eros is the only one of the primary creations given physical description and attributes at any length (Aristophane: “back glistening with golden wings”, Hesiod: “most beautiful of all the immortal gods…” (56-57)).

Gaia (Ge, Earth) is not created until after Eros (Love) was created, although Gaia (Ge) is also created from Chaos. The fact that Gaia comes after Eros may be saying that without love, there can be no earth. Eros is then the cause of all further creation: Eros “caused all things to mingle” (57), and from this mingling came the immortals whom from which eventually came humans. While Hesiod specifically states that Gaia created Uranus herself, Aristophanes is vague about the ordering of who came first of the self-aware gods after Eros, but within the Birds it is abundantly apparent that for Aristophanes, Eros (love) is the defining creative force within the universe.

Eros – love – eventually instigates some interesting bed-partners. Hesiod’s Theogony continues to describe the further creation of the universe. Out of Chaos comes Erebus (the “gloom of Tartarus,”) and “black Night” (56). Tartarus prior to this point is genderless and without any apparent self-awareness, Erebus (male) seems to be Tartarus’ self-awareness and actual conscious identity. Night (female) is night, but not necessarily the starry-sky of night as that is Uranus. Erebus and Night, two dark, self-aware gods, get together and from them births Aether and Day (56). Aether – the “upper atmosphere” and Day are both self-aware gods, and characters of light and life (56). In other words, from the dark bowels of earth and the darkness of night comes the air we breath – the sky above us, and the light of day – the warmth of the sun. This parallels rather nicely with the idea of Earth and Love coming from the nothingness, the void of (dark?) Chaos and very likely is an intentional parallel. Creating Tartarus and Eros (hell and love) at the same time from nothing, then granting Tartarus (hell) a self-aware identity and an appealing dark partner (Night) from which comes two essential needs for all earthbound life (air and light) creates an intriguing allegorical story to answer the simple question of how we came to be, but also provides sociological and cultural clues to the Greek view of love and creation: it’s “heaven” and “hell” all at the same time. One cannot have heaven (love, Eros, light, air) without hell (Tartarus, Erebus, Night, Chaos), along with someplace for it all to happen at (Earth).

Very likely thanks to the influence of Eros, Gaia (Earth) “first brings forth starry Uranus, equal to herself” (58). Uranus (male) is obviously the night sky meant to warm and protect Gaia/Earth, and also provide a home for the gods. Uranus is also a god, and the “husband” of Gaia[1]. While Uranus may appear to be “dark” because he is the starry night sky, his character is a “good” character, one intended to nurture and protect along with providing a secure home. Gaia and Uranus are “light” characters, versus the “dark” nature of Tartarus/Erebus and Night from which came forth the “light” of air and day. Gaia proceeds – without the help of Uranus – to create mountains and Pontus, then Gaia and Uranus together create Oceanus and a slew of children in the form of the Titans (Coeus, Crius, Hyperion, Iapetus, Theia, Rhea, Themis, Mnemosyne, Thebe, Thethys, and Cronus), the Cyclopes (Brontes, Steropes, and Arges) and “three other sons” – with 100 arms and hands and 50 heads each: (Cottus, Briareus, Gyes) (58-59). Within this section of the Theogony, the theme of creation from light/dark is continued. The Titans are all blessed, immortal gods, although their characters are not necessarily all “good.” The “three other sons” sound not only “dark” but downright grotesque and evil. So, in essence, while the “light” – the “good” – of Gaia (Earth), Eros (Love) came from the dark Chaos, and while the “light” – the “good” – of Aether (air) and Day (sunlight) came from the dark of Tartartus/Erebus (hell) and Night, some very dark evil things came from light/good characters. All of this could only happen through the instigation – the “caus(ing) to mingle” – of Eros (love).

For the Greeks, without Eros, there is no creation. Eros, by being created at the same time as Gaia (Earth) and the darkness of Tartarus (hell), is the binding force between the two and a key element of all further creation. No gods, no immortals, no heros, mountains, even the air and stars above all come into being without the agency, if not always explicitly, of Eros. Eros is not just an agent and instigator, Eros is also at the same time the very awareness within each character that provides the impetus to create and “bring forth” that which becomes our own world and awareness of self.

Works Cited

Morford, Mark P.O. and Robert J. Lenardon. Classical Mythology. 8^th Edition. Oxford University Press: New York. 2007.

Written for Professor Tanner's Greek & Roman Mythology class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 28th September, 2006.

[1] This element of the Greek creation myth – the primary female god creating her own husband – is not necessarily unusual for the times, for another example see the Sumerian Enuma Elish.

The Epicurean Foundations of Atheism

2006-09-28T17:41:00.000-07:00

Epicurus (341BC-270BC, the founder of Epicureanism, a philosophy mostly known for its pleasure-based ethical viewpoint, discussed the existence and nature of god[1] extensively. However, his heavy emphasis on the atomic nature of the universe and importance of sense-perception for determining reality and truth conflicts with the very argument he uses for the existence of god. The tenets of Epicureanism create a cosmology, worldview and ethical system that has no need for god, by any definition, and may have created the rational foundation for later Atheistic thought.

Epicurus believes that the everything within the universe – including souls – are created of atoms; and that when something ceases to exist, it breaks down into its component atoms, which eventually rearrange and recombine into a new object or being (Inwood 10:54)[2]. For Epicurus, atoms themselves are never destroyed, just rearranged (10:54). Epicurus argues that only when atoms are combined (in the form of humans) can a soul exist, and that when the human form ceases to exist, so does the soul (13:64-66). There is no afterlife, no rebirth or reincarnation (36:14). In fact, the soul “is mortal and perishes with the body” (93), and all sense-perception ends (13:64).

Truth and reality can only be judged and determined by one’s sense-perceptions, and the “soul is most responsible for sense-perception” (13:63). Epicurus does not claim that the soul is a sense, more that a soul is necessary for sense-perception to occur; the soul is sort of the gatekeeper of our senses. Only through the use of one’s senses, can one know what is real and true, or unreal and false. In essence, if you can’t see, smell, touch, taste or hear something, it is not real. For Epicurus, sense-perception is the only measure of reality and truth. But god’s existence cannot be verified by any of the five senses, so why claim he exists? Epicurus makes an exception to the sense-perception rule for the existence of god, stating that “god is perceived by thought” (55:105), not the senses. This contradicts his otherwise solid argument for the primacy of sense-perception in determining reality and truth. If the only way to judge reality is with the senses, if something cannot be sensed, how can it exist? Granted, this argument can easily be applied to the very existence of atoms: without the use of high-power microscopes, atoms cannot be sensed by ordinary human means. Yet Epicurus (correctly) postulates their existence without any true sense-perception, much less with the technological means for him to verify their existence. So is Epicurus using the existence of atoms that cannot be perceived by the senses as an argument for the existence of a god that cannot be perceived by the senses? Not at all: he is using rationality as the basis of his proof for the existence of god. Images of god appear to man in his thoughts and dreams, therefore, god must exist but just simply outside of our sense-perception (). For Epicurus, images of god in dreams are not necessarily proof, they are simply evidence, one piece of the puzzle that proves god exists, and not particularly strong evidence at that.

Why does Epicureanism bother with the existence of god at all? This philosophy has no rational purpose for the existence of god, and it definitely does not rely upon god’s existence to create a workable ethical system. It does not regard god as necessary for human life, nor does it claim that god created all. God must serve some sort of purpose, but the god of Epicureanism serves no purpose at all, except to enjoy his own pleasure and happiness (94). God does not interfere with daily human life and “is not concerned with human affairs” (94), and very likely never hears prayers. God is somehow outside of our sense-perception – in a reality and/or cosmos outside of our own, and by intention and design is “completely preoccupied with the continuance of his own happiness” (94). With this kind of god – one who does not interact with humans, who doesn’t care about what humans do or don’t do, who cannot be demonstrated with the sense-perceptions, combined with the lack of any form of afterlife or rebirth since we completely cease to exist upon death, why acknowledge a god at all? Perhaps Epicurus is hedging his bets with his god – or simply being politically correct[3]. Regardless, Epicurus does acknowledge that god exists.

These concepts do lay significant foundational, rational arguments for Atheism[4]. Atheism is, in essence, the “absence of belief in the existence of deities” (wikipedia.com). While atheism is not a formal belief system[5], most proclaimed Atheists believe that how one lives their life today is all that matters, because there is no god watching over and judging us. Atheists also generally believe that there is no afterlife, heaven, hell, reincarnation or other form of soul rebirth, that the soul (if they even acknowledge the soul’s existence) ends with our last breath. Much as Epicureanism is most concerned with living life in the here-and-now, not for a future, unknowable afterlife, Atheism depends heavily upon the lack of scientific (read: sense-perception) as evidence for the non-existence of god. Granted, lack of evidence is not a strong argument for lack of existence, but the parallel is obvious between Atheism’s desire for scientific evidence to determine reality and Epicureanism’s reliance upon sense-perception for determining reality. The requirement for empirical evidence is particularly imperative for our modern, Western worldview, yet despite the lack of empirical evidence of god’s existence, billions still believe that god exists.

Atheists do not depend solely upon the lack of empirical evidence for the non-existence of god; they also rely upon rational argument, much of which is found in Epicurean thought. Lactantius’ On the Anger of God 13.20-22 (374 U) states most clearly that Epicurus is aiming to force “most” philosophers to admit that “god does not care” and hence since god does not care, god simply must not exist: (Inwood 94 I-109)

“God, he says, either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. 21. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak…if he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful… If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful… If he wants to and can, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?” (94 I-109)

In essence, god does not care therefore god does not exist. This argument – usually now referred to as the “problem of evil” argument - obviously also provides a historic and rational basis behind the modern-day Atheistic “argument from nonbelief” which states that “if God exists … he would have brought about a situation in which everyone believes in him, but there are unbelievers, so God does not exist.” (Wikipedia)[6] The “problem of evil” argument (evil exists, therefore god, specifically a kind and caring god, cannot exist) is one that has perplexed believers and provided rational foundation for Atheists throughout history. Christian theology “solves” this dilemma with the concept of free will, but Atheists use the dilemma as a rational argument for the non-existence of god. Epicureans never come straight out saying that god does not exist, but this argument – amongst others – create their strongest argument and evidence that it is highly likely that privately they believed that god did not exist.

Epicurean thought, with its primary emphasis on the importance of sense-perception, atomism, and the “problem of evil” argument is obviously foundational to modern-day Atheism. The Epicurean argument that we “think” of god therefore god exists cannot be rationally justified: to do so would be to claim that anything imagined or thought of must exist. (We “think” of unicorns and golden geese but they do not exist.) We can never know why Epicurus and other Epicurean philosophers avoided a straight-out claim that god does not exist, although it is likely for the same reasons many modern-day people will make a claim to “being spiritual” or Agnosticism when privately they doubt the existence of god: political correctness and avoidance of negative repercussions in their public lives. The society Epicurus lived in would have provided even stronger incentives to find a way, an argument, for the existence of god than our modern society does. It is also possible, of course, that Epicurus did absolutely believe in the existence of god (hence the argument that god was too busy dealing with his own happiness) but regardless of whether or not Epicurus believed in the actual existence of god, his arguments and philosophy provide much, if not most, of the foundations for modern day Atheism.

Works Cited

Inwood, Brad and L.P. Gerson. Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory Readings. Second Edition. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis/Cambridge. 1997.

Wikipedia.org. Atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Wikipedia.org. Problem of Evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Written for Professor Tanner's History of Hellenistic Philosophy class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 28th September, 2006.

[1] I have chosen to use the lower-case “god” vs. the traditional mostly-Christian use of upper-case “God” in order to delineate that Epicurus is not referring to any one particular god or God, just the existence (or potential existence or non-existence) of some sort of higher-evolved sentience outside of our immediate sense-perception.

[2] The basic premises behind atomism, especially Epicurus’ understanding of atoms and their properties, are remarkably scientifically accurate.

[3] Socrates was killed in 399 after being charged with impiety. I imagine that most philosophers after that exercised extreme caution when discussing whether or not god exists J.

[4] Also but to a lesser extent for other non-theistic belief systems including but not limited to agnosticism

[5] Atheism is not a formal belief system, however, there are many commonalities amongst Atheists. While virtually all believe that god – or God – does not exist, some do believe that the soul is reborn or reincarnated, or that there is some form of afterlife, a higher plane of existence, so to speak. Other non-theistic belief systems do believe in rebirth and/or afterlife, but do not necessarily believe that god exists.

[6] The article Atheism on Wikipedia.org has the dubious distinction of being one of the most-often vandalized articles out of the thousands on the site!

The Means to the Ends of the Means

2006-05-10T17:59:00.000-07:00

Throughout the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses deliberation, choices, and results, specifically “means” and “ends.” For Aristotle, how one gets to a final result matters, not the actual result itself. The means to the ends are of utmost importance and are what require the most deliberation. The concept of deliberation and responsibility for the choices one makes (not necessarily the results of those choices) is a difficult, if not nearly alien, one for the modern day reader to comprehend. Yet it may be perhaps the most important of all points made by Aristotle throughout the Nicomachean Ethics. How, when so much of Aristotle’s teachings have survived and thrived through the ages, has this one failed to hold weight? Our success-at-any-price consumer-driven culture, our insistence on a “what’s in it for me” attitude towards good choices, is completely contrary to Aristotle’s view. In light of the Enron scandal (and others), it is imperative that our modern-day attitudes be reoriented towards Aristotle’s understanding of means and ends.

For Aristotle, ends is the desired result. This is truly no different today: we decide we want to acquire or achieve something, and, just as for Aristotle, the decision of what we want is fairly quick and simple. It does not require much deliberation, “we deliberate not about ends, but about means” (Rackman, 1112b1[11]). For example, an ancient Greek man or a modern day American may both desire wealth. The decision to become wealthy takes little energy…how to become wealthy is what requires extensive deliberation. For both ancient Greeks and modern Americans, would, of course, desire to achieve the end result of wealth with the least possible amount of time, and energy. For example, a “doctor does not deliberate whether he is to cure his patient,” he considers the “means of achieving it” (the cure) and then deliberates on and decides “which of these will attain it most easily and best” (1112b1[11], emphasis added). As a doctor will decide upon the least costly, least invasive and most potentially effective cure for a patient, so does one desiring wealth: one wants wealth as quickly as possible, with the least amount of effort. The difference for Aristotle versus modern-day Americans is the importance on good choices when deciding the means to the desired ends. How one becomes wealthy matters to Aristotle; nowadays, how is less important than the actual achievement of wealth.

The Enron scandal is a perfect example. Enron’s founder Kenneth Lay[1] and CEO Jeffrey Skilling[2] are currently being tried for conspiracy and fraud in the actions that eventually led to the bankruptcy of Enron. Lay and Skilling, amongst others, are believed to have falsely stated the strength of their company’s financial situation in order to achieve greater financial strength and higher stock valuation while knowing that “fraudulent activity gave the company an appearance of success” (MSNBC). It is alleged that they committed fraud to boost the stock price, in order to achieve greater financial gains for themselves at the expense of the company’s stockholders and pensioners.[3] As an example of Aristotle’s means and ends, the accused in the Enron trial decided that they wanted to become wealthy (actually, much wealthier than they already were) and that committing fraud, market manipulation, and other crimes was the “most easily and best” method to achieve their desired end (1112b1[11]). Aristotle would say that these Enron executives made “bad” choices; that the means they chose to achieve their ends were without virtue or goodness. A modern-day person would be far more likely to say they were stupid to get caught. Even as they stand trial, there are those who admire them for the wealth they achieved, the ways they “beat the system,” and for “getting away with it” for as long as they did. Should they be found guilty, they will retain much of their ill-gotten wealth (ends) and receive a light prison term fine (the proverbial slap on the wrist) while the stockholders and pensioners they profited from will regain none of their losses. Aristotle would be mortified.

One of the tactics Lay and Skilling’s lawyers are using is the defense of ignorance. In essence, their lawyers are claiming that Lay and Skilling were ignorant of the decisions their accountants and public relations departments were making, that even if they knew about the decisions they had all good faith that the decisions were legal and not fraudulent, that any positive statements they made about the company’s financial condition were accurate to the best of their knowledge, and that they cannot be held responsible for these decisions much less the negative outcome of those decisions.[4] Of course, the prosecution counters that as high-ranking company officials, it goes without say they knew what was going on in their company, and that even if they didn’t, they are still responsible. This is truly an Aristotelian argument straight out of the Nicomachean Ethics, both on the part of the defense and the prosecution. In essence, Aristotle claims that ignorance can be a defense when we are not responsible for the ignorance, but is not a defense when the ignorance is a result of our own actions and choices. When the defense claims their actions were made based on information they were ignorant was of a fraudulent nature, they are using Aristotle’s argument. However, when the prosecution counters that, by virtue of their position within the company it was their responsibility to know what was going on, essentially the very same Aristotelian argument is used. This is, in essence, the difference between voluntary and involuntary ignorance.

Understanding the difference between voluntary and involuntary ignorance, and how Aristotle defined them, is obvious but not necessarily easily understood. For Aristotle, “acting through ignorance…seems to be different from acting in ignorance” (1110b1[14]). Acting through ignorance is no defense and not excusable, acting in ignorance is. The difference between the two is the voluntary or involuntary nature of the ignorance. The defendants in the Enron trial claim they acted in ignorance… that their ignorance of fraudulent actions was through no fault of their own; the prosecution argues they acted through ignorance, that any ignorance (and they do not believe for a minute that the Lay and Skilling were ignorant of what was going on) was of their own choice. By virtue of choosing to be ignorant, the defendants are responsible for their actions and the results of their actions. For Aristotle, this is as it should be. The defendants were in a position of responsibility to not be ignorant, therefore any choice to be ignorant is not a defense for the negative results (ends) of their choices (means).

So should the millions of stockholders and pensioners who lost money, often entire life savings, through the Enron scandal be held for responsible for their choices? They chose an end: to increase their financial wealth. They chose a means: buy Enron stock, invest the pension fund in Enron stock. Their end was negative; they lost money. Their choices, the means they chose, to achieve their desired end were based on information they received from Enron[5] and others. They were, however, ignorant of the fraud committed behind the scenes in providing them the information they relied upon for their choices. Would Aristotle say they are responsible for their choices and the (negative) result of their choices? Perhaps, but more likely not. It is likely that Aristotle would view the corporate executives and others involved in the scandal as having a higher ethical responsibility than the average person, and that by virtue of their (high status) position, the average investor was correct (“good”) to expect the executives to make “good” (ethical) choices.

The Enron scandal is a house-of-cards that fell spectacularly. While it is true that the average American millionaire achieved their wealth through hard work and virtuous effort, there is a tendency within our culture to actually admire those who “beat the system” to achieve great wealth. For Aristotle, this admiration is ill-deserved, and we all should follow his lead and cease any admiration of those who achieve wealth through unethical means. Grasping the importance of making good (virtuous, ethical) choices in pursuing a desired goal is difficult for most modern-day Americans. It is imperative that we as a culture and society rethink our “ends justify the means” mentality and reaffirm Aristotle’s teachings. The Enron scandal highlights the vital importance of bringing back Aristotle’s view that the means are far more important then the ends, and that the means chosen must be ethical, virtuous, and good.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackman. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934. The Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Aristot.+Nic.+Eth.

MSNBC.com. Multiple articles:

Enron Scandal Timeline http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11700762/

Judge Finalizes Instructions for Jury Trial http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12722896/from/RSS/

Charges Against Skilling, Lay http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12690830/

Traders Bet on Outcome of Enron Trial http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11312568/

[1] Lay is accused of “conspiracy to manipulate Enron’s quarterly financial results, making false and misleading public statements about the company’s financial performance and omitting facts necessary to make financial statements accurate and fair” (MSNBC). He is also charged with “bank fraud” and “lying to banks about using loans to buy Enron stock on margin” (MSNBC). Very simply, he allegedly, amongst other crimes, used loans meant for the company to buy Enron stock for himself, to “flood” the market with “buy” orders in order to manipulate the stock price (make it go higher) then sell at a profit (“dump”) his stock, resulting in great losses as the price plummeted, all the while talking the company’s success “up” to increase stockholder investments.

[2] Initially indicted on 42 counts of fraud “and other crimes … alleging he misled government regulators and investors about the company’s financial condition” (MSNBC).

[3] The Enron trial is ongoing as this paper is written.

[4] This description of the defense lawyers’ strategy is VERY over-simplified for the sake of space.

[5] While I am limiting this discussion to Enron, other companies were involved and already many have pled guilty or been found guilty. One of the companies was the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson, which had at the time an highly touted reputation of fairness, honesty, accuracy and reliability. In other words, they were trusted by individual investors and government regulators.

Written for Professor Tanner's History of Ancient Philosophy class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 10th May 2006.

"Saved" and "Satire": A Critical Introduction to a Critical Reintroduction

2006-04-24T17:45:00.000-07:00

Dustin Griffin’s Satire: A Critical Reintroduction thoroughly explores the elements and nature of satire, especially concentrating on historic examples of the genre. According to Griffin, for a text to be considered satire it must contain four essential elements: inquiry, provocation, display and play. The movie Saved displays elements of Griffin’s theory, and also highlights weaknesses within his theory.

Griffin defines inquiry relatively straightforward: to ask questions. Ultimately, the “satirist writes in order to discover, to explore, to survey, to attempt to clarify” (39). This is abundantly apparent in Saved, primarily through the main character of Mary. Mary begins the movie blindly accepting just about everything in her life and the world around her at face-value; she fails to question even the most obvious differences in the people around her. For example, Mary fails to notice that her boyfriend is gay – something just about everyone else is aware of. She does not notice the hypocritical attitudes of her mother, her best friend Hillary, the Preacher (who is having an affair with her mother), or even the basis of her faith itself. When Mary finds herself pregnant with the child of her gay boyfriend, she begins questioning everything, from her choice of faith all the way to her view of her mother and best friends. The producers of Saved, through Mary, are in essence questioning not only the nature of faith but the nature of humans, action, belief, and God Himself.

While Griffin is correct that all satire inquires, his emphasis on historical examples, many of which do not necessarily apply to the modern-day world, reduces the effectiveness of his argument. Saved fails in this element to some extent, also. Saved questions, especially the hypocrisy of believing one way while acting another, but does not actually provide any answers, at least not any hard answers. The simplistic “just accept all differences” type of ending fails not only to provide answers, but essentially weakens the very pertinent and strong questions the entire movie brought up. The aspect of inquiry in Griffin’s theory answers, but it doesn’t question itself enough. While Griffin’s historical examples are excellent, especially the Menippean example, they do not go far enough in exploring the necessity and effectiveness of inquiry in satire either from a historical or modern perspective. Griffin is “answering” the question of “what is satire” by saying one element is inquiry, and despite his noting that the “newer rhetoric of inquiry was designed not simply to ask questions…but to answer them…” (42), he fails to note within his own theory that for satire to be effective[1], one must at least attempt to provide some sort of answers.

On the other hand, the element of provocation within Griffin’s theory is dead-on-target; it is especially effective in Saved. While Griffin does cast provocation in a “negative” light (52), he is absolutely correct when he states that “in provocation, the question is designed to expose or demolish a foolish certainty” (52). Griffin describes several types of provocation, including “difficulty” (obscure language, “cryptic or abrupt allusiveness,” etc.) and “paradox” (in essence, contradiction) (52-53). The producers of Saved made great use of paradox (but very little use of difficulty), although it may seem at first that they use paradox more to provide setting than provocation, the paradoxical situations are provocative. Hillary Faye’s certainty in her own Christian righteousness provides many provocative moments within the film, especially when she vandalizes the school and blames others for this heinous act. She is so certain in her own sense of right and wrong that she commits a very un-Christian act, which not only is provocative, but a paradox. Why, if she (and others) is so Christian, does she (and others) do horrible, even criminal, acts in the name of their faith? The producers of Saved are using this act of Hillary’s as an allegorical representation of many historical “paradoxes,” from the biblical Exodus to Hitler’s annihilation of the Jews, to our current “war” on “terrorism.” Ultimately, however, the primary paradox – and provocation – is most eloquently stated by Mary at the very end of the movie: “If God wanted us to all to be the same, why did He make us all so different?” While of course, this question presupposes a belief in God, especially in God as a Creator of all, it is also a pointed paradox, one that effectively provokes the viewer into asking this question themselves.

Display, the third element in Griffin’s theory of satire, is an element that is so obvious it probably shouldn’t even be defined. Of course, satire is “associated with public performance” (71)! Without some sort of “public performance,” whether dramatic, oratory, or written, there can be no satire. Saved is a satire that, without public performance, it would not exist, just as is true for any satire. If it is not “displayed,” satire cannot exist. If this may at first seem simplistic, that is because it is. While Griffin’s thirteen pages exploring the “displaying” of satire does nothing to advance his theory per se, he is correct that often satire’s “real object is not to discredit…(but) to show what the ingenious satirist can accomplish” (83). Granted, the more creative and entertaining the satire, the more effective it is, but without display the satire does not exist. Saved “unfolds” (83) itself to the viewer, it “displays” the wit and skill of its creators, but of course it does (82). There is no need for Griffin to explore display as much as he does; in fact, his entire theory can do without the obviousness of display as a separate element.

Play, on the other hand, is an effective element of satire, and Griffin’s theory is strengthened through the inclusion of play as a separate element, however, like display, it is obvious that play is an element of satire. By design, satire often intends to create a playful atmosphere and comedic moments, especially to highlight the “inquiry” and “provocation” of the creator. Without comedy (play), satire not only risks losing effectiveness, it risks becoming simply a mean-spirited rant. Within Saved, even the most offended viewer cannot help but laugh at some of the comedic moments. Who cannot help themselves but laugh at Pastor Skip’s absurd gymnastic entrance onstage? Or Hillary’s ill-fated attempt to “exorcise” the demons within Mary by throwing a Bible at her – as offensive as using a Bible as a physical weapon is, the moment is funny! And, of course, this same moment inquires as to the absurdity of using any book as a political/spiritual/physical weapon, and provokes the viewer by having the most “Christian” character do something so blasphemous.

While Saved includes all four elements of Griffin’s theory, it also highlights one weakness of the theory: placing all four elements on essentially the same footing, the same level. Provocation is, without doubt, the most effective element of any satire, especially Saved. Provocation may easily be considered the primary, if not sole, purpose for the existence of satire. After all, satire is not intended to be merely entertaining, it is intended to provoke the viewer into some sort of change in actions or thoughts. Griffin is correct in highlighting provocation as an element of satire, but he does not place it as the primary element of satire. Inquiry, display, and play are all aspects of satire that are ultimately used to provoke, and are necessary for the provocation to be effective, but are not equal in necessity within a satire. Saved, of course, inquires and plays; its existence displays, but its primary purpose is to provoke the viewer. Provocation is the strongest and most abundant element of Saved; for Griffin’s theory to truly be effective, he should consider provocation the strongest and most abundant element of his own theory, then define inquiry, display, and play as methods used for provocation.

Written for Professor Campbell's Religion and Pop Culture class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 24th April, 2006.

[1] In my opinion, the most effective satire provides some answers to its questions, even if the answers are minimal. Griffin does note this aspect of inquiry within satire, but I feel he plays short shrift to it.

Critical Response: "Saved"

2006-04-17T19:13:00.000-07:00

The movie, Saved, a farcical satire of Evangelical Christians and Christian high schools, addresses multiple cultural and religious issues. The biggest issue, however, is not necessarily religious or cultural, but humanistic: Whatever you believe, it is not enough to just believe, you must also live it daily.

The message is abundantly apparent throughout the plot, sub-plots, characters, dialogue, and setting. While there are many examples, the despicable character of Hillary Faye is the most obvious example. Hillary professes her Faith the loudest, most stridently, and most often, yet also lives her faith the least. While she may still be a virgin (and willing to shoot-to-kill to protect that virginity), she lacks compassion for others, especially her own handicapped brother, gossips with the intention to cause hurt/embarrassment, defaces school property and blames others, swears she is innocent to God, throws a Bible as a weapon, and looks down upon all others who do not believe as she does. All of these actions are decidedly unchristian, and very much against the basic teachings of the very faith she professes.

Regardless of what you believe, even if that belief system is “no” belief, Saved proposes that your belief system is meaningless if you do not apply it to your daily life and actually walk your own talk, practice what you preach. Without living your own belief system, you risk becoming a hateful spiteful person worthy of little except ridicule.

Written for Professor Campbell’s Religion & Pop Culture class at University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, 17^th April 2006.

A Trinity of Trinities in Plato’s "Republic"

2006-03-19T18:04:00.000-08:00

In reading Plato’s Republic, it is abundantly obvious that Plato found some value and balance in presenting complex concepts and explanations in tripartite formats. From the soul to states themselves, trinities[1] are everywhere in the Republic. The three strongest trinities within the Republic revolve around individuals (souls), societies (cultures/groups), and states (governments). Each serves as a metaphor for the other and together forms a grand trinity of the whole, serving to provide understanding about human nature and the nature and purpose of humans, societies and states.

Plato assumes the existence of a soul in each individual, and defines the soul as having three parts: calculating, spirited, and desiring (Book III). Each part must function well on its own as well as together with the others in order for the soul to be functioning correctly. The tripartite nature of the soul is easy to understand for the modern reader. We each have a calculating, spirited, and desiring part to ourselves. We feed our desires (lusts) with shopping, drugs, drink, sex; we feed our spirits with music, church, charity; and we feed our calculating natures with achievement, advancement, education, etc. This is no different today than it was in Plato’s time. When we overfeed one aspect of the soul to the detriment of another, we hurt, emotionally if not physically. Overfeed the desiring part and the body suffers through obesity, addiction, or worse. Overfeed the spirited part and we may neglect the desires, to the point of starvation or neglect of responsibilities. Overfeed the calculating side, such as a workaholic may do, and one finds oneself without the time to satisfy our desires or spiritual needs. In our modern-day heavy consumer society, the dangers of out-of-balance needs fulfillment is abundantly apparent from the obesity problem to environmental damage. Ultimately, the soul’s function – to “superintend and command and deliberate and the like” cannot be achieved unless the three needs of the soul are properly fed and fed in balance (Book I).

Plato defines class structures (caste system) within societies/cultures through the Myth of the Metals (the “Noble Lie”), where the soul as a whole is described as containing specific metals: gold, silver, and iron or bronze. Much as the material value of each metal descends from gold to iron, so does the social value of the souls descend based on their metallic content. The Myth of the Metals does not assign metallic values to the three parts of the soul, although correlating the metals to the parts of the soul is fairly straightforward. What is uncomfortable, even scary, to accept today is how well the Noble Lie serves to define and understand our modern-day society. We may be a “free” society, one that values advancement and achievement, but we are also a caste-system society. We have our iron/bronze (lower class), our silver (middle) and our gold (upper) souls (classes). Despite our cultural mythos of “Land of Opportunity,” moving from one class to another is not achieved nearly as often as we as a society would believe[2]. We are a far more stratified society than we would be comfortable admitting. Poor, single mothers give birth to children who more often than not become poor single mothers themselves. Rich families give birth to children who tend to go to the best schools and follow their fathers into law, medicine, and politics. Middle class families give birth to children who perhaps have the most movement…some become lower, some become upper, but statistically most stay middle class (Census). But it is far rarer for the lower class child to become an upper class citizen…in fact, they may face cultural obstacles[3] preventing them from even wanting to. Much as Plato acknowledges that a few rare individuals would be born of iron families with gold souls, a few rare individuals move from lower classes to upper classes.

Finally, Plato describes three cities, the Artisan/Natural city, Feverish city, and Purified city. Although not necessarily as obvious and straightforward, each of these cities serves as complementary metaphors to the parts of the soul and the Myth of the Metals. The Artisan/Natural city, which correlates to small, low-technology societies, similar not only to ancient small tribes and communities but to many modern third-world communities has the “benefit” of virtually no market competition (Book II). The basic needs of food, shelter and clothing are provided for in the structure of this city – restricted to one man, one craft – but it is limited in services and products available, there is also little ability to provide for desires (an essential element of the soul trinity) not to mention fast and/or large growth is virtually impossible (Book II). The Feverish City is “a luxurious State,” one where nearly every desire of the soul can not only be satisfied, but overfed, with a resulting lack of balance in the soul of the individual (Book II), and of course, a lack of balance within the state and social structure itself. Thirdly, Plato defines his Purified City, in which a certain balance of soul/society needs is achieved, but at a great expense to individual freedoms and desires. In order to achieve Plato’s grand Purified City, virtually all individual freedoms must be subsumed to the overarching needs of the state. In fact, Plato offers the Myth of the Metals as a convenient justification for those in power to create and enforce the individual limitations proposed.

It is too easy to take Plato’s city definitions at face value and cringe at the over-arching authoritarian nature of each of these cities, especially the Purified; the near-horrifying lack of value on individual, personal freedom and the strict caste-system nature of the social structure. The extreme (to us) nature of these states should be viewed not as a serious consideration of other ways of governing, but more as a warning how not to govern and what the end result of the desire for “utopia” could be. For despite all of Plato’s discussions on the types of cities, he ultimately seems to accept the way things are as the way they should be. He doesn’t truly question why, he explains why. If anything, Plato’s example cities should serve as a very serious warning to the modern-day, freedom-loving American. While it is easy to say that would never happen in America, it already is. Every year a greater portion of our personal freedoms and individual privacy desires are limited in the name of safety. From the Patriot Act to public smoking[4], credit reporting to seat belts, to increased limits on the Freedom of Information Act, a greater number of personal actions and private information is falling under one legal limitation or another.

The soul-societal-state trinity serves as a trinity together, with each of these elements (soul, society, state) serving as elements of the greater good – the “whole.” All three aspects of each element of each trinity must be needs-satisfied in order for each to function well. There must be balance within the satisfaction of these needs – one need cannot be over-fed to the detriment of another need, as then proper functioning would fail. For the state to function well, it’s needs must be satisfied, for the society to function well, it’s needs must be satisfied and the needs of the state met; and finally, for the soul to function well, its needs must be met and the needs of society and the needs of the state. This is a symbiotic relationship: the reverse order is as true as is any other ordering of soul-society-state. The soul is a metaphor of the society, the society a metaphor of the state, the state a metaphor of the soul, and all three a metaphor for the whole, the greater good of all. Any one element of any of the trinities and all may fail, even die.

Plato uses each of these trinities to explain why: why people, societies, and governments act the way they do. The soul functions as the “overseer” of the individual, much as states oversee societies which oversee individuals. What is eerily apparent is how little has changed: despite massive technological advances, people, societies and states have changed very little in the last 2000+ years. Plato’s Republic serves to both provide understanding of the nature of the whole and as a warning regarding the dangers of out-of-balance needs fulfillment and misguided attempts to achieve utopia.

Works Cited

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Benjamin Jewitt. Project Gutenberg, 1994. 2003 October 23. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext94/repub13.txt

U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty: 2002 Highlights. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. 13 May 2005. 16 March 2006. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty02/pov02hi.html

U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Poverty Tables (1970-2004). U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. 14 December 2005. 16 March 2006. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov5.html

Written for Professor Tanner's Ancient Philosophy class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 19th March 2006.

[1] One need not assume that the usage of so many trinities serves a spiritual or mathematical function, nor does his usage necessarily provide foundational functions for much Christian mythology as some may argue, although they may have influenced future Christian thinkers. It could be as simple as this: break a complex concept down into three elements serves to ease understanding. Even a two-year-old can count to three J

[2] Examining Census Bureau statistics for the past twenty years shows that the percentage of lower, middle, and upper class segments of American society has varied by less than 3% from year to year from 1970 to 2004, and in fact, there has been an increase in the overall size of the lower class percentage over the last nine years. Census Bureau.

[3] I’m not going to bother citing any specific studies as specifics are not necessary at this point, suffice to say that there are many sociological and educational studies on attitudinal obstacles lower-class citizens, especially children, face when attempting to “improve” themselves. Young, poor children are often told by peers, parents, and even teachers not to “rock the boat,” not be too “big for their britches,” and especially in African-American communities, not to be too “white.” From personal experience as a former college admissions lecturer, I can attest to many moments where teenagers sneered at my “pushing” them to go to college. “My dad’s done just fine without a college degree, so will I.” My own lower-middle-class family encouraged me to go to work straight after high school, and 22 years later, is mystified as to why I am attending college now. “What’s the point, you’ve already had good jobs, why not just go back to what you used to do?”

[4] Individual property rights of business owners and the right of adults to use a legal product here in Colorado have now become secondary to the “greater good” of providing “smoke-free” public places to all, even in bars. Despite the fact that numerous businesses will close and tax revenue will fall…don’t get me on a soapbox….

Critical Response: "The Watchmen"

2006-03-13T19:21:00.000-08:00

In Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s “The Watchmen,” there are multiple themes and narrative arcs touching on a large number of societal ills, ethical and moral issues, and political issues. The most compelling of the many themes, the ethics of scientific and technological advances, is simply expressed through the use of graffiti: “Who Watches the Watchmen?” This tag line is on multiple pages, but does not refer to just “watchmen” – the “protectors” – but also to those in power and especially, those who create. Moore uses scientific and technological advances – some real, some fictional – to question not only the need for these advances, but the ethics of them. The ethical issues revolving around some scientific advances are obvious, such as the atomic bomb, but other seemingly innocuous advances also have negative repercussions. Through the use of his characters, especially the God-like Jon (aka Dr. Manhattan), Moore brings to bear the idea that there must be some sort of ethical oversight brought into play on scientific and technological creators. Someone – ultimately meaning everyone – needs to question not only the need for our continuing fast-paced scientific advance, but oversee the use of such advances. It is not good enough to just create for the sake of creating; there must be questions asked before creating as to the good and bad of such creation.

Scientific advances in “The Watchmen” created Jon, a being with God-like powers and vision. Jon did not ask to become God-like, nor was he necessarily comfortable with his powers, yet once he had them, he would use them or not as only he saw fit. There was no control or power over Jon, no one to oversee him, no panel or government that could manage the use or misuse of this created being, Jon. No one “watched” the scientists when they created the device that ultimately created Jon, and no one “watched” the creation from this device. In the end, Jon decides that he may create life – human life – himself in another galaxy. No one questions even this decision.

When Moore asks “Who Watches the Watchmen,” he refers not just to police-like authorities, political or scientific powers, he also refers to God him/herself. Ultimately, Moore is asking, “Who Watches God.”

Written for Professor Campbell’s Religion & Pop Culture class at the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, 13^th March 2006.

The Wisdom of Time

2006-02-13T01:17:00.000-08:00

For thousands of years, perhaps since the very first human walked on the planet, we have questioned the nature of the world around us. Where did it all come from? What – or who – made it all? Why did it all come into existence? These questions are still asked today, and while modern science has answered some of them, we still don’t have all the answers. Thales of Miletus (ca. 625-546), often referred to as the father of science and the scientific method, postulated several essential concepts of the world that are now not only scientific fact, but foundational concepts in science. With simple, elegant words and ideas, Thales postulated the existence of atoms, the abundance of hydrogen, and the most essential force in the universe: electromagnetic force.

All that we know of Thales today comes down through the ages second-hand, resulting in significant interpretation problems. There are no known direct writings by Thales – his sayings and thoughts are reported to us by others, especially Aristotle. Second-hand information, especially before modern-day concepts such as unbiased journalistic reporting and historical accuracy, creates problems for interpretation that are difficult to overcome. There is simply no way to know just how much his words have been slanted or reworded by those “reporting.” It is difficult even today to avoid slant in the most unbiased report, 2600 years ago the idea of unbiased reporting was essentially nonexistent. Yet at the same time, it is also strongly likely that Aristotle and others actually did report accurately. Concepts such as honesty and honor existed; it is just as possible as not that their honor would only allow them to “report” on Thales and others as accurately as possible, too. Just because all the information we have on Thales is second-hand does not necessarily mean it is completely unreliable.

Another difficulty with interpreting Thales’ is the very simplicity of his words: their elegance and brevity makes it too easy to take what he reportedly said at “face value.” Simple words such as “water” and “soul” have strong immediate primary meanings for the majority of readers; it is too easy for the non-critical reader, much less the critical reader, to take these straightforward words at face value and never consider these same words used by Thales have secondary definitions.

Two of the most compelling of the few fragments surviving that reference Thales deal with the most essential component of life: the soul. Thales postulated that everything in the universe contained a “soul,” and that this “soul” produces motion. In the first fragment, from Aristotle, Thales unites the concepts of “soul” and “gods” in a way that that not only predates common Christian thought, but also in a way that from a scientific point of view is incredibly close to the truth:

“Some declare that it [the soul] is mixed in the whole [universe], and perhaps this is why Thales thought all things are full of gods. (Aristotle, On the Soul 1.4 411a7-8 = 11A22)” (Cohen 8)

In a second complementary fragment, Aristotle reports that Thales believed that there is something within that produces motion, and using magnets as an example, that this something is a “soul:”

“From what has been related about him, it seems that Thales, too, supposed that the soul was something that produces motion, if indeed he said that the magnet has soul, because it moves iron. (Aristotle, On the Soul 405a19-21=11A22; tr. Curd)” (Cohen 9)

Upon first reading each of these fragments, it is too easy to get “stuck” on the word soul and interpret these fragments simply from a religious (especially Western, Judeo-Christian) viewpoint. Considering the strong natural science orientation of virtually all of Thales’ fragments and his emphasis on natural (vs. supernatural) understanding of the world around him, it is actually highly doubtful that Thales used the word “soul” in the most common immaterial sense (Wikipedia.org). The meaning of soul does not only mean as defined by Judeo-Christian and other religious standards: it also means the heart, the center, the substance of an object, “the central or integral part; the vital core” (dictionary.com). The meaning of soul is not nor should it be restricted to the immaterial. There is something else that exists everywhere and is mixed in the whole universe: atoms. Atoms are the “vital core” of all matter in the universe, everything. Considering that all matter is made of atoms, and that all atoms are in constant motion – and that atoms themselves consist of neutrons, electrons, and protons[1], also all in constant motion –what Thales referred to as “soul” could actually be what we refer to as “atoms.” Magnets consist of atoms electrically charged in such a way that they “attract” their brethren atoms in iron and cause movement. In substance and essence, magnets DO have a soul: they have atoms and these atoms cause movement, When Thales states that “all things are full of gods,” he is metaphorically correct in that all things are full of atoms (Cohen 9).

To suggest that soul is simply another word for atoms is, of course, too simplistic. The most common understanding of the word and concept of “soul” is that of some sort of energy, a divine spark, the life force. This interpretation of soul is so common throughout the world and history that perhaps soul really is a form of energy: what we now know as electromagnetism. Electromagnetism, on of the four fundamental forces, exists and affects everything in the universe. It is essential to the operation of the universe, from the smallest of atoms to the largest of suns. Without electromagnetic energy, the universe would simply cease to exist as we know it. Ancient Greeks reported on phenomena now known to be of electromagnetic causation, but it wasn’t until the late 1800s and early 1900s that science began to fully understand and define the concept. Just as Thales was metaphorically correct when he said that “all things are full of gods” (atoms), he is also metaphorically scientifically correct from the standpoint of electromagnetic energy: all things are full of electromagnetic energy.

Thales’ simple words and concepts are metaphorically scientifically correct regarding another essential component of the universe: hydrogen. In many other fragments, Thales proposes that the origin of the world is water and that the Earth rests on water (Cohen 8-10). The idea that the world rests on water has been found laughable by many readers and interpretations ever since, yet there is nothing laughable about this concept: it is, in fact, remarkably accurate. The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen. When Thales proposes that Earth “rests” on “water,” which is 75% hydrogen, he is remarkably scientifically accurate, as the earth does indeed exist in a “sea” that is 98% hydrogen (Wikipedia.org). While the Earth is in constant motion due to gravitation force, it moves within a “sea” that is 98% hydrogen – it figuratively “rests” on “water”. Hydrogen is so prevalent throughout the universe that one could also say that all things are full of hydrogen.

Why should we care? Because despite our current strong religious connotations on words such as “soul,” when one remembers Thales’ strong natural science orientation, one realizes just how close Thales was to the truth about the nature of our physical world as proved by science well over two thousand years after his time! If Thales is this close to the scientific truth on such fundamental scientific understandings as atoms, electromagnetic energy, and hydrogen, what else is he that close to? Are other concepts of Thales, reached through simple observation, logic, and rationality, also close to what science has since proven? The words of Thales and other ancient philosophers cannot be limited to face-value interpretations, nor should they be limited to religious and/or metaphysical interpretations. To do so not only demeans the strong natural philosophical approaches to questions about the nature of the world Thales and others asked, it denies modern-day man ancient insight that may lead us to answer questions about the universe that science has yet to answer. It is essential for the modern reader to consider reinterpreting the words of Thales and others from a natural science viewpoint, albeit a metaphorical approach.

Thales simply lacked the proper vocabulary. His ideas are solid metaphors for foundational scientific concepts and facts. With elegant simplicity, Thales expresses a modern-day understanding of the nature of the universe that defies simple explanation. When Thales stated, “all things are full of Gods,” he hit on three essential scientific facts: all things are full of atoms, all things are full of electromagnetic energy, and all things are full of hydrogen. Another verse attributed to Thales brings us to the most stunning of all facts: “time is the wisest because it discovers everything” (Wikipedia.org).

Works Cited

Cohen, S. Marc, Patricia Curd, C.D.C. Reeve. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy. Hacket Publishing Co, Inc., Indianapolis: 1995. First Edition.

Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. Dictionary.com. 2006. http://www.dictionary.com

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Thales. Wikipedia.org. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

[1] Protons are aptly named. The origin of the word proton comes from the Greek word prōton, which means “first.” Dictionary.com.

Written for Professor Tanner's Ancient Philosophy class at University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 13th February 2006.

Hammurabi to Hebrew to Here: Religious Influence on Laws

2005-11-30T17:49:00.000-08:00

Much of any society’s view of law and justice is strongly influenced by their mainstream religious worldview. Regardless of how secular the style of a law code is, the concepts and philosophies behind any particular law code have strong roots in a culture’s religious worldview. The religious worldview of ancient Hebrews is clearly demonstrated in the Covenant Code found in Exodus, and was a major departure from the common law codes active at the time, an influence that persists in modern day laws.

One of the most historically influential concepts found in the Hebrew Covenant Code (generally defined as Exodus 20:22-23:19) is the concept that the law applies (or should apply) equally to all regardless of social status. Despite the fact that the Code recognizes differences between slaves and free persons[1], this concept was groundbreaking at the time of Exodus, and is a fundamental part of modern day law and justice in America and other countries. Before the Covenant Code, most of the common law codes active at the time made distinctions based on the rank of the victim and/or accused. For example, in the Code of Hammurabi[2], a widely influential law code at the time, most criminal penalties were determined by the victim’s social rank.[3] In Hammurabi’s codes #211-214, causing a miscarriage required compensation of ten shekels if the pregnant woman was a seignior (high rank), five shekels for a commoner, and two shekels if the victim was a slave.[4] In the Covenant Code, as in modern-day laws, the penalty is generally the same regardless of the rank of the victim, although both provide for some discretion regarding the severity of the penalty based upon the severity of damage caused to the mother. Exodus 21:22 provides for varying penalties in causing a miscarriage based upon how much damage was done. If only a miscarriage ensues (from a fight, for example), then a fine is to be paid. Should further damage occur to the mother of the miscarried baby, the husband may exact a penalty reasonably equivalent to the damage caused, such as “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn…”[5]. In modern-day American courts, Judges can adjust the penalty based on “victim impact statements” and other factors, which is more similar to “ancient Near Eastern and Arabic laws” than to Exodus’s code[6]. The concept that the penalty should fit the crime – not the criminal – is distinctly a Covenant Code innovation, one with influence still today.

Another unique innovation of the Hebrew Covenant Code is the idea that the intent and causation behind a criminal act can strongly influence whether or not a specific act is even considered criminal. One’s thoughts – not just solely actions – now played a role in law in a way it never had before. For example, both the Code and modern day laws recognize killing a person as criminal, yet both recognize that there are differences in intent and causation of a death. “You shall not murder”[7] sounds very clear-cut, yet Exodus 21:13 recognizes the concept of negligent homicide: that sometimes the cause of a death is unintentional and accidental, and that unintentional deaths are not necessarily criminal (Berlin 153, Collins). In fact, the “Hebrew bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing” and “notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary” (Wikipedia). Both the Covenant Code and modern day laws provide for minimal to no penalty at all in the case of self-defense (Berlin, Lexis, Collins). Colorado Statutes[8] 18-1-704 states “a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person” (Lexis). Self-defense is a recognizable defense against criminal charges of murder, one recognized as a non-criminal act in both the Covenant Code and modern-day laws. Exodus 21:14, like modern day laws, however, consider premeditation as a far more serious criminal act (Berlin 153, Lexis). Exodus 21:14 provides that a person who premeditates and conspires to kill someone, they shall be “put to death” – and Colorado Statutes provide the death penalty for those that premeditate murder (Berlin 153, Lexis). One difference, however, is in Hammurabi’s code the victim (or victim’s family) could accept “redemption” (a payment) in lieu of the death penalty (Berlin 153). Exodus does not “permit compensation of the victim’s family for economic loss instead of capital punishment,”[9] nor does modern-day law . The concept that the intention behind a death be considered when determining whether a crime has been committed clearly originates in Hebrew law.

Not all of the Covenant Code was a departure from the then-norm; in fact, some concepts found in Hammurabi’s Code are clearly foundational to the Covenant Code, and have remained virtually intact through to modern times. Exodus 22:1 is strikingly similar to modern so-called “Make My Day” laws. It states that “if the thief is seized while tunneling (breaking into a house), and he is beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt” (on the part of the homeowner’s part for killing a person breaking into his house) (Berlin 153). Hammurabi 22 states “(I)f any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death” (ANET). Colorado statutes 18-4-704 allow for the use of physical force in defending one’s home from a criminal, although they specify that “(D)eadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes…(the criminal is) about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary” (Lexis). While Exodus 22:1 and Hammurabi 22 both permit the use of deadly force against any burglar, Colorado and other state statutes permit the use of deadly force only if the burglar appears to intend to use physical force. While the concept of using deadly force to protect one’s home is ancient beyond even Exodus, modern day laws allow for meeting physical force with reasonably equivalent physical force is distinctly different.[10]

Exodus 22:5 recognizes that starting a fire is legal, but failing to keep the fire under control is criminal. “When a fire is started and spreads… he who started the fire must make restitution” (Berlin). This is eerily precognitive of the Hayman fire in Colorado two years ago, when a woman started a “small” fire to burn letters, but failed to keep the fire under control resulting in millions of dollars worth of damage to homes, businesses, and the forest cover. Both Colorado and Federal laws were used to convict the perpetrator, and she not only is required to repay the victims for the damage she caused, but also must serve twelve years in prison. The concept that one’s actions or lack of action resulting in damage to another’s property or person (modern day negligence laws) can be considered criminal is clearly a result of Hebrew law influence.

There are significant other similarities between the Covenant Code and modern-day laws, all of which show drastic conceptual departure from the common laws of the ancient Near East.. Exodus 21:28, which deals with an ox goring a person and causing damage, is very similar to modern-day dangerous animal laws (Berlin 154-155). If an owner knows their animal is dangerous and/or vicious by the animal’s prior actions, he is liable and can be charged with a crime, but if he didn’t know the animal is vicious, it is not a criminal act (although may be required to pay for damages) (Lexis). This is similar to the “one free bite” dog laws common throughout the United States – the idea that an owner’s liability is minimal the first time a dog bites a person, but significantly higher should the dog bite again (Lexis).

Modern day negligence laws providing for the failure to take reasonable actions to create a safe environment, especially in construction areas, are remarkably similar to Exodus 21:33, when one “opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it…the one responsible for the pit must make restitution” (Lexis, Berlin 155), which is remarkably similar to Hammurabi 229’s “ If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. What differs between the three is that Hammurabi provided the death penalty for simply not constructing a home properly (apparently even if it did not cause physical damage to the occupants), while Exodus simply provides for restitution in the case of construction negligence. This is a fairer and more balanced approach to negligence, one that takes into consideration the idea that despite the (possible) outcome of death of the victim, the idea behind the crime may or may not have been death: it may have simply been ignorance, mistake, or accident, so therefore it is not murder. The fact that the intent and thoughts behind the crime are considered was a major departure from the then-norm, again, a concept that is still in place today.

Modern day perjury laws have obvious roots in Exodus 23:1-3 “…you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness” and 23:7 “(K)eep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent” (Berlin 158). Clearly, many of today’s laws have their roots in Hebrew law as presented in Exodus’s Covenant Code.

Law defines a society. When a group of people develop and agree to a set of rules/laws to live by, they are also defining themselves as a society separate from other societies. This is not just a political or geographical declaration; it is also a cultural declaration strongly influence by the society’s religious worldview. When Moses brought to his people the laws received from Yahweh, he also brought them a formal declaration and definition of who they are (Collins). In 1787, when the Philadelphia Convention finished drafting the U.S. Constitution, they presented the rest of the United States with a formal declaration and definition of who we, as a country, are to be (Wikipedia). While we may believe that much of our legal code has a Christian heritage, clearly, our legal heritage has distinctly strong roots in Hebrew laws, a heritage far more influenced by our religious worldview than the secular-style wording of our laws indicates.

Works Cited

Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp 152-158.

Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2004. pp. 126-134.

Lexis-Nexis.com. Colorado State Statutes. 19 November 2005. http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus: Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991. pp.239-254.

Isser, Stanley. “Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisted.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Jan 1990, Vol. 52, Issue 1. EbscoHost Research Database. http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=9604083677

Wikipedia.org. United States Constitution. 23 November 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution

Written for Professor Clark's Philosophical Approaches to the Hebrew Bible at the University of Colorado, Colorado Spring, 30th November 2005, adapted from a previously written paper (see Hebrew Influence on Modern Laws 28th November paper).

[1] While recognizing the difference between free persons and slaves, a crime was a crime regardless of free or slave status. The difference in Exodus was who was considered the victim. Murdering a slave was considered murder just as murdering a free person, however, the victim was the owner of the slave, not necessarily the slave, and the penalty for such murder was the same (death), while in Hammurabi the penalty was determined by the status of the victim (slave, free, commoner, high-class).

[2] While I did research and consider using other law codes of the time, for the sake of brevity and consistency I am using only Hammurabi’s Code for examples of ancient laws, as it was so strongly influential on many other law codes of the time.

[3] Isser, Stanley. “Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisted.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Jan 1990, Vol. 52, Issue 1. EbscoHost Research Database. http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=9604083677

[4] Isser

[5] Exodus 21:23-25. Berlin 154.

[6] Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp 152-158.

[7] Ex 20:13, Berlin 150

[8] Examples of modern-day criminal acts are generally universally accepted as criminal throughout the United States, however, I will be quoting exclusively from Colorado State Statutes for expediency’s sake.

[9] Berlin 153 (side notes).

[10] You can’t respond to a slap across the face with a gunshot to the face.

The Hebrew Influence on Modern Laws

2005-11-28T01:26:00.000-08:00

Much of any society’s view of law and justice is strongly influenced by their mainstream religious worldview. Regardless of how secular the style of a law code is, the concepts and philosophies behind any particular law code has strong roots in a culture’s religious worldview. The laws of some cultures, especially Islamic countries, have obvious religious roots, while others view their laws as strictly secular. In the United States, while priding ourselves on a strongly secular code of law, it is popularly recognized that the origins of much of our law is Christian, but in fact the roots are far more Hebrew/Jewish than Christian.

The impact and influence of the Hebrew Covenant Code (generally defined as Exodus 20:22-23:19) as put forth in Exodus is strong and obvious, not just in the form of specific codes but also in the concepts behind the laws; in particular, the concept that the law applies (or should apply) equally to all regardless of social status. Despite the fact that both the Constitution and the Covenant Code recognize differences between slaves and free persons, this concept was groundbreaking at the time of Exodus, and is a fundamental part of modern day law and justice in America. Before the Covenant Code, most of the common law codes active at the time made distinctions based on the rank of the victim and/or accused. For example, in the Code of Hammurabi, a widely influential law code at the time, most criminal penalties were determined by the victim’s social rank (Isser). In Hammurabi’s codes #211-214, causing a miscarriage required compensation of ten shekels if the pregnant woman was a seignior (high rank), five shekels for a commoner, and two shekels if the victim was a slave (Isser). In the Covenant Code, as in modern-day laws, the penalty is generally the same regardless of the rank of the victim, although both provide for some discretion regarding the severity of the penalty (Fretheim). One difference, however, is in Hammurabi’s code the victim (or victim’s family) could accept “redemption” (a payment) in lieu of the death penalty (Berlin 153). Exodus does not “permit compensation of the victim’s family for economic loss instead of capital punishment” (Berlin 153). In modern-day American courts, judges can adjust the penalty based on “victim impact statements” and other factors, which is more similar to “ancient Near Eastern and Arabic laws” than to Exodus’s code (Berlin 153). The concept that the penalty should fit the crime – not the victim or the criminal – is distinctly a result of the Covenant Code’s influence.

What we as a society consider criminal in today’s modern law code has strong roots in the Hebrew Covenant Code. The intent and causation behind a criminal act can strongly influence whether or not a specific act is even considered criminal. For example, both the Code and modern day laws recognize killing a person as criminal, yet both recognize that there are differences in intent and causation of a death. “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13, Berlin 150) sounds very clear-cut, yet Ex 21:13 recognizes the concept of negligent homicide: that sometimes the cause of a death is unintentional and accidental and that unintentional deaths are not necessarily criminal (Berlin 153, Collins). In fact, the “Hebrew bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing” and “notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary” (Wikipedia). Both the Covenant Code and modern day laws provide for minimal to no penalty at all in the case of self-defense (Berlin, Lexis, Collins). Colorado Statutes[1] 18-1-704 states “a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person” (Lexis). Self-defense is a recognizable defense against criminal charges of murder, one recognized as a non-criminal act in both the Covenant Code and modern-day laws. Exodus 21:14, like modern day laws, however, consider premeditation as a far more serious criminal act (Berlin 153, Lexis). Exodus 21:14 provides that a person who premeditates and conspires to kill someone, they shall be “put to death” – and Colorado Statutes provide the death penalty for those that premeditate murder (Berlin 153, Lexis). The concept that the intention behind a death be considered when determining whether a crime has been committed clearly originates in Hebrew law.

Exodus 22:1 is strikingly similar to modern so-called “Make My Day” laws. It states that “if the thief is seized while tunneling (breaking into a house), and he is beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt” (on the part of the homeowner’s part for killing a person breaking into his house) (Berlin 153). Colorado statutes 18-4-704 allow for the use of physical force in defending one’s home from a criminal, although they specify that “(D)eadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes…(the criminal is) about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary” (Lexis). While Exodus 22:1 permits the use of deadly force against any burglar, Colorado statutes only permit the use of deadly force if the burglar appears to intend to use physical force. This is a distinct difference: modern day laws allow for meeting physical force with reasonably equivalent physical force, (you can’t respond to a slap across the face with a gunshot to the face), but the concept of a homeowner having the right to physically defend their home with physical force is clearly entrenched in Exodus.

There are significant other similarities between the Covenant Code and modern-day laws. Exodus 21:28, which deals with an ox goring a person and causing damage, is very similar to modern-day dangerous animal laws (Berlin 154-155). If an owner knows their animal is dangerous and/or vicious by the animal’s prior actions, he is liable and can be charged with a crime, but if he didn’t know the animal is vicious, it is not a criminal act (although may be required to pay for damages) (Lexis). This is similar to the “one free bite” dog laws common throughout the United States – the idea that an owner’s liability is minimal the first time a dog bites a person, but significantly higher should the dog bite again (Lexis). Modern day negligence laws providing for the failure to take reasonable actions to create a safe environment, especially in construction areas, are remarkably similar to Exodus 21:33, when one “opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it…the one responsible for the pit must make restitution” (Lexis, Berlin 155). Modern day perjury laws have obvious roots in Exodus 23:1-3 “…you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness” and 23:7 “(K)eep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent” (Berlin 158). Clearly, many of today’s laws have their roots in Hebrew law as presented in Exodus’s Covenant Code.

Law defines a society. When a group of people develop and agree to a set of rules and laws to live by, they are also defining themselves as a society separate from other societies. This is not just a political or geographical declaration; it is also a cultural declaration strongly influence by the society’s religious worldview. When Moses brought to his people the laws received from Yahweh, he also brought them a formal declaration and definition of who they are (Collins). In 1787, when the Philadelphia Convention finished drafting the U.S. Constitution, they presented the rest of the United States with a formal declaration and definition of who we, as a country, are to be (Wikipedia.org). While we may believe that much of our legal code has a Christian heritage, clearly, our legal heritage has distinctly strong roots in Hebrew laws, a heritage far more influenced by our religious worldview than the secular-style wording of our laws indicates.

Works Cited

Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp 152-158.

Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2004. pp. 126-134.

Lexis-Nexis.com. Colorado State Statutes. 19 November 2005. http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

Fretheim, Terence E. Exodus: Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991. pp.239-254.

Wikipedia.org. United States Constitution. 23 November 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution

[1] Examples of modern-day criminal acts are generally universally accepted as criminal throughout the United States, however, I will be quoting exclusively from Colorado State Statutes for expediency’s sake.

This paper was originally written for Professor Campbell's Comparative Religions class at University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, 28th November 2005, but I ended up deciding it worked better for a different class. So I edited it and adapted it for that class (posted under 30th November 2005, Hamarabi et al title) and wrote something completely different for this class.

A Knock at the Door

2005-08-01T22:47:00.000-07:00

It's Friday night, and I sit down after my very-off-key Karaoke rendition of "YMCA" at Makenna's Saloon, one of my small-town's few places to socialize. I look around at the crowd: all people I know, most drunk or well on the way. Maggie, the bartender, seeing I'm drinking Diet Coke as usual, catches my eye with the dim hope that I will offer to drive someone, anyone, home. But she doesn't ask, she knows I won't, and she knows why. She doesn't blame me: she won't either.

I live in a very small rural town, a ranching community, with just over 900 men, women and children. There are more cows than people. We watch out for each other here, most of us don't lock our doors at night, and everyone knows everyone. The entire "downtown" fills two whole blocks. The options for "going out on the town" are limited: go to one of the three area bars, a basketball game at the school, the bowling alley, church, or catch up on gossip while in line at the grocers.

I look down the bar and see Tina and John,* as usual. For more than four years, every day, she has driven him to the bar. She sits next to him for hours, drinking Coke, waiting for him to go home. She used to just leave him there at the bar, but five DUIs and a $70,000 drunk driving accident have bankrupted her: now she always drives him. If she didn't drive him, he'd drive drunk.

When I bartended at the Prairie Dog Saloon, we had a Rolodex next to the register filled with phone numbers of the wives, husbands, and significant others of our "regulars," people like John, like Tina. Nightly, we would make numerous calls asking them to come get their associated too-drunk-to-drive lush. Nightly, they would come and get them, resentful that we would let them get "that drunk" yet at the same time, grateful they were not driving home. Like I said, it's a very small community.

Why didn't we just cut them off or refuse to serve them? Simple: Cut off one of the "regulars" and you lose your tips - and maybe your job. Assuming the drunk doesn't punch you for cutting them off.

I see Tina yawning and throw a sympathetic smile her way. She's tired and ready to go home, but John's not done drinking. He won't be done for several more hours, hours that she will sit there, waiting, yawning, chatting occasionally, doing whatever she can to pass the time except push the issue. She knows she should just leave him there. But she won't: the thought of something that has not happened - the guilt - that one day he may kill someone overwhelms her.

It has become her responsibility to keep everyone else safe from her husband's irresponsibility. Ethically, morally, socially, and legally. He may be legally responsible for his actions while drunk, but Tina will pay the price: Tina and anyone he harms. She knows she is part of the problem, but she doesn't see a way out. I don't see a way out for her, either.

I used to drive my friends home when they had too much to drink. I used to answer my door to drunk friends at 2 or 3 in the morning, put on my shoes, grab my keys, and give them a ride home - one of the "benefits" of living barely two blocks from the bar. I used to answer the phone and say "Sure thing, be right there" when one of the local bartenders called me, asking if I could help them out and drive so-and-so home. I used to beg, plead, argue, and cry to get the car keys from a drunken friend. I used to be one of those socially responsible people who did everything I could to stop my friends from driving drunk, but I was rarely successfully.

I'm not one of those people anymore.

Tina is my friend. I care a great deal about her. I listen without criticism when she needs to vent her frustrations with life... the money problems, John's "little drinking problem," how tired she is all the time working four jobs... it goes on and on, sometimes for hours. I listen, nod my head and make sympathetic noises in all the right places, and then silently thank God I am not her.

I sit there and listen; I am a good friend. Sometimes, though, I lose my sympathy and shout at her: "Stop protecting him from his own actions! Just let go and let what happens, happen! Let him deal with the consequences of his actions. Stop saving him! Stop saving everyone else! Start saving yourself!"

"For better or for worse," she always says. "Besides, it would just make John angry."

Angry drunks are scary, and for many drunks, nothing makes them angrier than questioning their ability to drive. Five years ago, my well-intended attempts to get an angry, drunk friend to let me drive them home cost me a black eye and a double-concussion. I ended up with paramedics while he drove home drunk. Fortunately, he made it home safely. Actually, I should say unfortunately he made it home safe. The more often a drunk arrives home safely, the greater his confidence that he (or she) is "safe" to drive when drunk.

I used to be like Tina, sitting there at the bar waiting for one or another of my past boyfriends to finish drinking. I used to be one of those names and numbers on a Rolodex card. I was the card for Mark, a boyfriend of less than a year, over six years ago. One night, I got "the call," drove ten miles to the Prairie Dog, walked in, didn't see him... the bartender pointed at the Men's Room. As I walked down the hallway, I heard a crashing sound. Thinking Mark had fallen, I opened the door: he had fallen all right. Fallen to the floor naked, with my friend Patty on top of him, also naked. He immediately starts shouting at me "It's not what you think, she doesn't mean anything to me" and laughs at the same time - but it's obvious he is still inside of her.

I walk out, shouting "Tear up my number and NEVER CALL ME AGAIN for him."

I find many voice-mail messages when I get home, begging forgiveness, begging understanding, saying it was just a mistake, you name it. I had known for six months that this relationship would never work: Sober, he was one of the best people I'd ever known in my life. Drunk, he was the worst. The phone rang many times that night: I never answered it.

At 4:40am, a knock on my front door. Shouting "Go to hell leave me alone ..." as I swing open the door expecting Mark but finding Patty, with a county sheriff's card in her hand. Patty informs me that Mark, while driving over 90 mph down Highway 24, blew through a stoplight and rammed into the side of a minivan. He's OK, the person he hit is critical.

Silence.

Patty informs me that Mark told the police I "refused" to drive him home, and then, after she bitched me out for my heartlessness in leaving him free to drive drunk (along with various other foul comments on what a lousy girlfriend I was), she wanted me to know I needed to call the County Sheriff's office in the next day or two. To give them a statement. "I shouldn't be telling you this, Laura, but if I were you, I'd find a lawyer before you say anything to the sheriff."

I forget about going to sleep.

I made the call immediately - after calling the hospital to find out how Mark was. Apparently not only Mark, but a few others, gleefully related the details of my earlier outburst upon finding Mark in the throes of passion on the bathroom floor. It turns out that if you knowingly "permit" someone who is intoxicated to drive, the possibility exists you might be considered legally liable for his or her actions.

"Are you telling me the next time some idiot gets drunk, drives, and kills some poor innocent family of five all they have to do is say ‘So-and-so wouldn't drive me home, therefore it's not my fault, it's their fault!' You have got to be kidding me!"

Yes, sometimes it is true.

How absurd! How ridiculous! How insane! Some idiot who doesn't care to control their drinking, drives and hurts or kills someone, and I may end up arrested or sued? I may lose everything I have spent my life working for just because someone else screwed up? I'm not the one who got him drunk. Hey, I wasn't even there when he got in his truck! Yet, somehow, five hours after I last saw him, I may end up held responsible for his actions. How ludicrous! Have we completely forgotten that he is an adult responsible for his own choices?

Apparently so.

Four months later, the van driver has fully recovered. My lawyer did his lawyer magic and I not only was never held responsible for his accident, I managed to avoid being involved in the investigation completely. But how absurd is that? I'm not liable for something I should never have been liable for in the first place. At a cost of more than $2,000 in legal expenses, hours of lost work, and much stress and aggravation, I'm not liable! Gee, thank you!

But, there is some guilt: I didn't drive him home and someone got hurt. Mark got a public defender, $600 in fines and a one-year license suspension. Of course he drove - drunk - during that year.

Through the rumor mill, I have learned of several more "incidents" involving Mark over the last six years. I hear the news, and I find myself saying "Thank God I got out of his life and away from that drama." Thank God... yet I still feel a twinge of guilt. Guilt that I am not there to be the responsible one, the one to "save" him. I guess you could say I got lucky. I am not Tina.

I wonder what has happened to our society sometimes. Time was, when you screwed up, you took responsibility, paid the price, and called it a "learning experience." Now, when you screw up, you are far more likely to cry, "It's because of my parents, my school, my neighborhood, I lost my job ..." blah, blah, blah, you name it. It all comes down to the same mantra: "It's not my fault, I am the victim!" We spill hot coffee and sue the company because we got burned. We break a window to rob a house, and sue the owner because we got cut. We drive on bald tires and sue the automobile manufacturer because we totaled our car. We drive drunk and sue someone who did not - could not - stop us from driving because we killed someone.

I have stopped being the designated driver. The bartenders no longer call me when someone is too drunk to drive. My friends no longer take advantage of my sobriety or my friendship. I do not allow myself to be an excuse for someone else's refusal or inability to control their own drinking. I can not allow myself to be responsible for the actions of the irresponsible.

It's 3:05 am, and there is a knock on my door.

I sit here on my couch, watching my dogs go crazy barking at the door. I sit here quietly, hoping they will give up and go away. The dogs stop barking and start whining lightly, tails wagging. Obviously, it is someone they know.

I sit, quietly waiting.

Sigh. I get up.

I answer the door.

After all, friends don't let friends drive drunk.

* * *

Written for Professor Sutter's Creative Non-Fiction class at Pikes Peak Community College, 1st August 2005.

Epilogue, 2008:

While I wrote this in 2005, the incidents referenced took place in 1999-2001. All names have been changed to protect the not-innocent.

My small town's changed a lot since then. In 2006, Colorado instituted a smoking ban. This ban cost our three local entertainment businesses upwards of 45% in lost revenue, resulting in all of their closures. The Prairie Dog has changed owners twice (I can't keep track of what it's called now!), Makenna's Saloon is now closed, Curly's Place closed after 24 years, and the bowling alley closed, leaving our local teens and young people no place to hang out. Instead of simply walking home from the bar, our local venerable drunks now drive at least 10 miles away, or drink at home. This has resulted in an unbelievable increase in drunk driving incidents, and a small increase in domestic violence in the area. Five DUIs last week alone... in an area where one a month was the norm. Sure, I guess it's nice there is no bar in town anymore...

Needless to say, I never had anything to do with Mark again. While I tried to remain friends with him (it is a VERY small town, it's often vital to make nice) Mark ended up heavy into meth, and in 2002, I reluctantly pursued and was granted a permanent restraining order. It worked, he actually moved out of the area, and I've not laid eyes on him since.

Meanwhile... thanks to the local business closings, Tina lost both her jobs and John drinks only at home now, suffering from liver cirrhosis and a few other alcohol-related ailments. Much as he would like her to, she can't drive him anywhere, because she hasn't the money to pay for gas, much less beer at a bar! There are some upsides to our current economic situation after all...

***

In late 2005, I posted this essay on Writing.com and received the following comments/reviews on it, that unfortunately I was unable to properly import to this blog when I moved everything over. The comments received are below:

Aonghas MacDubh: Going Grey painted realistic scenes about small-town life. I could picture being in North Dakota, or maybe somewhere in Saskatchewan. Excellent. Mechanically, I found little to complain about, and that which I did would be subject to some dispute. I'm from the old school of sentence structure, but not limited by it... so, the heck with starting an argument. As to the story, I do not understand the reason Tina would continue putting up with her husband; or why her husband would drown himself as a "regular".

However, I accepted everything quite easily. This story has the ring of truth. Another "reality" that made me think... Canada... was the law making someone responsible for another's actions; To wit: Refusing to give a drunk a ride home is to become responsible should he drive and kill someone.... How bloody Canadian that idea!

Lynne is building:

This story is a real eye-opener for me. I think it's outrageous that you could have been charged after what happened. Your argument against this is reasonable and true. How could you be held responsible for something you had no control over? You wrote this very well, I was with you from the beginning and thoroughly digested every word. I was shaken by the facts of this tale. That so many people drink and drive and get away with it.
Steven Oz:

Have you published this? If not then you should. I never knew designated drivers could be liable if they choose not to drive, although it makes a sick sort of sense in today's "sue everybody" society. The "somebody else is responsible" society. Well written and informative (bit of an eye-popper).

DawnKnight: I can not give you any critquing on this, it is perfect. Great job, in describing every aspect of this, I hope it gets published some day.

A Busy Weekend

2005-06-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

Cartoonist Randy Glasbergen, creator of the syndicated comic strip, “The Better Half,” amongst others, has made a successful career parodying the institute of marriage in comics and cartoons. While his creations cover many topics related to marriage, one of his most common themes is lack of knowledge and communication about each other before marrying. In one of Glasbergen’s cartoons (pictured left), two women, apparently co-workers, are discussing their weekend. One relates to a coworker how she met a wonderful man, “fell madly in love, got engaged, had a lovely wedding and honeymoon. Then things turned sour, we grew bitter, separated and divorced. It was quite a busy weekend!” (Glasbergen). Combined with the casual, nonchalant atmosphere of the cartoon, these two simple, small sentences succinctly and effectively depict many of the problems in how couples approach marriage today.

In the cartoon, one woman states how “(W)e met, fell madly in love, got engaged…” but does not mention anything about who the man is (Glasbergen). There is no commentary on what kind of person he is, what he does for a living, is he funny, responsible, nice, or any other personality traits. There is nothing at all about why they fell “madly in love.” Glasbergen’s lack of this information in the conversation gives the impression that the couple lacked this information within their relationship before they married, and such failure to have this information about each other ultimately led to divorce.

The fact that Glasbergen uses the word “madly” brings the whole point into acute perspective: the entire concept of falling “madly in love” is a form of insanity. Insane, especially when as is so unfortunately common today, it happens over a very short time. Glasbergen successfully and clearly points out the ridiculousness of people rushing into marriage. Maybe if these two people had taken some time to genuinely get to know one another their marriage would have lasted longer – at least longer than one weekend.

The “lovely wedding and honeymoon” comment very clearly emphasizes another serious problem in how people approach marriage today: it is all about having a good party. Too often people think that by spending a lot of money on a big, fancy wedding and expensive honeymoon to exotic locations they are somehow starting their marriage on the right foot. Many couples will spend far more time – easily hundreds of hours – discussing the actual wedding and honeymoon than they spend discussing their marriage – or each other and their expectations. They may spend incredible amounts of energy, money, and emotion planning the “perfect” wedding yet only a few minutes or hours talking about far more important issues to a successful marriage – such as children and finances.

Finally, “things turned sour, we grew bitter, separated and divorced” over the course of the marriage. There is no commentary as to whether or not they tried to work things out, or why things turned sour (probably because the honeymoon was over!), although the clear point Glasbergen is making is the marriage failed because they rushed into it without any real knowledge of each other – or of marriage itself. At the same time, Glasbergen is showing, again by lack of providing the information, that this couple rushed into ending the marriage and once again, failed to communicate with each other in order to save a marriage that they were obviously ill-prepared to embark upon to begin with.

Without clearly stating so in his words, Glasbergen is depicting this women – and her former husbands – failure to take time to get to know one another before they married and how such lack led to the demise of the marriage. The style of the drawing, the atmosphere and location of this discussion between coworkers serves to enhance this point. Here are two women, obviously coworkers, discussing something as important and life-altering as marriage (and subsequent divorce) over cups of coffee during a short coffee break at work. Such important topic as marriage and divorce being casually discussed in just a few minutes in a location where deep conversation is unlikely possible further emphasizes the approach this woman took to her entire marriage: just a casual, quick moment in life. She spent a weekend meeting, entering a relationship, engaging, marrying and divorcing a man. She then spends less than a minute relating the entire thing to her coworker. Through this small cartoon, Glasbergen has effectively depicted today’s common fast-food approach to both marriage and the aftermath.

Works Cited

Glasbergen, Randy. “Cartoons about Love, Relationships, Dating and Marriage.” 18 June 2005. 2004. .

Written for Professor Ryan's Composition Class at Pikes Peak Community College, 22nd June 2005

Hungry for a Meaningful Life

2005-03-03T14:43:00.000-08:00

In Franz Kafka’s “A Hunger Artist,” the main character spends his life as a Hunger Artist, moving from town to town performing his “art” of fasting. At first, the public is fascinated with him and his performances; he is celebrated and idolized as he slowly starves himself in a straw-filled cage. Over time, the public loses interest and moves on to newer interests yet the Hunger Artist continues to perform, albeit to an almost non-existent audience, until the day he dies. Through the character of the Hunger Artist, Kafka explores suffering as art, a meaningful life, and the meaning of humanity itself. Uses Irony Suggests that “normal” people can never fully understand Artists and their art. Presents a metaphor that all life is ultimately meaningless. Through the character of the Hunger Artist, Kafka puts forth the idea that we all live life in a cage of our own choosing.

The Hunger Artist spends his life inhumanly, suffering for and as art. For his art, he eschews all the normal trappings of everyday life. He apparently never marries nor has children. He lives in a cage like an animal, with straw for a bed and a simple clock as the only other furnishings. His clothing is a simple pair of black tights, nowhere near enough to protect him from the weather. He has no friends and other than a business relationship with his manager/promoter and swapping jokes with the occasional audience member, no real human contact. He lives his life watched by an audience that in his mind vindicates his art even though at the same time he often resents these watchers. Most importantly, he denies himself that which is most essential for all forms of life: food. Through these lifestyle choices, all for his art, the Hunger Artist puts himself outside of all other forms of life, even animals. He feels that he is above all others through his art, yet in truth all those who see him view him as below all, less than even animals.

Even when he is ceremoniously removed from his cage after 40 days of fasting, the young women employed to help him out avoid touching him, as if he is so below humanity that he not worthy of the simplest of touch.

Ironic that as he lives his life like an animal, he is watched by butchers, men whose livelihood is to cut up animals for eating,

The hunger artist chooses to live life alienated and isolated from humanity at large, yet are we not all alienated and isolated? As we go through the ruts of our day-to-day lives are we not living trapped in cages of our own making?

The question arises as to why he chooses to live like this. At the last moment, we learn it is simply because he never found any food he liked to eat. While at first glance this may seem too easy an explanation, it is indeed a profound statement. The Hunger Artist never found food he liked, he never found any sustenance, any nourishment, any meaning or substance to life. Through the analogy of food, he spent his life searching for something worth living for and never found anything that suited him. So he chose to deny himself everything, as if saying why bother at all.

Ultimately, we all live life as animals, trapped within cages of our own choosing. The Hunger Artist chose a physical cage, a cage meant for animals, yet lived as less than an animal. Others choose the cage of dead-end jobs, meaningless marriages, or trite entertainments that one quickly loses interest in. Regardless of the choices we make in living our lives, we all end life as nothing more than a mere pile of bones. The irony of “A Hunger Artist” is not that he died for his art, but that in achieving his ultimate ideal of artistic perfection, nobody noticed or cared.

Written for Professor Blagg's Introduction to Literature class at Pikes Peak Community College, 3rd March 2005.

Near-Earth Asteroids

2004-12-09T17:16:00.000-08:00

The majority of asteroids within our solar system reside in the Asteroid Belt, orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter. A large number of asteroid groupings, however, have their orbits elsewhere. This includes the Trojan asteroids, which orbit the sun in the Lagrangian points of Jupiter’s orbit; the Apollo asteroids, which cross Earth’s orbit; the Amor asteroids, which cross Mar’s orbit, and the Aten asteroids, which cross Venus’s orbit and approach from within Earth’s orbit (JPL). Vulcanoids have aphelia completely within the orbits of Mars or Venus, but as of this date no confirmed Vulcanoid asteroids have been found (Wikipedia.org). Alindas are in a 1:3 orbital resonance with Jupiter, resulting in a 1:4 orbital resonance with Earth. Most Alindas, due to their highly eccentric orbits and orbital resonance, pass near the inner planets (especially Earth) every 4 years (Wikipedia.org). Many but not all Alindas are also considered Atens.

Most known Aten asteroids have aphelion greater than 1AU and semi-major axes less than 1AU (within Earth’s orbit), however, some have their entire orbits (perihelion and aphelion) within the orbit of Earth. These subclasses of Aten asteroids are known as Apohele Asteroids (Wikipedia.com). The Apohele¹ – which is Hawaiian for “orbit” - class of asteroids are considered to be potentially dangerous to Earth as they cross within Earth’s orbit and are very difficult to find since they tend to be in the daylight sky most of the time (Lowell.edu. Wikipedia.org). While it is estimated that there may be as many as 50 or more Apohele asteroids, currently there are only two confirmed (Wikipedia.com, Lowell.edu).

The first Apohele, 1998DK36, never had its existence confirmed and is now considered lost. The two known, confirmed Apohele asteroids were both found in 2003 and 2004 (Wikipedia.com). Known as 2003CP20 and 2004JG6, both have their entire orbits within the orbit of Earth.

2003CP20, discovered in 2003 by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research Project in Socorro, New Mexico, is about two kilometers in diameter (Wikipedia.org). While its orbit is within the orbit of Earth, it also crosses the orbit of Venus (but not “as close to the sun as Mercury”) (Wikipedia.org). It is one of the larger Aten-class asteroids, the largest of the Apohele-class, and orbits the sun in about 233 days (Wikipedia.org). 2003CP20’s orbit is very eccentric, with a perihelion of 0.5023 and aphelion of 0.9798 (NeoDys).

2004JG6, the only other known, confirmed Apohele-class asteroid, was discovered in May, 2004 by Brian A. Skiff of the Lowell Observatory (Lowell.edu). 2004JG6 has the shortest orbital period of any known object to date, rotating the Sun in 184 days, and other than Mercury, has the closest orbit to the Sun (Lowell.edu. NeoDys). 2004JG6 crosses the orbits of both Venus and Mercury, coming within two million miles of Mercury and 3.5 million miles of Earth (Lowell.edu). It is estimated to be between 500 meters and one kilometer in size (Lowell.edu). Like 2003CP20, its orbit is very eccentric with a perihelion of 0.297AU and aphelion of 0.973 (NeoDys).

While 2004JG6 and 2003CP20 are the only currently known Apohele-class asteroids, neither asteroid is considered a potential risk to Earth. There are, however, several Aten asteroids which are considered “Potentially Hazardous Objects.” In 2001, 1998WT24 came within 1,194,285 miles of Earth. Several times during the next ten years, 1998WT24 will approach Earth closer than the Moon (Wikipedia, NeoDys). In September 2004, 4179 Toutatis (an Aten-Alinda class) came within 955,428 miles of Earth. While other asteroids have come closer to Earth than these, they were of much smaller size and would not cause the potential world-wide damage that an asteroid the size of 1998WT24 could cause. (They would likely burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere). For example, in March 2004 a meteoroid known as 2004FU162 passed within 7,000 miles of Earth. Tracking 2004FU162 was lost, and it is not known if it burned up in the atmosphere or “glanced off” and continued past Earth (Wikipedia.org). Also in March 2004, meteoroid 2004FH passed within 26,875 miles of Earth and is expected to return (although not as closely) in 2044 (Wikipedia.org). Finally, 69230 Hermes, a binary asteroid “rediscovered” in 2003, is a recurring visitor to Earth (Wikipedia.org). Hermes has been estimated to come within 360,000 miles of Earth in 1937, 1942, 1954, 1974, 1986, and 2003 (NeoDys). 69230 Hermes is next expected to come within .028AU of Earth in 2040 (NeoDys).

As observation and tracking technology improves, there is no doubt that many more asteroids will be discovered at a record-setting pace. New classes of asteroids will likely be created, and improved methods of tracking the potentially hazardous asteroids will be found. Many organizations, observatories, governments and companies are currently involved in discovering and tracking asteroids not just for the purposes of pure knowledge, but also to hopefully find and prevent potentially Earth-impacting asteroids in time.

¹The word Apohele also has roots in Greek: “Apo” for outside and “heli” for sun (Lowell.edu).

Works Cited

JPL: Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 6 Dec. 2004. .

Wikipedia.org. “Apohole Asteroids.” Wikipedia.org. June 2004. 6 Dec. 2004. .

Also many sublinks of this page, including:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aten_asteroids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten_asteroid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69230_Hermes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_noteworthy_asteroids#Record-setting_close_approaches_by_asteroids_to_Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_noteworthy_asteroids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2833342%29_1998_WT24#Record_close_encounter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2833342%29_1998_WT24

NeoDys: Near Earth Objects Dynamic Site. “NeoDys Object List.” Space Mechanics Group, Department of Mathematics, University of Pisa, Italy. 8 Dec. 2004. < http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/neodys/neoibo?objects:2003CP20;main>.

Lowell.edu. “LONEOS Discovers Asteroid With The Smallest Orbit.” Lowell Observatory. 20 May 2004. 7 Dec. 2004. < http://www.lowell.edu/press_room/releases/recent_releases/2004JG6_rls.html>.

Written for Professor Murch's Astronomy I class at Pikes Peak Community College, 9th December 2004.

Mother's Day Milk

2004-11-02T12:39:00.000-08:00

“That’ll be $33.00, please,” I say, as I pull my cab up to the Departures Terminal at Denver International Airport.

“Here ya go – keep the change.”

He closes the door, waves at me briefly, and enters the airport. I pull away and head towards the Holding Zone. All taxis, limos, and shuttle vans wait for our next runs at a large concrete lot about a quarter-mile from the terminal. As I pull into the Zone, I breathe a sigh of relief: there are only about thirty other cabs here. I won’t have to wait too long for my next run. Most of the time, there are more than a hundred cabs here.

The Zone is cool. The lot is divided into five lines; we each pull into the back of the line as we enter the Zone. At the front of the line is a traffic-light that flashes red when no taxis are needed, and green along with a number showing how many taxis are needed at the terminal. We park our taxis and wait in line, moving up as the front cabs go to the terminal.

We don’t just sit and wait in our cabs. There is always something to do, here at the Zone. There are several awning-covered picnic tables on the north side, and a large grassy field on the south. On the west is an air-conditioned building with restrooms, tables, recliners, a few TVs, a microwave, and vending machines.

Some of the drivers are throwing a Frisbee around; near them, a few drivers in Turbans are kicking a soccer ball. The now-four-months-long poker game is still going on at one of the picnic tables, a few scruffy-looking taxi drivers are playing chess against a few well-dressed limo drivers at another table. They won’t let me play in the poker game anymore… I win too much.

I’m in luck: the Roach Coach is here. I can get something to eat other than microwavable vending machine food. As I get out of my cab to stretch and light a cigarette, the dispatch system beeps. The small LCD screen shows a message from the dispatcher on it:

“Call Meredith. Urgent.”

Meredith is one of my five daughters. Yes, five. That’s another story for another day. It must be very important; she would never call me through Dispatch unless the house was burning down. Heck, at 16 years old, she would probably be too “embarrassed” to call her dad even then! I look at my cell phone and realize it’s turned off… well, I guess that’s why she called me through Dispatch.

Grabbing my cell phone, I dial home as I walk towards the Roach Coach. It’s a beautiful day, not a cloud in sight. The sun feels smoothly warm on me after driving for nearly an hour in the cool air conditioning of my cab. She answers on the first ring.

“Merry-Meri, what’s wrong?”

“Ugh, Dad… stop calling me that!” I laugh at her consternation over my use of her childhood nickname. She stops groaning then says, “Happy Mother’s Day.”

“Honey, you’re supposed to say that to your mother, not me. So what is so urgent you had me paged through Dispatch?”

“I know that, you silly! It’s you who needs to say it.”

“I said it to your mother this morning. Didn’t she show you the bracelet I bought her? Now, what is urgent?”

She giggles. “Dad, Happy Mother’s Day is what you get to say later. I found her.”

Okay, what is my daughter up to now… “Huh? Why? Um… Found who?”

“Your mom.”

I stop walking, a little confused and mystified. “My mom? What do you mean, my mom?”

“Your birth mom.”

My cigarette drops to the ground as I fumble with the cell phone, almost dropping it at the same time. I bend down and pick up the fallen but still lit cigarette, shaking all over. I try to stand back up but I end up just sitting down on the hot concrete pavement… standing upright is beyond the capabilities of my knocking knees right now. I’ve been driving a taxi for a year now, and had a lot of bizarre experiences during that time. This one is going to be at the top of the list.

“My mom. My birth mother. Meredith, what do you mean, you found her? I… I wasn’t looking for her… I didn’t know you were … Meri, what’s going on? What have you done?”

“Well…” I can imagine she is playing, as always, with her hair. She’s going to drag this out, I just know it. “Well, you know the internet, right?”

“Yes, Meri, I know the internet. What has that got to do with finding my birth mother?”

“Actually, your sister, then your mother. Anyway, I was chatting with a bunch of my friends and this advertisement popped up for some kind of Adoptee’s Find Your Parents website. Dad, when are you going to install that pop-up blocker you promised? Anyway, I clicked on it, and it was like free, I made sure it wasn’t like some kind of joke or scam. I found this “Register Now” link, filled out the form with your information, and there was a match. The match is your sister.

“What? I have a sister? Meri, forget about the college stuff. What do you mean, I have a sister? What about my mother?” The cigarette has burned out completely; my entire body is still shaking. I risk my knocking knees and try standing up again.

“I found your sister. Probably your half-sister. Yes, your sister. So I emailed her, and she emailed me back, and then we started instant messenging eachother, and she told me all about your mother.”

All thoughts of food from the roach coach have flown from my mind as I walk back to my cab. The line is moving, I’ll need to move up. My Mother. I have a sister. My mother is actually still alive. “Meredith, is this some kind of joke? I wasn’t even looking!”

“Yea, I know. Mom wants to know if you can you pick up some milk on the way home.”

“Milk? Sure. My mother? I have a sister, and she told you about my mother?”

“Yes, Dad, you have a sister. And she and your mother have been looking for you.”

With a shaking hand, I open the door of my cab and sit down on the now-hot blue vinyl. I light another cigarette, and decide it is probably best not to say another word. Just stay quiet. I can’t believe this… I’m fighting tears for the first time in my adult life. The line has moved forward about five cabs, so I turn the key and move up in the line. I turn on the AC, the sun reflecting off the concrete has made the inside of my cab very hot.

“Dad, are you still there?”

“Yes, Meri, go on.”

“Don’t forget to pick up some milk. Anyway, your sister is real cool, and your mom sounds even cooler. ”

“Meredith, this makes no sense. I was adopted in New York, the records are sealed. There is no way anyone would know my name! How do you know this woman isn’t some sort of scam artist, out to bilk money from desperate adoptees trying to find their families? How can this woman know that I am her brother?”

“She didn’t write Michael Jameson in the ‘Name of Adoptee’ field, dummy! She entered your birth name, which matched with the name I typed as your birth name.”

“How did you know my birth name?”

“Mom told me. By the way, Mom says don’t forget the milk.”

I swear I am about to shout ‘screw the milk,’ but I can hear she’s put down the phone. Leaving the engine running with the AC on, I get out and start walking around. Actually, I start pacing. I pace a lot whenever my mind is racing, and right now, my mind is racing. So is the line… I can’t believe another five cabs have been called up to the terminal. At this rate, I’ll have a fare in less than 15 minutes. That’ll be a record for me at DIA. Most of the time, the wait is two or three hours between fares. Forget about getting something to eat, much less taking a quick nap. I can’t believe I’m thinking about fares… I have a mother! A mother, who is looking for me!

“Anyway, she went to college in New York, she is married but has no kids. She got a bachelor’s degree in English Literature. Her mom – your mom – is a published author. Her dad is now dead, but he worked for the state welfare office. Oh, she writes books about show dogs, um, Pomeranians. Your mom, that is. ”

“Meredith, you are enjoying this, aren’t you?”

“You bet, except I’m getting annoyed at Mom.”

I can hear my wife in the background laughing, as my daughter laughs into the phone. “You want me to finish telling you all this now, or wait till you get home?”

“What do you think, Meri? I’m at least an hour from home right now!”

“You up at DIA?”

“Yes!! Will you get on with it already?”

“Did you dead-head out there or did you have a fare? How long does the wait look?”

“MEREDITH!!”

“Okay already! Sheesh, Dad, you need to relax more. Hrm, let’s see what else. She has a brother, who is younger than you, was born when her Mom remarried. So you have a brother also. A half-brother. I didn’t ask any questions about your birth dad, I figured your mom would tell you.”

My mom. Words I never though I would hear. My head is spinning. This is unbelievable. It’s not supposed to happen like this. I’ve read hundreds of stories about adoptees searching for years and years trying to find their birth parents. I wasn’t even looking! Sure, I’ve thought about it, but never seriously considered looking for her. I was always afraid it would hurt my parents. My adoptive parents, that is. Another five cabs have gone to the terminal, I better move up again before the guys behind me start beeping; or worse, go around me.

“She did tell me that her mom – your mom – got divorced and a few years later, found herself pregnant. She was on welfare, living in a one-room efficiency apartment with peeling paint on the walls, raising Terry up all by herself. Her doctor and the welfare office basically told her she was already a bad mother, what with raising one child alone, and that she had no choice but to give up the new baby for adoption. That’s you, the new baby. A year ago, Terry found this cool adoptees website, and entered into the form that her brother was born in East Babylon, New York, on November 23, 1964. That he was given the name of William Angus Saparito, and placed with the State of New York, who then placed him through the Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency in Manhattan. That’s you, Dad. No way it could be anyone but you.”

Oh my God. I can’t breath. That’s me. That’s ME. I sit down on the concrete again, I can’t stand up, I can’t breath. Oh my God that’s ME. Someone is looking for me. I have a sister, a half-brother, and a mom! An over-thrown Frisbee lands right in front of me. “Meri, I… Meri…um…”

“Oh, by the way, Terry gave me your mom’s address and phone number.”

I scream. The drivers around me look at me like I’m crazy, screaming because a Frisbee landed in front of me. I throw the Frisbee back, not bothering to explain my scream.

“Dad? Dad!”

“I’m here, honey.”

“Happy Mother’s Day, Dad. Don’t forget the milk.” She hangs up.

My birth mother. My mom. The signal light at the head of the line calls for ten cabs to go to the terminal. I don’t know how I got my senses together, but I managed to drive up to the terminal, where I get a passenger to Littleton. It’s like a sign from God or something… his address is less than a mile from my house. Like most of my passengers, he’s surprised I’m an American taxi driver and not an immigrant. I respond with my usual line of “I speak English, too!” It always gets a laugh and, usually, a good tip. I punch the meter then notify dispatch that this is my last fare. An hour later, I drop my passenger off and hit the out-of-service button on the dispatch system. I head towards home, pull up in front of my home, grab my cigs, my cash, my logbook, and head up the path to the house. How am I going to do this? Contact her, that is… what do I do, just call her up and say ‘Hi Mom, how ya doing, this is your long-lost son!’ What am I going to say to her? I open the door, walk in, and Meri shouts at me:

“You forgot the milk!”

***

Written for Professor Coleman's Creative Fiction class at Pikes Peak Community College, 2nd November 2004. Although this is a fiction story, it is probably better classified as extremely creative non-fiction, as it is based - very loosely - on some events surrounding the accidental finding of my own birth mother in 1999.

***
Postscript, 5th November 2004:

The most challenging aspect of this assignment was deciding what to write about. I hit a major “writer’s block” – my first real experience with writer’s block – at the beginning of this assignment. My problem wasn’t finding something to write about, my problem was too many things to write about. I found myself thinking of something then deciding it’d be too boring, too exciting (meaning it would take a whole book!), too esoteric (the reader would have difficulty relating to a very obscure experience), etc., etc.

I’ve found that often times I don’t choose what I am going to write; instead, what I am going to write chooses me. I sat down multiple times and started to write a few sentences about one incident in my life or another just to find myself unable to find the words – or the words not finding me. I started writing about many different adventures in Europe and the South Pacific. I started writing about the time my mom caught me and a friend playing with her tampons when I was eight. I started writing about the bad roll-over car accident I had last year, about buying my house, about how my dogs adopted me, about various odd jobs I have had in my life (like when I used to chase black bears out of the parking lot). But it never occurred to me to write about finding my birth mom and sister. How I ended up writing what I did write is actually rather funny.

I drove the twenty miles to Safeway in Falcon to pick up a prescription my doctor called in. At the same time, I needed to fill up my gas tank, buy some dog food, eggs and milk. The entire twenty miles I kept repeating to myself in my head, “dog food, eggs, milk, gas. Dog food, eggs, milk, gas.” I arrived at Safeway, filled up my gas tank first, then went into the store, picked up my prescription, the dog food, and eggs.

Twenty miles later, my dogs nearly knocked me over as I entered my house carrying the 25-pound bag of dog food. I fed them, put away the eggs, and realized I forgot the milk. Laughing, I sat down on my couch and called my best friend, Bridgette, and asked her if she could pick some milk up for me when she was in town in the morning. Within a few minutes of hanging the phone up, I found myself in front of my computer and the words started coming out, a story began to be written about another time in my life where I forgot to pick up the milk.

Once I started writing, the story came out very quickly and easily. And, of course, it came out very long, as much of my writing does. My first draft included the following morning, when I actually made contact on the phone with my half-sister, and also a year later, when I finally met my birth mother face-to-face. My second draft I dumped everything after my forgetting to pick up the milk: I realized my first contact with Terry was a completely separate story, and meeting my birth mother was a maudlin piece of really bad, downright terrible writing. My third draft, where I just tweaked things a little, is the final product I turned in.

Writing this, unlike the prior assignment, I found myself laughing a lot. I fondly thought of good old Bob, to this day one of my best friends, especially how he can make a drama out of anything. I found myself reminiscing a lot, all affectionate memories, of Bob, Cinda, and the rest of the gang of eleven roommates I lived with for nearly five years in Denver before I moved to Calhan. They were – and still are – more of a family to me then my real family. Actually, I should say more of a family than EITHER of my families – birth or adoptive – are. I reminisced about the sheer excitement and emotional rollercoaster of the entire experience of finding my birth family. The odd thing is writing about it was not an emotional rollercoaster at all, unlike the prior assignment (memoir). Reading this brings a warm, fond smile to my face; it does not bring up the strong emotions that my memoir assignment did (or the frustration and remnants of anger that my drunk driving piece).

In the end, this was a light piece of writing about what was actually a very heavy moment in my life. Of course, this moment in my life started without any warning, without any preparation – emotional or otherwise – and without any real expectations. I guess you could say my writing of this story actually happened the same way: I forgot to buy some milk, and without any warning and without any real expectations, I ended up writing this story.

Dead

2004-10-11T21:58:00.000-07:00

"You know we shouldn't be doing this."

"I haven't agreed to anything yet. But, thank you anyway," she says as they walk past the scrap of faded crime scene tape blowing in the wind.

How ridiculous, she says to herself, I'm thanking him for allowing me to enter my own home! Brushing a few raindrops off her coat, wishing she could remove the wet wig, she instinctively reaches for the light switch then laughs gently as she remembers there is no electricity now.

Inhaling deeply the smell of Home, she looks around the now dim and dusty living room. So many memories... fifteen years they lived here, since the day they married. The house itself was a wedding gift from her new husband. She never figured out how he pulled off buying a house when they were so young.

Walking a few steps in, she catches sight of a dried-up rose in a now-waterless vase on the coffee table. Lifting it out of the vase, a few petals fall to the hardwood floor. Amazingly, it still has a trace of its divine perfume.

She looks over at the officer standing in the front doorway. He's still holding the umbrella used to partially shield her from the thunderstorm.

"He gave me a rose every single Wednesday of our lives together. We met on a Wednesday."

He doesn't respond.

Carrying the rose, she stands still in the middle of the living room, looking around at their couch, their television, their DVD player - they bought that just a week before The Day. Untouched and dusty, pictures of their lives, knick-knacks and silly souvenirs from vacations stood together on the shelves. Everything looks so normal. Sure, a bit dusty and musty - it has been three months, after all - but still, so normal. Just like returning home from vacation.

But it's no vacation she's been on, these last three months.

"This is my home, my life." How can they expect me to give all of this up? "I can't leave everything."

Again, the officer does not respond.

She walks into the kitchen, smiling as she imagines the smell of baking bread. He loved that smell. Even though she never - not once - succeeded in baking a loaf that actually looked like bread, she baked bread for him every week. Just for the smile it brought to his face when he got home from work. God, I loved him so much. I still do. We were so happy together.

With surprise, she sees the newspaper from The Day is still on the table, open to the page with the picture that destroyed her life. That changed everything.

Not now, she says to herself. Turning sharply, she heads towards the study. He always called it the study; she always called it the den. It was the only thing they ever argued about - although it was a stretch to call that an argument.

She looks around the room, at his desk, at her desk, at all the books on floor-to-ceiling shelves. He built those shelves for me. He knew I could never throw out a book after I read it; God, how I loved to read.

"It's been three months since I read a book. I don't think I've ever gone three days without reading a book, before all of this happened."

"No one is stopping you from reading, Ma'am." With a start, she turns to the officer: she hadn't realized he'd left his post at the front door, nor did she realize she spoke aloud.

She took one of her favorite books off the shelf and then put it back as she saw him shake his head "no." That's right, I can't take anything with me. Not one single piece of fifteen years of life can be removed from here.... It has to be a clean break. Anything missing and he might know I'm still alive. Not that he has returned here since The Day. This is my home, this is my life, this is everything that I loved and lived for!! It's too much to ask of anyone, even if it's supposed to save my life. "That's a laugh... save my life by taking me away from my life."

"It's for the best, Ma'am."

"That's what you keep saying." She looks away from him.

"We are very good at what we do. He will never find you. You are, after all, dead."

"Yes, but will you ever find him?"

He doesn't respond.

She looks at her desk, with a small, neat pile of bills on it. Well, at least I won't have to pay those ever again... but I never minded paying bills. It was a part of our life together, a life I relished. I loved every little moment of every day of the last fifteen years.

Until the moment I opened this drawer right here, looking for the electric bill and finding a necklace that wasn't mine. Oh God, I was so naive! How stupid of me to think he was having a mere affair! As if he would ever stoop to something as banal as cheating on me... never, not once would he ever do that. I thought he was seeing someone else... I didn't have a clue how blind I was as I held that necklace that day. Then I saw the picture in the newspaper... no, not now. Don't. Choke it back, you have cried enough tears already.

"Ma'am, I really don't think you should go in there," the officer said as she started towards their bedroom.

"I thought you said it was all cleaned up."

"It is, for the most part. I just don't want you to get upset."

"You don't want me to get upset? You want me to leave my entire life behind, without even a single photo! You want me to leave my town, my home, my job, my friends, my family, but you don't want me to get upset?" Her eyes flashed as thunder pealed outside.

"You are dead, you have already left."

Sighing, "I know."

Looking at him, daring the officer to stop her, she opens the door to the bedroom. Without looking around, she turns towards the closet. The door, as always, is open. She runs her hands through her clothes, his clothes, and then takes one of his shirts off a hanger. Holding it up to her face, she inhales deeply... it still smells like him. Oh God, I love him so much, I miss him so much... why did this happen? How could he do this to me? A thorn from the rose pricks her hand as she holds his shirt tightly: she had forgotten she was still carrying the rose.

Okay, let's do it. Let's look at it. You can do this, just turn around and look at it. She turns halfway around and realizes the bed is gone. She looks questioningly at the officer.

"Evidence, Ma'am."

That's right... the bed would be evidence... what was I expecting to see? Did I really think they would leave a bed, soaked in my blood, here in the house? But my blood is still here... I can see a few circles of it on our carpet. My blood. The blood of my life. The bloody evidence of my death. He killed me, but he didn't succeed. He left me for dead, but I survived. I still live and breathe, I still walk and talk.

But no one can ever know it again except me and them: the people who want me to give it all up. Change my name, my town, and my life. We'll take care of everything, they say. He will never find you, they say. Why would he try to find me? He thinks I'm dead. Just like the fourteen other women they tell me he killed. I was number fifteen.

Why?

The dried bloodstained carpet is stiff like thin cardboard. The room doesn't smell like a happy marriage died here, like my life ended here. It doesn't smell at all.

Ignoring the officer, she hangs her husband's shirt up in the closet. She looks around the bedroom again... we made love that night. Then he killed me while I slept. She walks back to the kitchen where she sits down at the table.

She looks at the newspaper. "Local Woman Missing" read the headline. There she was, number fourteen. The necklace I found was on her neck. I thought he was having an affair with her... I wondered why would he be having an affair with a missing woman? To think I believed his story that the necklace was a surprise anniversary gift for me. I was so blind, so stupid. How could I not see? How could I be living with a monster? Fourteen women dead, one each year, until me. The phone suddenly rings, startling her, she actually reaches to answer it but stops herself: the dead can't answer phones, after all.

"Kind of silly, isn't it, turning off the electricity but not the phone?"

He actually smiles at her, this big, burly, stoic officer; her protector, her only contact with the living world.

This is my everything. They want me to leave it all. I can't take anything. She looks up from the newspaper, then around the kitchen slowly. My home... but it's not my home anymore. The love of my life, my husband... he took it all away, he destroyed it all the day he killed me, the day he left me for dead. He destroyed it all the day he killed the first woman, but I was blind, I didn't know I was living a dark lie all those years. I'm dead now, and the dead don't need anything from the past.

The only way to stay alive and safe is to be dead.

She stands up, walks towards the door and then steps out onto the front porch.

"It's stopped raining."

He nods.

The sun is bright now; everything sparkling wet from the rain, the glass glittering like diamonds. Like diamonds in a necklace once found in a loving husband's desk drawer. Inhaling deeply the fresh, clean smell of the passing thunderstorm, she looks at the officer.

"Do I get to pick my own name?"

He chuckles lightly as he leads her back to the black sedan, still clutching a dead rose in her hand.

Written for Professor Coleman's Creative Fiction class at Pikes Peak Community College, 11 October 2004. Received Honorable Mention in the VF short-story contest, 2006. Later expanded for an advanced Creative Fiction class at University of Colorado-Colorado Springs in 2007.

Third World Workers Need Western Jobs

2004-08-03T14:48:00.000-07:00

In the article, “Third World Workers Need Western Jobs,” Radley Balko pushes forth his argument that exporting jobs from the West to third-world and developing countries increases the quality of life of the citizens of those countries; in particular, the quality of life of the children. Throughout the article, Balko uses several reports and research projects as examples, evidence, and analogies to argue that moving low-paying jobs to developing countries is good for these countries. Unfortunately, primarily due to the way he words his recaps of these reports and projects, he ends up committing several fallacies.

In ¶3, Balko states that one report showed the majority of citizens in several developing countries had “’good’ or ‘very good’” views of multinational corporations, but points out that “only Poland and Russia had majority-negative views of multinationals.” Yet Balko never states why Poland and Russia had negative views. This leaves the reader “Begging the Question” of why these countries had negative views.

In ¶5, Balko states that several University of Minnesota professors report that many of these sweatshop workers earn significantly more than their country’s minimum and prevailing local wages. While this may very well be accurate, it also “begs the question” of whether or not even these higher wages are reasonable living wages. A counter-argument to the idea that these relatively higher-paying jobs are good is simple: If it costs $10 a day to survive, and the prevailing wage is $2 a day, earning $6 a day may improve your situation some, but it does not necessarily mean your living conditions are significantly improved, as Balko attempts to imply with this example.

In ¶8 and 9, Balko commits the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence when he infers and states that “West Africa continues to fester in abject poverty” because of British companies pulling jobs out of West Africa. This statement completely ignores the many other factors that contributed to and continue to contribute to the extreme poverty of West Africa, including but not limited to the lack of medical and sanitation facilities, epidemic levels of HIV and AIDS infections, corrupt government(s), and the near-absence of educational facilities. These factors were in existence before British companies brought jobs to West Africa, these factors continued to be in existence during the time that these jobs were available, and still exist today. The companies who brought their jobs to Western Africa did so to save themselves money; somewhat obviously, they rarely if ever used those savings to improve the living conditions of their employees and the society they lived within at large. The statement that “they did not get the work experience that would have allowed them to upgrade their skills and become valuable and higher-paid workers later on” assumes that menial sweatshop jobs lead to upgraded skills. This could be considered a mild Appeal to Ignorance fallacy: the possibility exists that sweatshop jobs do lead to greater opportunities, but it is also possible that these jobs do not. We simply do not know for sure that sweatshop jobs leads to greater skills and opportunities, especially when there is no concurrent investment in infrastructure and education. More likely, these jobs would lead to higher opportunity for a very few select employees but not the bulk of the employees.

The analogy and example of Hong Kong in ¶10 is a much stronger analogy supporting Balko’s argument, although it differs in some important ways to the other examples. In the other countries discussed, most of them have a history of governmental corruption and, of course, local governments, along with limited educational facilities and infrastructure. The big difference with Hong Kong is that it was a British protectorate, governed by Great Britain from afar, not by a local government such as occurs in Pakistan, India, and West Africa. Also, the government of Great Britain invested heavily in the infrastructure of Honk Kong, from sanitation to education, along with “importing” a stable monetary and legal system, while companies from Great Britain took advantage of low wages to build factories and other businesses. There has been little or no such investment in the infrastructure, educational and monetary systems in the other countries cited, by either the companies or government of the companies who built sweatshops. Balko’s statement that “Hong Kong has long moved on from sweatshops” is simply inaccurate: there are still sweatshops in Hong Kong, although less than in past years.

Balko’s point, also in ¶10, that it took Hong Kong “just 25” years to build up a Western-style economy compared to the 100 years it took the U.S. and Western Europe commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This statement ignores the fact that the U.S. and Western Europe developed the very technologies and systems from scratch that were exported to Hong Kong. Hong Kong “took advantage” of this existing knowledge. Of course it took less time to develop its Western-style economy.

In ¶11, Balko’s statement that “a Western company that stops using child labor in some Third World nations does not change the economic conditions that had those children working in the first place” and following statements are on point; however, they also create a false dichotomy. The inference is that by using child labor, you improve the living condition of the children, and that there is no other way to do so. This ignores the existence of other options, such as investing in education, medical facilities, and the infrastructure in order to improve the plight of children in developing countries. While it is true that ceasing the use of child labor does not “change the local cultural standards that accept and expect child labor,” it is also true that continuing the use of child labor also does not change those “same cultural standards.” This could be seen as a False Cause fallacy, or possibly one of Begging the Question. The final statement in this paragraph that closing these sweatshops “seals for them a far worse fate” is an obvious Appeal to Pity.

Balko once again commits the fallacy of Begging the Question – and possibly False Cause – in ¶12 when he states “that thousands of them later turned to prostitution, crime, or starved to death.” The question for the reader is “how many thousands?” Is it 2,000? Or 49,000? Stating these children turned to crime and prostitution solely because of the loss of sweatshop jobs ignores the possibility that other factors may have caused this to happen. Not the least of which that prostitution and crime may have paid better than other options, or the idea that these same children would have ended up in these same circumstances regardless of the existence of sweatshop jobs. (Especially if children willing to work for less money then they were earning became available.) These same fallacies exist in ¶13 and ¶14 when Balko uses Pakistan and Nepal as examples: Once again, the idea that other factors besides the loss of jobs may have contributed to (or even caused) lower incomes and children to fall into crime and prostitution is completely ignored. While the loss of such jobs in these examples very likely is a contributing factor, it is unlikely the only factor.

In ¶15, Balko is downright insulting when he states that “cheap labor is the developing world’s only real bargaining chip” and the “poorest people(‘s)…only marketable asset.” This could be considered a sort-of “twisted” Argument Against the Person, Circumstantial. The “abundant natural resources” exist in these same countries just as they exist in Western countries. Balko’s premises are simply untrue and wrong: The people of these countries have the same brains as Western people with the same ability to be educated and become “highly skilled workforces” as exists in developed countries. Of course, for companies looking to save a buck, the fact that people in the developing countries are not “highly skilled” is the attraction. It would not benefit profit-oriented companies to invest in education; on the contrary, it is more profitable to keep them uneducated and “stuck” with low-paying, menial jobs. Referring to “cheap labor” as the “only marketable asset” completely ignores the fact that other assets – marketable and otherwise – exist, and there are other job investment possibilities besides sweatshops, such as eco-tourism.

There is what could be a mild, sort-of “reverse” Slippery Slope fallacy in ¶16, starting with “Corporations get cheaper labor…” through “…benefits all of us.” Generally, Slippery Slope fallacies tend to end with “dire” consequences; in this case, Balko leads the reader “up” a “slope” to a world that is a better place for everyone. It is reasonable to believe that sweatshop jobs may be one of many factors for the poorest to “inch their way out of poverty,” but once again sweatshop jobs are not the only factor needed nor the only or best option, as these statements imply.

There are also several syllogisms in this article.

From ¶6:

“For laborers in the developing world, what we call Sweatshop jobs may actually be the best of a series of Bad employment options available to them, and/or the only or best option for supporting themselves and lifting their families out of poverty. “

One possible way to restate this would be:

All Laborers in the developing world are (people who want/need) Jobs that will lift their families out of poverty.

All Sweatshop jobs are Jobs that will lift families out of poverty

\ All Laborers in the developing world are people who want Sweatshop Jobs.

All L are J

All S are J

All L are S

In this, the middle term is undistributed, making the argument invalid (violating Rule #1).

From ¶16:

"Free" trade that utilizes slave or coerced labor isn't free, it's theft.”

Some Free trade systems are Systems that utilize slave or coerced labor.

All Systems that utilize slave or coerced labor are committing Theft

\Some Free trade systems are committing Theft.

Some F are S

All S are T

Some F are T

This “passes” all five rules for categorical syllogisms, the argument is valid.

Balko’s point that the economies of developing countries are negatively impacted when Western companies remove their sweatshop jobs is difficult to dispute: any economy is impacted negatively when jobs are lost, regardless of the geographical location. The primary weakness in Balko’s argument is his near-complete disregard of the many other factors that negatively affect these countries and his insistent implication that the loss of these jobs is the only factor. Yet this weakness does not negate Balko’s argument completely. His implication that so-called “do-gooders” may do more harm then good by creating situations that make it unprofitable for companies to keep their sweatshops open is an implication worth considering. The concept that these same “do-gooders” ignore the sociological and cultural norms of these developing nations to their detriment is legitimate: the idea that holding the rest of the world to our social standards possibly creates a worse situation is very persuasive. What is “wrong” for one society is “right” for another – or at least an improvement – is, particularly from a sociological point of view, absolutely correct. Despite the weaknesses in Balko’s argument, he does present a thought-provoking argument, one that deserves further consideration.

Written for Professor Trussell's Logic class at Pikes Peak Community College, 3rd August 2004