In the news, privacy in Canada is on the retreat:
“In her annual report, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart says the little-known Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada must scale back its data gathering. The centre zeros in on cash linked to money laundering, terrorism and other crimes. Stoddart’s report also raises concerns about Transport Canada’s no-fly list – a controversial program she has cast a wary eye upon for years.”
Several readers had questioned my rejection of the common understanding of forgiveness as it appears in Christian theology. In response to that, I’m posting what I consider a proper interpretation of forgiveness:
“A very dramatic example of confronting the offenders is seen in the life of John the Baptist, Matt. 3:7-10. Some of those who came to be baptized were clearly suspect and John sent them away unbaptized telling them to get a track record of repentance, then consider baptism. It was not just some words of repentance that John demanded before accepting them, he wanted some action commensurate with the confession to back it up.
In our day and age, we are so shallow in these things, we simply get some quick nod of the head about repentance and baptize them immediately. We would never do what John did, and I venture to say that many Christians are extremely uncomfortable with the fact such action on John’s part is even included in Scripture. It is an embarrassment to many fine Christian people that John did such a thing, and they secretly wish that it had not been recorded.
God expects us to take the right course of action even though it is difficult.”
That’s from the ministry of Gordon Rumford.
I’m quite sure that my philosophical and religious notions are a world apart from Pastor Rumford’s, but on the moral correctness of his position I’m in no doubt. I’ve verified that not just from argument and reasoning, or from the study of comparative religious ethics, or from my own personal experience, but also from lifelong observation of actions and consequences.
These are the real reasons why people think forgiveness can be granted when there’s been no acknowledgement of wrong-doing, no repentance and no restitution:
1. They’re not reading the New Testament in proper context, but taking passages selectively as they wish. They need to examine the whole texture of the Bible (that is, the Torah) teaching, on which Jesus’ teaching was based.
(Update: I am adding a link here to the doctrine of Teshuva or repentance, expounded by Rabbi David R. Blumenthal, Professor of Judaic Studies, Emory University, as evidence.
Quote:
In rabbinic thought, only the offending party can set the wrong aright and only the offended party can forgo the debt of the sin. ……Teshuva is part of the structure of God’s creation; hence, the sinner is obligated to do teshuva and the offended person is obligated to permit teshuva by the offender.
The most basic kind of forgiveness is “forgoing the other’s indebtedness” (mechil). If the offender has done teshuva, and is sincere in his or her repentance, the offended person should offer mechila; that is, the offended person should forgo the debt of the offender, relinquish his or her claim against the offender. This is not a reconciliation of heart or an embracing of the offender; it is simply reaching the conclusion that the offender no longer owes me anything for whatever it was that he or she did. Mechila is like a pardon granted to a criminal by the modern state. The crime remains; only the debt is forgiven.
The tradition, however, is quite clear that the offended person is not obliged to offer mechila if the offender is not sincere in his or her repentance and has not taken concrete steps to correct the wrong done. Maimonides is decisive on this subject: “The offended person is prohibited from being cruel in not offering mechila, for this is not the way of the seed of Israel. Rather, if the offender has [resolved all material claims and has] asked and begged for forgiveness once, even twice, and if the offended person knows that the other has done repentance for sin and feels remorse for what was done, the offended person should offer the sinner mechila” (Mishne Torah, “Hilchot Chovel u-Mazzik,” 5:10). Mechila is, thus, an expectation of the offended person but only if the sinner is actually repentant. ….
…The principle that mechila ought to be granted only if deserved is the great Jewish “No” to easy forgiveness. It is core to the Jewish view of forgiveness, just as desisting from sin is core to the Jewish view of repentance. Without good grounds, the offended person should not forgo the indebtedness of the sinner; otherwise, the sinner may never truly repent and evil will be perpetuated. And, conversely, if there are good grounds to waive the debt or relinquish the claim, the offended person is morally bound to do so. This is the great Jewish “Yes” to the possibility of repentance for every sinner. “
Lila: Note that this is only one of three levels of forgiveness and it’s the only one that is obligatory, if the conditions are met. The other two levels, selich (approaching the offender with mercy and empathy) and kappar (purification or wiping out of sin, which can only be done by God) are not. Indeed, kappar is impossible for human beings.
2. They’re not placing the Gospel statements about forgiveness in the context of the sound teachings of other religions and of non-religious ethics, with which true religion should not be in severe conflict.
Thus Islam:
“The Arabic word used for self rapprochement is An-Nafs Al-Lawamah which refers to blame oneself and to feel sorry for ones sins. So this is recommended and good in the sight of Allaah and necessary to have the sin forgiven by Allaah.
Ceasing to commit the sin immediately. If the sin was against Allaah, then he should (1) stop doing it if it was an unlawful act, or (2) hasten to do it if it was an obligation that he abandoned doing. And if the sin was against a created being (such as humans), then he should hasten to free himself from it, whether by returning it back to him or seeking his forgiveness and pardon.”
3. They’re not taking into account prudence, reason, courage, and other moral virtues as being as necessary as kindness to moral development.
4. They’re not considering the duality of mercy–judgment, which is a cornerstone of Old Testament teaching (which itself is the foundation of Jesus’ ethic). Mercy without judgment is not only not correct, it is an impossibility. This is confirmed from the imagery and symbolism in the practice of magic in the western esoteric tradition, where the masculine form is invoked in contemplating mercy, so that the image of mercy/compassion doesn’t devolve into mere sentimentality. (More on that in another post, as it is a complex topic).
5. They’re disguising their cowardice and their fear of the repercussions of being outspoken, especially toward those more powerful.
6. They’re psychologically incapable of standing up for themselves and in need of therapy to become more assertive.
7. They have an excessive and immoral regard for “keeping peace” at all counts.
8. They’ve been abused or have low self-regard or do not consider injustice to themselves as injustice but part of religiously ordained suffering or “submission,” under authoritarian understandings of the Bible.
9. They have a streak of masochism that derives some psycho-sexual gratification or pseudo-religious exaltation from being injured.
10. They’re using public forgiveness as a technique of persuasion, as in 4th generation warfare (Gandhi was a master of the practice).
11. Their spiritual vanity is so great that they think they can out-Christ Christ, who certainly required his followers to confess their sins and repent.
12. They don’t like the notion of “judgment” and consider it unhealthy.
13. They’re confusing Christianity with some schools (and not the deepest, I should add) of modern psychology.
14. They’re emotionally and psychologically shallow.
15. They’re confusing Christianity with cultural Marxism, in which the notion of guilt and individual responsibility for wrong has been shucked off entirely to structural and societal causes.
“The Science and Ethics of Cooperation,” by Michael Townsey, Prout Institute:
“The cooperative system is fundamental to the organization and structure of a Prout (the Progressive Utilization Theory) economy. It is an expression of economic democracy in action – cooperative enterprises give workers the right of capital ownership, collective management and all the associated benefits, such as profit sharing.[i] Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, the propounder of Prout, goes further and argues that an egalitarian society is actually not possible without a commitment to the cooperative system.[ii] The commitment is not just to an economic order but also to a cooperative ethic and culture. This essay explores some of the scientific evidence that humans have a predisposition to cooperation and in particular to economic cooperation. The evidence comes from a new and exciting field of research known as neuro-economics. We then turn to those insights provided by sociological studies.
Neuro-economics
Neuro-economics is the study of the neuro-physiological underpinnings of economic decision making. The field is new and providing unexpected insights into human economic behavior. Classical economic theory requires individuals to make complex calculations to maximize their personal advantage or utility. Utility, however, is a strangely ambiguous concept. On the one hand it is given a numerical value which implies the counting of something but on the other it is entirely abstract and not anchored to anything in the real world that can be counted. The advent of neurophysiology led to the idea that utility was really a surrogate for some chemical currency inside the brain, with most interest focused on serotonin molecules because these are known to be responsible for the experience of pleasure.
It turns out that a wide range of molecules of emotion[iii] impinge on the mental cost-benefit calculations that are supposed to take place inside the brain and they have unexpected effects. For example, in a ‘sharing experiment’, person A was asked to share a sum of money with person B. These experiments demonstrated behavior inconsistent with neoclassical theory. People appear to put a high value on fairness. In a follow up experiment, persons A and B were placed in the same experimental scenario as before, but they were (unknowingly) given an intranasal administration of oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide that plays a key role in social attachment and affiliation in animals and causes a substantial increase in trust in humans. In these experiments the effect of oxytocin was to increase the amount of money that A gives B. The experimenters concluded that “oxytocin may be part of the human physiology that motivates cooperation.”[iv] It is worth adding that such hormone-mediated interactions are not confined to human relationships but are also likely to be involved in human-animal relationships.[v]
Oxytocin is not the only neuro-chemical to promote cooperation. Recent observations of bonobo monkeys in the jungles of the Congo reveal fascinating contrasts with chimpanzees.[vi] Bonobos are matriarchal and show little aggression compared to the patriarchal chimps. Chimps respond to strangers with aggression, while bonobos demonstrate curiosity. When under stress, chimp tribes degenerate into fighting while bonobos respond to stress by engaging in collective sexual activity. Scientists have concluded that bonobos demonstrate higher levels of trust both with each other and with strangers. Of most interest, however, from a neuro-economics point of view, is the ability of the monkeys to perform a simple task requiring cooperation in retrieving some bananas that are out of reach. Although both species are intelligent enough to work out a solution (for example, by one climbing on the shoulders of the other or by one holding a ladder for the other), the chimps fail because they cannot trust one another. On the other hand, bonobos have no trouble cooperating to retrieve the bananas.[vii]”
“We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven. We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agriculture.
We have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next a family tomb. The best works of art are the expression of man’s struggle to free himself from this condition, but the effect of our art is merely to make this low state comfortable and that the higher state be forgotten.
There is actually no place in this village for a work of fine art, if any had come down to us, to stand for our lives, our houses and streets, furnish no proper pedestal for it. There is not a nail to hang a picture on, nor a shelf to receive the bust of a hero or a saint.”
—- Henry David Thoreau, “On Practicing Economy in Life”
Political theorist Guy de Bord on the spectacle of public life:
“The concentrated spectacle
The spectacle associated with concentrated bureaucracy. Debord associated this spectacular form mostly with the Eastern Bloc and Fascism, although today mixed backward economies import it, and even advanced capitalist countries in times of crisis. Every aspect of life, like property, music, and communication is concentrated and is identified with the bureaucratic class. The concentrated spectacle generally identifies itself with a powerful political leader. The concentrated spectacle is made effective through a state of permanent violence and police terror.[edit]
The diffuse spectacle
The spectacle associated with advanced capitalism and commodity abundance. In the diffuse spectacle, different commodities conflict with each other, preventing the consumer from consuming the whole. Each commodity claims itself as the only existent one, and tries to impose itself over the other commodities:
Irreconcilable claims jockey for position on the stage of the affluent economy’s unified spectacle, and different star commodities simultaneously promote conflicting social policies. The automobile spectacle, for example, strives for a perfect traffic flow entailing the destruction of old urban districts, while the city spectacle needs to preserve those districts as tourist attractions.
The diffuse spectacle is more effective than the concentrated spectacle. The diffuse spectacle operates mostly through seduction, while the concentrated spectacle operates mostly through violence. Because of this, Debord argues that the diffuse spectacle is more effective at suppressing non-spectacular opinions than the concentrated spectacle.
The integrated spectacle
The spectacle associated with modern capitalist countries. The integrated spectacle borrows traits from the diffuse and concentrated spectacle to form a new synthesis. Debord argues that this is a very recent form of spectacular manifestation, and that it was pioneered in France and Italy.
According to Debord, the integrated spectacle goes by the label of liberal democracy. This spectacle introduces a state of permanent general secrecy, where experts and specialists dictate the morality, statistics, and opinions of the spectacle. Terrorism is the invented enemy of the spectacle, which specialists compare with their “liberal democracy”, pointing out the superiority of the latter one. Debord argues that without terrorism, the integrated spectacle wouldn’t survive, for it needs to be compared to something in order to show its “obvious” perfection and superiority.”
My Comment:
Thanks to reader J. T. Gordon for reminding me of this. I’ve posted before on de Bord and the notion of the spectacle of society. Like so much powerful analysis, this one too has roots in the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most productive thinkers of the last 150 years.
What should be noted here is that in the spectacle of secrecy, the greatest emphasis is placed on openness. Thus, “freedom of speech” occupies a central position in the culture. By this means, all barriers to privacy are brought down, all psychological barriers between the individual and the crowd. Yet, this openness at one level (in public culture) operates side-by-side with secrecy at the highest level (governments and corporate leaders).
(More later)
Back…
Reading through this again, I feel I need to question De Bord’s division, which corresponds to communist, capitalist and liberal democratic. It’s too neat. In fact, things are much more muddy
Roderick Long at Austro-Athenian blog has a list of principles he thinks libertarians should emphasize in public interaction to define themselves as a clear-cut alternative to either conservatives or liberals:
1. Big business and big government are (for the most part) natural allies.
2. Although conservative politicians pretend to hate big government, and liberal politicians pretend to hate big business, most mainstream policies – both liberal and conservative – involve (slightly different versions of) massive intervention on behalf of the big-business/big-government elite at the expense of ordinary people.
3. Liberal politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of intervention on behalf of the weak; conservative politicians cloak their intervention on behalf of the strong in the rhetoric of non-intervention and free markets – but in both cases the rhetoric is belied by the reality.
4. A genuine policy of intervention on behalf of the weak, if liberals actually tried it, wouldn’t work either, since the nature of government power would automatically warp it toward the interests of the elite.
5. A genuine policy of non-intervention and free markets, if conservatives actually tried it, would work, since free competition would empower ordinary people at the expense of the elite.
6. Since conservative policies, despite their associated free-market rhetoric, are mostly the diametrical opposite of free-market policies, the failures of conservative policies do not constitute an objection to (but rather, if anything, a vindication of) free-market policies.
Many thanks to Kevin Duffy for pointing me in the direction of this essay by Bastiat. It’s a marvel, filled with ideas, each of which could be developed into a full book in its own right.
“What is to be said of Roman morality? And I am not speaking here of the relations of father and son, of husband and wife, of patron and client, of master and servant, of man and God—relations that slavery, by itself alone, could not fail to transform into a whole network of depravity; I wish to dwell only on what is called the admirable side of the Republic, i.e., patriotism. What was this patriotism? Hatred of foreigners, the destruction of all civilization, the stifling of all progress, the scourging of the world with fire and sword, the chaining of women, children, and old men to triumphal chariots—this was glory, this was virtue….It is from Rome undoubtedly that this adage comes to us, true in regard to theft, false in regard to labor: one nation’s loss is another nation’s gain—an adage that still governs the world.
To acquire an idea of Roman morality, imagine in the heart of Paris an organization of men who hate to work, determined to satisfy their wants by deceit and force, and consequently at war with society. Doubtless a certain moral code and even some solid virtues will soon manifest themselves in such an organization. Courage, perseverance, self-control, prudence, discipline, constancy in misfortune, deep secrecy, punctilio, devotion to the community—such undoubtedly will be the virtues that necessity and prevailing opinion would develop among these brigands; such were those of the buccaneers; such were those of the Romans. It may be said that, in regard to the latter, the grandeur of their enterprise and the immensity of their success has thrown so glorious a veil over their crimes as to transform them into virtues. And this is precisely why that school is so pernicious. It is not abject vice, it is vice crowned with splendor, that seduces men’s souls.”
Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano, on the International Community:
“The Israeli army, the most modern and sophisticated in the world, knows who it kills. It does not kill by error. It kills by horror. The civilian victims are called collateral damages, according to the dictionary of the other imperial wars. In Gaza, three of every ten collateral damages are children. And the maimed add up to thousands, victims of human mutilation that the war industry is successfully rehearsing in this operation of ethnic cleansing. And as always, always the same: in Gaza, a hundred for one. For each hundred Palestinians killed, one Israeli.
Dangerous people –warning of another bombardment – in charge of the enormous manipulative media that invite us to think that each Israeli life is worth as much as a hundred Palestinian lives. And those media also invite us to think that the two hundred atom bombs of Israel are humanitarian, and that a nuclear power called Iran was the one that annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The so-called international community, Does it exist? Is it anything more than a club of merchants, bankers and war-makers?……..
Before the tragedy of Gaza, the Arab countries wash their hands off. As always. And, as ever, the European countries wring their hands. Old Europe, so capable of war and malignancy, sheds a tear or so, while secretly celebrating this master move. Because hunting the Jews was always a European custom, but since half a century that historical debt is being paid for by the Palestinians who also are Semites and who never were, nor are, anti-Semites. They are paying, in blood money, the price of others.
(This article is dedicated to my Jewish friends assassinated by the Latin American dictatorships to which Israel acted as consultant).”
In the news today, AP reports:
“Multifamily construction plunged 46.1 percent to an annual rate of 90,000 units after a 23 percent fall in March. Permits for multifamily construction dropped 19.9 percent to 121,000 units. Analysts said apartment construction is being hurt by a glut of condominiums on the market and by tightening credit conditions for commercial real estate.”
My Comment
Oh, my. This made my day. Condo flippers and developers are in big trouble.
Overlook the opening of this article, with that plaintive reference to a ” modest rebound in single-family home construction in April” that “raised hopes.”
Hopes should not be raised. That’s pretty clear by now. Not unless you’re being paid to pump houses for some rash developer who ran out of buyers for his pet eye-sore. We can think of a number of things that should be raised – black flags, eyebrows, interest rates…..but not hopes.
I’ve been checking condo prices all over the world and it’s the same news. From Panama to Kuala Lumpur, from Miami to Baltimore. Commercial developers are in trouble.
If that doesn’t warm the cockles of your heart and put a smile on your face, I don’t know what will. These wretched companies drove up housing by 100-300% (and more) in some cities and literally chased people on small or fixed incomes out of places they’d been living for years.
And don’t tell me they added any real value.
In New York. construction in one building was so shoddy, the Buildings Department had to intervene. I personally inspected a condo where, when the owner kicked the wall, her foot went right through. Many of them were aesthetic monstrosities that ruined the skyline, polluted the air, and destroyed the architectural beauty of the places where they metastasized.
Now there’s a glut and the developers are losing their shirts.
Miami’s condo king, Jorge Perez, is sitting on top of a market with the biggest glut in the country. Since 2003, nearly 23000 condos were added to downtown Miami, and 33% of them remain unsold. The financial hurricane hit just when Perez, the “tropical Trump,” had opened his newest project, Icon Brickell, a boutique hotel combined with over 1,640 luxury apartments and squeezed into three towers. Only 18 units have sold so far. Perez (once estimated to have a net worth of $1.3 billion) is in big money trouble. His company, Related Group, lost $1 billion in 2008 and ran up debt of $2 billion, $700 million from Icon Brickell alone.
It just doesn’t get better than that….
There’s a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about likely Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks in 2001 when she was an appeals court judge.
““I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.”
(Published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal)
At The Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler finds the implication of her remarks troubling. He suggests that they go beyond simply stating that each individual’s perspective matters to negating the existence of an objective stance altogether.
Ho hum. This is such a tired battle. No one ever seems to say anything new or insightful. It all seems to boil down to a power struggle. Those upholding objective standards claim they do so because indeed standards are “out there” – i.e. objective.
Those arguing for identity as the trump card claim that the objective standard merely disguises power relations and the (white, male) identity of the powerful.
Can I say anything new? I don’t know, but it’s worth a try if only to spare myself future boredom reading the reasoning on both sides of these kinds of debate.
Back later with more.
******
OK. Here’s how I see it.
Experience always alters perception, so, to that extent, Sotomayor is not saying anything inaccurate.
I think the part that bothered Adler is this one (and I can see why): He says she “quotes approvingly” law professors who have said that “to judge is an exercise of power.”
Again, note the problem with reasoning in the social sciences here. There is an elision, a gap, in which changes in meaning are lost.
To say something is an act of power is not the same thing as saying it’s only an act of power. Moreover, power has a connotation in today’s political lingo that’s inherently negative.
Supposing then you were to substitute the word “will,” for the word “power,” what then?
Sotomayor would then be saying that people’s experiences influence the way they think, which informs their judgment. Their judgment is as much an act of will as it’s the logical conclusion of reasoning independent of the actor who performs it.
Instead of discussing power relations (politics), we’d end up in a much more fruitful arena, exploring the relationship between our will and our perceptions and reasoning. We’d be in the territory of cognitive science and philosophy. And we’d be much more likely to come up with something useful.
And all from looking at our language a bit more critically.
Of course, I have no idea whether that’s what Sotomayor meant. I’m just saying that a nuanced reading of words might be a place where both sides of the debate could start.
Instead, the debate ends locked in what I think I’ll label a Catholic (God is all-knowing*) versus Protestant (God is all-powerful) polarity, with judge substituting for God.
* I originally wrote all-rational, which seems to have led to a misunderstanding. I meant “reason” (as in ‘right reason’ rather than Reason, as in Enlightenment rationality)