Justice: Linking Old with New

In looking over my older posts I see I've taken a divergence since incorporating Sacred Therapy into the mix. I've defaulted to the traditional notion of justice. This is most prominent in my previous post (7/31/11), so I've decided to try and address this issue somewhat.

Getting back to my earliest posts, justice can be punitive or compensation. these are it's primary modes of expression, either affecting the affector (punitive) or the affected (compensatory). Justice includes judgement, discernment and balance. Justice is an equalizing force, creating equivalence. Yet what of the connection between justice and determinism? Doesn't determinism have all of the same characteristics of justice in this case? Determinisim, as best described (again here) by Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Determinism requires discernment - what was the actor and the acted on - and both punitive and compensatory expression - what is the affect of this action on the actor (punitive) and the acted on (compensatory). The only difference I can see is that justice strives to return acted on objects to a non-acted space, Newtonian physics is about acting as change.

Strangely enough, traditional justice is much more like pre-Newtonian physics, where the assumption was that all objects default to a state of rest unless acted on by outside force.

Taking this a step further, if justice were to truly parallel Newtonian physics, then justice's objective would be to determine the new path after the affect, not to return the affector/affected to a stationary position.

Let's take this a step further (or several) though. Let's look at quantum physics. Now we have multiple probabilistic outcomes based on the observer. Let's, for the same of argument, think of justice as the observer here. Justice is still here to determine the effect of affector and affectee interaction, but instead the interaction is predicated on how justice manifests the quantum probabilities. Justice plays an active role in determining the outcome.

What happens when justice is based on probability instead of determinism?

Now, here's the major mind-warp. What happens when God, as justice (probability-based) runs up against the compassionate human?

I think my metaphor brain just melted...

- Jason

Viewing the Good With the Bad: A Quasi-Religious Perspective

Author's Notice: I apologize in advance for any religious or scientific fundamentalists I will probably alienate with this post. I'm going to be using a rather liberal metaphorical interpretation of God in this post.

So... I finished reading Sacred Therapy, and the part that's stuck with me the most is in asking God for forgiveness to sinners. Effectively advocating for those that have done wrong. This is a phenomenally contradictory concept, especially for my social justice oriented self. I'm a proponent of balance and justice, yet I also hold that compassion is a vital component to these. Compassion seems to be out-of-balance from these concepts. Yet from another perspective it's compassion that balances out justice.

Using biblical reference, there's many cases where God has unleashed his holy retribution by wiping out, maiming, messing with, or otherwise making human life miserable. There's other situations where prophetic humans have stayed God's wrath through compassionate advocacy. It begs the question how the bible would end if there was no compassion in God... Not well I imagine.

Yet the source of compassion isn't really seen as in God, but in human power. As we stand between justice and those deserving reciprocity, is that not an act of faith on some level? Another human being has shown their evil, harm and destructive capacity on the world and we, in our complete faith in them, stand between them and God to advocate for compassion.

Now, the bible consists of stories where this compassion is returned by reformation and atonement on the part of those we show compassion to. The real world isn't quite as forgiving. However, I would argue that these stories aren't about the world around us, but about the world within us. Let's spend some time in the metaphorical world of our inner landscape, where all beings are aspects of ourselves. God, in this case, is the judgement and justice, our sense of fairness. The 'harmful' person, the victim of our judgement, is ultimately ourself in vulnerability and weakness, for being hurt in the way we were.Our judgement is condemning ourself for being weak and allowing such harm to be inflicted.

This is where our compassion steps in. By shielding ourself in our vulnerability from our judgement we give ourself the space to heal, to reform, and to atone (to become at one).

I have found this personally helpful with my divorce. I have deep and painful wounds from my ex wife. Some of which she continues to inflict. I am not strong enough to protect myself from receiving these wounds, and I do judge myself for not doing so. In a surprisingly profound symbolic act, I began 'protecting' my ex from God, by asking for God's forgiveness and compassion for my ex. In doing so, I embodied all of the aspects of compassion I have within myself, and was able to converse with my judgement. This dialog, though unresolved, has helped me to meld both my compassion and my judgement into a unified vision of my ex.

It's also helped alleviate many of the panic attacks I was suffering in regards to my ex.

Not that I don't still think of my ex, but if we go back to the metaphor, then it's really my compassion sheltering and caring for my vulnerable self while moderating my judgement. It's... not what I would expect from a Judaic perspective, but then again Kabbalah isn't your average Judaism (-:

So, I find myself a little more whole thanks to a liberal metaphorical interpretation of the bible.

Funny how things go sometimes, eh?

- Jason

Perfection and Imperfection

I can see that Estelle Frankel's Sacred Therapy is going to be a staplehold of this blog for awhile. If nothing else it has breathed new life into it.

Perfection: Though I have always understood that my perfection lies in my imperfection, and my continual desire for improvement, I have always held that things outside of me are perfect. The universe is perfect. All things are perfect. The system I live within is perfect.  Yet with the absurdity of which my perfect universe has been stretched, it is hard to hold on to that perfect universe image. I cannot hold out for a lost hope that the universe will balance itself in my stead. I don't do that with friends or family, I won't do that with the universe.

So then, what is left to me? I could take balance in my own hands, become a crusader for balance and correct the imbalances in the universe. This would be no different than internalizing perfection, and then projecting it outward (instead of the opposite, which I have been doing). Or, I can find some peace that the universe is as broken as I am, and it, and all things in it, are laying on the floor, shattered by being dropped, or falling, from it's once mighty place.

Justice is balance, justice is equilibrium, justice is a perfect universe. If that is so, what is an imperfect universe? Does it lack justice, or is justice simply broken, like everything else?

In the perfect universe, Newton's three laws of motion apply. Namely the third: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The universe balances perfectly. Yet as an irony, nothing in the universe would form if it was perfect. Stars and planets formed because of inconsistent distributions of matter from the big bang. Imperfection gave birth to stars, planets, and life. Can the universe really be so perfect?

I guess that's part of exploring it, finding the cracks.

- Jason

Legacy vs. Future

I'm in the process of reading Sacred Therapy by Estelle Frankel, and her story of divorce struck me, perhaps too profoundly, as another story of a women's choice to leave her partner. I am becoming profoundly triggered by these stories, and the lack of regard that these women show to their former partners. Perhaps it's the lack of responsibility that I see them take for their choices. Often these 'changes' are viewed as a rebirthing for the woman, a reformation of their lives. Does this qualify dismissing the past which created this rebirth?

My mind goes several places with this notion. Firstly, to Frank Herbert's Dune. "Every revolution carries within it the seeds of it's own destruction." The choice to break a family is much like overthrowing a government, and often takes a 'ends justify means' approach. What does this say of the quality of the revolutionaries though? If the idea is to free from tyranny, then should not the method be free from tyranny? It strikes me as undirected change, no more.

Yet that is one avenue of exploration. One that both my wounded ego and my sense of justice are quite fond of, but just one nonetheless. Another avenue is to look at my own hypocracy in stating that our origins should be respected and considered. What births us helps to define us.

I am not a person who respects tradition for it's own sake. I do not believe that doing something because it's been done is a legitimate reason to continue doing it. Yet is not tradition a respect for where we come from? Does it not pay homage to what allows us to stand today, as the people we are? A recognition of our fore-bearers who's efforts allowed us to make the choices we do today? I criticize these women for lacking this recognition, yet I do not recognize it myself? This is hypocracy at it's finest and I am it's purveyor.

As I continued my reading, the focus of the book was on how to deal with traumatic 'heart breaking' experiences. My mind goes towards the question of the difference between the woman and the man in the aforementioned situations. Frankel, as do many other women, speak as if their decisions were not under their control, yet they were the initiators of the heartbreaking circumstances. When speaking of the unfairness that the world inflicts on oneself, is it appropriate to include damages that are self-inflicted? Is the process of healing the same for when you plunge the dagger into yourself instead of when the dagger is plunged into you from someone else?

One aspect of Judaism, learned from class, that I really connected with was the idea of days where harms should be rectified, through actions and not just words. Coming from my situation it easy for me to say that, and to wish for that, yet the authenticity from which that desire stems from is tainted by my experiences and wish for justice. I cannot say with an unbiased mind that I would truly want that kind of world.

Yet I do live that kind of world, for what that kind of world depicts is a world where thought and action are one. If you feel bad for something then you fix it, or make amends. One of my most extolled virtues is how purely myself I live. It's not just about saying the words, I live the words. I am the words. If I speak of my regrets and failures, I work to fix them and the harm they've done.

*sigh*

But I guess the real question is, like Jesus, how do I turn the other cheek in my soul?

- Jason

Modern Commitment

The modern nightmare word in relationships, yet the definition holds both restrictive and liberative aspects to it:

• 1 the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.:the company's commitment to quality
• a pledge or undertaking:I cannot make such a commitment at the moment
• 2 (usually commitments) an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action:business commitmentsyoung people delay major commitments including marriage and children

The knee-jerk reaction to this word in modern relationships is to flee. The irony of relationship commitment is that a person who doesn't commit is looked down on, yet commitment is considered scary. This is quite a conundrum, and worth some cognitive dissonance. On a social level, commitment goes against the independent-minded ideology of the modern world. Yet what has such an attitude really helped in? Are people really better people for it?

Decidedly not. There's a growing trend of isolation in the modern world. Where people distance themselves from others, from their friends and family. Yet our society is surprised by the level of isolation we, as a collective culture, feel.

Going back to the definition of commitment: Dedication to a cause is very profound, and signifies a strength that isn't inherent in the second definition. dedication brings to mind inspirational images, such as knights in service to their lord. In contrast to a restriction of freedom, which brings to mind a typical marriage expression of 'ball and chain.'

So, how do these two definitions reconcile? That would depend on the individual, and how they handle cognitive dissonance. In our modern society. This traces back to the cultural influences. Since we live in a culture that prides independence and self-sufficiency over community, dissonance tends to favor the latter definition, not the former.

This American Life

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/433/fine-print-2011

Act 4.

I wonder what my daughter will think when she's grown up...

Emotional Damage

How does one evaluate emotional damage? Or, perhaps a better question, what is emotional damage?

So, I Google emotional damage, and come across this: http://helpguide.org/mental/emotional_psychological_trauma.htm.

Emotional symptoms of trauma:

Shock, denial, or disbelief Anger, irritability, mood swings Guilt, shame, self-blame Feeling sad or hopeless

Confusion, difficulty concentrating Anxiety and fear Withdrawing from others Feeling disconnected or numb

Yes, I would say my divorce brought in all of those traits to me. But wait, there's more:

"These symptoms and feelings typically last from a few days to a few months, gradually fading as you process the trauma. But even when you’re feeling better, you may be troubled from time to time by painful memories or emotions—especially in response to triggers such as an anniversary of the event or an image, sound, or situation that reminds you of the traumatic experience."

Gradually fading, but recurring from time to time. What if the recurrence is without prompt? What then? My mind is inherently processotory and will think of things. My emotional symptoms are invasive and intrusive in what I'm doing. I also know I'm unique among people in that I can handle extreme emotions with grace and ease. I can be going through all of those symptoms and only the most astute observer would notice it. So then what is the harm? In the outside world, little to none, it just takes some effort to keep things in check. Elsewhere? I am writing this at 4:30am after reading on Florida's child support/custody laws because I was panicking. If I had to surmise: were I ever to return to an intimate 'primary' relationship, I would be panicking to my partner. This has the potential to affect my relationships.

After digging through the conditions a bit more, I'd say the one that most closely relates to my experience is panic disorder (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_disorder), though generalized anxiety disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_anxiety_disorder) is a close match too. If there were a way to hybridize them, that'd nicely reflect me state.

What is it when you have recurring panic thoughts about your situation, specifically relating to the sheer level of injustice suffered? The specificity of my panic attacks is consistent with panic disorder, but the lack of an external trigger is consistent with generalized anxiety disorder. Maybe a generalized panic disorder? Of course this is overblown in some ways, as these attacks don't inhibit my ability to function in society. I would say they inhibit my ability to be a full functioning emotional being.

But is this emotional damage? Trauma, yes, I would say the evidence of that is clear. Emotional damage though? I had a conversation with my dad awhile ago about his feelings with his divorce. Though he's basically emotionally healed from it, he still has moments where it 'gets to him,' in much the same way that mine gets to me. That's a permanent change to the neurology of the brain. My dad's divorce is 15 years old, and it still comes back to him.

Is it damage though? The OED version is only physical though, with the following criteria: "harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function." Well, let's translate this to emotional harm. Well, we have three potential scales to work with, let's take them one at a time.

Value: Relevant OED Definition - " the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something"

Are my panic attacks degrading my importance, worth or usefulness? Well, not my usefulness or worth, as I'm still capable of functioning in the world it doesn't affect my practical ability or my financial saliability (though other aspects of my divorce do affect my finances).

What of my importance? Since this is the only metric that's not tied to something practical (ability to get something done with usefulness, or monetary translation with worth), assessing importance is quite subjective. For example, the following argument can be made: In the dating/relationship market, panic attacks are a liability, being seen as having 'baggage.' My importance is therefore compromised in that arena. The general consensus is that a woman doesn't want 'damaged goods' in her man, yet my panic attacks make that damage real, or at least have the potential (as mentioned earlier) to make it real.

Usefulness: Relevant OED Definition - "the quality or fact of being useful" Useful: "able to be used for a practical purpose or in several ways"

This has already been covered in value, but let's look at it again. I really don't believe this criteria applies, as my panic attacks do not inhibit my ability to be of practical purpose. I can still work at full productivity. I can still do academic work at the same capacity as before. I can still perform all my regular tasks (laundry, driving, using a computer, etc.) at the same level. I just don't see any impact on use.

Normal: Relevant OED Definition - "conforming to a standard ; usual, typical, or expected" Function: "an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing"

First, let's fuse these words into a singular meaning to use. To normalize function, said activity/purpose must be predictable. 'usual, typical, or expected' things are predictable. Therefore a normalized function is consistent through time, and not just an inherent part of the person/thing.

If there's any of these criteria I can work with, it's this one. Sheerly by writing blog entries on my divorce (especially at 4:30am) I'm showing a shift in my activity. My leisure activity has changed as well, consisting of different forms of leisure. My purpose has shifted too, away from a family-focus and towards an academic-focus. This stuff is disputable to impairment, however...

There's one more shift that will nail this. My panic attacks are invasive. They require me to, consciously, put effort into maintaining my function. This is a behavior that limits the full range of my mental ability. It doesn't affect what I do because my regular activities don't take that much from my mental capacity, but it *does* limit my mental ability. I think that's quintessential impairment.

So, have I suffered emotional damage? Somewhat. Through my reduced value on the relationship/dating market, and the invasiveness of my panic attacks, there's indication that I have suffered emotional damage. My dad's experience shows that the relationship/dating value is temporary, or negligible, but that the panic attack invasiveness may be a permanent aspect.

I'm not sure if this would hold up to legal scrutiny, but I think I have at least some basis for argument here.

Regardless, I do feel comfortable saying that I've suffered emotional damage, and it seems to be a permanent damage.

So then, tracing back to my discussions on justice, what is compensation for that damage? What can compensate for emotional damage? That's a tough one... especially since it's a permanent condition. I really don't know. My mind traces back to financial reimbursement, but that would need to be sustained for the rest of my life (or at least as long as the damage is present, likely the rest of my life). Somehow that seems to fall flat as a compensation.

Yet I can't think up anything else...