Jump to content


Photo

Johnson / Ercolino


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 5 aggregates

5 aggregates

    Triple A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,525 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York

Posted 26 August 2012 - 03:43 PM

Hi all,

I find it strange to be writing about this.

In the wake of the shooting, and based on information that is admittedly scant and surely insufficient (consider Jaggers' admonition to Pip in Great Expectations "Not a particle of evidence, Pip," said Mr. Jaggers, shaking his head and gathering up his skirts. "Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule."), I find myself FEELING more sympathetic towards the shooter than his victim.

On many levels, this troubles me.

I don't believe that any problem can be resolved (long term) by violence.

And yet, I feel that it is fundamentally dishonest to disavow one's emotional reactions, however illogical they may be.

After examining his artwork and photography, the shooter's talents seemed pretty pedestrian, but fundamentally, my gut keeps saying -

this "outgoing, everybody loves him, family man" spiel is complete BS.

This guy's face, is like the face of a lot of guys I grew up with - the kind of face you wanted to smack the crap out of.

No one deserves to be shot. But I worked in many places where, deserves or not (yeah, Eastwood's "deserves has nothing to do with it" notwithstanding), I can understand why someone might want to....

If I sound conflicted ... D'uh!

It's like Muley Graves in Grapes of Wrath wondering who to shoot.

It's this inchoate but undeniably genuine sense of injustice, inequity.

The status quo, that which society's institutions are dedicated to defending...

were acquired by brutality, theft, bullying.

It was not earned, in the sense that most of us probably think of that verb.

But because it happened in the past, it's OK.

Ya know something, that's BS.

Everything that happened in the past redounds to the present.

The whole notion of property is askew, IMHO.

Crazy Horse was closer to the truth of it.

Jack Kornfield is closer to the truth of it.

Look at this nonsense, I've gone off topic on my own topic.

Anyway, after a long absence, I thought I might be forgiven a little (or big) tangent.

Cheers,

5

PS. Any thoughts on the original topic?

PPS. I've grown to deeply dislike Richard Neer.

PPPII: I still love Steve Somers

To the extent that we have learned to grasp and identify with this limited life, we suffer. It's that simple. - Kornfield

#2 Doc

Doc

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maine
  • Interests:Family, movies, graphic novels, music, Mets, Knicks, cycling, and shoveling snow.

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:55 PM

Your tangents are always welcomed....and have been missed. As to the rest of it, I have no frakin' idea what you're talking about.
We Live. We Learn. We Teach. Posted Image
"Living the dream, Baby."--Mr Met.


#3 birtelcom

birtelcom

    Made "The Show"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,703 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 10:22 PM

My own view of "property", is that it is only ethically defensible if and to the extent it works effectively to the benefit of the least privileged, a concept i learned most effectively studying John Rawls. As a practical matter, it is probably true that property ownership does benefit everyone to the extent that it creates incentives for us to be productive. If we know we will keep a share of what we produce, we are more likely to produce not just the bare minimum to keep ourselves alive but a surplus that can then be shared with others, including those who cannot themselves be productive because of illness, injury and so on. When property ownership is abused by becoming a fetish in itself, rather than a mechanism encouraging the production of a share-able surplus, it loses its ethical basis. I know there are other views on this question but that's my own take.

#4 5 aggregates

5 aggregates

    Triple A

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,525 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York

Posted 01 September 2012 - 10:06 PM

My own view of "property", is that it is only ethically defensible if and to the extent it works effectively to the benefit of the least privileged, a concept i learned most effectively studying John Rawls. As a practical matter, it is probably true that property ownership does benefit everyone to the extent that it creates incentives for us to be productive. If we know we will keep a share of what we produce, we are more likely to produce not just the bare minimum to keep ourselves alive but a surplus that can then be shared with others, including those who cannot themselves be productive because of illness, injury and so on. When property ownership is abused by becoming a fetish in itself, rather than a mechanism encouraging the production of a share-able surplus, it loses its ethical basis. I know there are other views on this question but that's my own take.


Bruce,

I think that's long been the de facto state of things, but I'm not ready to hold forth on it at the moment.

This interim reply is mostly there to set forth the enormous regard I have for all your thoughts (whether I agree or not, your posts are invariably well thought out, and never worthy of dismissal).

I'll revisit this later as it is my hobby horse, much like state executions are for our antipodean counselor.

5

To the extent that we have learned to grasp and identify with this limited life, we suffer. It's that simple. - Kornfield

#5 birtelcom

birtelcom

    Made "The Show"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,703 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 10:47 PM

I'll revisit this later

I'll look forward to it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users