> we stress how important it is to be objective, rational, and
> scientific. but, human affairs don't always work that way. we may
> reason objectively but we feel and even 'think' emotionally and
> symbolically. thinking isn't necessarily about problem solving or
> reasoning; it's about reflecting or 'soul searching'.
>
> it is for this reason that we must acknowledge the importance of what
> might be called sacred, spiritual, or symbolic matters. we don't just
> weigh the significance or importance of things or events based on
> quantitative measurements. just as often, how we feel about certain
> things matter as much or even more. all qualitative judgments are
> subjective whereas quantitative measurements are objective. even in
> chemistry and physics, it all boils down to the quantitative. more
> complex molecules simply have more protons, neutrons, and electrons.
> mass is energy, energy is mass; either way, it can be expressed
> mathematically which is quantitative. we may say diamond is
> objectively/qualitatively stronger than carbon or steel, but this is a
> measure of diamond's strength, and such can be reduced to quantitative
> measurements. it could be argued that the diamond's qualitative
> superiority can be measured quantitatively, so utlimately, it is a
> quantitative matter. but, to insist diamond is qualitatively superior
> requires going beyond objective reason. it is a matter of aesthetics
> and symbolism humanity has invests into that item. this can be
> quantitatively measured in terms of price and cost but only because of
> the emotional fascination and love with the item. why a particular
> diamond ring means so much to an individual is purely subjective. it
> could be her anniversay ring.
>
> let us consider some differences between the quantitative/objective
> and the qualitative/subjective.
> consider two incidents. in one, someone cheats you out of $10. in
> another cae, you lose $50 by being foolish. in the latter event, you
> may feel upset but not necessarily furious and bitter. no one has
> done you any wrong. but, in the former case, someone took $10 from
> you. you feel violated. you sense something wrong with society, with
> humanity, with the world, even with god. your sense of human goodness
> has been challenged and undermined. so, losing $10 can be worse than
> losing $50.
> or, consider the following two actions. in one, a drunken friend takes
> a bucket of rain water and douses you with it. in the other, i spit
> in your face. now, quantitatively, the former action has done you
> much more harm. rain water could be dirty and your clothes could be
> ruined. in the latter action, you may have some spit on your face but
> you can wash it off and no big deal. yet, which is gonna anger you
> more? the latter. in the former action, a friend acted stupidly;
> yet, you know he meant no harm. you could be angry but not enough to
> hate him. but, following the latter action you are likely to feel
> really angry. and angry not just at me but, 'irrationally' at society
> in general.
> objectively, a spit is no big deal. indeed, it's far less icky than
> kissing someone else's mouth. more germ is likely to pass between
> kissers than by someone spitting on another person. but, the
> significance of being spat on is powerful--at least in most cultures.
> there is a 'symbolic' aspect to spitting on someone.
> if i spit on you, there is a feeling of desecration. there is such
> feeling because we have a sense of sanctity or sacredness or a strong
> sense of propriety. even if we aren't religious, we believe that
> somethings mustn't be violated or 'desecrated'. even among negro
> thugs, a callous word about someone's mother can lead to murder.
> so, when someone spits on you, you don't objectively or rationally
> think, "little bit of fluid has been emitted from his mouth onto my
> face." you feel as if the very essence of your being--your right to
> respect, honor, and happiness--has been violated. you have been
> desecrated.
> this cannot be explained or proved rationally; it can only be
> established symbolically, and the fact is we mostly think and feel
> symbolically, not objectively or scientifically. if we applied a
> purely scientific method to human affairs, there would be no
> 'murder'. the very concept of murder isn't possible without the
> concept of the sacred. to murder isn't merely to retire another life
> form but to violate its sacred right to exist. this is why some
> cultures believe it's evil to kill certain animals. in their
> cosmology, a certain animal--or all animals--could be deemed holy or
> sacred. this is why cows cannot be killed in india.
> of course, we feel it's okay to kill cows because we don't share the
> same symbols. but, this can apply to other humans as well. according
> to nazism, jews are not equally human so they can be killed. it
> wouldn't be mass murder but only mass slaughter, as in mass slaughter
> of cattle. and, according to communism, certain classes--while
> recognized as human--are seen as such lowlife enemies of mankind that
> they can be wiped out; that wouldn't be murder but merely class
> liquidation ordained by the scientific laws of history.
>
> the point is we think symbolically. and civilization isn't possible
> without highly sophisticated symoblic thinking. concepts such as
> robbery, adultery, rape, and murder are all symbolic or sacred, not
> rational. when a male animal forces a female animal to sex, it's not
> rape because animals are not capable of symbolic thinking. it is the
> just natural behavior. a female animal may not want to be forced to
> sex but has no choice. it's just how nature works. but, humans
> have concepts that define behavior. we define certain killings as
> 'murder', certain sexual behavior as 'adultery' or 'rape', and certain
> taking of things as 'robbery'. the roots of these concepts are not
> scientific or rational. to be sure, we use reason in our moral
> argument but the roots of morality are not rational but sacred. we
> FEEL that certain things are not only unpleasant but filthy, vile,and
> descrecratory of the Higher Order. and we use certain concepts to turn
> this FEELING of wrongness into a SYMBOLS of wrongness--to be countered
> by Symbols of righteousness.
> to be sure, these feelings exist even in higher animals. dogs, apes,
> elephants, and dolphins are capable of very deep emotions. animal
> experts have watched how elephants grieve over a dead member. but,
> animals don't know how to turn these emotions into a moral system
> based on symbolic thinking.
>
> one of the most important symbol for humanity is the funeral and
> cemetary. objectively, a grave is just a box with a corpse 6 ft under
> a patch of grass and a piece of stone with name engraved on it. yet,
> we treat cemetaries with reverence. no one would throw a party in a
> cemetary.
> now, suppose someone pisses on your grandparents' or parents'
> graves. objectively or scientifically, an individual has relieved
> his bladder on a patch of grass under which is buried a corpse that
> can't feel or think or whatever. so, what's the big deal? indeed,
> what is the logic or sense of burying a dead person? it's dead! it
> can't thinkor feel. why not just grind it up and turn it into
> fertilizer?
> but, people don't feel this way. if you pissed on someone's grave and
> got caught, the family of the deceased is gonna want to kick your ass,
> and most people will sympathize with them. and the law is not gonna be
> kind to you, either. you can rationally argue that you meant no harm.
> you just took a pee on a patch of grass. you didn't harm anyone or
> anything. the dead body in the coffin wasn't offended cuz it's dead,
> so why should the family, the public, or the Law be offended? and the
> piss was prolly good for the grass. so, where's the harm?
>
> yet, the law is not gonna say you simply violated the no-pissing-in-
> public ordiance. you are gonna be charged for a foul unspeakable deed.
> despite the separation of church and state in the governance of our
> laws, there is still the concept of the sacrilegious in the law. and
> this concept is only possible with a sense of the sacred--which is not
> rational.
> so, pissing on someone's grave will be more serious than pissing on
> someone's yard. both would be against the law, but the former will be
> more serious. in the latter pissing, you were maybe just desperate.
> in the former, you showed vileness and hatred.
>
> this is true also of hate crime laws. these laws are not rational.
> suppose there is a park bench and a holocaust memorial. suppose you
> spray paint 'shit' on the park bench and then spray paint 'hitler
> rules' on the holocaust memorial. in terms of physical damage,
> they are just about the same. but, in terms of symbolic damage, the
> vandalism against the holocaust memorial is much more grievous because
> we tend to think of the holocaust as a sacred subject. while
> vandalism on the park bench is regarded as a ruined bench, the
> vandalism on the holocaust memorial is regarded as something more than
> mere physical defacement. it is about desecration. as long as our
> laws embrace the concept of sacredness and desecration, it cannot be
> said to be totally rational or objective.
> of course, the concept of sacredness is always selectively
> practiced. because of our collective awareness of the holocaust--
> largely due to liberal jewish domination of the media and academia--,
> anti-semitic vandalism is likely to arouse much more outrage than
> other forms of vandalism. when anarchists blow up a memorial to
> murdered policemen, the liberal media don't treat it as a serious
> matter; indeed, media might even see it as a legitimate form a
> dissent.
> or, when leftists burn american flags, the liberal media argue that
> it's what america is all about--freedom of expression. yet, if a
> bunch of neo-nazis got together and burned symbols sacred to jews,
> there would be alot of outrage; the central debate would not be first
> amendment rights but the evil of Hate(notice that anti-american hatred
> is acceptable but anti-jewish hatred is not). of course, burning the
> US ...
>
> read more >>