The law at work : Part 2

I was dragged into a court case by a lawyer just to say that I knew nothing, and had perceived nothing, about any inharmonious relations between husband and wife, both close friends. The husband’s lawyer (a retired magistrate) could have read a statement from me to that effect; but he wanted me in court. He did not accept that my lack of knowledge would establish nothing, since I cannot see or hear through doors in another home a distance away.

The wife’s barrister insisted that I must have perceived some evidence of disharmony, using such words as ‘surely’. He then went on to my memory, suggesting that recent experience was surely more easily remembered. Since there was nothing to remember, I merely pointed out that memory is normally a function of significance.

That did not discourage him. Then there was another exchange implying that I was not being truthful. It was all very relaxed, civilised, and expensive in both time (mine) and money (the contestants’).

I then spoke directly to the judge to curtail a wasteful scenario, and was released. Throughout the play-about-nothing, the judge was silent. What was his job, I did wonder.

Then there is the issue of time. It appears that barristers decide how much time they need in court. Could not the core issues in a case be decided by the judge and the barristers to introduce efficiency in the court process? Lengthy court proceedings cost money, and also reduce the efficacy of the process.

The law at work : Part 1

Does British law always ensure justice? I am not sure. There seem to be in-built flaws. These might arise from the personalities involved, their perspectives (including their socio-political values), and conditioned mindsets.
Written law needs to be interpreted as to its applicability in the circumstances of each case. So claimed my law-student friends in my youth.

Interpretation requires human minds. Does that thereby not bring with it a mental component of personality, together with another mental component of one’s subconscious politico-social perspectives? Is it also relevant to consider that, since magistrates and judges are appointed by governments, the selections they make may reflect their own political platforms?

In any event, would it not be difficult for persons involved in the law to divest themselves, with the objective of being ideologically neutral, of these (and possibly other) core attributes of self? That appears to me to be the personality aspect of the implementation of the law.

A crucial question relating to possible insidious influences in decision makers in the law is whether former defence lawyers, now judges, could completely divest themselves subconsciously of their previous operational mindsets? Certainly, their intention would be to do so. What of these mindsets?

When previously they had been free to offer all manner of alternative scenarios in defence of their clients, could they now apply restraint to those barristers who do not ask questions requiring information as to the facts of a case, but who make assertions intended to induce responses in a manner which might successfully confuse the issues? After all, is it not the responsibility of a defence barrister to raise doubt? But, in what way?

Justice on Earth : Part 2

From my point of view, one of the benefits of British colonialism was the inheritance of the concepts of codified law and order – which implied the availability of impartial justice. However, my substantive exposure to this British law and order has been in Australia. To my surprise, the emphasis is not on justice, but on law.

An adversarial approach in the courts; a tremendous reliance on technicalities (even trivial ones, such as an incorrect address); and rules designed, not to ascertain the relevant facts, but to either protect the accused (presumably, in case prosecution charges are not well-based), or to create a playground of contested interpretations; and selective calls on precedents (the common law); appear to rule the day.

What happened to the right for, to the need for, justice? How much justice is available under the modern approach to law and order? Why not have an impartial non-adversarial joint approach to establish the relevant facts, before applying the law? The French seem to do this well.

Justice on Earth : Part 1

Most of us are born into a collective. At minimum, the 2 parents form this collective. In most parts of the world, the collective can include the grandparents. In many Asian communities, the collective would include the extended family, linked by birth and marriage.

At a larger communal level, a level denied to the individualism-based Western nations formed by immigrants within the last half-millennium, the tribe, linked by religion, customary values and practices (including sundry celebrations), would form the operative collective.

Whether this collective is a simpler version or a more extended and complex one, justice would have been provided by inherited practice through those accepted as leaders or as the wise ones. Institutionalised justice, bound by rigid codes of law and some variable interpretations, representing a less-personal approach, might evolve in time.

Since European colonisers had been active throughout the globe during the past 500 years or so, the subject peoples (in the main) would know only the white man’s version of justice.

Since the white man was there to exploit the resources (including the people) of the lands they controlled, justice may have been a subsidiary handmaiden to the imposed law and order, which itself may be expected to have been the tool of control (the weapon being men in uniform, and armed).

Cosmic injustice : Part 2

The Bible implies that modern Man had descended from ‘the Adam.’ This reference to ‘the Adam’ apparently reflects the Sumerian cuneiform-derived story of extra-terrestrials having shaped ‘the Adam’ to work in the mines instead of the giants from Nibiru (or Planet X). If we have not descended from ‘the Adam,’ then one must turn to an alternative explanation of our origin.

The alternative is that we were (somehow) created by God (whether or not in His image is not that relevant). Here, I have a complaint. We should have been created as a better, a more responsible, product. Why so? Because justice (especially cosmic justice) should offer equality of treatment; that is, fair treatment to all. Those poor babies who born only to suffer and then die, or who are denied adequate nourishment imply – not a product recall – but a product which needs to be better designed. Since He ignored me when, in my youth, I chastised Him, I very much doubt that he will be listening to me now.

This is where the idea of repeated rebirth on Earth permitting a progressive moral upgrading of individual human beings is attractive; it offers hope for mankind as a whole. Those who choose to ‘sit on God’s knee,’ or live in perpetual bliss after Earthly death, may do so. The ‘forest religions’ of Hinduism and its sister faiths do permit a personal effort to improve oneself, life after life. Those who have had some inkling of one or more of their own past lives (including a Christian friend, and a Jewish friend, of mine) will understand what I am saying; experience is evidence – as ever! Then, at the end of a very long journey, one rejoins the home which one had once left.

Since a re-design or a re-modelling of modern Man is obviously not an available option, an upgraded morality-with-responsibility seems to be the only way to avoid some terrible travails of Earthly life. Cosmic justice may thereby be moderated – by a more careful production of innocent babies.

Cosmic Injustice : Part 1

What sensitive person would not feel that the plight of millions of children continually denied an adequate diet, with so many of them born only to suffer and die, is unjust cosmically? Does the Cosmos or its creator consider humans to be little different from the animal kingdom from which we are said to have evolved or been created?

The evolution of mankind by natural selection seems more and more unlikely. Purely as an aside, intra-species evolution does fit in with Darwin’s theory; although there also seems to be some explanatory space for Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, as well as the newly discovered process of epigenesis which bypasses evolution in its impacts. But inter-species evolution has received no support scientifically.

If the Bible’s confirmation of the Sumerian cuneiform record about the creation of ‘the Adam’ (not Adam) is acceptable, we were fashioned by someone. Whether Zacharia Sitchin is correct about the role of extra-terrestrials in shaping ‘the Adam,’ whoever formed us did not build into us an ingredient which could enable us to limit the production of progeny. This is crucial in the reality that the human female can conceive as freely as can the members of the animal kingdom, but who is also potentially sexually active around the clock (unlike out nearest faunal relatives).

Looking towards the light

The day I prayed to the sun: after I had completed my part in the extended funeral ceremony for my mother, the Hindu priest (generally referred to in my family as a Brahmin) asked me to go outside, face the sun with my hands in a prayer mode, and say to the sun ‘I have done everything I can to send my mother’s soul to where she has to go.’ This was our tradition as Shaivite emigrants from the Tamil lands of Ceylon. Other Hindus might be interested to know of this practice.

I saw this as recognition of the sun as controller of all life on Earth. We could not be here without the sun. We will disappear when the sun runs out of puff (so to speak). We ought therefore to revere the sun, although it operates autonomously, obeying cosmic laws (as surely we do too).

Yet, there are bacteria living deep in rocks and fissures or other sun-less places. There are fish living deep in the oceans. They need no eyes because there is no light in their locales from the sun. These are obviously exceptions to life on the surface of Earth.

A lack of light seems, however, to have been necessary for certain shamanic practices in very early times for some human societies. I have recently read that those shamans seeking to communicate with other worlds had a practice of going deep into vertical shafts and associated tunnels and, in absolute darkness deep in the bowels of Earth, carrying out their procedures. One would expect that only very strong minds dedicated to this objective could undertake such a spiritual journey. Not only their mental path, but also what they find, might reasonably be expected to be awesome.

Reportedly, many had ‘met’ other beings. This is simply amazing. What is more enlightening is that the experiences of a number of shamans were congruent. Researchers may be unable to vouch for the reliability of such reports; nor can one deny any real experiences. It is far too easy to be a clever sceptic. There may indeed be other worlds and beings waiting to be contacted. But we may not want to know about that which might exist, because of fear.

Light is also spiritually significant in the lives of ordinary people. Religious ceremonies involve light from candles and other sources, as well as life-sustaining fire. As said by Feuerstein, Kak and Frawley in relation to Hinduism, ‘The ultimate purpose of Vedic meditation is, as one hymn of the Rig Veda (VI.17.3) puts it, to “manifest the sun.” The sun has, since ancient times, been a symbol of higher consciousness, or enlightenment … ‘

Could dark matter cause personal harm?

What if some of the dark matter which is so plentiful in the universe, is converted to dark energy for unspecifiable reasons, and subsequently infiltrates human brains? What might happen? Would it sit in the brain in the way an excessively large meal can sit heavily in one’s stomach? That is, would it just cause discomfort of a generalised nature in the brain until Nature’s processes take over?

Will the brain then spread this dark energy into all its functional parts, in a manner reasonably comparable to the digestive process, which is apparently autonomous? Just as the efficiency of one’s gut depends upon an appropriate balance of the various categories of bacteria, each class doing its own dance in its own site, will the brain deal with this intrusion of dark energy in a holistic manner (that is, affecting the whole brain) subject to the expected interplay of the functional areas; or would it affect only specific areas, thus impacting on specific functions?

Can this explain behaviour which is out of the ordinary? That is, instead of causing depression, enduring anger, periodic violence or other such visibly abnormal behaviour (the triggers for which we seem to understand and are able to treat), could the dark energy have more of an insidiously blanketing effect?

An example might be a very young child choosing not to co-operate with parents, then paying little attention to school work, and who is generally an angry loner. If this behaviour pattern changes at about 7 to 8 years of age, one might speculate (depending upon a non-Western culture) that the child had a subliminal memory of a past life which had ended in anger. Studies of past lives involving children show that any memory of past lives dissipates by that age.

When, however, as adults, such persons continue to have no interest in preparing for the future for the rest of their lives; even while living an accommodating life of sorts, but with limited social interaction; and continue to just drift though time, like flotsam in a calm pond, could a possible explanation lie in the infusion of dark energy into their brains? This tentative explanation of such passive behaviour over a lifetime, which is almost unworldly, denies a role for the Devil or evil spirits.

Since socially unacceptable behaviour is often attributed to the environmental conditions in which a person develops, could the possible negative role of dark matter be denied? Indeed, do we not accept the positive role of light, and its relative, physical warmth, in inducing positive attitudes and behaviour?

The darkness within us

When the human genome was finally worked out, and DNA relevant to our existence (and associated travails) had been identified, we were told that the rest of the DNA was ‘junk DNA.’ Lo and behold, now it seems that some of this ‘junk’ is relevant to our functioning. Will some people ever learn not to pontificate about matters not proven? Or, about matters which cannot be disproven?

While a speculative cosmologist claims optimistically (egotistically?) that there is no need for God, some other scientists proclaim confidently that there is no God! How wonderful is such certainty. Then other minds claim that there is no such thing as a spirit world, or reincarnation, or re-birth. How do they know this? Is some statement made in historical times in some corner of Earth meant to be binding for all time, for all people? Acceptance of such a limiting vision would, of course, provide the basis for the certainty of denial expressed by the disbelievers.

What is this quaint certainty of disbelief, when we believers ourselves often do not have the certainty of absolute belief? Undeniable knowledge is a rare phenomenon.

When it comes to dark matter, what is it doing? When and how does it change to dark energy (if it does, that is)? Does dark energy affect us mentally or psychologically? Could dark energy be responsible for our dark moods, for our unethical behaviour, for our need as nations to kill (to acquire power and possessions), and for our occasional inability to sight the sun in a clear sky? Instead of the formerly-accepted Devil as a causal agent, could it be dark matter/energy which drives mankind to evil and other destructive acts?

Were many early societies correct in their ceremonies intended to driving out evil – within and outside ourselves? This does make sense, as I firmly believe that evil originates in our human minds. It is a matter of ethics. At the functional or operational level, ethics is man-made, while possibly encoding a spiritual platform in the etheric sphere.

Humans do not have to accept darkness of the mind, whatever its source. There is so much light around, indeed even within us. Just look at the smiles of little babies who have been born without any memory of bad times.

A non-visual reality

We humans rely substantially on what we see. That is real. In total darkness, we are somewhat lost – until, perhaps, our other senses take over to compensate – but, surely, to a degree. But, I have read that there are bacteria or possibly other mobile life-forms which, as scavengers, keep our skins clean. But we cannot, thankfully, see or even feel them. I certainly do not want to hear them. Indeed, I am not happy about these life-forms living on me. What am I? Some sort of pasture?

Then, what about all those trillions of diverse categories of bacteria living within us? They are supposed – in the main – to be beneficial. Indeed, we are said to need them in order to survive. So, what are we? Homes or transport vehicles for a variety of unseen (and unseeable) microbes?

I once had the wacky idea that bacteria, which had previously arrived from deep space, had developed us, in the hope that we will one day take them back home. In any event, are there not residues within our body cells of those early bacterial astronauts which (science says) have helped to shape us (apart from other advanced spacemen, or giants from Planet X)?

So much for the reality within us. What about the reality of other influences which we cannot see? Are they not affecting us in ways of which we are not aware? By influences, I do not refer only to the bombardments by particles and rays from both the sun and space. These affect us by day, or less regularly if they come from further out. We may be what we are, partly because of these bombardments, just as what we are is partly through the actions of life-forms both on and in our bodies?

Reliable scientists tell us that dark matter represents about 96% of all the matter in the universe. Purely as an aside, we yet rely on what we ‘see’ through the Hubbard Telescope to contribute to the formulation of the current cosmogony; that is, the speculated origin of the universe – the one we think we can see. Is the speculated dark matter part of our existence? Indeed, is there some of it within all of us, affecting us in ways we may not be able to fathom?