Harms Army

It's official.

Well, both those words are inaccurate There is no actual entity called the "Harms Army." And therefore "it" could not be official. However, we won't let that stop us. Take that, reality!

Eye for an Eye

I have heard it many, many times. But lately for some reason I have been bumping into it with what seems an increased frequency. What has remained constant over the many years is the self-adulation with which this maxim is presented: “It says so in the Bible!”

This precept is called the Code of Hammurabi—in Latin, lex talionis. It is a principle of retributive punishment. The general and original meaning was to prevent excessive punishment. The penalty, the theory went, was to be equivalent to the harm caused.

Many people love to trot this out in an effort to sound sophisticated and deep. I guess quoting the Bible indicates one’s panache and worldliness. It indicates neither in this case.

One finds lex talionis in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21 of the Old Testament. These three books of the Bible fall in what is called the Pentateuch. This is the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Pentateuch is also known as the Torah. The Torah is a key element in Jewish rabbinical literature.

Now, one might ask our self-satisfied presenter if he or she is Jewish, on account of limiting him or herself to the Pentateuch. Yet, we should bear in mind that Jewish scripture is not in agreement with lex talionis. The Jewish faith reduces it to a monetary concept, where the injured party is remunerated equivalently for the damage done. The Jewish faith does not endorse retributive justice.

For that matter, Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) outright contradicts the Code of Hammurabi. He instead encourages his followers to love their enemies and proceed in life with compassion and forgiveness.

And in case the one who enthusiastically quotes scripture—and who has no apparent understanding of it—wanted to pivot and turn to Islam: they’re not entirely on board with it either. Now, the principle of “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose” does appear in the Quran (5:45).

However, this passage should be understood in the context in which it was written. The point here is that the maxim removes social status from consideration of punishment, which it had hitherto been. Furthermore, the Quran emphasizes charity and “expiation” (atonement). Mercy and forgiveness are the priorities in Islam—not chopping people’s heads off.

So, our proud Biblical scholar is triangulated by the three major monotheistic faiths in how they do not entirely concur with the “eye for an eye” dictum.

My guess is the person is hinting they are in support of capital punishment. I taught capital punishment for years, now I teach the prison system as a whole. And I learned an interesting thing along the way: there are zero (zero) valid arguments for the death penalty. They all amount to blood lust and revenge. All the common assertions one hears regarding the death penalty are wrong: it’s cheaper, it discourages crime, it makes society safer, it’s justice—all nonsense.

So, the next time you hear someone pompously aver “an eye for an eye,” begin asking basic questions. And then listen to the crickets.

Bulletin: Frequency

 

Bulgarian Folk Music

I don’t care if I ever hear Led Zeppelin again. This music is extraordinary as well intricate, complex, and beautiful.

I was curiously turned onto it by watching a Frank Zappa interview. It is strange that I was watching a Zappa interview in the first place, because I do not really like him. And I mean him. His music I find tedious, though he was a great guitarist. But in his interviews he’s arrogant, pompous, and condescending. I end up wondering, “Why did you even do the interview??” Lou Reed was the same way. They were both unpleasant people. Unlikable.

But this Bulgarian folk music is sublime. Those chords and harmonies are bananas! And it’s angelically beautiful. Turn off classic rock FM (for the rest of your life), and try some of this.

God Is in the Details

This has been bothering me for a while. The actual, original quote is “God is in the details.” It was remarked by famous architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The quote is beautiful and incisive. It means for anyone who has done artistic or technical work of any kind, that the details of a given undertaking reveal a certain elegance and beauty; the details can inspire wonder. One sees God’s fingerprints.

It is unsurprising that this culture took something beautiful and intelligent and made it ugly and stupid. Now we say “The Devil’s in the details.” This expression is vapid. It just means that the details are where one will likely get oneself into trouble—or encounter complexity. This strips the beauty and sublimity of the original meaning. But the priority in this culture is to be, above all else, cute. So, God got swapped out for the Devil. So clever.

There, I feel better. And what’s more, I’ve done God’s work.

Confucius

 

Jekyll and Hyde (and Dissociative Identity Disorder)

Autumn is always a great time for Gothic horror novels. When the leaves start falling, you want to synch your reading with the weather. Maybe it’s a Halloween thing, not sure. Around Halloween there are films I tend to watch instead, but the overall season is perfect for Bram Stoker’s Dracula and the like.

A couple years ago I re-read Frankenstein. Nothing against Mary Shelley, and to write such a thing at nineteen is extraordinary; but that novel is just dumb. It’s like Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby. It’s just one of these novels that so very many people love—and is stupid. I digress.

So, the leaves just began falling and I decided to re-read the novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It was an absolute pleasure. The atmosphere is just what I was looking for. Also, the story is taught and keeps you engaged. I wouldn’t say it’s scary per se, but it does possess a darkness: shadows, fog, the wind jostling the street lamps, lit fireplaces, mystery, fear, etc.

And the way the story is told is testament to Robert Louis Stevenson as a writer. I usually don’t enjoy being taken out of a story to read correspondence, but with Jekyll and Hyde I became very interested in the details. I read with relish “Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement of the Case,” when he reveals all and describes his experiments and experiences.

The timing here is interesting. Speaking of multiple people in one person, I have become friends with a woman who suffers from dissociative identity disorder (DID). You will know this as “multiple personality disorder.” I have had conversations with some of the other “parts” (personalities), as she calls them.

I can tell when Leah (not her real name) is having an off day. I have to ask, “Am I speaking to Leah?” And if I get an elliptical, abstract, non-answer, then that’s my answer. No, I am not. Leah has a list—and I mean a list—of other mental health issues. But the DID is the centerpiece.

I bring this up because we as a culture tend to have a rather two-dimensional, Hollywoodized conception of people with such disorders. For starters, it’s very hard. It’s kinda like MS: you don’t get weekends off. She really struggles.

Secondly, many people associate such disorders with violence; this is Hollywood nonsense and does not reflect reality. However, Leah is at the mercy of these parts; they “push her to the back” and can conduct entire conversations that Leah later will not be able to recall. It’s hard. That doesn’t mean it’s violent.

Another point is it’s not neat and tidy. It’s not like changing the channel with the remote—or watching the television while someone else does so. Leah says she has about fifteen parts that more or less cycle through. Sometimes they don’t at all. But it’s messy. And draining (for her).

I did meet a part that has a name—most parts do not have names. The part I met was Bailee (not actual name). Talking to Bailee was similar to talking to Leah. She even wrote her name for me. Curiously, she did not say it, she just wrote it. She, Bailee.

When you’re talking with someone with DID, the normal rules do not apply. You have to be ready—and not thrown off—with questions like “Who are you?” I’m quite relaxed with Leah—because she’s my friend, and I like her—and I just answer the questions. When asked “Where is this place?” I tell her. Onto the next part.

But most days are “baseline.” It’s Leah I’m talking to. She’s quite funny. She doesn’t let her list of issues get in her way, and she soldiers on. She’s a tiny bit sweary. And this makes me a tiny bit sweary as well. So, we swear it up a tad in our conversations. She’s a hoot.

I just learned that Leah loves Taco Bell. So, we’re going to be friends for a long while. I suspect we’re going to be friends for a long while anyway.

I’m rather protective of Leah and did not post this essay without her permission. She’s read it and gave me her approval to post it. That said, if folks ask me about her, I cannot promise I’m going to tell you much. I will reveal nothing about her. Leah has enough to deal with.

Thanks for letting me post this, you.