~ Corporate, Death Penalty, Homo-sexual "Personhood"~
(The Study of Threes)
http://threesology.org
"The Death Penalty" is a three-patterned phrase used by both advocates and detractors. (Those for it and those against it.) In other words, it is a pattern-of-three being used to describe an underlying pattern-of-two, not unlike a three-part (And, Or, Not) Boolean logic applied to the binomial (Zeros and Ones) functioning found in a computer's underlying architectural configuration and the Haves/Have Nots dichotomy underlying the tripartite Upper class- Middle class- Lower class sociological perspective. Both of which highlight the need for an enhanced perspicacity in order to garner at least three realizations:
That "The Death Penalty" is a haphazard functional/dysfunctional logic.
That Computers have a underlying structure which defines the inability of computers to "think" independently in terms we humans understand such an activity.
That work/volunteer forces of Charities become dependent on sustaining the need for charities thereby assisting in social conditions which needlessly perpetuate the conditions requiring us to develop a perspective defended by a logic based on a common-sense which assumes charities are a valuable social commodity, instead of developing a logic of social restructuring hereby the need for charities is identified as being counter-productive.
The practiced binomial Heaven/Hell view counter-sunk by a three-part trinitarian formula be it Brahma- Vishnu- Siva or Father- Son- Holy Ghost/Spirit.
Opposed Red and Black checker pieces that can be moved in a "Tripartitioned" Diagonally- Horizontally- Vertically manner on 64 black/white squares (1 game, 2 players, 3 directions).
A dominant two party system such as Democrats/Republicans played out in a Tricameral (Legislative- Executive- Judicial) philosophical government structure.
A bifurcated road of life presenting us with three options: We can continue on, Go back, or stay where we are.
Stone tool and weapon-making was standardized into a bifacial configuration that was shaped triangularly (forming an arrow or spearhead which persisted into the iron age and remains a standard practice... regardless of how complex new designs are intellectualized by human egos. Triple nuclear warheads are an example of this. Multiple war-head configurations, "more than three" is simple addition but does little to alter the underlying usage of intentionally colliding one atom with another in order to produce an explosive conflict through division).
- the killing of a spouse for adultery
- the killing of someone who has (brutally or otherwise) raped a loved one
- the killing of someone who destroyed one's livelihood
- the killing of a loved one through another's act of negligent or irresponsible driving, flying or other machine operation
- The killing of an enemy combatant
- the killing of someone who caused the incapacitation or death of another through one or more illegal activities (such as those in the drug business)
- etc...
It was once socially held as an actual truth that some people were witches who caused various forms of illnesses or troubles and engaged in anti-religious rites or rituals.
Multiple societies have practiced a belief in multiple gods, though our own present belief in a single god may one day be viewed as a form of collective imagination, if not a socially sanctioned insanity, irrespective of how many or what "authoritative" figure supports such a view.
Millions of people were swept up into accepting the belief they were a chosen "Master Race," as exemplified by the practices of Nazi Germany. And just like in past eras, those within the society who "saw the light" and were not swept up in the mob-styled frenzy as well as speaking out against the nonsense, were considered insane and often executed with or without torture or rape... because they didn't believe what the government wanted them to believe in order to be able to manipulate the public to its will of self-centered goals, or they wouldn't transfer their non-insanity perceptions to the control of those in authoritative positions.
All three examples earmark the fact that the underlying binomial arrangement is being used to justify the current social programs (programming) of future generations (like the next generation computer operating system, or the next generation of social programs, or the next generation of religious programs, etc.). However, let us add some additional examples:
Millions of people throughout the world hold the concept of the Trinity as sacred and believe that Jesus is the Prince of Peace. When in actuality, if we are to believe what is provided to us by a scriptural reading of the New Testament, in Luke 12:51:
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son,
and the son against the father;
the mother against the daughter,
and the daughter against the mother;
the mother in law against her daughter in law,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
It would seem Jesus did not foresee the many troubling events caused by son-in-law and father-in-law conflicts.
It should not be too far fetched to perceive the resilience of a stone age tool making mentality still very much in existence, in so very many subject areas. Thus, this is why it is thought that humanity must mentally evolve beyond its primitive hominid self... by force if necessary. Many feel that humanity is in an abominable state of ignorance, and those wanting to evolve are being forced to a adapt to and adopt a widespread primitive mindset in order to find some semblance of co-existence. In other words, they must either participate in some accepted form of prevailing insanity/madness, find some means of of exclusionary existence (incarceration, mental institution, alternative group belief system), or indulge in one or more activities that lead to a slow or hastened departure from this world.
Problems arise in our attempts to improve the situation because we create different sorts of commercial operations which assist in forcing the perpetuation of certain social/system practices. Call these practices laws, tenets, tradition, or whatever, the underlying architecture is kept intact though would-be reformers (business leaders, political leaders, religious leaders) think that a mere re-definition alone amounts to the level of desired improvement there is a conflict in the fundamental programming that one might refer to as emotional exigencies. Along these same lines we encounter a similar ludicrous situation when a person imagines great things are in-store simply by a change from one leader to another one within a given structure. (What one monkey does within a cage is the same thing another monkey will do within the same cage.) Defined differences ensue only when severely dire circumstances can be adequately addressed, otherwise it is non-sense to think a mere change from one person to another one is going to provide a huge improvement when the candidate must confine their efforts within a given structure, be it physical, mental, emotional, financial, religious, social or otherwise. They will have to resort to criminal tactics like Bush and his cohorts did during their complicity in the 9-11 tragedy. The public madness for accepting their innocence still remains despite all the sane evidence to the contrary.
Most people find it diametrically opposed to any sane logic for someone to suggest that any system should be scrapped so that we can start anew. They don't want to give up what they've worked so hard to get or understand within the confines of things as they are. In other words, they would be hard-pressed to adapt, to find some semblance of a functional niche within a whole new system. Others would advocate only those changes which they think they or some one they liked or cared about would benefit from. The present "Haves" would only agree to a level playing field if they're allowed to write the rule book... like so many business-manipulated legislators, political-manipulated judges and religion-manipulated publics. A standard argument against change, particularly after the above information is reviewed, is to claim that the "two" and "three" if not also "one" is a fundamental, Universal pattern that we humans should/must cannot-but abide with (with or without some religious-toned inference/insistence).
But let's get a little more specific in relation to the title of this page, though I will diverge in order to bring to mind auxiliary considerations fundamental to a Threesological application of the overall discussion at hand. Those for "The Death Penalty" say it is a deterrent to crime while those against it say it is not. A Threesological approach is to analyze both which ultimately arrives at a third view. This third view examines it within the context of "Personhood" as is related to the present notions of "Corporate Personhood" and alternatively aligned with the idea of a "Homo-sexual Personhood." ("Self"-centered sexuality.)
While some will find the idea of referring to "The Death Penalty" in terms of "Personhood" a little unusual from typical discussions concerning The Death Penalty topic, it is necessary in order to establish the need for recognizing a larger multi-event social inter-activeness much like a chess player instinctively or simultaneously thinking (or philosophically musing) about the interactions and consequences of different Chess piece moves. In other words, our perspective changes by adding the word "Personhood" to the presence of "The Death Penalty" (or Homo-sexuality) in a discussion, though "Personhood" could be applied in multiple other contexts as well. We don't necessarily have to use the word "Personhood" in every sentence, paragraph or even after the initial introduction has been made, unless it is difficult for the reader to establish a workable psychic connection between the two. (In the parlance of electronic inter-activity, we might use the term "interface" to describe a connection).
Whereas "Corporate Personhood" as an entity of discussion has been established with a common vernacular, parenthetical expressions such as "The Death Penalty Personhood" or "Homosexuality Personhood" are awkwardly handled or even avoided because "Personhood" may have negative connotations whereas "The Death Penalty" and "Homosexuality" may be familiar topics exhibited with favorable (or even muted) connotations in certain contexts. In simple terms, by visually adding the word "Personhood" to "The Death Penalty" and "Homosexual" topics, we are moving these "pieces" of discussion into different positions on the social chess board in order to gain a different perspective (vantage point) which may help to identify their role more definitively instead of leaving them in a traditional pose garnished with a trellis embroidered with the consistency of weeds sprouting next to a tombstone with an epitaph in a language misplaced in time. However, these topics are taken extremely serious by many and it is not my intent to diminish the perceived importance by applying a writer's excursive "poetic license" into the usage of colorful, descriptive language. No offense is intended. Forays into philosophical discussions frequently step on the toes of some because the hall of conversation is quite cramped with little elbow room supplied by those who wish to be heard above all others as the dominant voice and opinion.
For the moment, let's take a step back and look at "The Death Penalty" without
directly applying the word "Personhood" in order to clarify some points regarding
The Death Penalty:
Is The Death Penalty a Deterrent to crime?
To some would-be criminals it is a deterrent to some forms of crime. However, since most forms of crime do not carry a death penalty, it is not a deterrent to most forms of crime.
If The Death Penalty was applied to all forms of crime would it then be a Deterrent to all forms of crime?
Since many crimes are committed to what is termed as "passion," or impulse or on the "spur of the moment," it is doubtful that any present application of The Death Penalty as a punishment would be totally effective. Total effectiveness of any punishment as a deterrent to crime would require alterations in business, government, religious and other social structures.
Is The Death Penalty a Barbaric form of punishment?
If society upholds the tenet that punishment must fit the crime, then crimes defined as barbaric should receive barbaric forms of punishment. Crimes involving torture should receive tortuous punishment. Crimes involving horrific ordeals should receive a similar form of punishment.
The State should decide who should or shouldn't be punished, by what method they are to be punished, and who should carry out the punishment.
If the "State" is defined in a Democratic (Of, By, For the people) sense, then it is the people who should have the authority to enact the characteristics of effecting justice. But if the "State" is defined in "Aristocratical" forms of Socialism, Communism, or Dictatorship, then the so-called "State" assumes all responsibility.
All forms of murder should receive life imprisonment instead of the Death penalty.
While all killing might be defined as murder, there are instances where the killing of another is referred to (in a two-patterned way) as "justifiable homicide" or (in a three-patterned way) "Stand Your Ground" such as in the case of self defense or assisting another. However, in the present so-called "We The People" forms of democratic government, the people do not get to vote on other forms of killing such as for example:
It is understood by many parents that effective disciplinary treatment of a child (i.e. punishment) that is to be used as a deterrent against an undesirable activity for one or more children to engage in, must be consistent, immediate, and "understood" as such, though in reality the level of "understanding" may be equated only by a simple recall or reflection on the level of discomfort (pain) received. For example, the mentality of a two year old may not understand they shouldn't walk (toddle) into a roadway to chase after a ball.
As seen by some observers, the present "parental" disciplinary tactics practiced by the "State," are those of a neurotic (if not psycho-pathic) parent. The Death penalty is not used consistently, it is not used immediately, and it is not widely publicized consistently in order for either the non-criminal and criminal public to make the connection between the two.
Many criminals confess that in the commission of a crime they feel as if they are in a type of movie. As if "they," in terms of an audience, are watching themselves commit the crime. It is surreal to them. As such, this should be defined as a form of insanity that is widely experienced by a few people. However, many people have surreal experiences but do not commit crimes. In other words, many people experience moments of "surreal state" insanity that are characteristic of the human brain in its evolutionary developmental transition. In fact, it may be considered that what most of us might describe as common rationality is an accepted form of era-specific insanity just as different eras experienced their own forms of collective insanity.
Despite how motion pictures portray ancient peoples as being rational, in terms we of the present can identify with, it would be difficult for many of us from the present to exist in a distant past because we do not share (nor behaviorally exhibit) the same perspective of insanity held as a taken-for-granted given held as sacrosanct by the inhabitants of past eras. Our so-called sanity is quite different from the sanity participated in by those in the past. If time travel is invented in the future, it's no wonder future inhabitants would be very leery about making themselves known to us in the present, because we're insane to them... it is our brand of rationalized insanity. No doubt their views would seem quite odd to us, that is if we would be able to even grasp the rationale of their own brand of collectively agreed upon future insanity. Thus, an insanity plea in most instances of murder should not be a viable defense against the usage of The Death Penalty. If anything, the "State" compounds the problem of effective punishment and deterrence against criminality by lengthy forms of litigation through which the criminal's brain undergoes transitional phasing out of one surreal state of self awareness into that designed by the State and Media as well. In other words, what occurred while they were in one mental state loses significance as they enter into what we might define as a rational perspective (defined as a "role model" prisoner) because they don't exhibit any criminal intention and appear to be sincerely sorry for what they did. (The laws we practice very often skew our definitions as well as perceptions of what is meant by rationality.)
In order to make The Death Penalty a deterrent to crimes where The Death Penalty is called into play, it must be advertized in the same manner as other products. If you want the public to "buy" The Death Penalty as a truly undesirable consequence, you must sell it as a product... Over and Over and Over again. On the radio, television, internet, phone solictations, magazines, newspapers, billboards, etc., etc., etc... The public must be saturated with "The Death Penalty" just as it is suffused with beer and other commercials. If billboards can be rented by the State or some State Agency to tell motorists that they need to buckle up (their vehicle seat belt) with the phrase "click it or ticket," then we need to use a similar sloganistic approach concerning The Death Penalty. While roadway bill-boards are used to effect public behavior about the usage of seat belts and the usage of guns in the commission of a crime, we don't see road-side billboards such as "The Death Penalty will kill you when you kill another, or "To kill is to be killed," or "Your violence breeds an end to your violence." The Death Penalty is so ineffectual as a threatened punishment because it is not the "law of the land" with respect to being a federal law. Each state in the United States is enabled with an unwritten "Personhood" clause in order that each State Legislature determines whether or not a particular State will practice The Death Penalty.
Every State in the United States practices a "Personhood" form of self-regard while at the same time preventing citizens as individuals to have a law binding say (via referendum), one way or another. In other words, while divisions of government and government agencies (as well as Corporations) are permitted a "Personhood" form of self-regard, the people themselves are prevented from having a similar level of collective "self" importance. Whereas governments and corporations are permitted to receive preferential treatment by practices which establish them with an unspoken or legally defined "Personhood" status, the people are not. For example, when the government wants a provision placed on a ballot to be voted on, it is not required to set up signature-gathering tables or booths at various places to acquire signatures of registered voters. However, if any member of the public wants to place something on a ballot to be voted on, the public is forced to collect signatures. Regardless of the rational applied in arguing for or against, it is a double-standard related to an unspoken form of applied "Personhood." Another example can be seen in the selection of a U.S. President. Elections for choosing a President are another form of "Personhood" which minimizes the concerted opinion of the majority, by selecting a President via an Electoral College instead of the public's collective opinion. The Federal government is permitted to have a "Personhood" to advantage itself in the control of the Presidential election, while the people are relegated to a non-personhood relevance. But all instances of "Personhood" are not necessarily bad or wrong. When speaking in terms of singular entities, the "Personhood" of instructors, doctors, nurses, housemaids, gardeners, janitors, mechanics and many others is welcomed. Even larger conglomerations such as a military force "Personhood," a Research and Development division "Personhood," or a disaster relief "Personhood" are frequently viewed as desirable entities, even though the term "Personhood" is not applied, in this discussion its placement in context can be understood to aid in the development of a broader consideration.
With respect to "The Death Penalty," it has been given an unspoken form of "Personhood" which has produced a lot of needless anguish for the public. It has been relegated to a stand-alone entity status akin to a an identity awaiting a seasonal right-to-work visa and social security card entitling it to temporary citizenship. However, the type of "Personhood" that it has been assigned with is due to the illegitimacy of its application because of the errant usage of law provided distinctions which have created a needlessly troublesome schizophrenic form of public controversy that perpetuates "social business as usual".
Both the State and the public need to stop being hypocrites about crime and punishment. If The Death Penalty is to be used effectively, it must be effected by the people themselves. Whereas The People (in a jury process) are permitted to assign guilt or innocence (even though the laws themselves were established by a legislature and not the public via referendum), the people should likewise carry out the execution. The public needs to be directly involved all the way. It should not be, in effect, sub-contracted out. There should be no hood over anyone's head when swinging the axe, pulling a trigger, inserting a needle, twisting a nob, throwing a switch, or pushing a lever. If the committed crime warrants The Death Penalty, than the nature of the commission of the crime should necessarily determine the nature of The Death Penalty to be carried out by the people. If the crime was horrific, than the punishment should likewise be horrific. This is "The Death Penalty" that should be sent as a message to any who would contemplate or commit-by-an-act-of-passion, the killing of an innocent. If the killing was "In Cold Blood," this statement must be specifically defined in context to the mode and manner of the crime so that the execution of the perpetrator can in like manner be effected. Such activities do not diminish our humanity, they establish the fact that the peoples' magnanimous spirit will not be taken advantage of by those who attempt to manipulate ("get over on") the public, either individually or collectively. There should be no passing of the Buck... it should stop with the people, by the people, for the people. If the crime is defined as barbaric, horrific, or tortuous, then The Death Penalty should be carried out in a like manner. The present form of the Death Penalty Personhood must come to an end.
Punishment for crimes must be widely known as punishments. If you permit publication of a punishment in a minimized way (inconsistent, hit-and-miss, ambiguous), it will be perceived as such and have little or no effect as a crime deterrent.
If society wants to dispense with The Death Penalty as a deterrent to those crimes in which The Death Penalty comes into play, and to dispense with other forms of punishment tactics such as perpetually costly warehousing-of-prisoners, than perhaps all of society must be revamped to utilize a behaviourist's preferred reward-incentive methodology, if not something entirely new. Unfortunately, society in its current forms of social self-governance is not committed to self-improvement, it is committed to a sentimental perpetuation of traditions that instigate controversial crime and punishment scenarios... amongst other self-defeating and self-debilitating effects such as Corporate and Homosexual "Personhood" that can also be viewed as "Centeredness," with or without the term "self" being applied.
Biologically speaking, if all the world was committed to a homosexual frame of mind, it would not take too long before the human species became extinct. The more a "homosexual Centeredness" view becomes accepted as a viable form of one's humanity, or one's acceptance as a "genuine self," it becomes permeated throughout society like a symbiotic cancer that effects destruction as do unseen termites... A homosexuality perspective of self-regard is little different from the justification processes of those who view "Corporate Personhood" as a logical and legal entity deserving of social reasonableness, social respectability, and social rights. Like The Death Penalty being given individuality by way of State Legislated laws the people themselves were not able to vote one via a Referendum, advocates of law mandated Homosexual rights want their own flavor of "Personhood," without regard for the ensuing consequences on humanity the whole. They, like those advocating a Death Penalty or Corporate "Personhood" believe they are right. Whereas the issues of The Death Penalty, Homosexual and Corporate "Personhood" could be settled according to the dominant view of what the public thinks is best, the public is not permitted to vote on activities directly affecting their lives. The people are relegated to a non-person status of negligibility and they must accept the ruling of those who view themselves as collective bodies of "Personhood" who think they know more, see more, understand more and have greater wisdom than the public.
The closer we got to accepting the profoundly ignorant Supreme Court ruling of "Corporate Personhood" as a viable entity protected by "The Law of The Land," the closer we got to being actual witnesses to its over e-valuation. It is unfortunate that the results were not publicly recognized by the whole while far too many individuals endured incessant privations for extended periods of time. Only under duress did the public eventually sober up in order to recognize the ensuing by-product of an entity called "Corporate Personhood" that remains aloof of social distress while standing aloft the throng in gold-gilded green-back resplendency. It is a disgusting testament to the nonsense that can come out of a body of law-educated individuals. Yet it is also a statement that might well earmark the results of some referendums brought about by decisions based on emotions and not thoughtful reflection if and when Referendum voting is a committed part of the political landscape.
The "Personhood" identity achieved by Corporations is similar to the "Personhood" identity sought after by Homosexuals and mused upon by some Transvestites, Rapists, and Child molesters; and in a metaphorical sense has been achieved by those being "awarded" the insanity label. They are labels of distinction, not unlike Doctor, Engineer, Pilot, Manager, or God, regardless if defined good or bad, superior or inferior, right or wrong, legal or illegal. Once established, they garner a following because of which a social structure develops. Unfortunately, the social structure which has developed because the idiots on the Supreme Court established Corporations as viable "person" entities unto themselves, has wrought the disintegration of millions of lives; whether or not each individual is cognizant of what caused the plights of their own and others' surviorship efforts.
Giving Corporations the viability of "Personhood" was considerably bad judgment with respect to millions of individual lives that have suffered afterwards, though through the eyes of Corporations it was a wonderful achievement. Similarly, on a different scale, each time advocates of The Death Penalty or Homosexuality acquire a legislated or judicial ruling in favor thereof, they feel vindicated for their efforts and perspectives. They don't care what, if anything is said by the majority, what they want is all that matters and let the rest of the public be damned. Their "Personhood" is righteous and well-deserved. It matters not if, in the final analysis, the embodiment of their belief causes irreparable suffering. Regardless, the establishment of judicial or legislated rulings for measures of "Personhood" ensures the viability of thousands of others whose lives benefit because of it. Not to mention, with respect to "Corporate Personhood," the increased earnings gained by many Corporate officers that many observers define as excessive. Clearly, from the perspective of many, the Supreme Court's ruling on behalf of Corporations in obtaining "Personhood" was a distorted interpretation of Constitutional law.
On the one hand, the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are "Persons." The Supreme Court did not say that the States should individually rule on whether or not Corporations within their boundaries are persons. And yet, the Supreme Court tap dances around the issues of The Death Penalty and Homosexuality by letting the States determine given definitions and provisions thereof. The Supreme Court of the United States picks and chooses, depending on the political value (frequently based on a monetary guideline,) which case can and should be reviewed in terms of Constitutional appropriateness. In other words, the lives of individual Corporations are viewed as having more Constitutional merit than the lives of individual Citizens. It is a mockery of the word "Supreme." It is clear that the Supreme Court is just as fallible as the rest of us in our decision making, just as are all legislative bodies.
If the Supreme Court or any Legislative body is is permitted to rule on whether or not homosexuality, from a homosexual's perspective, is deserving of a "Personhood" status, or that The Death Penalty is likewise deserving of a "Personhood" status to be accepted by all as the law of the land, they too will gain a distinction around which a social order evolves in compliance with. The issues of The Death Penalty, Homosexuality and Corporate "Personhood" should only be determined as the law of the land when all the people of the land vote for such. Otherwise, "Personhood" defined by way of the present methods may well sustain the viability of our own self-extinction by way of distorted laws.
Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com