What is 'Holy Crap'?

Things have been a little serious around this site for the last few weeks. I'd like therefore to continue in that vein and consider the essential and potentially planet saving question of "What is Holy Crap?"

Could it be Jesus' shit?

Often said to mark incredulity, perhaps this subtle and unconsidered phrase is actually a clue to an important fact. Perhaps it is telling us that there is no such thing as holy crap, and that crap is, by definition, unholy.

In this sense, is 'holy crap' neutral, or aneutral?

One's first inclination would be to say that holy crap must be 'good', because it's holy, right? On the other hand, however, it is crap, so that makes it 'bad', right? Then again, as discussed above, perhaps it doesn't exist at all, in which case (assuming non-existence = neutrality [which is a big assumption]) 'holy crap' = 'neutral'.

There we have it folks, you may say "Holy Crap!" without fear now, safe in the knowledge that you are preserved in your neutrality. Thank God, the father of all holy crap.

Frames of Objectivity

If you place a piece of coal on water it will sink.
If you put it on earth it will sit motionless.

If you put it in mid air it will fall. (Unless perfectly balanced in space between two separate gravitational forces - if such a perfect balance is humanly, or mathematically possible)

If you pit the piece of coal into fire, it will burn.

The point?

The placement of an object in different mediums yields different results.

What about the placement of an idea into different frames of reference?

See my post below for an example involving murder.

The challenge is to find the frame of reference which provides the most objective 'result' when analysing the given idea. Perhaps an initial question to ask is whether the answer will vary depending on the idea, or whether there is one grand framework which would provide the most objective 'result' for every given idea.

Before even that can be answered however, one needs to create and define the set of 'frameworks'. This, at first glance, is a difficult thing to do. Must it be done by 'listing', or can it be done by defining a collection of (not necessarily finite) subsets? Well, let's give it a go and see what we can come up with. Here's my start:

1. Subset of all religious frameworks.
2. Subset of all legal systems.
3. Subset of all socio-political frameworks (i.e types of government - democracy, monarchy, communism, autocracy, despotism etc.)
4. Subset of all variations on the above contained in the personal codes of all (human) individuals.
5. Subset of all frameworks not already included in the above list which contain an overriding paragon (such as Darwin's theory of evolution in which the overriding paragon is survival).
6. The absolute framework (by which I mean, the total absence of any framework, or 'anarchy'.)
7. Pure free-will. (Any different to 'anarchy'?)
8. Chaos Theory. (Or 'anarchy with imperceptible order').
9. Determinism. (Fate - meaning all our actions are pre-determined).
10. Buddism. (Which in my view isn't a religion in the relevant sense).

That's all I could I could think of in five minutes, so I'm sure there are plenty more. Of course, in truth, to find 'THE' objective framework (for everything or any given idea) one would need to consider every framework, though perhaps the subsets could be dismissed as a group in some cases.

Well, that's an attack on the first stage of this important question. Suggestions and input would be very welcome. When adding to the list bear in mind that 'Subset of all philosophical frameworks' does not count, it's cheating!

Is Murder Wrong?

Yes... It is time to answer this all important question.

First, we must start with a definition of murder, and since I am a barrister, I will provide a legal one:

"The killing of a life in being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought."

Oh yeah.

It may sound like nonsense, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense, especially the 'Queen's Peace' bit. This part effectively removes war from the equation. This is naturally essential, not just for practical politics but also for popular morality.

'Life in Being' means that foetus' don't count. This too is helpful as it means abortion is not murder. Again, a reflection of popular morality.

'Malice Aforethought' is just a daft way of saying that the potential murderer intended to kill. This part allows for an array of possible defences such as insanity, accident, intoxication and provocation (the morality of which I discuss here). All of these defences, I might add, lead to a finding of manslaughter, rather than a straightforward acquittal. But the point is, they are not, in the legal sense, murder. This reflects the final part of the governing popular morality, namely that one must be responsible in mind for one's actions.

In other words, popular morality has decided the following:

1. Killing a foetus (or other non-human creature) is not murder.
2. Killing in war is not murder.
3. Killing without intention is not murder.

So, all other types of intended human killing are murder. That is our definition, and it is a useful one, because it counters most of the obvious scenarios in which killing a person could ordinarily be justified.

Is this type of Murder wrong (immoral)?
Again, as with all these types of arguments, it rather depends upon your framework.

Is it wrong in the Christian framework? Yes - It is against one of the ten commandments.

Is it wrong in the English Legal System? Yes - It is against the law.

Is it wrong in the American Legal System? Apparently not always: The Death Penalty is an example of killing a human being with intent. Of course proponents of the practice could always argue that it's done in a form of 'war', but they'd be fudging the issue.

Is it wrong in the Darwinist framework? Probably not. Taking 'right' as meaning 'fit for survival', and 'wrong' as meaning 'unfit', one can imagine many situations in which 'murder' could be 'good', or at the very least, 'not wrong'. In case you totally lack imagination: think of the terribly ill man who stands to inherit millions. If he kills the person whose will it is he will inherit enough money to cure himself. If he doesn't, then he will die. Alternatively, think of the man who has his sights on one woman alone in all the world. She is married to another man and would never consider an affair. If he kills her husband he can be with her (and reproduce, or be 'fit'); if he does not kill the husband he will be forever in a state of unrequited love (and not reproduce, or be 'unfit'). Clearly murder can be 'not wrong' in the Darwinist framework.

The problem comes when you apply the neutral framework. The 'neutral' framework is really the absence of a framework. It is the absence of a code of morality or 'correctness'. Trying to place murder anywhere without a framework, well, it's like trying to give the co-ordinates of a point on a Euclidean plane without any axes. In short, it's as impossible as asking someone to tell you where space ends, and what lies beyond it, and beyond that. Or asking someone to tell you who or what created the Big Bang, or God, depending on your beliefs.

The key, then, is to try to establish the 'best' possible framework in which to consider morality 'objectively'. In my view, law and religion do not achieve this. Darwin is perhaps closest of those considered above.

Well, I went off on a tangent somewhat, but it leads to an interesting sub-discussion which I shall continue another time: What is the most objective framework?

A Neutral Day in the Life...

It's all very well preaching Neutrality, but oughtn't one live in Neutrality as well?

It's much harder than you might imagine. For example, say that girl you don't especially like comes over and tries to start another conversation with you about her boring life. Now, the 'good' thing to do would be to listen patiently and contribute at the correct time. The 'evil' thing to do would be to tell her to Fuck Off, or else rip her head off... What would be the neutral thing to do? Would it be a combination of the extremes, thereby balancing, or would it be an action directly between the two. The former would make you appear a schizophrenic, and would be very funny, and the latter would have you ignore her completely, which might also be funny in its own way. But neither is easy to do is it?

Alternatively, let's look at infidelity. Now, generally, this is seen as morally wrong. But on the other hand, fidelity is 'good', so that isn't neutral either. I think this is a good example of an excellent puzzle for the neutral pretender. In a case such as this, the neutral man, in my submission, would try both, interested only in experience and not the moral implications of his actions. He ought to be unfaithful and faithful at different times, and he ought to do both with a balanced and scientific mind. The neutral man would try both since he would recognise that neither is necessarily more or less moral than the other (there are many arguments for the morality of infidelity; some religeons actively encourage it). However, once again, I find myself chained in this case. It is not as easy as one might imagine... Society's imprinted shackles are hard to crack.

I suspect this all makes me no better than many of the stoic philosophers in their ivory towers...

Neutral Poker...

...sounds like a pretty dull game eh?

Unless of course the neutrality were in the face, and then it would be an expert game.

Or perhaps the neutrality could be in the distribution of winnings. It's a conservation of energy thing you see? Energy is never used up; it just changes form. For example, the energy in electricity goes into a bulb and is converted into light energy and heat energy. There is always a constant amount of energy...

In poker, money is not used up, but merely redistributed. Depending on whether you are hosted or host yourself, it may be distributed evenly amongst the players (true conservation!) or a rake may be given to the host (evil conservation!) Either way, money, the energy of poker, is preserved, albeit that the electricity dies out completely in some places...

The Sacred Dent

There is a little bit of plaster missing from the roof of my living room.

It represents a sacred and spiritual moment in my life.

This was that moment:

Neutral Colour?

What is the ultimate neutral colour?

Black?

White?

Some might say that either of these represent an extreme, as in the classis yin/yang.

Grey? Generally seen as a very boring colour; but is boring = neutral? I certainly hope not for my sake! I suppose there is an argument for Grey on the basis that it represents the balance of black and white.

It is hard to move beyond these since all 'colourful' colours all conjure up some kind of feeling.

Perhaps the best way to look at it in the background of physics. What are colours? They are reflected refractions of light, right? White is the reflection of all spectrums, black is the reflection of none.

Black is effectively the abscence of white.

So what is more neutral, totality or nothingness?

In a strict sense, one would have to conclude that nothingness is the correct answer, since totality is a form of positive statement.

On the other hand, cannot a positive statement be neutral?

Ask someone else and see what the immediate reaction is. I just did. The answer I received immediately was White. Then came Green, on the basis of its calming effect.

Perhaps there is an argument for green, as being nature's colour. If nature is the highest neutral deity (as the Druids believed), then is its colour the neutral colour?

Conclusion:
The strict answer appears to be Black.

I like Green though.

It's interesting though isn't it? I mean Good is defined as Blue or White and Evil is defined usually as Red or Black. If one strikes a balance between these, one either gets Grey or Purple.

So what's the answer? Black, White, Grey, Purple or Green?