Heart and Mind- Partners or Necessary Advesaries?

The statement was made on the radio recently that if the heart and mind are not in lockstep then you cannot accomplish anything due to internal conflict. I disagree and have examined my reasoning and have stated my reasoning below. I appreciate any feedback on this- ie: flaws in my logic etc. I will print the responses if you allow me.

Postulate: That the Heart and the Mind need be connected and in lockstep in feeling and thought in order to achieve coherent or productive thoughts and actions. (ie: results)

Theorem: That a disconnect of heart and mind leads to inaction and internal conflict resulting in non productivity or worse, a wrong course of action, or, even inaction.

Proof: (actually- a disproof of the Postulate and Theorem)

The heart and mind are separated for a reason. One keeps the other in check and allows us to explore the Theorem in an objective manner.

Each acts as a conscience to the other in order to "check" bad behavior or reckless actions based on wrong thinking.

For example: Raising kids- you just know that you want to kill that kid- in your heart you know it is the right thing to do- but your mind tells you no- it is wrong and keeps your heart in check.

Conversely: You love the child and know, in your mind, the child needs to be disciplined. Your heart breaks as you do what is necessary to rear your child properly, though your intellect tells you that you are acting in a responsible fashion.

If your mind and heart were ever in lockstep there would be no checks or balances on your own behavior or actions. Everything you say and do would be deemed, in your heart and mind to be permissible- indeed, necessary.

History is full of instances of this sort- and all were basically intolerant at best , and horrific in their worst incarnations.

Conclusion: The Theorem is wrong. Mind and heart together would preclude any real self examination since the conclusion would already be drawn that your actions are correct. You cannot lose an argument with yourself when your heart and mind are joined.

I suppose that if your heart and mind were united on a good thing- that would be an exception- but who can say that they can be trusted to label something good without any internal self examination of the motives and principles involved in making a decision when it affects others? And isn't self examination, by necessity, a division of heart and mind?

James Holmes and the Insanity Plea - Inconsistent Reasoning

James Holmes; the celebrated movie theater killer of 2 years ago; is set to go on trial after much delay. His delays and tests; along with the quest to have the trial moved elsewhere, have a ll failed and he is now on trial for his life. Let me be clear on this point; I am for the death penalty. But I am aghast at the way this case is being manipulated to prove that Mr. Holmes is sane enough to go on trial for his life.

Examine the facts; in addition to what he did in that theater, which is clearly beyond sane as he had no real motive; he is now tethered to the floor of the courtroom where he is being tried as sane. Does this make any sense?

I refer to a post on this which I did about 2 years ago at the time of Mr. Holmes arraignment. In short, I am for killing Mr. Holmes, but I am against the charade which would have us believe that this man is sane. I just want to call a spade a spade. Here is that post;

Much has been written of late concerning the use of the Insanity Plea as a defense in general and, in particular, in the case of James Holmes.  Holmes is the young man accused of multiple homicides in the shooting at a midnight showing of 'The Dark Knight Rises' in Colorado, which resulted in 12 people being killed and another 59 wounded. Police say the suspect acted alone and had no prior criminal record or ties to terrorism. He had, though, been under the care of a Mental Health professional at the time, and his case was reviewed, at the direction of his doctor, by a crisis management team just days before the killings took place.

Now the deed is done, and the Monday morning “Quarterbacking” has begun in earnest. The talking heads on my TV all say that the Insanity Plea is a dead end, as Mr. Holmes clearly planned this attack beforehand. This line of thinking, in determining whether Mr. Holmes is sane or not, is like comparing an orange to a watermelon. It makes no sense.

If, for example, I were to plan a murder for profit; and then say I was crazy; that would be a ridiculous plea, which would carry no merit. I would, in that case, be “crazy as a fox.” Obviously my crime would have had a criminal purpose; I was driven by greed. But what about the Holmes case? Let’s take a look at it.

Here’s a young man; with known mental difficulties; whose own doctor even questioned whether or not he was a danger to himself and others. He has planned, in meticulous detail, a crime too heinous to imagine. And then he actually carries it out, resulting in the deaths and injuries mentioned above. He hopes to gain no profit from his act. He doesn’t even have a sense of reality about the whole event; he even asked a deputy, after the shooting, how the film ended.

When considering an Insanity Plea, the question is not whether we believe that the subject was capable of premeditation in the crime for which they stand accused; the real question is how sane was the plan to begin with. What possible gain was there for Mr. Holmes to attain, even if he had gotten away with the crime? The answer is patently obvious. There was no gain, no real motive other than to commit the crime. That’s insane. Just like the guy who contemplates whether or not he can fly by jumping off the roof, he’s clearly insane.

Is this a plea to spare Mr. Holmes life? Not a chance. I believe in the death penalty. I just believe in being honest with ourselves about why we execute people when we do. The law says we do not execute people who are insane. So, in order to execute Mr. Holmes, he must be found to be sane.

No matter how much we kid ourselves to the contrary, Mr. Holmes is damaged, and likely will never be “fixed”. I mourn for the families of those who lost loved ones by his actions. If he is found guilty, I support the application of the death penalty for his crimes. Just don’t expect me to believe that he is sane.

Ockham's (Occam's) Razor and the Chimney Story - A Study in Opposites?

I had an e-mail the other day about a post I did, over a year ago, concerning the old Talmudic story about 2 men coming down the same chimney, and which one needed to wash his face. I will reprise it here for those who missed it. But first, an overview of the comment and another theory; which may, or may not, be in opposition to the Talmudic tale. We shall see.

First, the comment received was in question form; asking whether or not there was a fire in the fireplace; which of course, is irrelevant to the question at hand concerning who came down the chimney and washed his face, or not. Since the fire would have precluded any descent down the chimney, it is of no consequence.

Briefly the Chimney story involves 2 men who come down the same chimney for unstated purposes. The question is which one will wash his face first. The one with the dirty face, or the one with the clean face? After many permutations, it is decided that the question is a foolish one to begin with, and thus unworthy of the time spent in attempting to solve it. Adding the aforementioned fire to the story only serves to obfuscate the matter.

And this brings us to Ockham's razor, which assumes what Ptolemy had already considered when he first said, "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." What he meant was made even clearer by Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (1285-1349), who further opined that, in essence, by shaving down the argument to its simplest point, ensured the quickest, and most logical answer. Hopefully, it would also be the right one.

On the other hand, Lord Edward Charlton,(1370-1421) the 5th and last Lord of Powys, proposed that since the world was too complex, and contained too many variables, it would be impossible to arrive at the truth using Ockham's theory. I tend to agree. Even the exact meanings of the simpler forms of an explanation can be nuanced, and therefore refutes Ockham's own theory. Both of these points of view were used in vain attempts to prove the existence of God, or not. Both theories are prone to failure simply because a belief in God is rooted in faith, rather than ascertainable "facts." Draw your own conclusions; as the English say, "Horses for Courses."

Here is the story, from Talmud, of the 2 men coming down the same chimney;

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Schwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Schwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So, each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So, neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”