I have a chance to attend the lecture about the architecture of authority and I would like to share the experience that I got from lecture.  All the pictures that Richard Ross photo are not included human.  However, those photos show the sense of authority.There are picture of rooms, jails, court room, DMV office, conference room, classroom, church, temple, bulidings, statue of buddha and Jesus.  The photos represent the authority in different ways.  For example, the photo of jails-police jail and immigration jail-represent  the authority of the law to punish the person who did something illegal.  The court room represents the authority of judges.  Classroom represents the authority of teacher. The church and temple represent the authority of religion. 

In my opinion, I really like those photos that Richard represented and I strongly argree with him that those architectures represent the view of authority.  However, I would like to add my opinion that some pictures also represent the sense of powerlessness in the same time.  For example, the photo of the jail may represent the authority of the law and enforcement. But if we look in the opposit direction, it is also represents the sense of loss in freedom for the preson who stay in the jail.  It is always true that when one part of the photo represent the authority, the another part of the photo will represent the sense of powerlessness.

The photos can tell us the story and it also represents the ideas and value behind them.  Morever, it helps us expand our immagination and educate ourself more about the difference in culture and value around the world.

[More]

"So, my point is that the bulk of the law in this sense categorically is a reflection of the common consensus of any given society (again, ideally), and new legislation ought to keep this in mind."

[More]

Fair enough.  He might have had religious undertones, but I didn't notice as many overtones as you did.  He did respond to your question rather oddly, I'd say.  How were you hoping he would respond to your "why" question?  PS - I don't think you were being OVER-sensitive.

Maybe the majority/minority issue doesn't apply so well to this case.  For the record, I don't think that it should be a law (Aunt R + Fluffy), and aside from animal cruelty I don't know why it is illegal (maybe another person doesn't want to be in eternal proximity to animal in Aunt Rose's grave? -- how far should we protect that person's sensibilities?????)  Can we really legislate taboos and please everyone?  Probably not.  Ought we to legislate taboos??  

Yes, the Bill of Rights protects our rights, and I am pretty much libertarian as far as that goes.  The less the gov't the better for the most part.  I suppose I feel a little uncomfortable with our culture's tendency to capitulate to the vocal minority, although I recognize it is such individuals who have progressed society/culture at many points.  I agree with you on your comments on the tyranny of the majority, yet if we are to institute laws in our country then I still think they must, for the most part, reflect the majority opinion.  Laws aren't eternal truths, they are just contracts among members of a society (ideally).  They reflect the opinions of that socio-cultural complex, and are artificial/constructed entities.  I know you know this, I am thinking out loud.  So, my point is that the bulk of the law in this sense categorically is a reflection of the common consensus of any given society (again, ideally), and new legislation ought to keep this in mind.  At times too much of modern law is geared towards instituting a minority's opinion upon society - I don't think this is what we ought to manipulate law.  Leave it alone until its broken and fix it, then leave it alone (in my opinion).

I read an article yesterday about how a student body (like their gov't or something official like that - who represented the student body) at OCC banned the Pledge of Allegiance in their meetings.  They didn't like saying "under God" and praising our nationalism.  That's fine, I guess, in that if you don't want to say it for those reasons then don't say it at your meetings. But to ban it is another issue, and I highly doubt whether this reflects the wishes of the OCC student body of 28,000.  This is one small and unimportant instance of the ways in which a vocal minority is crossing the line, in my opinion (by the way, I could care less whether they say it or not).

Another issue is one like that in San Diego about that cross. We can talk about this one if you want.

Enough senseless meandering, see you at Forest Lawn.  I wrote 1.5 pages for my final in this class, and have decided that I am going to change topics - what the heck is wrong with me?   

[More]

Hey, Ryan (since you and Tyler are probably the only two people who read things I write). Actually, I DO think that Llewellyn expressed a religious bent to his work. He mentioned at one point that Forest Lawn was somehow religiously affiliated and he seemed (in fact I think he might have even said it outright) proud of that fact. That, in addition to how he seemed to turn his nose down at for-profit mortuaries made me think that maybe he saw this as some sort of calling and not just a business. Then there was the tone of his answer to my question. He answered a lot of questions, but mine was the only one that seemed to get that reaction out of him. I don't even know if anyone else noticed it, and I don't really think I'm being OVER-sensitive, but I am rather sensitive in general to the way people use words and tones and body language to communicate (that would be my counseling background speaking). Anyway, his tone was one that said that the very idea of burying an animal with a person was absurd in his view. The fact that he made the ridiculous leap to burying a horse next to a person in order to dismiss my question seemed to say that he found the question reprehensible. He also did not seem to see my point. WHY is that legislators would ban the burial of animals with people. If the state legislature was made up ancient Egyptians we probably would not have that law. I think we have that law because we are mired in a Christian worldview that finds such things impure, immoral, pagan, etc. I don't even know that the legislators would have to be aware that their religion was informing their sensibilities (Llewellyn at least didn't admit to recognizing this, although I really don't think he did), but as someone who ISN'T Christian, it seems to be like they're swinging their big stick at those of us who might want to bury Aunt Rose with Fluffy.

Now, as to your other point about majority rule - I sometimes agree with this, but not always. For example, I think the majority can decide how much income tax we should pay or whether or not we should go to war or what our trade agreements will be. But when it comes to personal decisions about how we should live our lives, I tend to go the other way (except in rare cases when it is really in the nation's best interest such as in requiring children to receive a certain amount of education). I do not think, however, that the government should tell us how many children to have, whether or not to get married (I don't see these as national concerns yet although they can certainly become such as they have in China), what religion to believe in, how to vote, how to eat, or how to voice dissent against a goverment we are unhappy with. If the majority ruled in all of this I would probably end up in prison at some point. The Bill of Rights are meant, in part, to protect against just such dangers of majority rule. They're there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And THAT IS a constitutional issue. So yes, if someone of a different religious sensibility were to believe the their soul would make it up to heaven faster if it were buried with 6 dead doves, then I would hope that the law would allow for that. That would seem to me to be freedom of expression and I do not think the government should outlaw such acts. Would PETA like that? No, I definitely have to agree with you there. And no, I'm not saying that I should then be allowed to "force" my widow to burn herself at my gravesite but that's hardly the same matter. I guess, in the end, I'm fairly libertarian on a lot of issues and what you get buried with, to the extent that it's not a biohazard, is something that I don't think should be legislated.

[More]

But then again, I suppose emancipation required a civil war....................I mean, "The War of Northern Aggression".......

[More]

Kevin,

I didn't read Llewelyn in the same sense you did - i.e. he didn't come off as particularly religious to me, and I don't think he referenced any religious sensibilities except for those of others he had encountered.  He answered your question, I think, in terms of the sensibilities of a state legislator who decided that animal bury w/ humans wasn't right - he wasn't advocating it, was he?

Besides this, I'm all for burying Fluffy with Aunt Rose, if thats what Aunt Rose wanted.  I don't think that PETA would like the idea of killing a pet to bury with its owner, however.  It could make for an interesting encounter, though.  Maybe we could write our local state assembly folks and see if they can try to amend the law.

You brought up an interesting point, though, about the imposition of ones mores upon an entire society.  In my mind, laws are reflections of what a society collectively deems to be right or wrong.  Thus any law ought to reflect the general, majority consensus of what is to be deemed acceptable.  So, your comments above challenge the notion that ones sense of right and wrong should be foisted upon all of society.  I would imagine that if the majority of folks in California found it acceptable to be buried one with their pets, then the law would reflect this.  The fact that no advocacy groups exist to push this cause, at least to my knowledge, would indicate that our society is OK with this law.  In other words, the law more than likely reflects the sensibilities of the majority of Californians, whether these sensibilities are religious or not.  Now, if there was say a vocal minority pushing the agenda because they felt that the sensibilities of the citizens of California were somehow oppressing them, and California ceded to their wishes, then would that be a fair law?  In other words, would ceding to a vocal minority really be the right, democratic thing to do? Should the majority opinion of a citizenry be suaded by a loud group of individuals who do not reflect the mores of an entire society?  Now if these majority sensibilities happened to be religious, would that change the question of the way in which one would answer it?  (I.e. would you answer differently if it were a religoius sensiblity?) Does a sensibility derived from religious conviction make it any less valid from this perspective?  Most of the time it doesn't really matter (i.e. theft sucks whether you believe in the Ten Commandments or not), but at other times it obviously gets really sticky (abortion, gay marriage, etc).  Its an interesting legal/social/political/ethical issue.  I don't think that Aunt Rose not being buried with Fluffy is impeding anybody's constitutional rights, but then again it isn't really a constitutional question.

I don't know.  Your questions sparked some issues that I have been thinking about (obviously you weren't expecting such a long response about Fluffy and Aunt Rose).  Respond?????????????

 

[More]

I was a little surprised at how John Llewellyn seemed taken aback at my question about what the reasoning was behind the laws regulating what can and cannot be buried. I think his religious sensibilities were a bit offended that I would even suggest that we should be burying "a horse next to a person" as if that's really what I was suggesting. I thought it was an excellent example of how a particular view of what's right or appropriate can be made to seem so very natural and obvious when it hasn't been natural or obvious to other cultures in other times and places. My point was that it seems wrong to me that democracy should set such religious limits to burial practices. Couldn't they at least reserve a portion of a cemetery for people with alternative views of what's appropriate? Do they have to impose their religious sensibilities on everyone  in the state? It seems like a valid question, but Llewellyn wrote it off as nonsense almost. I guess that's to be expected in some sense, but it's a good example of why I, as an atheist, study religion. It's not, for me, about theology or beliefs, but about how Llewellyn could make something contingent and particular seem natural and automatic and then force those beliefs on me and my family. THAT'S what I find interesting.

[More]

She gave some conclusion about what we had learnt from many speakers. She stated that the experience of death will affect from own context, culture, religion, family and etc. Ths purpose of this class is want us to be open mind and learn from other perspectives. I did learn a lot from many prespectives about death from many speaker, who have different experience.  There is one issue that Wendy brough up in her lecture about scientific revolution that may help human have longer life.  I try to response to this idea by thinking further that this may occur one day in the future and when it happens there are many things need to be adjusted. The policy maker needs to have birth control policy and social service policy for older people who will live longer. 

However, I do not agree with this idea.  The nature had created the balance of nature by control birth and death in appropreate time. It will loss the balance of nature and human may loss the sense of human being.   Scientific should help human to died without pain rather than live forever.  If human realize that they can life forever, they may not concern about doing good before they died anymore.  They may not be concern about prepare to died well and they may live their life without careful. I beleive that the best way of living is life with highest quality is better than life with highest quantity (live longer).

[More]

 

When I think about the moment of death, I find myself at the threshold of birth.

When I wonder how it is to die, I tell myself the same way one is born.

When I ponder where I am going to, I answer where I came from.

When I fear my death, I fear my life. I fear the challenge if I am not ready.

I fear the final, only if I did not study well.

A person is to death, as a fetus is to birth.

Death is just a beginning. It is a graduation, for those who succeed.

We are neither from here nor for here.

Death smells as a rose’s fragrance, if I respect flowers in my life.

Death is a family reunion, if I respect family.

Death is a gate to paradise, if I have admission.

Although I am not at all certain anything bad is going to happen to me after I die, I hope the grace of the Almighty God will help me.

What I worry about is not how to die, but rather how to live.

It is not my choice when to die or how to die, as it was not my decision to be born. But it is my choice how to live.

There are some aspects of our lives which are beyond both our will and our power.

I came here bare; I want to leave bare.

I want to let my friends know whatever I accumulated here will be worth nothing after death-- Let them see that I left behind everything. I want to let them know what stays of me is my good memories and my good deeds.

I will ask my relatives to wash me after I die. Put some scent on my body, and wrap me up in a white winding-sheet, as when I was born.

I would like to be buried with no coffin, so I can feel the earth. Lay me down on my right side and put my right cheek on the dirt. God created me from dust, fed me from dust, now I will humbly become part of the dust.

This mortal body is a good friend of mine. It helps me to enjoy this life and work for the hereafter. It is my duty to honor it while it is alive, and part from it with love and respect when it dies.

I will be grateful if my relatives and all who know me pray for me on the first day of my departure and ask God to forgive me.

How fortunate I am if I die while I am not afflicted with illness. However, in the case of illness and suffering, my duty is to take care of my ailment. I am not the owner of my body, but merely a caretaker. The real owner is God, the creator, and my relation to this temporal body is stewardship, not ownership.

Dying for me is just trading my body with a new one, which is immortal. While the jockey is the same, the horse will be changed.

I believe that death is a gate which admits a person into eternity. It does not matter how or when a person passes through this gate; what is important is whether he goes then to an eternity of hell or an eternity of paradise. Where he goes depend upon how he has led his life.

Death is a transition and as such, I need to be prepared for what comes after it.

I believe I must live as though I would never die, and I must prepare for death as though I would die tomorrow.

I know I can live in this world as long as it exists, if I became a part of humanity, by living an exemplary life.

Ultimately, it is God to whom we belong, and to whom we will return.

I would like my family and friends to remember me by doing good deeds, such as helping those in need, caring for orphans, and praying for my soul.

What I really would like to do during my lifetime is to write a philosophy book for children explaining my understanding of the purpose of creation and one’s duty and responsibility as a human being. If I had the opportunity to write it, it would be the best heritage for me and for my family.

The worst thing I can imagine about my death is seeing my family’s grief. Outliving a close relative, however, is an unavoidable tragedy. I think I just need to educate my wife and my children about death, so they can overcome it with patience. I want them to follow their regular course of life, and do whatever they think is the best for their lives. I want them to be rational about life and its requirements. I would love for them to remember me by trying to be perfect human beings.

If I die while my wife is still young, I would like for her to marry again and to continue her normal life. This corporeal life has demands which need to be satisfied.

My family can remember me by praying for me, giving to charities and helping those in need.

In my country, traditionally, mourning for the deceased person includes four commemorative ceremonies: one on the day of the burial, one on the third day after the funeral, the other one on the seventh day after the funeral, and finally, on the fortieth day of the person’s death. In addition the person’s death is celebrated annually. But having hundreds of guests for each ceremony costs a great deal and requires much effort on the part of surviving family. So instead of these ceremonies, what I would love for my family to do is to make donation to the Islamic Relief; an organization which strives to alleviate the suffering, hunger, illiteracy and diseases worldwide without regard to color, race or creed.

After all, isn’t it better to feed someone who is hungry, or to make an orphan happy by giving him/her a small toy, than to spend so much time and money on an elaborate funeral? 

 

 

[More]

Thomas Holden from UC Santa Barbara will be giving a talk at 4:30 PM
on Thursday, November 9.  The title of the talk is "Religion and
Morality in Hume's 'Of Suicide' " and will be held in the Seminar
room of Blaisdell House, located at 143 East 10th St.

[More]