Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Fictionality and the Death Penalty in Singapore

Fictions. The idea that fiction bears no relation to fact is perhaps a fiction. Yes, another paradox.

Today, I examine fictionality.

According to an article by Joseph Koh, Singapore’s high commissioner in Australia, there are fictions about the death penalty in Singapore or about Nguyen’s impending execution. I examine his claims (which means I don’t necessarily agree or disagree).

Fact creation, it seems relies heavily on fictions sometimes. I mean fictions help to clarify facts, don’t they?

According to Koh:
Fiction No. 1: Singapore has breached international law.
There is no international agreement to abolish the death penalty. . . .

We respect Australia's sovereign choice not to have capital punishment. . . . The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support this.”


Singapore has not breached international law. True.

The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support the death penalty. Not sure. When was the last time a national referendum was conducted?

I believe many support the death penalty, as they do national service. As they do defamation suits to protect those with big reputations to protect. As they do all other state policies.

This has got to be true. A fiction made true through social engineering. After all, why would it be so amazing that, on the one hand, Koh claims that there is “no international agreement to abolish the death penalty” and, yet, on the other hand, there seems to be a national agreement. An overwhelming majority at that. What else do this overwhelming majority know other than the fact that the death penalty is good, necessary, normal and inviolable.

Singapore has not breached international law, of course. But does this say anything about making the death sentence mandatory?

The second fiction, according to Koh:
Fiction No. 2: The death penalty has not deterred drug trafficking.

This logic is flawed. The death penalty has not completely eliminated drug trafficking, but it has certainly deterred drug trafficking. Since the introduction of tough anti-drug laws in the mid-1970s, drug trafficking and drug abuse in Singapore have come down significantly. Potential traffickers know that, once arrested, they face the full weight of the law.”


Flawed logic used to counter flawed logic. No one, as far as I remember, even claimed that the death penalty should have “completely eliminated drug trafficking” if it were effective. What a gigantic straw man.

“Since the introduction of tough anti-drug laws in the mind-1970s,” we have reduced drug trafficking and drug abuse. I do not know what these “laws” are, but since they are invoked in the plural, I assume that the death penalty is not the only factor involved.

Moreover, how does one prove that the “tough laws” and the reduction in drug trafficking are related? A false cause? Last night, I ate a vitamin pill. Today, I feel very energetic. Thus the vitamin pill must have made me more energetic. Would you accept my logic? Would you accept even that “feeling energetic” is the same as being energetic?

In any case, why not a life sentence? Is there anything to suggest that this would be less effective.

Finally, even if the death penalty does deter drug traffickers, does this mean that it has to be mandatory and absolutely no clemency can be granted. (Which defeats the idea of clemency anyway).

In his introduction to the article, Koh claims that “the outcry [in Australia] has . . . made it difficult to separate fact from fiction.” Perhaps the biggest fiction is that fact and fiction are always separable.

The third fiction in Koh’s words:
Fiction No. 3: Mr Nguyen is an unsuspecting victim[.]

Mr Nguyen may not be a hardened criminal, but he is not an unsuspecting victim either. He knew what he was doing and the penalty if he was caught. Had he succeeded, he would have made a lot of money. If we let off a convicted courier because of age, financial difficulties or distressed family background, it will only make it easier for drug traffickers to recruit more "mules", with the assurance that they will escape the death penalty.”


A very interesting fiction. Perhaps even a fictitious fiction for the idea of an “unsuspecting victim seems to distort the views of many who oppose Nguyen’s hanging. Whoever said that Nguyen was unsuspecting might be a tad naïve. But no one says Singapore must to let Nguyen off. Let off? People are saying that there are mitigating factors and, thus, the death sentence might not be the most appropriate punishment. Do I see another over-blown straw man hanging around?

Abolitionists, in contrast to those who just sympathize with Nguyen’s case, would also not believe that Nguyen has to be let off. I think most abolitionists believe in tough punishments, but do not believe in the death penalty.

What is there to make it easier to recruit more mules?

The fourth fiction:
Fiction No 4: The punishment does not fit crime.

Mr Nguyen was caught with 396 grams of pure heroin, enough for 26,000 "hits", with a street value of more than $A1 million.

Yes, he was transiting Singapore, and not smuggling drugs into the country, but Singapore simply cannot afford to allow itself to become a transit hub for illicit drugs in the region.”


So how does the punishment actually fit the crime? I still don’t see it. Perhaps I’m stupid? I think this is, to some extent, a matter of opinion, not of fact vs. fiction. To cast one as a fact and the other as a fiction is to create fiction again?

Perhaps the bigger question is: does the death penalty fit any crime?

Next:
Fiction No. 5: Mr Nguyen can testify against Mr Bigs.
All drug syndicates assume that some of their couriers will get caught. They never let the couriers know enough to incriminate themselves. The information that Mr Nguyen provided to the Singapore authorities was of limited value, and was, in fact, intended to mislead and delay the investigation.”


Yes, this is true. Nguyen probably cannot help the police nab the Mr. Bigs.

So he must be hanged???

The sixth fiction:
Fiction No. 6: Singapore connives with drug lords.

This is an old falsehood propagated by Dr Chee Soon Juan (Singapore opposition leader). He has alleged that the Singapore Government had invested in projects in Myanmar (Burma) that supported the drug trade. When this first surfaced in 1996, the Singapore Government explained that its investment in the Myanmar Fund was completely open and above board. The fund held straightforward commercial investments in hotels and companies. Other investors in the fund included Coutts & Co, an old British bank, and the Swiss Bank Corporation. The Singapore Government offered to set up a commission of inquiry so Dr Chee could produce evidence to prove his wild allegations. Unfortunately, Dr Chee never took up the offer.”


What does the word “connive” connote?

I cannot judge although I think one might be interested in reading (by which I don’t mean believing) Dr. Chee’s response to this sixth fiction.

He attempts to explain (the reader has to ask himself how convincing this explanation is though) why he has not taken up the offer to set up a commission of inquiry:

“Mr Koh has also not revealed the fact that I am not a member of parliament and could not move a motion for a commission of inquiry. In addition, the Singapore Government need not open a commission of inquiry to the public and that the international media is often barred from covering the proceedings. The Government barred the public from a parliamentary select committee hearing that I was involved in, one that my colleagues and I were fined a total of S$51,000 for challenging the Government on health care costs in the country.

If the Singapore Government will telecast a commission of inquiry “live” and allow the foreign media to attend it, I would be more than happy to participate in it.”


I note, nevertheless that Koh’s article is entitled “Why Nguyen must die.” (Or was the title an editorial effort?) Assuming that I believe the Singapore government does not connive with drug lords, I don’t see why Nguyen must be hanged. The government is entitled to his right of reply to Dr. Chee’s allegations, but I don’t think this point helps to convince anyone that Nguyen must die. Is it to pad the argument so that there seems to be more points?

[Edit: The title was an editorial amendment as I had suspected. The original title is "Separating Fact from Fiction," which is more tactful although it is still problematic. Let's just separate one fiction from another.]

Finally:
Fiction No. 7: Singapore has treated Australia with contempt.

Singapore highly values good relations with Australia and with Australian leaders. We share a common belief in the sanctity of the law. The Singapore cabinet deliberated at length on Mr Nguyen's clemency petition. . . . Unfortunately, finally the cabinet decided that it could not justify making an exception for Mr Nguyen. . . .

[W]hen Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, met Prime Minister John Howard in Busan, he could not inform Mr Howard of the execution date either. Mr Lee did not know that the letter of notification had by mistake already been delivered to Mrs Kim Nguyen, one day early. Once Mr Lee discovered what had happened, he promptly apologised to Mr Howard. . . .”


I don’t think that Singapore, or the Singapore government, has antagonistic or has treated Australia with contempt. After all, why would it? Of course, this might not stop Australians from thinking that they have been treated with contempt. Yet, again, I think this does not say anything about why Nguyen must be hanged.

One side question though: was the letter of notification originally designed to be received after PM Lee’s meeting with PM Howard?

35 Comments:

Blogger Green Ogre said...

I agree with the death penalty personally but I don't think I can or should enforce my belief in others. Simply put, hanging would cost the state much less than say life imprisonment or a 20 year term. And my view is that you take the consequences of your actions, no matter whether fair or not, the world is inherently unfair and unequal.

Instead of simple death, could we not subject those convicted to life imprisonment and constant flogging? No, that's be cruel and unusual punishment. We'd be guilty of torture.

Frankly, I think it no worse a way to go than being run over by a drunk driver. At least he knows why and what kills him. In fact, he's lucky enough to be afforded a knowing death, when many don't.

As Chris Rock would say,
"Crime- I'm right. Porn- I'm left."

Does Nguyen really deserve all this attention and sympathy or disdain? I doon't think so. Personally, I'd rather they just hang him and let those who'll get mad get mad.

As if Nguyen would donate all his profits to charity if he didn't get caught. That might be a mitigating factor.

7:02 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

As Molly's usual tendency to digress goes, the death penalty isn't about the death penalty anymore. Personally, I'm not for the death penalty. But the concerns here involve not really whether Nguyen is hanged or not but actually the justification process. It's all fiction (though I also suggest that fiction cannot be separated from facts). As much as the anti-death-penalty is fiction.

"Does Nguyen really deserve all this attention and sympathy or disdain? I doon't think so." But, as you mentioned, it's the consequences of some people's actions--"the world is inherently infair and unequal." So, why not all the attention anyway?

Since we have so much fiction, the attention could be turned to what this one issue (or is it "one" issue?) says about us after we are tired about what says about itself. In other words, what does it say about the very authors of the fictions?

7:52 PM  
Blogger Green Ogre said...

Laughs. That we spend too much time thinking about fiction.

8:19 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

There's no outside of fiction, Greenie.

9:08 PM  
Blogger aeiou said...

Regarding fiction 2 "the death penalty does not deter drug trafficking"--in this case it's not so much the harshness of the law which deters. To increase the deterrent effect we should increase the certainty of arrest, or how efficiently the law is enforced. But we don't need to. A significant reason why Singapore has low crime rates (in addition to the strict laws) is the efficiency of the law enforcement agencies (CNB, Police, CPIB etc.).

9:10 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Exactly! If we had slack or corrupt law enforcers, there would be no detrrence at all. There is no evidence to say that it is the death penalty that has deterred criminals.

9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nicely said, although I would clear up one point. Although there are no international agreements per se regarding the death penalty, international law is made up of more than just treaty law (ie the written agreements). International custom and international norms also comprise of international law. EMpirical evidencde such as eg the EU will not allow countries that have not abolished the death penalty to join indicate that the death penalty (especially a mandatory death penalty) is arguably a breach of international law.

9:41 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Mmm... great. The word "agreement" as used in the article by Koh is a bit tricky. Could mean "treaty" (or something like that) or could mean "consensus."

If we are generous, we can there is no universal consensus.

But we can also say that there are standards that are "internationally" regarded as acceptable/unacceptable despite a lack of universal consensus.

Of course, in a article that purports to separate fact from fiction, it relies (here) on a blurring of ideas. haha.

10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While all your arguments are valid the real intent of the article was not to justify the death sentence but to dispell any 'fictional' mitigation factors.

The reason for the execution is based on the results of the trial.

The Australians say that Nguyen should not be executed based on several mitigation factors. The article is to address why they are not mitigation factors for Nguyen and not why he should be executed.

11:11 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Ah anonymous, Molly also never intended to say that Koh's article is wrong/invalid. Molly is also saying that the "fictions" are not replaced by "facts". The fictions are "dispelled" with more fictions sometimes and this doesn't help much.

The reasons for the execution is based on the results of the trial? Yes, and er... The trial pronouced the guy guilty. I believe the trial was fair and just. Yet, the execution was not decided by the trial--it is a mandatory punishment that no judge could have the discretion to change--unlike in some court cases, the judge does not have the discretion to say that the criminal could be punished with a life sentence instead.

Is the article intended to justify why Nguyen needs to be executed? Not directly. But then why dispel the myths about mitigation in the first place? It explains why there is no reason to change the current judgment.
It is reasonable to assume:
Mitigating factors not valid implies
--> The current judgment is right/justified.
So...

3:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to digress from the more pedantic ongoings here,

Singapore should just save itself by commuting the death sentence into a jail term, since Nguyen was caught in transit, which technically is not within Singapore customs territory.

Nguyen is already famous as a "drug mule", so hand him over to Australia, and watch how they handle their kind.

QED

5:25 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

How seditious you get! The authorities need to protect Singapore from being a transit point for drug trafficking, so we need to hang that guy!

5:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is very easy for those in power to play on the insecurities and fears of the masses and propagandize the idea that ‘we have nothing to lose in having harsh laws and strict penalties. Better be safe than sorry. Look at XXX time in the past and see how chaotic things were then.’ In fact we can be so safe and secure it would almost be as if we were inside a cage. This I think is a common trick - to only paint one side of the picture and bring up the worst-case scenario of the alternative in order to convince the people of your policies.

I feel that the more it is felt by those within a society, that draconian laws and exceedingly harsh penalties are needed in order to maintain so called order and deter potential criminals, the more it is a reflection of what is actually an artificial, forced, incompatible and untrusting society. The perceived necessity for harsh laws implies certain things.

Firstly, that people are less likely to avoid immorality/illegality out of their own perception that it is for the greater good of that society that they do so. Instead, harsh laws are required in order to deter them. They also require curtailments of freedom such as ‘freedom of association’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of media’ (why? The people who partake in these can’t be trusted) simply to be ‘safe’. In other words, it is perceived that on average, people are more likely to desire to commit an act of immorality/illegality if they feel there is a good chance they can get away with it and the potential benefits outweigh the potential costs and risks. They would be less likely to have regard for the supposed principle that if members of society generally adhere to these principles and laws, it is likely to produce greater general happiness for society. It is after all on this principle that any society gains its foundations - If it were not in your greater interests to be part of a certain society in that the ‘greater good’ of society was on the whole not likely to include you, you would have less motivation and perceived obligation to adhere to the principles of that society that serve to produce that ‘greater good’ in the first place. You would not agree to sign the hypothetical ‘social contract’ with that society. In other words, not being part of the greater good, you see less intrinsic values in the society’s laws and values. This then means that the society then requires harsher laws and stricter penalties in order to deter you since the supposed intrinsic value of adhering to its laws and moral values are no longer an incentive. The ironic thing is that the more this is the case on a large scale, the more that society loses its original foundations – that it was set up for the greater good of its members. When things get so bad, everyone breaks the law, everyone becomes a rioter and revolutionary and a revolution takes place, which few would argue to be unjust or illegal, since the very fact that the vast majority of society’s members partook in it shows that the society had lost its very foundations and reason for existence.

The social state of society is somewhat like the principle of the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’. The two accused are more likely to work together and not reveal each other to the investigator if they are close friends and trust each other. If there is trust and intimacy, the more likely these two accused will trust that one will not sabotage the other and that both will gain a mutually beneficial outcome eventually, even though if one sabotaged the other while the other did not, the former would benefit more. Similarly, in this case, members of society who spontaneously adhere to the laws of society and its accepted moral norms, and see this adherence as producing a greater good that would include them, are people who share more common interests and values, who trust each other to a greater degree and who are on the whole more intimate than would be the case if they required harsh penalties and laws in order to deter them. Basically then, the perceived need for harsh laws and strict penalties silently conceals the reality that the society is composed of a comparatively disunited, untrusting, disgruntled individuals who are more likely to desire to sacrifice social good for individual gain. They are somewhat divided and conquered. And this will show in the way people treat each other in their daily life; this will show in the level of social alienation; the perceived need for more and more hierarchy and authority; the amount of social politics; the amount of courtesy and generosity, the amount of compassion, the amount of true solid friendships; the likelihood in which random strangers on the streets will say ‘hi’ to each other or even become friends; even in the way for instance, (though I don’t believe in the military) a colonel treats a private in the military; It will show in the level of materialism among the people; the tendency to be superificial and compete to show off materially rather than cooperate communally; essentially the things that really at the end of the day, contribute to a fulfilling and meaningful life that no amount of money or crime-free security in a cage can buy. Yes we may have security, but it may be the case that the laws that maintain that security lock us in a socially alienated cage of suppressed rage. In Singapore for instance, the authorities won’t even allow Van Nguyen’s mother and brother to touch or hug him one last time before his death. They are separated by a glass wall so dramatically symbolic of the social alienation in the country.

I’m not really arguing against the death penalty. I might even be able to make a case that death is preferable to life in prison or even 30 years in prison. My concern is with the harshness of penalties and the level of curtailments of freedoms and what these imply. There is no doubt that Singapore’s laws on drugs, amongst many other laws, are extremely harsh in comparison with the rest of the world. Let us assume that drugs, including marijuana (which I don’t believe should be illegal though I won’t discuss for now. Just let me say that the status quo is very worried about the power of marijuana and the way it brings people together; the way it reduces the perceived need for hierarchy, authority and in other words, power) are entirely gruesome and bad for us and serve no good whatsoever. Let us though, remember at the same time that drugs only became illegal after the industrial revolution. People prior to that saw it very differently.

Now I’m not arguing for social welfare or anything like that. That’s another issue. What I’m saying is that legislators, if they truly wish to administer justice, have to be aware of these realities of the poor when they make laws. There is a tendency in authoritarians and those who believe in draconian laws and extreme hierarchy, to assume that these methods and means are necessary because man is innately evil and needs to have his/her evil impulses kept in check. If these people begin to see that to a great extent, man may indeed not be innately evil, but driven by desperation and social/economic inequality or exploitation to commit illegal/immoral acts , they may begin to not only feel more compassion and therefore consider the crimes deserving of less severe penalties, but also realize that often, increasing penalties and creating more restrictive laws may be simply a stubborn denial of an underlying growing social problem, disunity, dissatisfaction and disillusionment and that though draconian laws may reduce crime, it does not address the roots of the crisis. In other words, the reduction of crime and the curtailments of freedom do not come without a price. The price is an uncompromising reinforcement or augmenting of the bars of the invisible social cage; it does nothing to the mindsets and emotional states of the people within that society; it does not make the disillusioned people happier; it only symbolizes how far that society needs to go in order to protect their people from each other, when in the very first place, that society’s foundations lay in the very fact that it was supposedly for that peoples’ greater good that they lived under the confines of the same society.

2:08 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

The draconian ones are often the ones who do too much for themselves and believe too much in themselves, so much so that they believe what they do isn't for themselves but is for the greater good.

Their belief. A narcissistic self-faith.

9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Watch Aeon flux the movie. The movie tells it all. A self contained society where the government believes Monicans are out to get it and adopts a siege mentality.

QED

5:43 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Is it a dystopian film? Hopefully it will make its way to the DVD shelves.

6:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Molly,

By the way the long-winded one above was me=).

'Fiction No. 4' is especially strange. He seemed to suggest that the fact that he could have made AU 1 Million from selling the heroin at least contributed to seeing how the punishment does fit the crime. Firstly, how much of that 1 million goes go Van Nguyen and how much goes to the druglords? Secondly, so should I be put to death for stealing 1 million from another person? For gaining 1 million illegally? When we are talking about death as punishment, I think money should be quite an irrelevant issue, even if this was only meant as a contributory factor.

Also, (putting aside what I've said about what the extreme need for deterrence implies about the state of that society)ok yes so heroin (and not weed!) ruins lives and is addictive. But isn't gambling like that too? (unless you're really lucky or a genius at probability)Addiction to reckless gambling can easily cause the financial ruin of a family and the individual. I guess it all depends then on who the profit making 'lords' are in the background. If the lords are MNC directors or Gahmen then alright gambling is fine. If the lords are underground druglords, then it's not.

Some may even argue that it's conceivable that government/MNC controlled casinos are for the greater good of society economically but losing employees (machine wageslaves) through heroin is not. Once again, 'the greater good'. Herein lies the problem (if we postulate that the social contract is the foundational ethical theory, which I believe to be so)There's a difference between having as a term of the contract, 'We will form a society together and live under the obligation to inflict no physical harm upon each other or be punished by the law' which will be the pre-requisite to forming any 'society' in a meaningful sense of the word and having a term which states 'In this society we will agree to be punished even if we commit an act that does no nonconsensual harm to ourselves or others, and thereby give up our freedom to lead our personal lives the way we choose; because it will be for the greater good of society that we give this up.'

As you can see, the former term of the contract is a priori to any formal society. The latter term is more secondary - it presumes the prerogative to oblige the individual to give up the right to do an act that does no non-consensual harm to any other person, for the greater good of society. Now you cannot seriously consider yourself a member of formal society and entitled to the protection of its laws if you presume you can go around hitting people for no reason. But you can certainly only agree to be part of a formal society that would preserve the right/freedom to perform acts that ensue in no non-consensual harm. Essentially, the 'greater good' argument is not a pre-requsitite to a formal society and therefore takes more justification than has been offered.
Some will say consent was inherent in implicit agreement to the political process..which forms the legislature in the first place. NOW, herein lies the problem with an unjust political process.

Luddite

9:37 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Aha! Consent. Good idea.

Problem: If I brainwash you into thinking that it is good for me to control you and you believe and you consent, then...

10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well brainwashing is immoral because a rational person would not have agreed to that; let alone to have to agree to a social contract/consent only after being brainwashed.

Of course there may be problems with regards to the mentally handicapped for instance. But in such instances, our only recourse would be again to go to decide what they would have decided if they were rational which is of course problematic because then we bring in paternalism. There may be minor problems but the theory still holds that on a general level, government has no basis without consent (if people cannot agree or compromise there should be decentralization) and morality has no basis without the social contract.

Luddite

11:03 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

I don't mean it's "wrong." It's just difficult. Brainwashing is an extreme. We have social engineering, indoctrination, whatever... How do we "decide for" someone who has known no alternative? Wish it were as simple as taking a pill (a la The Matrix).

Then Molly might take a pill to re-enter the Matrix... Sighz.

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well let's just say we're at the defeated stage now. It's difficult simply because we lost a long time ago. The elite have taken power and indoctrinated the powerless. In the defeated stage, the notion of consent becomes meaningless. The notion of consent gains meaning in that in the default stage of affairs, the people would not have consented to being indoctrinated in the first place. Therefore regardless of affairs now, we are asserting that those in power lost their legtimacy a long time ago.

I think things are more meaningful on an individual level. The more radical you get, the more you say to yourself 'the way the system functions now, I would have never have signed a social contract that endorsed the culmination into this' and the more you consider the social contract negated. Depending on the extent of your rebellion, this could extend to considering cheating in an examination for instance, to be an issue no longer within the realm of morality - since the examination is a tool that helps facilitate and perpetuate the system. You become amoral to the issue and you considering cheating fine. At a more radical level, you become like the unabomber, Tad kaczynski who was anti-industrialization and anti-civilization (anarcho-primitivist) or you perhaps become a terrorist. Complicated but meaningful issue. It's a way of waking up from the matrix really - knowing the foundations of morality.

12:42 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Before anyone comes after me, allow me to clarify No one posting in this blog endorses or support terrorism or any other violent or illegal action. This blog only ponders about issues.

Maybe one ethical paradox is whether it is ethical/moral to wake someone up from the matrix.

5:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think we're ethically obliged to do so. But I certainly don't see how it would be unethical to do so. It doesn't quite fall under the realm of morality

7:53 PM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Well, to make things difficult (as I always do thanks to a fetish), can be assume that it is (so-called) better to be out of the matrix?

What if, upon coming out of the matrix, some people would rather go back and have no means of doing so?

Can we force someone to be free?

I don't necessarily mean it is unethical. I think it is paradoxical. Or maybe I'm just twisting words.

9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well what is the matrix to you? Is it the whole world ot just Sin Galore? If the former, is it all that has transpired since civilization, or just industrialization or even just capitalism? Or is it the global elite? The illuminati? The Rothschilds and the banking conspiracy? The bohemian grove?

To what extent is the quality of one's life dependent on one's perception of its quality, be it misguided or not? Depending on your version of the matrix, to what extent will we be doing an injustice to the deprivations that we assert are the consequences of the matrix, if we claim that these deprivations, can, to a great extent, have no effect on our emotional state so as long as we are not aware of them? I mean for instance, say a person goes through life with sexual needs but has completely no knowledge of the notion or possibility of intercourse or an orgasm. Can we then simply say he/she will be contended so as long as he/she is ignorant that intercourse/orgasms exist? Or will there always be something innate, primal and subconscious that will bring the person agony without him/her understanding why.

Also, though people say that ignorance is bliss and truth can bring pain, it is also arguable that while truth can bring painful enlightenment, it can simultaneously bring freedom from incessant misplaced guilt, stress that comes with misperceived obligations, or even restrictions that come with misperceived necessities and so on.

Well personally I'd rather have woken up than not.

Luddite

2:38 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Well, I would prefer to come out of the matrix too. :) Most of the time anyway.

Using the analogy of sexual needs. In the "matrix", perhaps these needs do not even exist. Hormonal therapy or something perhaps. Bring the person out of the matrix but taking away the hormonal therapy. Perhaps he now has unsatisfied needs and would rather continue with the hormonal therapy.

And finally, what is it to "wake up"? On the one hand, we can claim that we come out of the (or "a") matrix to reality (= wake up). On the other hand, the so-called real world is also constructed.

If we collapse the analogy by taking it literally and assume that we are not living in a computer-generated reality now, isn't "reality" a composite of multiple constructions. Say the capitalist myth or whatever. In short, what do we wake up to? Or rather, who is to give a valid interpretation of the world up to which we wake?

3:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I know what I believe the matrix to be. It's a long story. And I'm asking you, what's your version of the matrix? In what way are we living in the matrix and what was life without the matrix meant to be (or at least not meant to be)? Do you use the term 'matrix' only to refer to the political trickery of sin galore? Or do you use it on a deeper level.

What I believe the matrix to be is integral to why I use the analogy of sexual needs which implies that there some things that are innate, primal or instinctual to us and that being deprived by living in the matrix will inevitably in some at least subconscious or primal level, affect us and our ability to experience meaningful happiness. Only when these things are referred to in a concrete sense can I explain further why I think unlike say, 'desire for democracy', these needs cannot be so easily culled by 'hormonal therapy'. Let's refer to these needs as the pre-requisites. These are pre-requisites to meaningful happiness but conditioned CONTENTMENT helps to extenuate the pain of our being deprived of the pre-requisites. I don't believe the conditioned contentment makes the brainwashed happy, but only more numb to the deprivation of the pre-requisites, at least on a conscious level.

But the point I'm trying to make is that given that this deluded contentment is only an extenuation and cannot compare to the potential for a life far superior in quality that can only be realized with the pre-requisites, (according to my version of the matrix) I would not feel terribly guilthy about waking people up. =)

Luddite

7:09 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

The matrix analogy applies in a specific way to Sin Galore, but also more generally. Sin Galore is perhaps an example. A very good example.

Yes, conditioned contentment is a good way to put it.

While I'm not saying it is wrong or that one has to feel guilty for waking people up, it remains that those who wake others up have to be aware of the stakes.

That's where the real/fake dichotomy is not always helpful. Let's say one system vs. another. In your view (and you might be right), the system that one wakes up to is better. Of course, you do not claim that it is perfect--just better.

Nevertheless, it remains that it is only a system. As real as the matrix is. Or rather, the matrix is as real--just that it wears a veil of perfection.

Can we assume that people universally and innately desire one system over the other? Perhaps, but it's a little risky.

Perhaps it is more important to realize that no "alternative" comes about without sacrificing certain things. The awkward individuals who might actually prefer the old system even after experiencing the alternative. (Maybe you will say he hasn't woken up?) I don't mean this to be a negative criticism, but a complication. And I think complications are useful.

Perhaps that's why I'm a bit cynical when the matrix creators always say that we need to come up with a "viable" alternative, we have to give "constructive" suggestions, etc.

9:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wah, you Molly Meek n Anonymous 1: got so much time to debate? Think you must be from academia...no one else in S'pore has that much time to shake leg and ponder eternal verities. Ptui!

5:56 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Spitting will kena fine one.

6:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well what is the matrix to you? Is it the whole world ot just Sin Galore? If the former, is it all that has transpired since civilization, or just industrialization or even just capitalism? Or is it the global elite? The illuminati? The Rothschilds and the banking conspiracy? The bohemian grove?"

To jump in the fray belatedly, just one comment - the question of whether life in a more democratic state is "living in the Matrix" "as well" "even if that's true in Singapore", is one that I think rather unimportant. The important thing in discussing the state of Singapore is that in relative terms, not in "ultimate" terms, whatever that may be, Singapore has a social and political system that facilitates and encourages a sense of soul-destroying alienation more and more systematically than does life in the West. In other words, the important thing is that there are distinct ways in which Singapore can be better. Who cares whether the end result of a particular change is "still" something like delusion? It's less delusive than the status quo is. Striving to get there would be worth the while.

7:51 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Indeed, striving to get there would be worth the while.

Or perhaps one could strive to get "there" by getting away. Ok, I better stop...

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Parkaboy I will be the first to agree with you that even on relative terms, Singapore is far worse off than many places in many respects. It is to me a matrix within a matrix. But do consider that the, shall we say, 'outer level of the matrix' will not be important an issue to you until you actually see it, the same way you see the 'inner matrix'. In actual fact, the word 'relative' is 'relative' as well. We can say that Singapore is worse off relative to the rest of the world, the same way we can say for instance, the world now is worse off relative to the world in the middle ages, for instance. The latter can and may conceivably apply (as an example) to the 'outer matrix'.

Well and Molly it sounds to me that you're a lot more certain about the 'inner matrix' (in Singapore) than the 'outer matrix' which is I suppose understandable, assuming the latter is more radical. I mean you would certainly argue that there is a better and 'viable' alternative to what we presently have in S'pore, even if given the trade-offs and despite the few who would, after the (shall we romantically say in youthful idealism) revolution=), still consider the old system better.

And maybe that's why we have democracy. Settle it through the vote. But what happens in a mass democracy if a minority feels it will be better off in another system and fully believe they would be better off as an independent political entity? Assuming they would not have signed a hypothetical social contract that would have them agree and conform to the democratic political process whatever its outcome may be, then they should be allowed to decentralize. But then in modern mass society, with strictly controlled borders, centralized states, and no more new frontiers, decentralization and breaking away is hardly viable.

This means that even if it were the case that the world and its possible matrixes were so subjective that we should simply allow those with common worldviews, ideologies and perceptions of the matrix to live in their own decentralized, autonomous societies - it is no longer possible. Conformity has to be forced regardless of whether you believe it is in your greater interests to be part of and adhere to the rules of the system that enforces that conformity.

Maybe that's something we can agree on and then maybe that's something that we can consider, if nothing else, to be part of the 'outer matrix'.

Luddite

12:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Touche Molly. I haven't the strength to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

3:13 AM  
Blogger Molly Meek said...

Parkaboy is being too modest, perhaps for the benefit of the bimbo. The "getting away" bit wasn't a reference to you, by the way. A reference to my desire rather, though not a negative one (I think).

Maybe to sum up:
The world bad,
Sin Galore worse.

Luddite is more confident of alternative whereas Molly is wary of violence. From what it seems, Luddite is more of an activist while Molly is more a postmodern deconstructionist. Which is not to say that Molly does not believe in alternatives. Perhaps it's just that Molly is cynical about believing. Oh whatever... I'm a bit delirious already.

Well, at least we can hold a discussion without suing each other or gagging each other.

4:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home