Monday 23 November 2009
The Ultimate Defence?
Steve Hagen wrote in "Buddhism: Plain and Simple" that when we are awake (i.e. enlightened), we are without intention. Thus, Buddhas cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless it is one of strict liability. Now that I have discovered this, I do hope to see plenty of pretend Buddhas clogging our courts claiming they couldn't have had the necessary mens rea because they had achieved enlightenment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Have you heard of Kymatica? (if you Google it then it should be the first video that comes up. Can't post a link on here for some reason).
ReplyDeleteIt's basically a 'philosophy' for life and distinguishes between you (natrual self) and you as a company (because on every legal document your name is in capital letters and therefore represents you as a company, or your 'artifical self' not you as your 'natural self') (around 26:15) and therefore you can argue in a court of law that you are not liable for anything because you are your 'natural self' not you as a company (around 29:30) (Yeah, I know). Be good to hear what you think.
I don't really know what to make of that, to be honest. One's first instinct when confronted with an unusual philosophy is to dismiss it out of hand as being 'crazy'. But then, why should I dismiss this philosophy just because it isn't well-known or established? After all, it is just an idea, like any other philosophy, and any idea with an accompanying documentary I should at least answer to, I suppose:D
ReplyDeleteI really don't have the time to watch the whole documentary, but from what I understand it seems quite arbitrary. Disregarding my own beliefs regarding the self, I don't simply don't see there being any logical basis for a distinction between a natural and artificial self. But maybe that's because I haven't watched the documentary yet; perhaps my 'eyes will be opened'.
I doubt it.