This is http://www.essayz.com/b0703181.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %OPEN HONEST NOT PREJUDICIAL ARBITRARY CAPRICIOUS 070318 %DUE PROCESS DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE WEALTH POWER GIVE 070318 %SHARE GENEROUS GRACIOUS HOSPITALITY HOSPITALS LOVE 070318 %RECONCILE STRANGERS ENEMIES OBJECTORS OBJECTIONS 070318 %NEGATIVE DICHOTOMIES POLARIZATIONS OBJECTS SIN 070318 %IMPERSONAL REFLECTIONS REFLEXIVE EVIL RELATIONSHIP 070318 Judicial-Procedures deal with Objectionable-Actions; i.e., actions which by common communal agreement may legitimately be the occasion for reasonable objections. It is not reasonable to object that somebody ate an apple, pear or tomato. It is reasonable to object that someone killed another person. Often the focus is upon how "objective" a report of an objectionable-behavior is. Is the report a reliable report? Is there a coherent pattern of reports by non- collusive persons that the alleged action occurred and that it is reasonable to conclude that clearly identified persons may reasonable be held to be "responsible" for the action; i.e., reasonably blamed, at-fault-, guilty, etc. Our human dilemma is that there are many behaviors which are generally considered to be "objectionable" --- BUT which are not truly "objective" in nature. People may insult each other by innuendoes, gestures and/or body- language --- the perceived meanings of which depend as much upon the fears and anxieties of the interpreter; as upon the intentions of the person(s) who were "heard/seen" to offer the innuendoes, gestures and/or body-language communications. Such "communications" seem to be "objective" to the insulted persons and/or their friends; and there may be many people who share that view; often even a majority of the most-concerned persons and interested-by-standers. The above "objectionable-behaviors" are generally "reflexive" in nature; i.e., the people involved are reflecting upon what has been seen, heard, said, felt AND/OR responded to. What counts are the raised emotions, sympathies, and empathies of the people most significantly affected by the alleged "events", "actions", "meanings" and "communications". These are not all purely objective in nature. They include meaningful reflexive aspects in in their natures. How can we get an "unbiased" and non- prejudiced judgement as to whether the alleged "objectionable" actions are truly "objective" and the legitimate focus of legitimate "objections" by legitimate "objectors"? Who should have "legal-standing" to "object" in formal ways in formal courts? "Objections" do entail objective actions; even when the "objections" are motivated by the raised: emotions, sympathies, empathies, fears and anxieties -- of offended- people who have become involved in reflexive-inter- personal relations among disturbed-people who do not truly know each other or care for each other in the essentially gracious ways of Shalom. Objectionable behaviors may include the following kinds of behaviors: 1. Owning and/or controlling a person. 2. Denigrating and/or destroying a reputation. 3. Falsely getting a person convicted of a crime. 4. Maliciously engendering a riot. 5. Maliciously engendering confusion/injustice. 6. Facilitating or tolerating Distributive-Injustice. 7. Facilitating or tolerating wealth-concentrations. 8. Facilitating or tolerating power-concentrations. 9. Being unaware of complicity in some of the above. 10. Being unaware of the suffering of many humans. The above behaviors are not purely-objective behaviors; because essential components of the behaviors are highly reflexive in nature. It is how the behaviors engender reflexive relationships --- that is objectionable. The reasonable focus of the objections is about how some behaviors have moved in the direction of creating Relationships-of-Alienation between/among people --- which Relationships are not Purely-Objective-Realities --- even when there is full agreement about there being Relationships-of-Alienation and Confusion. There is No- Good in people behaving in ways which move them into evil Relationships-of-Alienation between/among people. For understandable, but tragic reasons, Domineering- People often object to other people saying things and acting in ways which: 1. Expose the incoherence and lack of integrity of Domineering people. 2. Expose Domineering-People's Collusive-Games-of- Mutual-Self-Deception. 3. Expose the Disintegrative-Consequences of Domineering-People Building-Up Military-Industrial- Complexes and their supportive Profitable-Corporations that have no Spiritual-Integrity. 4. Expose the Tragic-Consequences of Affirming, either overtly or tacitly, the Myths-of-Redemptive: Violence, Coercion, Controls, Unilateral-Actions, etc. From the Perspective-of-Domineering-People --- their Alienative-Objections are Very-Reasonable --- even though both Their-Patterns-of-Behaviors and Their-Objections are Tragically-Simplistic --- because they are Inherently- Alienative --- Without-Coherence/Integrity. For the above reasons Domineering-People cannot save themselves from the TRAPS into which they have fallen; no technology can be the means by which they can save themselves from their technocratic TRAPS. They need the help of people who are not caught in their TRAPS; True- Lovers whom the Domineering-People cannot trust in any way which is reasonable to the Domineering-People. Be Graciously-Together in the Many-Ways-of-Shalom. (c) 2006 by Paul A. Smith in "Search for Honesty and Integrity" (On Being Yourself Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================