Dear Friends,
It seems to me, some concepts are so complex they defy definition, and can only be explained in the narrative format. Justice for example. Plato’s Republic is just such a narrative treatment of the idea of “Justice.” In it, Socrates asked everyone he runs onto, “What is justice?” their answers are as different as they are. Each touching a facet of justice but missing the mark. Justice however is like an eight dimensional cube projected on a three dimensional landscape. We can easily describe a three dimensional idea, like car, tree, animal or vegetable, and even up and down, but complex ideas like justice, right, wrong, love, hate, the nature of reality… the philosophic concepts, these must be considered as having too many dimensions to fully comprehend rationally.
In mathematics it is possible to describe higher dimensions. These dimensions can be projected down to lower dimensions, just as a three dimensional object, like a cube, can be projected to two dimensions. A three dimensional cube projected on a two dimensional surface can be understood by us, as it is, because our brains think in three dimensions. When more dimensions are projected onto our three dimensional space however, our brains lack the ability to fully understand the geography of the object. How a cube can have more than three dimensions is foreign to us, so we can only understand it through looking at the projection at multiple angles. Walking around it, looking at it from all directions… the way the narrative format works.
We may not be able to describe justice rationally but we know it in our hearts when we see or experience it. Even a dog understands justice in it’s own way. Give one of two dogs a treat, and deny the other arbitrarily… and the dog denied will act out, because of the injustice done to it. We have the same instinctual understanding of justice. Yet an instinctual understanding is not fore brained reason. Instinct is often a thing we catch out of the corner of our eye, but when we turn to look, it is gone. Other notable instinctual understandings, like right versus wrong, are the same way. We feel them but cannot fully comprehend them. The rationalization of the indescribable, even as we ignore our instincts, leads us to all manner of pitfalls and snares.
When a concept such as justice is misunderstood, it must lead to human suffering by injustice, because instead of instinctively putting justice into practice, we rationally mete it out like a portion of meat. With every bit as much concern for it as the piece of meat. When we reduce justice, right, love, etc… to a rational legal description, that rationalization only looks at one dimension of a multi dimensional object, that description must by definition be defective. More insidiously, an intentionally pathological description of an important idea such as Justice, leads to it’s being used to create injustice… that is called justice. Enforced by a monopoly on violence rather than the willing consent of the governed. This is one of the dangers of describing an eight dimensional cube in one dimension.
The other format that lends itself to describing concepts that are both instinctive, and several dimensions above our own… is song. Why then do such ideas defy rational description and lend themselves to narration and song? Because they have an emotional part. They are indescribable rationally, because of the emotional facet, that reaches into higher dimensions. That is why dogs understand justice while psychopaths don’t. Movements that have rationalized justice, and apply it ruthlessly, are by their very nature a perversion of justice. They epitomize the blind man… describing an elephant by touching the point of it’s tusk. Rather than rationalizing ideas like justice, love, right, etc… thereby misunderstanding them… it’s best to gain a deeper understanding with story and song.
Have a Blessed day,
John Pepin
