Cradle of an Abstraction

If in a time of national threat from a domestic or foreign enemy--as in war, either symmetrical or asymmetrical--should we, as Americans, sacrifice liberty for safety?

For as long as this current war has been surging, I defended the argument, one well backed by history, that in wartimes all Americans relinquish certain liberties for protection. Furthermore, with an end to any of these particular crises, we would then reclaim our surrendered liberties, as well as additional ones.

The argument that by reining in our freedoms, restricting our way of life, fettering our principles, we then have lost the war from the outset, I heard numerous times.

As well, the Revolutionary sentiment, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

These lines of reasoning ate away at the core of what is honor, what is principle, to the basic questions of man, what is right and wrong. And to the greatest couplet of questions: why and why not.

I viewed the surrender of certain liberties as a way to combat the threat in its many arrays by more flexible means, and the resoluteness of a single, immovable stance existed only in a black-and-white world.

The idea liberty becomes a casualty of war was rebutted with the simple proclamation that a life saved is a battle championed, yet I found these all inconstant with my value of principle.

The principles that liberty divides us from our foes and unites us with our allies, liberty mirrors the civilized and well-informed citizenry and lures the curious to our shores, liberty to all grants all the ability to accept and to be accepted and thusly to be equals.

Yes, liberty battles with one arm tied, yet liberty always maintains the upper hand in the moral, ideological battles, which run alongside the physical.

Better for a thousand to die for the preservation of liberty than one to be saved by liberty's crucifixion. What value does one have, if the whole is lost?

The American Experiment displays the fragility and the power of the abstraction of liberty and the majesty of the execution of such by millions who believe so ardently in the principles of liberty that death for it is something for which countless volunteer.

Not saying countless offer to wear a blindfold and smoke a last cigarette, but that countless will risk their lives for the principle that liberty must remain or the American Experiment fails, thusly, all that is fair and just or the ever attempt forwards such then fails.

What I am saying translates basically as liberty cannot be a casualty of any conflict, no matter how severe, for the principle of the abstraction then unwinds and the abstraction disappears as a dream in the closing hours of a simple, commonplace twilight and there, forgotten by the time the dreamer opens his eyes.

Paramount with all that said, politics is not a science rather a game of strategy;--hence, of compromise. Liberty and safety exist not divorced of each other, as above here summarized and as many may as well portray. We, as individuals, need the balance of this temperamental ratio of liberty and safety.

What one should come to understand, accept, and expect is for an individual--when the lines are not clearly demarcated, when the costs and benefits are not so certain, when ethics are dissociated with their functional construct--to then err on the side of liberty, the great attraction.

For from the cradle of safety comes only withering of tender liberty, while from the cradle of liberty, safety flourishes in all its yields.


This column was taken from an earlier blogpost. The title was changed by the paper for their reasons, which it is fine. It was changed to "Seeking only safety hurts liberty". Some sentences were changed as well. The last three paragraphs critique the afore read paragraphs, yet the deletion of the transition makes the argument seem inconsistent. But life goes on.

These Scars, Part Three: Responsibility

With The Dark Knight pinned beneath a steel rail, stories above the pavement, and with the weight of The Joker compounding the existing encumbrance, Batman remains on his back immobile. When The Joker mentions that “It’s a funny world we live in,” The Joker stops and looks at his incapacitated foe.

Continuing, he says, “Speaking of which, know how I got these scars?” Batman, drawing from an earlier scene in which he receives from Lucius Fox a new batsuit, responds, “No, but I know how you get these…” With his spiked vambraces now equipped to propel the spikes forth, he does so, striking The Joker and giving himself the ability to become free.

As we have learned from The Joker’s two differing tales of the origin of his scars, scars originate and manifest in equally different manners, nevertheless, leaving the same result--a scarred individual.

In the past two weeks, The Joker, as we have come to understand, actually, highlights within his own unique allegoric pedagogy and acute blend of postmodernist surveys of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and the neurosciences.

First, we discover that high stress experienced in the early developing years of childhood can alter the essential structural hardware of the brain, having a direct effect on the mind’s software. One cannot simply delete or erase these neurochemical scars.

As English poet and polemicist John Milton penned in Paradise Regained, “The childhood shows the man / As morning shows the day.” More often never does it seem that a bad morning extends into a good day.

Second, we find that empathy, one of the key elements to our very humanity, can be what initiates the trauma that separates us from our fellow man, leaving each to mirror the scars of the other.

As economist and ethicist Adam Smith observed, to merely draw into one’s mind the plight of “our brother upon the rack” was enough for one to “enter as it were into his body, and become in some measure the same person with him.” As keen as this notion of “fellow-feeling” is, he ends before mentioning how the “brother upon the rack” sees his fellow man, and in that, comes the “personal distress” and the separation.

Yet, how far can society go in addressing these types of issues and the actors that propagate forth from such?

The Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope states, “No man is hurt but by himself.” If seeking a more modern translation of this concept, one need look no further than a recent Country song, in which one will hear, “[W]e all live with the scars we choose.”

One should question if a contradiction exists between the science and the philosophy. However, no contradiction does.

When examined further we come to find that trauma, and thusly, its scars, can be navigated through in time and with fortitude. The mind can never be swiped clean, yet it can learn to augment itself with new software to assist in the participation of the traumatized with the societally functional.

Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, notes, “One way to regulate emotion is to get more information.” From this, he continues, “[I]f you are able to separate yourself, then the non-overlap in the neural response frees up processing capacity in the brain for formulating an appropriate action.”

We have the choice in how we approach our trauma;--that is, to let it affect us, or for us to control it, to funnel it into something productive or just something that does not obstruct our progress.

Take Bruce Wayne--a child left in a damp alleyway alone holding the hand of his dying father, after witnessing both his parents being shot--he made a choice about his trauma, he learned through information and the acquisition of knowledge how to understand his trauma, and he focused his mental and physical being around these scars.

Batman comprehends that each individual--no matter his chaotic childhood, no matter his emotional trauma, no matter his past, in general--is responsible solely for his actions and must bear the consequences thereof.

To understand why and how one does as one does is to only prevent future traumatic experiences, and therefore, similar situations, yet negates naught of the actions that have already befallen.

This finishes this thought on The Joker's Scars and the society. It was not the most actively received of columns, yet life goes on.

Always Smiling, Part Two: Empathy

Sen. Patrick Leahy, portraying an unidentified gentleman at Bruce Wayne’s party for the new District Attorney Harvey Dent, replies to the green-haired man, “We are not intimidated by thugs.” The Joker momentarily contemplates, examining this man’s facial mien, before replying, “You remind me of my father; I hated my father.”

With The Joker’s knife blade seeking a new victim, Rachel Dawes interrupts by stepping forward. The Joker comments ostentatiously on her beauty and notes her nervous nature. He asks, drawing close, “Is it the Scars? Wanna know how I got them?”

After forcefully compelling Dawes to look at him, he explains tenderly, “I had a wife, beautiful like you.” His wife gambled and got “in deep with the sharks,” yet she thought he need not “worry” and to just “smile more.” When the “sharks” collected their returns out of her facial assets, the young couple had “no money for surgeries.”

His wife did not handle the scars well; moreover, he “just want[ed] to see her smile again” and for her to know he did not “care about the scars.” So, he inserted into his mouth a razor, thusly scarring himself, but because of this, she would not even look of him. She eventually just leaves.

The Joker mentions he found understanding, “Now, I see the funny side;--now, I am always smiling.”

With understanding that through caring, physically and emotionally, for the traumatized one also becomes such himself, we learn the infectious and destructive nature of trauma.

Giacomo Rizzolatti, a neuroscientist at the University of Parma, states, “Mirror neurons”--neurons that fire both in the response to an individual’s actions and in the observations of these acts by another--“allow us to grasp the minds of others, not through conceptual reasoning, but through direct simulation. By feeling, not by thinking.”

These simulations are what allow one individual to share in another’s joys and/or another’s sadness. It is these mirror neurons that direct us in our emotional comprehension of others, particularly, through “empathy.”

“And if you see me choke up, in emotional distress from striking out at home plate,” Marco Iacoboni, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, exemplifies, “you automatically have empathy for me. You know how I feel because you literally feel what I am feeling.”

Empathy, in general, as Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at University of Chicago, explains begins with the involuntary “shared emotion.”

“This is something that is hard-wired into our brains--the capacity to automatically perceive and share others’ feelings.” He notes, how when a baby hears another cry how it begins to cry, as well.

“People of all ages,” Decety continues, “will unconsciously mimic the facial expressions of those they see.” Difficult it is to refrain from laughing, when amongst a crowd of a jovial character.

When an individual loses himself in another’s pain, Decety explains, the self experiences “personal distress.” The “other-oriented” nature of empathy is put to the side and “personal distress turns inward.” So, basically, one now forfeits his ability to assist in the recovery or treatment of the other.

The scars The Joker’s wife received, in consequence for her own actions, and then compounded and internalized by his love for her leaves him equally scarred. It is through the trauma, in direct relation to his empathy and compassion, that he now faces the world, at large.

Interesting how the traumatized despises the traumatized, as in his wife’s leaving, after he eventually becomes the same as she, yet nonetheless.

Just curious how trauma is passed from one to another, as simply as a joke or even just a smile, if only it faded as soon.


This is the most interesting story for which The Joker gives as an origin to his scars, at least in the The Dark Knight film. I have for a few years now found Neuroscience quite interesting;--one of the many fields of economics that I enjoy is the peripheral branch of Neuroeconomics. Nonetheless, important it is to understand the effects of trauma, if it is from childhood stress or empathy at any age. Once we understand that a little is good, a little is natural, a little is evolutionary, then we can be able to deal with ourselves more fully.