-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Remarks on Passing through Gethsemene
- Thread starter Shism
- Start date
Malakian82
Member
Yes it is.
Malakian82
Member
(season 2 spoiler coming up)
But seriously, the existance of soul is confirmed by the Minbari. That minbari souls have been going to humans is not only their belief: it can also be proven: they stopped the war because they detected a minbari soul in Sinclair (granted, that is because Sinclair later became Valen, but what the Minbari detected and recognised was his soul, not anythin else)
But seriously, the existance of soul is confirmed by the Minbari. That minbari souls have been going to humans is not only their belief: it can also be proven: they stopped the war because they detected a minbari soul in Sinclair (granted, that is because Sinclair later became Valen, but what the Minbari detected and recognised was his soul, not anythin else)
There is no proof for your assertion. It is more likely that the triluminary, being a part of the Transformations Machine, detected genetic information (that of Sinclair) and thus responded to Sinclair, Valen, and Delenn (a descendent of Valen). Due to (deliberate?) ambiguity in Valen's description of what the device did, the game of ancestral telephone came down to it detecting "great Minbari souls". Another possibility is that the Minbari use of the word "soul" means something more physical than the human use.
vacantlook
Super Moderator
I've always understood it to be that the Triluminary responded to Sinclair because it was tuned to his/human DNA.
jms has been known for having purposefully preposed questions without giving an answer in the story. Is there a soul? There are events given to make you think and come to your own opinion, but we're never told an answer.
jms has been known for having purposefully preposed questions without giving an answer in the story. Is there a soul? There are events given to make you think and come to your own opinion, but we're never told an answer.
Yes, I always liked the fact that while the Minbari were firm in their belief of Minbari souls being born in humans due to the Triluminary, it could also be interpreted that the triluminary merely detected the presence of Sinclair's human DNA. Since Sinclair = Valen, his DNA would have been passed down through the generations, perhaps being stronger in some decendants more than others - e.g. Delenn being seen as a child of Valen because she made the Triluminary glow too.
Joseph DeMartino
Moderator
The Minbari ended the war because they believed that the triluminary revealed that Sinclair had a "great" Minbari soul. (Because, if you recall, it doesn't glow for most Minbari, so we already know that it isn't a universal "soul detector" or even generic Minbari "soul detector.") They had no empirical evidence to say that a triluminary glows in the presence of souls, Minbari, great or otherwise, just a pre-existing belief system that said so. So you can't use their belief in the significance of the glowing triluminary as "evidence" for the truth of their belief in souls. You're effectively using the same belief as evidence of itself.
The reason the Grey Council bought the transmigration idea is again rooted in a pre-existing belief that they held: the notion that they were "losing" their "great" souls and the fact that the Minbari population was declining. Given their belief in reincarnation, they could only assume that the "missing" souls were being born into some other species. So they had wondering where those missing souls were long before they encountered the Humans, and they would have doubly shocked to see the triluminary glow.
That this was most likely Sinclair's DNA rather than a Minbari soul is indicated by Lennier's comment that other Human pilots were examined with the triluminary with the same result. The odds of all the Humans that they happened to capture alive being reincarnated Minbari strike me as being pretty long, but all Humans share over 99% of their DNA with one another, so to a Triluminary we're probably all pretty much identical.
Finally at the end of "Atonement" Delenn seems convinced that it is only Sinclair's DNA that caused the reaction, in his case and in hers, and no one else in the scene contradicts her.
Regards,
Joe
The Juche Warrior
Regular
LOL I was under the impression that there were several such penal colonys set up in the states in the early days were there not?
So break out the rum and rattle some chains!
Yeah, that would be Georgia. And as a friend of mine said while walking through Atlanta, "You know, Sherman had the right idea about this place."
Ah, Gethsemene.....my favorite epsiode. Just look at my avatar.
This episode is why I liked B5. Whenever I would see another scifi show try and do a morality play like this, it never came off right. They always seemed to be too hamfisted when a more delicate touch was needed. Star Trek never got it right for me because it was always from the POV that the starfleet way was the only/superior way...that Picard or whoever would just wade into the middle of whatever conflict they came across and have the magical answer for the morally challenged aliens. It just always came off as being too fake.Hmmm, I must admit I never looked at the issue from that angle. Yes, makes sense, my initial remark (In the b5 universe, the existence of a soul is confirmed) does not. Thanks for this insight Joe.
I totally agree. What's great about this episode's 'morality play' is that there is no one answer. This resonates strongly towards the end, when Sheridan is talking to Brother Theo about forgiveness. His moral stance is immediately tested as brother Edward's killer enters the garden. It's easy to philosophise about these matters, living up to your convictions is the hard part.
Okay, let,s take another case of "mindwipe" or "death of persoality" in B%, although it was not done by Earth, and was a totally different case.
When Anna Shreidan was taken captive by the Shadows, they put her into one of their ships as a "central processing unit" When she was taken out, all her DNA was still there, her memories were still intact. But her personality had totally changed - she was in effect a different person, although she carried the same memories.
So where did her soul go? Did she still have one.
Was what happened to her a form of "death of persoality"?
Of course, unlike Brother Edward, she had never done anything to deserve what happened to her - except be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
A thought also occurred to me at the time I first saw this episode. In the hands of a corrupt or tyrannical government, something like mindwiping could be a deadly weapon. Instead of killing or locking up someone who opposes the government, simply mindwipe them, give them a new personality, and get them working for you - willingly!
When Anna Shreidan was taken captive by the Shadows, they put her into one of their ships as a "central processing unit" When she was taken out, all her DNA was still there, her memories were still intact. But her personality had totally changed - she was in effect a different person, although she carried the same memories.
So where did her soul go? Did she still have one.
Was what happened to her a form of "death of persoality"?
Of course, unlike Brother Edward, she had never done anything to deserve what happened to her - except be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
A thought also occurred to me at the time I first saw this episode. In the hands of a corrupt or tyrannical government, something like mindwiping could be a deadly weapon. Instead of killing or locking up someone who opposes the government, simply mindwipe them, give them a new personality, and get them working for you - willingly!
sleepy_shadow
Regular
Memories... but hardly all. She seemed to have factual knowledge about the world -- memories of events, people, connections between them. What she seemed to miss... was information about her own role. How she had perceived things, what she had wanted, which goals and principles she had followed.
Depends on where deleted information goes.
Good question. If she was capable of human-equivalent awareness and independent choice, I would say she had a human-equivalent soul. Not her original soul, but something of equal functionality. Distorted by external meddling, but capable of changing. Not necessarily reverting to its original path, but traveling a new one.
If the personality modification decreased independence, allowing some choices while preventing others... I would call her soul not only different, but partial and broken. Perhaps repairable, but possibly not capable of self-repair.
If no independence or choice remained, I would say she had no soul. Well, no more than her component cells, which doubtlessly would have some soul.
From my viewpoint, "soul" is a matter of complexity. Degree of awareness and choice. Generally, where life exists... I would cosnider it fit to say... that soul exists too. Its degree varies.
From my viewpoint, viruses have very limited soul. Their individual choice and awareness practically don't exist. They change and adapt, but this occurs genetically, through the passing of generations.
I would say plants have very simple souls... but they do, since they interact with environment. Their interactions are slow and simple, but likewise a human could be considered slow and simple compared to something else.
By similar logic, I would consider a human to have a more complex soul than a fish... and regarding computers, all would depend on their combination of hardware/software. Why should human-equivalent hardware, inhabited by huaman-equaivalent software... not have a soul?
It's been a while since I checked in and am interested in this thread concerning one of my favorite episodes in the whole series. As a student of British mysteries I would be tempted to say that JMS borrowed from Agatha Christi's "Murder on the Orient Express." However, JMS took the revenge motif in a totally new direction. No wonder he had detractors advising him not to do the episode. The dramatic issues are powerful. While JMS is a practical atheist he has offered the audience issues that are the grist of Christian theology, including atonement, forgiveness, Lex Talionis (the eye for eye principle), justice, restitution, and mercy.
It is interesting to me that many people oppose capital punishment on the basis that if it is wrong for a person to commit murder then it is also wrong for someone else (including the government) to kill the murderer. Those in the Christian community who take this view reinforce their position by an appeal to the unique worth of each individual soul. However, this convoluted reasoning undercuts the very basis for justice, which is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as rendering to every man his due. Justice must be based on an objective standard to ensure equality in punishments. The “eye for an eye” standard loved by Garibaldi is not a standard for revenge, but represents the legal principles of equity and proportionality.
The principle of equity requires that people who commit heinous acts deserve punishment because of the inherent nature of the offense and the damage done to the victim. The principle of proportionality asserts that the offender should be punished to the same degree, but not more, than the offense inflicted on the victim. So “eye for eye” is justice. “Head for eye” is revenge.” By the principles of true justice a murderer deserves death. As for the government, according to the Bible God gave the responsibility and authority to the governing authorities to do justice for victims, including executing murderers. It is revenge for the victim to take that responsibility upon himself. However, in modern systems of justice, the offense has been deemed to be against the state and the victim does not receive his “due.”
“Death of personality” is an interesting invention, unique to science fantasy, because it introduces a red herring into the discussion of capital punishment. In reality, “death of personality” is not death at all, but a great new life. The murderer can now pursue his dreams free of tort liability to the victim’s survivors. He also won’t remember his foul deeds thanks to having his conscience removed as well. I find it hard to believe that the Association of Trial Lawyers and their friends in legislatures would allow this alternative to see the legal light of day. However, given this hypothesis of the Babylon 5 universe, I can’t blame the people that seek revenge on Edward. The state has deprived them of justice, so what are they to do?
QMCO5
It is interesting to me that many people oppose capital punishment on the basis that if it is wrong for a person to commit murder then it is also wrong for someone else (including the government) to kill the murderer. Those in the Christian community who take this view reinforce their position by an appeal to the unique worth of each individual soul. However, this convoluted reasoning undercuts the very basis for justice, which is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as rendering to every man his due. Justice must be based on an objective standard to ensure equality in punishments. The “eye for an eye” standard loved by Garibaldi is not a standard for revenge, but represents the legal principles of equity and proportionality.
The principle of equity requires that people who commit heinous acts deserve punishment because of the inherent nature of the offense and the damage done to the victim. The principle of proportionality asserts that the offender should be punished to the same degree, but not more, than the offense inflicted on the victim. So “eye for eye” is justice. “Head for eye” is revenge.” By the principles of true justice a murderer deserves death. As for the government, according to the Bible God gave the responsibility and authority to the governing authorities to do justice for victims, including executing murderers. It is revenge for the victim to take that responsibility upon himself. However, in modern systems of justice, the offense has been deemed to be against the state and the victim does not receive his “due.”
“Death of personality” is an interesting invention, unique to science fantasy, because it introduces a red herring into the discussion of capital punishment. In reality, “death of personality” is not death at all, but a great new life. The murderer can now pursue his dreams free of tort liability to the victim’s survivors. He also won’t remember his foul deeds thanks to having his conscience removed as well. I find it hard to believe that the Association of Trial Lawyers and their friends in legislatures would allow this alternative to see the legal light of day. However, given this hypothesis of the Babylon 5 universe, I can’t blame the people that seek revenge on Edward. The state has deprived them of justice, so what are they to do?
QMCO5
sleepy_shadow
Regular
I would disagree. In this case, the state would have extracted the uttermost revenge possible. Nobody should consider it insufficient. Actually, in my subjective opinion, reasonable people should consider it excessive.
After all, the state would have: A) stopped the person from committing more crimes B) inflicted terror and probably also pain on the person C) utterly and completely destroyed that person, unless the mindwipe failed D) seized all resources seizable from that person, including his/her body and brain (and exploited them).
I cannot possibly think of a more complete revenge. Simple destruction is merely destruction. Destruction and exploiting seized resources for opposite cause... is clearly *more* than destruction.
Revenge would be incomplete only if the mindwipe would fail, or an innocent person would be mindwiped and the criminal escape.
That the new person would still *look* like the criminal... might move people on emotional level, but their reason, used to measure justice, should see deeper than that.
Yes. But there is a second justification -- one you appear to forget. Justice cannot be measured perfectly. It can be distorted by incomplete evidence, personal bias or political pressure. State is an imperfect moderator. A reasonable moderator should recognize its own imperfection.
A murderer might consider himself/herself the perfect moderator over issues of life and death... fit to decide about others... but a reasonable person should not. A reasonable person should realize one can err. Likewise, a collection of reasonable people should realize they can err.
Where perfect certainty cannot be attained, irreversible acts should be avoided where possible. In a situation of self-defense, avoidance is not always possible. In a situation of measuring justice, avoidance generally is possible.
One who does not avoid where avoidance is feasible... is reckless. Giving state such power *inevitably*, sooner or later yields a reckeless decision -- which kills an innocent person, and cannot be addressed by punishing the criminal.
(Well... perhaps formally it could be addressed. By sentencing state to death, and dissolving it. However essentially, since/while such a procedure would harm innocent people, it cannot be justified.)
I hope you don't mind if I don't take that seriously.
There is no established basis of justice -- and no definitive dictionary. Except possibly combinations of the following concepts (and others here unmentioned, and the one you mentioned):- doing what one agreed to
- not doing to others what they didn't agree to
- treating others like one wishes to be treated and/or...
- treating them like they treat others
Jade Jaguar
Regular
That it is as wrong for the State to kill as it is for an individual to kill, or simply put, killing ANYONE is wrong, is hardly convoluted reasoning, it is simplicity itself. To say "Thou shall not kill," and then kill those who disobey, THAT takes convoluted reasoning. When the State kills, it is saying "Killing can be justified, even when someone is subdued, and presents no threat." That sets a terrible example for the citizenry. Abolition of capital punishment sets the example that killing is NOT justified.
Besides the reasons sleepy cites, such as executing the innocent, which IS a real problem, many guilty are later found innocent, there is a quite different reason for opposing capital punishment. If it is carried out as swiftly as its advocates wish, it is INSUFFICIENT punishment. A trial, and execution, and that's it, it's all over. I'd rather imprison them for life in a cell plastered with pictures of their victims, and videos of their victims playing, every day for the rest of their lives, so they couldn't forget their crime for a minute. Yeah, I know, cruel and unusual punishment.
As the old saying goes, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and pretty soon, everyone is blind and toothless." I can't imagine that you would really want such a literal tit-for-tat law. If someone pokes your eye out, you or the State poke out his, and then he's free to go? He burns down your house, you burn down his? If he steals your car, you get his? That is all just batty! Perhaps you would prefer it Muslim style, chopping of hands, and stoning to death?
As to the death of personality idea in B5, they never say that "the conscience is removed as well." I should think that it was far more likely that they would REGAIN a conscience, as the Brother clearly did. In DOTP, a person loses everything that makes them who they are, except their DNA and physical body. They are in effect, reduced to the state of a new-born, as far as their persona is concerned. If such a criminal COULD be somehow reverted to the physical state of infancy, would you STILL argue that they must be put to death, in the name of justice? I can understand that the emotions of some of the family might not be able to accept this as just, but I should think that dispassionate, rational, and uninvolved people would have no trouble doing so.
Besides the reasons sleepy cites, such as executing the innocent, which IS a real problem, many guilty are later found innocent, there is a quite different reason for opposing capital punishment. If it is carried out as swiftly as its advocates wish, it is INSUFFICIENT punishment. A trial, and execution, and that's it, it's all over. I'd rather imprison them for life in a cell plastered with pictures of their victims, and videos of their victims playing, every day for the rest of their lives, so they couldn't forget their crime for a minute. Yeah, I know, cruel and unusual punishment.
As the old saying goes, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and pretty soon, everyone is blind and toothless." I can't imagine that you would really want such a literal tit-for-tat law. If someone pokes your eye out, you or the State poke out his, and then he's free to go? He burns down your house, you burn down his? If he steals your car, you get his? That is all just batty! Perhaps you would prefer it Muslim style, chopping of hands, and stoning to death?
As to the death of personality idea in B5, they never say that "the conscience is removed as well." I should think that it was far more likely that they would REGAIN a conscience, as the Brother clearly did. In DOTP, a person loses everything that makes them who they are, except their DNA and physical body. They are in effect, reduced to the state of a new-born, as far as their persona is concerned. If such a criminal COULD be somehow reverted to the physical state of infancy, would you STILL argue that they must be put to death, in the name of justice? I can understand that the emotions of some of the family might not be able to accept this as just, but I should think that dispassionate, rational, and uninvolved people would have no trouble doing so.
Re: Sleepy Hollow - on Passing through Gethsemene
ANS. Your estimation of the fantasy of mindwiping does not accord with the examples given in the Babylon 5 series. A) There is no evidence from the series that a mindwiped offender won’t ever commit any kind of crime again. B) Doctor Franklin would not have intentionally made the experience painful as indicated in the episode “Quality of Mercy.” Garibaldi appears to have been reprogrammed while unconscious implying that the procedure would be painless, equivalent to having surgery under general anesthetic. C) By anecdotal evidence on B5 the original personality appears to still be there in regular mindwiping. Talia Winters was probably an exception as a black project. Even if the old personality is gone the offender gets a new conscience-free personality. Hardly a punishment in my view. D) There is also no evidence from the series that resources of the mindwiped person are seized. If they are, who would get them? Probably the State and not the victim’s family.
Yes. But there is a second justification -- one you appear to forget. Justice cannot be measured perfectly. It can be distorted by incomplete evidence, personal bias or political pressure. State is an imperfect moderator. A reasonable moderator should recognize its own imperfection.
ANS. This argument relies on basing a conclusion on a secondary issue (how justice is administered) than the primary issue of whether the punishment of death for death is just. If we followed your reasoning we should have no trials, because imperfection pervades the legal system. For example, when a jury gives a million dollar award to someone for spilling coffee on herself, you know something is out of whack. However, I believe there is a source for perfect standard of justice, but mankind simply does not like it.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take that seriously. There is no established basis of justice -- and no definitive dictionary.
ANS. Well, now that is a non sequitur if I ever read one. Black’s Law Dictionary is considered quite definitive in our judicial system and among lawyers. And, there is another established basis for justice considerably older than Black.
ANS. Your estimation of the fantasy of mindwiping does not accord with the examples given in the Babylon 5 series. A) There is no evidence from the series that a mindwiped offender won’t ever commit any kind of crime again. B) Doctor Franklin would not have intentionally made the experience painful as indicated in the episode “Quality of Mercy.” Garibaldi appears to have been reprogrammed while unconscious implying that the procedure would be painless, equivalent to having surgery under general anesthetic. C) By anecdotal evidence on B5 the original personality appears to still be there in regular mindwiping. Talia Winters was probably an exception as a black project. Even if the old personality is gone the offender gets a new conscience-free personality. Hardly a punishment in my view. D) There is also no evidence from the series that resources of the mindwiped person are seized. If they are, who would get them? Probably the State and not the victim’s family.
Yes. But there is a second justification -- one you appear to forget. Justice cannot be measured perfectly. It can be distorted by incomplete evidence, personal bias or political pressure. State is an imperfect moderator. A reasonable moderator should recognize its own imperfection.
ANS. This argument relies on basing a conclusion on a secondary issue (how justice is administered) than the primary issue of whether the punishment of death for death is just. If we followed your reasoning we should have no trials, because imperfection pervades the legal system. For example, when a jury gives a million dollar award to someone for spilling coffee on herself, you know something is out of whack. However, I believe there is a source for perfect standard of justice, but mankind simply does not like it.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take that seriously. There is no established basis of justice -- and no definitive dictionary.
ANS. Well, now that is a non sequitur if I ever read one. Black’s Law Dictionary is considered quite definitive in our judicial system and among lawyers. And, there is another established basis for justice considerably older than Black.
Interesting that you should quote the Bible when everything you have advocated contradicts the Bible. The same God who gave the commandment “Thou shall not kill” said, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He created man” (Genesis 9:6). In law the only one who can make an exception to a law is the authority that gave it. And, in the same Law in which these two commandments are given, God authorizes killing of animals for food, killing the enemy in war and killing by authorities of capital offenders. So, you are apparently accusing God of convoluted reasoning, though you are not the first to do so.
Delenn’s exaggerated response, taken literally, as she essentially mocks Garibaldi, is likewise a non sequitur. She and you are treating it as a principle of revenge, when it was intended as guidance for judges. (How often does it happen anyway?) The Muslim punishment of chopping off hands (or did you mean the law of Hammurabi?) is not an adequate interpretation. Hammurabi imposed maiming for simple theft, hardly “hand for hand.” The issue in Lex Talionis is that the VICTIM is to be receive recompense for the harm. You would ignore the victim, transfer the harm to the State, then deny the State the right to do justice for the victim, but create a penal system that destroys people and their families. Under our system the judge does not have the option of determining tit for tat. How does it help the victim if the assaulter, arsonist or thief goes to prison? For non-capital crimes it would be better if the offender was publicly flogged and required to pay restitution to the victim. Then the punishment would be over.
