Understanding transitional justice in the context of forcibly altering moral action
Nov 23, 2018 —
There is but one underlying argument, there are not many arguments. Our belief in many masks our ability to understand that everything comes from one thing. Because everything comes from one thing, every argument, perceived as different arguments, has but one same argument at its source, and that is directly something we carry with us through each moment in time. Therefore we have, like Buddhists assert, many Minds, ibid many arguments, that we each but need to resolve ourselves in our own time according to our own willingness to advocate for sanity:
Understanding transitional justice in the context of forcibly altering moral action.
By: Rene Helmerichs, 22 Nov 2018
Keywords: Psychology, culture, Human Rights, rule of law, Early Warning
This article addresses the timeless question of thinking. Do our minds think, or does our brain? Is our mind confined to our brain, or is our brain an aspect of our mind? This is a logical article explaining, precisely, a matter of growing international judicial concern. There are several broad ideas recounted in this article. Belief in the underlying concept is not required. To support the article, a demonstration of the underlying singular mechanism establishing the constant requirement for international laws to be ever-consist is also provided. This article, therefore, represents a current summary of over 6 years of field work exploring the common question of what, precisely, is to be the purpose and function of the rule of law. It begins with a reminder that transitional justice is not limited to courtroom judicial processes. The article follows.
Wikipedia explains "Transitional justice consists of judicial and non-judicial measures implemented in order to redress legacies of human rights abuses." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_justice Internationally, the foundation of justice asserts consistency of law. The action of forcing medication to change thinking is a growing threat to international justice.
In most cultures, there exists a belief in spirits or spirituality. Point in fact, all Christians advocate for a ghost. Biblically, the Christian ghost is termed "holy" though its spelling is more accurately presented as "wholey".
As people, most psychiatrists will reluctantly admit coming from cultures that also believe in the existence of something after physical death, but few will psychiatrists may affirm that spirits think. For example if we are to believe that we exist with spirits, that our spirit does not die with our body, then we must admit that our spirit is not confined to normal linear time and also exists with each of us right now. The argument is directly the timeless question, "Does the brain think, or not?" And the answer is revealed with law.
Law must be consistent because it speaks to a foundation that is not of physical origin. This is logically explained below. This directly ties law intricately into the physical processes quantum physics is tasked to explore, as well as the nature of reparative medical science. That is, if mind has the ability of memory, and memory is directly the ability to bridge two points in time to affect the choice of altering a foreseeable, or imagined, outcome, then the law itself becomes the mechanism for building a sustainable future inclusive of all future constructs in every reality that any field of science has yet to find.
Moral law is something we each carry innately. It isn't a concept. It is better understood as a formula for common understanding that can never be written because it exists across all cultures, in all languages, to ensure one common concept behind the word "honest." The purpose of every relationship on earth is therein revealed to be to better personal understanding of the individual as an integral and active member in a social network beyond the ability of any single individual to conceive. It does not mean that we are robots, but, rather, that we have the free will choice to coexist. We can shape our shared reality into an ever-lasting sustainability reality, or we can argue in court about what better we could, or should have, or should be doing to help only ourselves. We are, simply, each person in our environment and not just the body we see when any of us looks in the mirror. That's the part that none of us really understands.
The International Journal Of Transitional Justice is a monumental achievement because it allows discussion of the principal of law in a way that is common to all.
Consider again the act of medicating an individual for want to change thought. Because mind retains the ability of memory, and memory is the ability to bridge time, mind itself must originate, and exist, in state that is neither of physical origin or confined to any concept of an ever-changing reality. Simply, because reality is always changing, we do logically deduce a state of constancy exists beyond time and that the function of all legal processes is to speak to, and for, the same-consistency state. It is a matter of applying "consistency applies to all" unto also the idea of itself to yield an unfathomable state too much to grasp, but which is also forever dynamically adjusting to each personal question of, or for, its existence.
Where does the act of forcibly medicating individuals fit into a sustainable social picture? Unfortunately, ultimately, it is a violation of the right of the non-physical mind to express itself uniquely.
We can assert that a state of peace can be forcibly implemented with medication, however, it does not follow that we are correct. Rather, because the mind is logically of non-physical origin (the ability for memory to bridge time does apply to future moments in time as well), belief in the efficacy of forcing individual will (thought) must first be implemented before a mind can allow itself so succumb to the will of another. We are either equal in spirit, which is also mind, or not. And we must agree that a sustainable future must include the concept that we are of equal origin since, aphetically, we acknowledge the entire universe to have had but one origin (be it the "big bang", or "of God", or "simultaneously quantum-adjusting real-time as linaear time strings within a greater array of super-string constructs").
This is not a question about God, nor one for science. Rather, this is directly a question about the argument concerning the unlimited number of ways to demonstrate the imperceptible concept behind the word "not". It is a question of innate law.
Logically, if God were to exist (personal beliefs aside), and that God is eternal, then God must also have a singular mind forever echoing unto itself "You are God" while every aspect of itself confusingly beckons "I am God?", "I am not God?", and then, in the confusion of the word "not", "Demonstrate God because perceiving is believing!"
The concept behind the word "not" cannot truly exist. The result is a split timeless reality containing two basic groups of arguments: those for a collectively shared mind and those for forced will over another part of that shared mind. We have already determined, logically, that a ubiquitous mind exists because the whole of every sub-atomic and sub-sub-atomic part of this reality is always changing, and something must be common to all to allow for any pan-applicable "always" condition to exist.
This brings the statement, "I think, therefore, I am" directly into the legal context of moral law against the modern-day medical science assertion for forcibly medicating a mind into complacent acceptance of an ever-changing "true" condition. It is simply illogical to forcibly medicate for want to change thought into a desired moral stream. However, there is a reason for doing it. In this sense, we enter the world of politics.
Politics is like a game of hypnosis. The news hypnotises (programs) the public. Governors of media outlets allow certain suggestions, which in turn carry political opinions. People repeat those opinions to others. It's also precisely how and why TV commercials work to sell products. The politician with the most news coverage is able to influence (control) the majority of the opinions, and, therein, should receive the most public scrutiny. In the absolute sense, the strongest mind is the one that is "most honed" unto the common everlasting unfathomable "wholey ghost", which in turn must advocate for all religions as being equally invalid since we exist in a reality that is doomed to forever keep changing.
The underlying principal of same-consistency of law does assures us that this reality will not come to a sudden end, and that we can keep trying to argue about it. Look at it this way, if Jesus told people that they had to believe him in order to be healed, he would have denied people the ability to realize that they already share the same mind. Rather, Jesus was most commonly quoted as saying, "by your faith you are healed." The statement does not mean that an honest individual should take ownership of the though processes of anyone else, save for the exclusive purpose of demonstrating the mind of the biblical devil to exist as the most misunderstood of all human rights advocates.
Recall that medication for mental health, to work, first requires instilling the belief in the efficacy of physically being able to manipulate aspects of mind that are not of physical origin.
When we read a news story of interest, or read articles in law journals that we may not fully understand, we have the choice to share it with others. We become agents for media and share the news we find most interesting, or alarming. A common expression in the news is "bad news travels ten times faster." The foundation of law assures us that positive news will outlast the negative, but it says nothing about the time it takes to resolve the confusion.
Think of a coin flipping in an eternal sphere. A coin has two sides. The sides are diametrically opposed. Yet, from any eternal frame of reference, is the coin even in motion? An everlasting state cannot conceive of change for in that instant it would be unable to sustain change as an everlasting event. Therein would change cease, and the state itself never have been.
The two sides to the same argument of mind are equally correctly stated in the single question, "How can a state that is ever-changing exist at all?" And the answer is amazingly simple, but not something that is easy to accept. For that, we turn to the something a bit more concrete like the internet and the ability to resolve international constitutional legal inconsistencies with a politely logical debate.
The fundamental argument in law is the question of morals. Are psychiatrists allowed to decide whether an action is morally correct? This is the current question actively expressing itself in legal processes all over the world. The question is incorrectly answered in every country containing Acts Of Law that permit law enforcers to pass people "of harm to self or others" into the hands of psychiatrists without a criminal trial for the perceived allegation of wrongdoing.
The foundation of law, that the law must be ever-consistent, directly reveals that every possible future exists. We simply cannot imagine the complexity of it, of life itself. Yet we are left to acknowledge that we have life, and then question if the medium for communication, be it our cell phone, desktop, or the eyes of our body, have life as well. For example, there is literally nothing to say that a future does not exist wherein Jesus did not arrive. Yet, what is it that the word "not" means, precisely? Was it that Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha, were not necessary in every future wherein those physical instruments of common-being communication did not exist?
There is likewise nothing to say that every major choice any of us makes in our lived linear expressions of time does not unravel an equally astounding universe in which our minds, unconscious to us but still not of total consciousness, may act out the results of that choice without conscious memory of this reality existing as a better alternative. Rather, both must exist simultaneously in a scale too large for quantum physics to grasp because the law is eternally constant. We know, not believe but know, the law is fundamentally eternally constant with same-amplifying consistency because the statement "the law must be constituent" must apply first until itself and then unto the largest possible unimaginably idea behind every concept we have for same-consistency. The concept becomes a real-time event equally shared with every aspect in motion yet not without the incipient order that originated after the first question, "Is there more than I am all that is?"
We can raise an endless number of hypothetical situations to justify any means. Biblically this is recounted in the expression "seek and ye shall find", but we forget the expression to mean, literally, nothing. We can examine the current global situation of "seek and ye shall find" in the current field of psychiatry, for better understanding.
When a psychiatrist sees a patient, the assumption is that the patient requires help from the psychiatrist. The assumption is never that the psychiatrist equally suffers from an innate disassociation of reality. Never do we ask "What is the governing belief structure of the psychiatrist? Will the doctor empower the client with knowledge of a shared mind that is equally common to all, or does the doctor, in his action of forcibly medicating, assert, 'You need this medicine. I'm not exactly sure how your mind began from a non-linear origin, but we're here now. We believe we are our body, so let's assume that your brain does the thinking for you and that I can fix it without simply logically examining to you how your actions are violating the law that we all do share in this common reality."
Sadly, the rapid rise of the "take a pill" drive is lining the pockets of international medication manufacturers no differently that oil companies prevent the realizing of better transportation devices. Al Gore has done outstanding work to reveal the extent to money and politics hinders necessary improvement to our common reality. In the same way, the drive to forcibly medicate for mental health in direct opposition to consciously objecting patients who are actively insisting that psychiatrists explain why those patients are not simply permitted a criminal trial for allegations of wrongdoing (taking the case of Rene Helmerichs, C-13-205-SR, at Barrie, Ontario, Canada, with the initial arrest and hospitalization on 3 Sept 2012 as a specific example.) is nothing more than the latest expression of the timeless belief that a magical physical elixir of life can be man-made.
The American Psychological Association, in its worldwide dissemination of The Diagnostic And Statistics Manual only encourages psychiatrists to categorize illnesses. There is no explanation provided that all mental illnesses, and therein directly every physical illness as well, are equally of a non-physical origin. Instruments, people, leading local worldwide governments are culturally attuned to believe the socially esteemed doctors because they are somehow smarter, "the doctor knows best" for having spent years learning the partial snapshot of current mentally ill classifications of all unique personalities that coexist on our happy planet.
The action of forcing medication is rather exactly like ability to soothsay since all futures do exist. The result of belief in the efficacy of a pill-pushing psychiatrist is directly to relinquish the belief that mind itself retains the ability for health. The law tells us this because any ever-consistent state requires each of us to remain an integral part of the whole, irrespective of our current physical existence since the whole exists eternally beyond time. Eternal does not mean that it relinquishes connection with any of part of itself to create time, it means only that awareness is momentarily divided such that we, as any of us, can experience the answer to the question "Is there more?"
The action of forcibly medicating for mental health is directly an expression of the want to control the greater reality from within the fractured perspective. The action of forcibly medicating for mental health is directly to manipulate the core moral values, the innate thinking process of any individual, back unto the belief that the body thinks and thinking must stop at physical death. It directly opposes every major religion on earth, and the very requirement of sanity. Sanity assures us that any reality in which we are ever to find ourselves cannot be absolutely real, yet because we do exist with memory and have ability to bridge moments in time, we are truly real.
Compassion and the need to understand that we coexist, effectively, as one hand with an infinite number of fingers each with the free-will choice to help each other, is the only answer to the question, "What is the purpose of life in this universal sandbox?" Forgiveness and the desire to partner with anyone, in any situation, to help the whole with harm to none, each intrinsically also receiving a known benefit, is the only way to accomplish the necessary understanding to leave this sandbox once and for all.
The act of forcibly medicating to change thinking is of growing concern to proponents for transitional justice because it needlessly burdens tax-payers. Tax-payers are left footing an ever-increasing public healthcare model such as currently exists in Canada. There is currently a petition online to solve this growing threat to our common sustainable future, but, despite the availability of every possible future, the end is also distinctly certain. It is simply not possible to repeat the same mistakes of the past without changing the future in a global way. Simply, "advertisement ensures honesty" and the rest is a matter of unravelling the details of how to get at the desired universally sustainable future.
All of the above is mostly theory. There is a monumental case that began in 2012. A college professor decided a sure-win gamble was the best option for his personal future. On principal alone, he grew an argument. The case became a runaway legal case. The professor understood that he remains the point of the argument, and that the argument can be expanded to involve so many other individuals that no country in the world, in time, can provide enough resources to settle the matter in court except with directly agreement from the professor.
There is a petition online, right now, that evidences the extent to which the justice system of a country will defend its current false ideals. This is summarized in a 19 Nov 2018 email to related Canadian prosecutors, as well as The Governor General Of Canada, and the government of Taiwan: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N3V7ZNwdSn7lwBitIV7mBnRE0g3BTRz9/view?usp=sharing
The underlying petition to support the necessary global shift toward recognition of international human rights beyond the scope of the courtroom is at http://www.change.org/p/her-excellence-ms-tsai-please-help-us-correct-injustices-occurring-in-canada/u/23434601
22 Nov 2018
Keep fighting for people power!
Politicians and rich CEOs shouldn't make all the decisions. Today we ask you to help keep Change.org free and independent. Our job as a public benefit company is to help petitions like this one fight back and get heard. If everyone who saw this chipped in monthly we'd secure Change.org's future today. Help us hold the powerful to account. Can you spare a minute to become a member today?I'll power Change with $5 monthly