A Discourse on the Method - René Descartes

I have much admiration for a man who studied even false knowledge (8) in order not to be deceived by them and who values experiential learning and not just 'book learning (10).  Descartes' reasoning on methodology makes sense on some levels but on others, it does not.

How would one accept something as incontrovertibly true? (17)
I see a tree, I can feel it - must it then be true?  I suppose it is rational to answer in the positive but what of those who suffer from mental illnesses in which their paranoia of e.g. someone following me (even though no one else is around).  The stalker may not be true to me but it is very true for the person who suffers from paranoia.  "I think therefore I am" - there is certainly truth to this, in proving one's existence but for the sake of argument, what of those humans who are in a coma but living.  Is this person thinking?  And if not, does this person exists?  We know that this person physically exists but if someone does not have rational mind, does this render their existence futile?  I have more questions than answers/comments for Descartes' text...  I realize that Descartes does not rely entirely on our senses to perceive the world but to separate sensory experiences from mind from body does not make sense...

While I see the logic in Descartes' reasoning of categorizing items for analysis (17), I would argue that there are some things that logic cannot necessarily address.  Spirituality is one of them.  I suppose for some religious persons, 'faith' rather than 'logic' guides their spirituality.  Also, some things just cannot be put into words or categorized.  e.g. the beauty of nature cannot be logically reasoned.

Part III, third maxim (23): I agree with his idea that changing desires, in a Buddhist sense - in essence to mitigating desires and thus 'suffering'/stress but I disagree that one cannot change the world and that one can only change our thoughts.  I understand that there are some things in nature that we just cannot change (and then there are things in nature that we ought not change but do anyway leading to environmental destruction) but I do think that change requires collective actions from all humans.  We can change the world through our actions and thoughts.  I think the Occupy Movement is a good example.  The civil rights movement is another.  Change may be small but incremental nonetheless and may take hundreds of years to achieve.  Descartes' philosophy seem to hinder this change, at least in the way that I am reading it.. and I will have to strongly disagree with him on this issue.

I also disagree with Descartes' separation of body from soul/mind. As we learned from Professor Paul Crowe, this concept does not exist in Confucianism.  My view is that our thinking mind relies heavily on our body.  If we stop breathing even for a very short period of time and oxygen no longer flows to our brain, our brain will start to 'die' rapidly resulting in brain damage or death. Then, by this logic, our mind is very, very much tied to our body.  It is much, much more than just a machine as Descartes puts it.  The body and mind absolutely depend on each other.  To privilege one over the other does not seem logical to me.  At the same time, he claims a union of mind and body!  Animals do not have a mind and are only a machine.  We supposedly have a rational mind and thus can be hungry and feel pain because we have a mind and a (machine) body.  Sorry but Descartes can't have his cake and eat it too..  This argument is not just jiving...

I also find his theory on the existence of God highly dubious.  We are incomplete/inperfect, therefore there must be a perfect being out there whom we depend on (30).  Bad things like sadness, doubt, etc. cannot exist from Him (30).  Descartes himself said that he will only take as truth those things that he knows to be absolutely true.  How does he absolutely know about God's existence?  I find his logic flawed and his reasoning circular in this particular issue.  He knows he exists because he has a thinking mind but on what basis other than faith does he know of God's existence?  I am reminded of SFU's PHIL XX1 Critical Thinking course.  While I do not disagree that good reasoning provides for a good methodology and analysis, I cannot see this applied in every single instance.  The issue of God is definitely one of them.  The course title is misleading to me.  Logic does not always lead to good reasoning in all instances.

I strongly disagree with his theory on animals!  Animals feel pain, joy, suffering, hunger, pain just like we do.  Anyone who has spent time with animals on a personal level knows this. They are most definitely not machines as he theorizes.  He seems to be stabbing himself in the foot.  He said himself that he will take as truth only what he knows as incontrovertibly true.  Well, how on earth does he know that they have no mind just because animals do not know language in the manner that humans do?  Unfortunately, it is theories like Descartes' that support the inhumane treatment of animals and the destruction of nature (as something to be molded/conquered).

Afterclass thoughts: First of all, I really enjoyed Professor Lisa Shapiro's seminar!  And I can appreciate the method professed by Descartes as an excellent way to organize in a logical sequence but again, while a useful method, it still nonetheless is not as universal as he professes it to be in this specific text (e.g. spirituality).  I still have problems with his thesis on god.  I think that if we replace soul/mind with energy and god with life, I can relate to his thesis a bit better:
the soul is immortal and does not need the body = energy cannot be created or destroyed. energy from death will regenerate into energy for new life.
god = the life force of nature that we do not really have the ability to explain.
If I interpret Descartes this way, I can appreciate his thesis a lot more.  However, even which this 'newfound' appreciated, I still think that his rationale for the existence of god as very flawed.  Just because we are incomplete/imperfect, there is no logic to say that there is some perfection out there, whatever we take "god" to mean.

King Lear

I confess that the thought of reading Shakespeare scares me.  The only Shakespeare I've ever read was Taming of the Shrew in English 11 and Macbeth in English 12, many, many moons ago.  I had difficulty understanding the language then and I confess that I still do today.  Somehow, just reading the play doesn't bring about the vivid imagery for me and so it was helpful for me to rewatch Ran, Akira Kurosawa's version of King Lear before reading the text.  Perhaps I rely on the visuals to fully understand Shakespeare as I enjoy and 'get it' when I attend Bard on the Beach plays.

I'll discuss a few themes/events/characters that stuck out for me.

Ironic that the Fool is the wisest character in the play!  He sees through all the characters' motives and the bad and/or wise decisions they make.  He warns Lear of his errors but Lear does not see it.  It is only through a series of unfortunate events causing Lear's downfall and suffering that he begins to realize his poor judgement in banishing Cordelia and Kent and elevating Goneril and Regan.  It is is a sense only by being the "Other" (e.g. the banished: Cordelia and Kent) that he understands what it is like to be banished/refused/disrespected/powerless.  And in the end, the suffering makes turns him into a better man.  A theme similar to Julian of Norwich, Dante's Inferno.  He redeemed himself at the very end but dies from the grief over the one daughter who loved him, Cordelia.

Loyalty seems to me to be a theme that really stands out.  I am impressed by Cordelia and Kent's loyalty (a form of love, I suppose but I wouldn't call it outright love necessarily) to Lear.  Their sense of duty reminds me of the sense of duty advocated by Mencius.  In this particular case, the loyalty of Cordelia and Kent also translates as compassion - compassion and empathy for the now poor and powerless Lear. Again, I see the theme of identifying with the "Other".  It is through identification with the "Other" that compassion can be made possible.

Honesty - Cordelia and Kent's action of speaking the truth causes them banishment and loss of power while Goneril, Regan and Edmund's lies get them 'ahead in the game' - at least in the beginning.  Very Machiavellian.  Deceit brings power.  In his particular case though, Goneril, Regan and Edmund "lose" in the end and suffer tragedy themselves.  Justice is meted, so to speak (except for Cordelia and Gloucester). Kent is elevated to ruler at the end of the tragedy and in a sense, his honesty and loyalty brings him power although in tragic circumstances.  Cordelia on the other hand, is murdered.  A sacrifice of all that is good - sort of like Christ.

Gloucester's gouged eyes - very dramatic.  Perhaps this symbolizes his 'blindness' in not being able to see through Edmund's plots?  Or his 'blindness' in not recognize Edmund as his own flesh and blood (rather than as a 'bastard child').

Aging - Lear's aging is a return to infanthood in the eyes of Goneril and Regan.  He is to be rendered powerless and be told what to do by his two oldest daughter.  He challenges this but to no avail.

Afterclass thought: I find it a bit offensive the ageism discussed in this class.  There was the question of Cordelia as a young passionate/stubborn 'child'.  Ditto with Antigone and also Heloise. I catch myself being ageist at times too, at aged 35, no 'spring chicken' myself.  It is not fair to pick on youthfulness and to equate it with naivity/passion and though unspoken, in a sense stupidity.  With age, does not necessarily come wisdom.  To imply this is incorrect and unfair.  I work with young university students and sure, I encounter plenty of naive youth but I also encounter amazing youth that puts me into awe their awareness and wisdom despite their young age.  I wished I had been that aware at 20 but sadly, I was not.

It was not clear to be that there was a fixed 'ritual' at the beginning of the play until Budra pointed it out...

Interesting that Lear treats the Fool well and accepts his honesty yet banishes Cordelia for her honesty.

"King Lear" and the Fool in Akira Kurosawa's Ran

The Prince - Niccolò Machiavelli

I am not clear if this text is meant as a guide for rulers or if it is meant as merely an accurate reflection of what successful rulers have done in the past in order to maintain their power.  Perhaps a little of both?  What is most fascinating is how the text accurately reflects many of today's rulers system of governance many, many years later.  What a complete contrast to Mencius' ways of governing!  I have to say that Mencius' philosophy is much dearer to my heart than Machiavelli's!  It seems to me that the ends justify the means, no many how unethical the means are.

On keeping promises/being true to the prince's word (ch. 18):
While Machiavelli advocates keeping to one's word, he has no qualms with deception by any means necessary either.  I am thinking to George Orwell's 1984 in government censorship and doublespeak - a definite form of deception.  And of course, how can I not think of Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney and their cronies in their deceptions about the Iraq war and (the lack of) weapons of mass destructions and their justifications of torture.  I am perpetually amazed that they are free men and that not more people see through their deception.  Perhaps deception and propaganda advocated by Machiavelli is just that powerful...

Ditto for the ch. 15 on virtues.  Be virtuous but abandon it when necessary - wow.  Two faced, in other words.  For this, I am reminded of Obama.  He was the 'new hope' for America.  People cried when he won the election.  He gets incorrectly labeled as a socialist which he is most absolutely not!  Being a cynic, I never had hopes in him or hope of change through government.  He was seen and is still seen as the kind and nice president.  Somehow, the fact that he is leading wars and bombing South Asia and the Middle East seems to have escaped people's consciousness.  The fact that more people have been deported from the USA since his presidency also seems to have lost in all the 'hope' message.  I haven't heard "Yes, we can" since he won, have you?

I do not disagree with the author's premise that humans are generally self-interested creatures but I do also believe in humanity, that we also have the ability to think about others, not just ourselves.  Of course, we put ourselves first, out of self-preservation but think of the past examples of goodness of humanity (people sharing the one loave of bread with others because they could not bear to not do so in war, disasters, etc., people saving human lives, risking their lives doing do (e.g. Rwanda genocide, Holocaust).

Afterclass thoughts: I confess that I was viewing this book through my current day lens.  I understand that Italy was in turmoil but can unity and order be reached by the methods advocated by Machiavelli?  I don't know.  I don't know what I would do if I was a prince and my kingdom was being invaded.  My questions are more of (1) What gives anyone a right to rule over others?  Especially with cruelty (if necesary) - I mean, what does that mean???  Who determines when cruelty is necessary?  Who and how many persons get to determine the fate of an entire people  and area?  Why should there be kingdoms at all?  How would the actions of a prince as advocated by Machiavelli be different from that of a dictator's? Machiavelli was an 'advisor'.  I liked what Will said in class.  Advisors' talk is cheap in that they never have to go out to battle.  Perhaps they may think differently if they did.

Dante's Inferno

Amazing vivid imagery - kudos to Dante's overactive imagination!  I confess that this book read like a fantastic horror flick to me in many ways.  I understand that this text is about confronting the 'evils' in life.  I am struck by the horrors and lack of compassion of this God.  Like Enchiridion, the God in this text appears to be to be very, very cruel.  I never understood why anyone would want to subscribe to such a cruel god..  vengeful and hateful!  Dante the Pilgrim torturing and relishing in sinners' pain (e.g. refusing to remove ice from eyes thus breaking his promise, pulling chunks of hair out) - what kind of sick <bleep> is this?!  I have always thought this about this portrayal of Christian God.  I can understand the compassionate God and Jesus in a more mystical Christianity (find the Jesus/God in you philosophy, similar to find the Buddha within you) but not this cruel, cruel God.

I am also struck by a powerless Lucifer in this text.  Lucifer seems static, frozen, unable to do much which then means that all the eternal suffering is caused by God, a very, very cruel one.  I suppose one can read this text as a cautionary tale.  I am reminded of the violence, suffering and deaths in some children's fairy tales.  Perhaps this text is in tune with that genre, generally speaking.

On suicides - I am extremely appalled by the lack of compassion from God for those who led a miserable life and then who takes their own lives.  They will be punished eternally in hell - WTF?!  Seriously, what kind of sick God is this..  where is the mercy and compassion that Julian of Norwich talks about?

It is interesting how God/heaven/hell/ have been interpreted by various peoples...

I didn't give much thought to the difference levels of hell but as Steve points out, being a traitor is one of the worst sins one can commit and the 'sin' pertains to the maintenance of early capitalist system.  Very interesting - this had to be pointed out to me given my lack of knowledge of this time period. Interesting how capitalist propaganda has evolved over the years.

Julian of Norwich

When I first read JoN, I thought to myself, "Did Julian accidentally consume ergot via moldy bread?" but then again, I thought, it is possible to reach the mystical state that J experienced through other means such as deep meditation, fasting and even through illness (e.g. meningitis has been known to produce hallucinogenic experiences).

J's description of the alternating emotions of sorrow and bliss (14) and the rapidly changing face of Christ (aging./decaying) (15) - these descriptions are extremely similar to the psychedelic experiences I have had while on hallucinogenic drugs which is why I thought ergot/moldy bread..  On my personal experience on sorrow - everyday, my partner and I discuss some aspects of inequality/suffering/social justice issues and so these thoughts are deeply ingrained in me.  As an atheist, I attribute the feelings of deep, deep sorrow I feel to the suffering of the billions of people, animals - our collective suffering (similar to J's interpretation on page 17).  My partner would comfort me when I experience these sorrowful moments and my emotion would often change to one of bliss.  I would burst into uncontrollably laughter.  I attribute this to the beauty that there is in the world, to the hope and the goodness that exists despite the suffering.  If I was a religious person (and not understanding why I am having visions), I can see attributing these very deep emotions to God but since I am not religious, my interpretation of my personal visions is quite different.  I also experience the 'decay' of faces and human bodies.  Again, I attribute this to a secular reason - the natural of birth and death.  What is alive must die but the dead is 'reborn' via decay.  The decay of our flesh becomes sustenance for other living things.  I see it as a beautiful thing and I rejoice in laughter.

I find it interesting that a good number of my classmates expressed a desire to experience the visions of Julian and that they were drawn to the God and Christ that Julian sees.  I can understand wanting to experience such powerful visions - to me, this is psychedelic experience in its highest form in its ability to (hopefully) transform one's self for the better.  A psychedelic experience is a religious experience.   I cannot say that I am drawn to Julian's God.  She is giving too much credit to a supposedly loving God but I am not convinced by her reasoning.

Christ's sacrifice is similar to the highest form of love professed in Plato's Symposium (12, 28).  I think this concept has been misused in many ways.  I am thinking of wars in today's context.  Soldiers who die in wars are relegated to some higher level ('Our military died so we can enjoy our rights today' argument).  Civilians who are murdered by military during war are called 'collateral damage'.  Killing to bring peace and democracy just doesn't sound right to me...  The concept of sacrifice as an elevated being is problematic in many, many ways.  I recognize that this concept is much older than the concept of Christ.

As with many of the religious texts we have been reading, I see this writing as a guide to mitigate our suffering on earth.  Nothing more.

J's desire to suffer is a complete put-off as I view it through my modern lens.  It is so non-lie affirming.  I recall my trip to Sakata, Japan where I viewed mummified bodies of Buddhist monks who starved themselves to death.  It was believed that those who manage to do this and naturally mummify their bodies (by only eating one nut a day underground with little air to breathe) to reach Buddhahood.  I thought about them when reading JoN.

Love is a Stranger - Rumi

The background on Rumi and Middle Eastern culture from Shab was very, very helpful in trying to understand Rumi a little better.  I confess that I didn't really know what to write for my journal entry on Rumi (or Sappho).  The poems are lovely and evocative but can be interpreted in many ways.  I won't (and do not dare to) attempt an analysis on Rumi but will instead comment on some few concepts that were significant to me.

I do not disagree that Rumi speaks on divine love but one can interpret divine love in many ways.  Through my atheist lens, I read 'divine love' (as applied in my own life) as the unity/oneness we feel for all of humanity, all creatures, all living and non-living things on earth (and beyond).  This one sentence captures the sentiment well for me.
"I've disappeared like a drop of vinegar
in an ocean of honey" (14).

I adore The Root of the Root of Yourself (16-17)!  But I adore it in a secular way despite the mention of God.  Letting go of one's ego, setting oneself free from "things that don't exist" (17).  Very Buddhist!  A very passionate poem, speaking on the bliss that one can attain if you let go of the things that don't really matter in life.  I read the concept of God much as the "Buddha/God" within you, not some higher being that we look up to.

In The Intellectual (21), Rumi appears to put down reason and to note the importance of passion.  Rumi certainly manages to convey passion very well!  There is often sooooo much emphasis placed on reason in our modern western world and passion put down.  It is refreshing and a wonderful sign that Rumi's passion is still being read today.  I think that our ability to be passionate is an important element of our ability to reason.  It is my passion for animals that lead me to my vegan lifestyle.  My mind has been very preoccupied with the Occupy movements around the world.  I would argue that it is reason but it is also a lot of passion that fuels the 99%.  I was worked up in passion/rage during the 2010 Olympics.  I was baffled by seemingly intelligent people who did not understand why some resisted this event, not just on Coast Salish territories but all around the world.  My insightful partner said, “Intelligence does not equate awareness.  You are giving intelligence far too much credit”.  This stuck with me.  In the context of Occupy, I am seeing a lot of passion from various parties.  The movement seems fractured but I think the passion will carry the people through.

Heart to Heart ... and An Afternoon Trim

CHARACTERS

Arjuna	Recently elected leader of the nation, Dilemma
Creon	Leader of the nation, Polis
Mencius	Barber and counselor to Arjuna and Creon
Anonymous[1]	99% of humanity

---

[1] 21^st century Chorus. 

SETTING 

The year 2011 AD in Mencius Barber Shoppe.  Arjuna is in need of a haircut while Creon is in need of a shave. 

Arjuna is trying to sit still while Mencius is tending to his hair needs.

Arjuna	Woe, my dear friend and barber, Mencius – I am so confused!  I don’t know what to do.  Oh, just a one-inch trim all around, please.
Mencius	Right, boss.  One-inch off all around.  What is the matter, Arjuna?  Spill your woes to me.
Arjuna	Kauravas, my defeated election opponent and my dearest cousin is crying foul, claiming election fraud and that he is the rightful ruler of Dilemma.  He is as we are speaking, plotting a war and an assassination attempt on me with other members of our family – his own flesh and blood!  How can I summon opposing family members and battle my own kin whom I have played with, learned with and from and grown up with?
Mencius	You must do your duties to your family but you must also think with your Heart, to think morally.  Treat members of your family with respect in accordance to their age and hierarchy.  Extend this philosophy to your community, to your nation, to all others around you and feel the domino effect of the love around you (11).
Arjuna	But Krishna, my military advisor tells me that it is my duty to fight against Kauravas.  It is my dharmic duty to fight as a warrior.  I am to instill self-discipline and to carry out my warrior duties.  Death, passions and emotions are temporal.  “Try to see the bigger picture”, Krishna counsels me.  Oh Mencius, easier said than done.  One minute I think Krishna is right, the next minute, I think, no, something doesn’t sit well with me. My gut is wrenched!
Mencius	You have spoken of very clear somatic signs of a thinking heart, my dear Arjuna.  You are aware and thinking about the suffering that would befall you, loved ones and numerous others if you battle Kauravas.  You have the heart of compassion and benevolence, of shame and duty.  Are you questioning your heart of right and wrong, or wisdom? (38)  What is the right or wrong action – are you looking for answers from me?
Anonymous	The both of you talk about duty.  Is duty used interchangeably with obedience or are we talking about moral duty here?  We all have a moral duty to each other, to humanity.  This is our greatest duty.  Yes, we must attend to duties to our parents, teachers and even nature.  But we must never forget our duty to humanity!  This duty outweighs our obedience or duty to any one leader or loved one! All this killing on both sides – for what?  So either you or your cousin can feel powerful and exert authority over others?!  Think about it!
Mencius	Follow the Way, follow your Thinking Heart.  Do what comes naturally.  You have duties to various peoples.  We all do.  You ought to do your duties to loved ones.  Remember that you also have a duty to yourself.  Look into the mirror.  Look inward for your necessary course of actions (85).  Do not underestimate the transformative power of duties of virtue and benevolence.  Oh and hold still, will you?  Or I might accidentally take out an ear!
Arjuna	My gut is wrenched and it is difficult to hold still, dear friend but I shall try a little harder.  What good can come from me killing my kin, with interfamilial violence?  So I can hold on to the title of Dilemma’s leader?  Is this worth the pain and suffering?  Does my universal and dharmic duty as a warrior superceed my duty as cousin, brother, nephew and uncle to my kin as Krishna counsels?
Mencius	Interfamilial violence is cyclical.  If you kill Kauravas, someone will avenge him and someone else will avenge the avenger and so on.  The killing will never end (158-159).
Arjuna	So what should I do?  Krishna tells me that renunciation of action is worse than action (59).  I am so confused.  My soul is tormented.
Anonymous	Do your duty to humanity!  Duty to humanity means avoiding killing and conflict whenever possible.  Krishna’s counsel is meant as a way to cope with the dilemma of ‘to battle Kauravas or not’.  If you fight as Krishna counsels you to, his rationale, in theory, absolves you from any wrongdoing.  You must do what you were in a sense destined to do.  This thinking is fundamentally flawed.  You must think of your universal brothers and sisters, not just your blood relations.  This battle involves others too.  Look inward and then look at humanity.  What do you see?

Creon is in the next barber chair getting his beard trimmed by Mencius’ colleague.

Creon	Excuse me for cutting in, fellas… but I couldn’t help listening into your conversation.  Mind if I chime in?
Arjuna	Sighing.  I need all the advice I can get.  Please do.
Creon	Creon is my name, leader of Polis.  You are Arjuna, I gathered and we all know Mencius of course.  Pleased to meet you.  Extending hand to shake.
Arjuna	And you.  Shaking Creon’s hand.

Mencius tips his hat and nods to both men.

Creon	I confess that my intention in joining in this conversation is somewhat selfish.  I, too have a conundrum and would love your insights.  But first, let me say a few words about your problem, Arjuna.  Just remember that your nation is first.  You must do whatever it takes to protect your nation.  You must be a patriot before you are a brother, nephew or uncle! (68)
Arjuna	You have confused me further.  I do not understand.
Creon	You are the rightfully elected leader of Dilemma.  Sure, the election was contentious but you were declared the winner of the election in accordance to Dilemma’s laws.  You cannot allow a rebellion to take charge.  You must be patriotic first, uphold this election result and defend the nation from an illegal uprising!
Arjuna	But what good can come out of kin killing kin?
Anonymous	What good can come out of killing, period!  We are anonymous and we ask that the killing stops now!  No more misanthropy!
Mencius	Gentlemen, may I remind you the important things in life – a family that is well, happy and provided for.  Dignity and pride in all of one’s actions in life.  A life that others will want to strive towards also.   Ruling nations is not one of life’s delights (148-149).
Anonymous	Affirm your unity and oneness with humanity!  We must do our duty to humanity!  No one person has a right to rule over another.  We are anonymous and we ask that the killing stops now!  No more misanthropy!
Creon	But the nation-state is first!  Traitors must not be tolerated!  You cannot allow your nation to be invaded and your reign contested!
Mencius	You must measure your own Heart, Arjuna (12).   “Only when there are things a man will not do is he capable of doing great things” (90).
Arjuna	What Krishna counsels makes sense.  What Mencius counsels makes sense.  What Creon counsels makes sense.  What Anonymous counsels make sense.  Deep sighing.  I will take everything in and reflect.  Now tell me Creon about your woes.
Creon	There has been a civil war in my nation.  Kin killing kin for a hold on power over the nation.   My nephews, Polyneices and Eteocles died battling each other.  Polyneices brought outside forces to fight against Polis.  He is a traitor to Polis.  I must make him an example to my nation’s people!  We will not tolerate traitors!  Patriots, huzzah!
Arjuna	And how will you make Polyneices an example to your people?
Creon	His body will be left out in the battlefield for creatures to devour and for all to see.  This is what the body of a traitor looks like (68).
Anonymous	What good is that to humanity?!
Creon	Patriots over traitors!  This is my principle; this is the law!  Security of the homeland is first priority!
Mencius	Recall the transformative power of virtue and benevolence, Creon (11).   The way you treat the people of your nation should be an extension of the way you should treat your offsprings.  You must tend to their needs (9).  This is what makes a ruler great, not the physical size of his nation-state.
Creon	Old man, what does that have to do with Polyneices not being given proper burial rites?!  My patience wears thin!
Anonymous	Example?!  How horrid to dehumanize your kin.  To allow the desecration of your nephew’s body!  What happened to your humanity?  Was Polyneices not once near and dear to you?
Creon	He was but he was also a traitor.  All of Polis must know! My foolish young niece, Antigone breaks the law forbidding a proper burial for Polyneices.  She is young and foolish.  The law is the law.  Anyone who breaks the law but suffer the death penalty.  The law is fair and objective.  I must apply the law equally to all, kin or not (68-69).  Homeland security first.  Citizenship of the nation first.
Anonymous	‘Trophies’ of war on display!  Horrors of war on display!  Oh the lack of humanity!  This body - once a human being, your own flesh and blood!  We are anonymous and we demand humanity!
Mencius	A desecrated body on display in the name of homeland security.  Rule by fear cannot be everlasting.  Rule by respect and admiration is the way of a proper leader (36).  Recall also duty to family.  Antigone is your family.  Antigone was doing her duty to her brother.
Anonymous	Oh the humanity!  Spare Antigone, your own flesh and blood.  Have you no heart?  The law is law, you say but if one man alone can create law, then how can law be universal and just?  Smash authority!  Smash concentrated power!  Civil disobedience, my people!  Rise up against unjust laws and stand strong on your principles!
Creon	My principles lie with the law!
Mencius	Think with your Heart, dear Creon.  I know that your nature is originally good.  Compassion in action.  Being able to look others in the eye, duties and rites (38).  Reflect on the necessary actions that you must take in the near future.
Arjuna	What Mencius counsels make sense.  What Anonymous counsels makes sense.  What Creon counsels makes sense.  But how to make sense of it all?
Mencius	The key is to follow your Heart, your Thinking Heart.

Creon moves his chin to the left for the beard trim.

Anonymous	We are Anonymous!  Show us humanity!
Mencius	Polis has been under turmoil.  Civil war is never good.  You must practice constant Heart.  Look inward and you will find the necessary actions (79).
Creon	I had my mind made up and now you have all confused me.
Mencius	Follow the Way.  Follow your Thinking Heart and tremendous joy will come to you (87).  You ought not go “against the spirit of dutifulness” (89).
Anonymous	Kin and kin battled each other.  Must yet another kin die by the laws of another kin?  When does the killing end?  We are anonymous and we ask that the killing stops now!  No more misanthropy!
Creon	We have many duties and many social roles.  How does one trump another?
Mencius	Do what comes naturally.  Follow the natural rhythm.  Follow the Way.  Showing mirror to Arjuna.  So what do you think of the haircut?
Arjuna	Fantastic, Mencius.  I feel like a new man.
Creon	It’s always good to shed – I feel ten pounds lighter!  Laughing.
Mencius	Well, it’s been a pleasure, friends.  I wish you both the best and I trust you to follow your Hearts.
Arjuna	Till next time, friends.
Creon	Toodles!  Waving goodbye.

References
The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War (B. Stoler Miller, Trans.).  (2004).  NewYork: Bantam Classic.

Mencius (D. C. Lau, Trans.).  (2004).  London: Penguin Classics.

Sophocles.  The Three Theban Plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus (R. Fagles, Trans.).  (1984).  New York: Penguin Classics.