Doing Away With "Down"?

[Edward Williams]

Why do people say that you can't have justice and injustice in the same universe at the same time?

From my observations you can't have "up" without also having "down". In order to have "up" you have to also know how far up is up. Having "down" helps you to measure that. You can't have back without also having forth. You can't have good without also having evil...and so on.

These people who say you can't have justice and injustice in the same universe at the same time...to me, it's like saying we're going to only have "up" and do away with "down" altogether.

How is this possible?
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

[melaninmagic]

You do not have to possess Justice in order to validate the existance of injustice. You merely have to have knowledge of what Justice should look like; that is, the absense of Racism/White Supremacy. This is not the same thing as actually acquiring said Justice while injustice exists.

In this universe, mutually exclusive opposites do exist. Within the context of R/WS, Justice and Racism/White supremacy are examples of such mutually exclusive phenomena, that will not occur simultaneously.

Keep in mind that the example you used is not a good one; 'up' and 'down' are relative and not absolute terms. As a result, a thing that is 'up' can only be justified by comparing it directly with a thing that is 'down' provided that they are being compared from a third external and impartial frame of reference. Relative terms cannot exist seperately as they may only be quantified through direct measurement and comparison of them both from a third impartial frame of reference.

On the otherhand, 'Justice' and 'Injustice' are absolute terms and are not relative to one another; Justice is guaranteeing that no one is mistreated while guaranteeing that the person who needs help the most, receives the most help. Injustice is Racism/White Supremacy. As absolute terms, they are quite decoupled, and the existance of one does not necessarily imply the existance of the other, even though you may recognize one from the other.

As they exist within their own absolute coordinate systems, measurements may be made and quantified (and this is most important bit) without the mandatory need for comparison between them.
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]

Justice exists right now, even as you have defined it. It exists even if it only exists as a concept, it still exists. So the notion that you can't have justice and injustice in the same universe at the same is ill-logic.

I'm sure the next move on the chess board is to say that the idea is to have the dominant form of behavior, in the universe, to be just behavior. But even that is ill-logic because of your use of the word "guarantee" in the definition of the word "justice".

Edited
I removed the last two sentences. They were not necessary.
_________________
What is the reason YOU were born into a SYSTEM of INJUSTICE if not to replace it with a SYSTEM of JUSTICE?

[melaninmagic]

Firstly, some preliminary definitions:

To Exist is to be REAL. To be REAL, is to have been REAL-IZED. Further, to be Realized is to be observed to manifest in reality and subsequently be quantified by performing some physical measurement.

Now, consider that a concept is simply that. A real concept. However, the thing being conceptualized is intangible and cannot be quantified until it becomes more than just a conceptualization. As a result, even though a concept may be REAL, the thing being conceptualized does not have to be REAL. The thing being conceptualized (Justice) in this case, only becomes real when it is REAL-IZED (or in ebonics, real-ified). Until then, it is merely a figment of one's imagination. Ask yourself if everything in your imagination is Real. Clearly this is not the case.

For example, I could conceptualize a Pink and Purple striped flying dragon smelling of strawberries. The concept itself is real, evidenced by the fact that I can talk about it. However, does this mean that Pink and Purple striped flying dragons actually exist in this Reality? NO.

Similarly, I can conceptualize Justice, suggesting that the concept (imagination) of Justice is real. But does this mean that Justice itself has been Realized; that is, observed to have manifested as part of this reality? NO.

Are thoughts real? YES. But, can everything you think of form part of this reality? NO.

In this case the burden of proof is on you to prove that Justice exists/existed and has been REAL-IZED.

You will have to give a valid scenario that has actually occured where it was guaranteed that no one was mistreated, and that the person who needed help the most received the most help.

In my estimate, this has never been accomplished. The very fact that no one can give that guarantee based on the first part of the definition of Justice, suggests that having Justice presently is impossible. It simply cannot be realized in this present dispensation as long as a system of racism/white supremacy exists, no matter how hard you conceptualize (imagine) it.

As this is the definition I use for Justice (and am assuming this is your definition as well), I will therefore have to disagree with your findings.
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]

[melaninmagic]

Justice does not exist as it has been defined. I know this to be true because Justice has not been Realized (i.e. observed to have occured; caused to happen)
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]

[melaninmagic]

It exists as all of these things, but this is trumped by the fact that it does not exist in Speech or Action. A single Action of Injustice will nullify any progress made by any theoretical act of Justice that may be conceptualized in Idea, Philosophy, Concept, Theory, Thought or Speech.

The 'Theory of Justice" exists. The "Philosophy of Justice" exists. However, the "Practice of Justice" does not exist because the "Practice of Injustice" exists.

You may have a theory about how a thing works. You may even speak about this theory in the hope that it catches on and becomes real. But, this does not mean that the thing you are theorizing will actually become real. Only the theory/idea is real at this point. The thing you are theorizing will only become real when it has been Actioned into existance by some external force.

Action also superceeds Idea, Philosophy, Concept, Theory, Thought and Speech in terms of maximum impact produced.

PRODUCING Justice REQUIRES thought, speech AND action. Currently, Justice only exists in Thought. Not in Speech and most certainly not in Action. The system of Racism/White Supremacy ensures that you cannot successfully accomplish the last two.

Ergo, you cannot PRODUCE Justice as long as the System of Racism/White Supremacy exists.

What will have to happen in the intermediate, is a displacement of R/WS with ATTEMPTED Justice based on the existing "Theory of Justice" (a.k.a. Compensation) until such time where R/WS is completely replaced.

Only then can you say that Justice truly exists. Before this occurence, only "The Theory of Justice" exists. Your fallacy is in mistaking this for real Justice.
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]

[melaninmagic]

With respect to Justice and speech, it has been evidenced that racist/white supremacists have used speech to mistreat others. This is true even though we are currently speaking about producing Justice.

As Justice is guaranteeing that no one is mistreated and that the person who needs help the most receives the most help, one would have to be able to guarantee that a person's speech could not be used to mistreat others. EVER.

"Justice in Speech" by speaking about Justice alone cannot ensure that Justice itself is produced. When you speak of "Justice in Speech" you are merely speaking of the "Philosophy of Justice" and not producing Justice itself. Remember. Justice is only guaranteed through thought AND speech AND action.

It all boils down to this question:

Is the "Theory of Justice" equal to Justice itself? My answer to this is NO.

In this case, one may theorize about producing Justice or speak about producing Justice without ever actually guaranteeing the production of Justice through direct action. This is our current situation as long as the system of racism/white supremacy exists; that it remains impossible for Justice to be actually PRODUCED, while the system Racism/White Supremacy exists. The two PRODUCTS are mutually exclusive.
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]

[melaninmagic]

Firstly, the definition stated is the definition I subscribed to, but all credit must be given to Neely Fuller.

Secondly, so that I am clear, what exactly do you mean by "justice exist in speech"?
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]

[melaninmagic]

Well of course, people can talk about it, but this does not mean that there is justice produced by speech. This simply means that they are using the word "Justice" IN their speech... These are two fundamentally different things!

Let us employ logic to this with some mathematics for clarity;

JUSTICE = "Guaranteeing that no one is mistreated, and ensuring that the person who needs help the most receives the most help"

by substituting the word Justice for its actual definition in the original phrase, we result in:

JUSTICE in SPEECH" = '"Guaranteeing that no one is mistreated, and ensuring that the person who needs help the most receives the most help" in SPEECH.

Now, can you guarantee justice by just speeking about it? NO. Can you guarantee Justice by simply having the word "Justice" in your spoken sentences? NO. This is because Justice requires Thought AND Speech AND Action.
_________________
Banging on the beast daily

[Edward Williams]