dragged behind the vacant lot.
This will not be case of the Pointer of Prosecution. He has a will bent not to your ideals. He has no desire to uncover your guiltless path. Why try your swing on such proven hard mettle?
Beggar's Son: Tis a not a battle of wits, I seek, with battering tongues against shields of bone but a sifting ofash. An accumulation of tiny bones and bits of coal. To reconstruct the past in what was there and what was not. Cold facts but one must be infinitely delicate in their handle. This is no blacksmith's act but a jeweller's.
You say the Pointer of Prosecution is hard willed. True, but where better to search than a place multilayered with solid packed use. Fire upon fire. Flame of thought built; extinguished upon flame of thought. Where better to poke than the greatest heap?
If I seek gold would I not knock at the rich man's door?
Your Honour, you have said that the Prosecution has no desire to uncover my guiltless path. I would add, Your Honour, that neither has he a compel of lose or gain in sending out a wide scatter of truth. For are not his duties a light, a beacon in the dark ways of man? He is no gravedigger given to bury what should be upheld.
For in the Courts, as in the world, the Prosecutioners point straighter than our Defence. For it has been said "A friend knows thy faults, but only an Enemy will spill them at your feet".
I wish to spill the faultlessness of my acts to the Court's feet. Who better to help than the trusted enemy of my defence, the Prosecution?
Judge: Providing the Prosecution has no further objections, your unusual request is granted.
With a grin, the Prosecution shrugged his shoulders good naturedly and replied: "I am only human, Your Honour and as such am given to be wooed and flattered. Having been Called the Golden Beacon of Illuminating Flame in Pinnacled Thought, I can hardly waver and sit dim in this shadow of cornered glare. I must use and assume my higher place, that this wandering beggar may have his Vision." And with a pat to his large belly, finished with:" It is the eternal calling of all Great Shining Spheres to bear witness upon the follies of man"
Even the Judge could not avoid a chuckle over these satiric jests.
The Pointer of Prosecution sat in the witness chair and was duly sworn in. From his cage, the Beggar's young son began his questioning.
Beggar: Would you, sir, define your meaning of the word: likeness.
Prosecution: I would say it means that objects are similar; a sameness.
Beggar: Exactly the same?
Prosecution: No, not exactly; but rather properties of some type are exact or in proportion.
Beggar: Could things of likeness have the same exactness but varying proportion?
Prosecution: What do you mean?
Beggar: A small ball and a huge ball are exact in their construct and shape but are quite dissimilar in proportion. Is this still likeness?
Prosecution: Very much so.
Beggar: Would a small cube and huge ball have a likeness?
Prosecution: No, they differ much in construct and proportion.
Beggar: Then a large cube and a large ball would have a likeness due to similar proportion?
Prosecution: Yes.
Beggar: What if we had a rat, a small cube and a huge ball which two have the greater likeness?
Prosecution: No, they differ much in construct and proportion.
Beggar: Then a large cube and large ball would have a likeness due to similar proportion?
Prosecution: Yes.
Beggar: What if we had a rat, a small cube and a huge ball which two have the greater likeness?
Prosecution: I would say the cube and the ball as they are inanimate whereas the rat is a living thing.
Beggar: But did we not find previously that the cube and ball had no likeness?
Prosecution: Yes, but the introduction of the rat changed the frame of comparison.
Beggar: Then likeness is not an absolute value but judgmental; that is dependent upon the point of reference. What is this point of reference?
Prosecution: I would say it is set by the viewer to mark the specific scope or area of his concern. That is to say, if the viewer is concerned about colour he will judge likeness by colour ignoring proportion, content, etc.
Beggar: Do you mean to say the viewer will 'bend' things to his own judgement of likeness?
Prosecution: No, he will not distort the objects. They are inert. He will simply set up a gate of two poles in his mind. Those of a likeness to the picture on the gate pass through. Those which do not cannot pass through. He simply ignores all that is of non-likeness in his frame of mind. If there was a small red cube, a large orange ball and a large red parrot and three men judged them; one by colour; one by size; one by living or inanimate there would be large disagreement to likeness.
Beggar: Could the other two men convince the man judging by colour that the parrot and the cube are not unlike?
Prosecution: No. Never.
Beggar: Why is that do you think.
Prosecution: Two things. One is that fundamentally the man of colour knows truth in his 'frame of mind'. They are not arguing with a doubtful man. The second problem is that for each to argue his case in the mind of the other is absurd. The logics of their systems do not fit, they would babble misunderstood in three languages.
Beggar: Is there any way these men can find a common language to compare with?
Prosecution: I would guess that before they argue their judgements, they should discuss and clarify their values.
Beggar: You mean if their values are different, their judgements cannot be but different?
Prosecution: Yes, cause and effect.
Beggar: Would you suggest then the three men come to a compromise or a blending of their values before passing judgement?
Prosecution: No that again is absurdity. For each man to take a little colour, a little size, a little living will result in a ridiculous unanimous verdict that all things are alike and not alike. Philosophically it may sound pretty but it has absolutely no use or resolution for each man's needs and wants in the judgement of his values. What seemed at first a solution is simply a stalemate and worse a dilution of each man's values.
Beggar: But there is now harmony, is there not?
Prosecution: No, I disagree. Harmony is the playing of musical instruments to a combined creation, yet each has its own notes and tempo to play. These men have not created harmony but silence.
Beggar: A solution?
Prosecution: That each declare his system of values and any other men of the same incline gather about him. The others of different value do likewise. Let all the values be known and understood. Where the values differ, let them differ. Must a flower be a weed or a weed be a tree? The same with men. Where the values differ, expect different judgements. A man can easily err his judgement. But whether he is in error or not is to be judged within his peer of values. For will not all others of different values see his judgement as error regardless of its absolute truth within his values.
Beggar: If 100 men have 100 different values of likeness to our three objects, can it not be said that each will be wrong 99 out of 100 times at least?
Prosecution: No, error is only known within the absolute place of a man's values.
Beggar: If our man of colour, judged wrongly, he would then be an ally of another. 2 against 1! As if agreement can only be found by the collective error of men rather than an understanding of values.
Prosecution: No, when the values are clear, let any error be reprimanded by those of the same values, only.
Then when each man of different values, states his judgement of likeness, conflict will not result since none expected agreement!
This is your harmony, Beggar's son, different notes without conflict. Recomposed by understanding.
Beggar: May I just say sir that I am stunned by the richness of this first layer we have sifted through.
Prosecutor: None of your glibs and digs, Beggar, just the questions. (But he did look a little
pleased with himself).
Beggar: To give a little clarification then, sir. Can we say that 'likeness' is a phenomena which implies similar characteristics of construct or proportion specific to the reference of the viewer as defined solely by the viewer. That the judgement of 'likeness' is as equally dependent on the viewer's value of reference as it is on the objects themselves.
Prosecution: Yes, I believe those were the major points we touched upon.
Beggar: Then let us continue this way. What would we claim as the parts of a man which bring him above his lesser living partners in this world?
Prosecution: Ah... I would say abstract thinking. Ah... some emotions. And language, communication.
Beggar: Excellent, sir. I have another I might introduce later but first we will focus on these. Now, which emotions did you mean?
Prosecution: Obviously animals will know fear, or pain, or loneliness. I was thinking of emotions of a more intellectual construct like hate, guilt resentment, joy, recrimination, love, justice, ones like that.
Beggar: Could we say it is those emotions which are formulated in the mind rather than as a direct physical need or attack?
Prosecution: Yes that is it. A coyote does not hate rabbits. It will not create some impelling urge to kill only white rabbits and leave brown ones alone. Only man can stoop to something that difficult in logic.
Beggar: Could we say its origins lie in the abstract thinking?
Prosecution: Yes, I believe we could.
Beggar: Now as to language and communication do not animals communicate?
Prosecution: Yes but again in a very uncomplicated way. And a dog regardless of what type or place barks the same for