i20 : tort of the tortured, 1st ed rough draft; tortured prose

Tort of the Tortured, 1^st edition.

Informal Commentary regarding Intentionality, Scope, and Philosophical Considerations

As of this 1^st edition (2006 CE), torture may be said to be a recurring theme, manifesting throughout human history.

If torture is defined as the human torment of living things, both directly and indirectly, its scope varies from inconsequential (for those entirely without empathy, compassion, remorse, or morality in any normal sense of the words) to overwhelming (for those who happen to be extremely sensitive to various forms of experienced, perceived or otherwise sensed and conceptualized discomfort in others).

The Torturer-Torturee Relationship

For the purposes of this document, essentially a brief contemplation of the states of consciousness associated with the condition of being tortured, there will be assumed to be the Torturer(s) and the Torturee(s) in a simplified dyadic relationship.

Document-specific Terminology and Egregious Errors

Specifically, this document refers to the one or several doing the torturing, referred to herein as the Torturer(s), and the one or several who is or are the subject of such torture, referred to herein as the Torturee(s).

This 1^st edition was written in about two hours; it undoubtedly is in need of substantial reorganization, revision, expansion and/or deletion.

Exclusions and Their Expenses:

Although there may be some relevant applicability, this document neither attempts to specifically allude to, nor indirectly address, such cases as those wherein one happens to be a willing co-participant (such as, but not limited to, masochism, paradigm testing, phenomenology of erotica, etc.),– such cases being considered to be torture as a mutually agreed-upon way to pass some time together. This exclusion also applies to self-torture, although it is understood that self-torture will typically have societal side-effects of not inconsiderable consequence.

Similarly, it is recognized that torture has many side-effects and unintended consequences that are not contained within any hypothetical or theorized overview, and that there are socioeconomic transactions associated with these.

Insanity Clause:

As a first approximation, it is considered herein that (a) human Torturer(s) is/are aberrational. If they are self-aware of their aberrational behavior then it follows that they are quite likely insane. This follows from the notion that truly civilized humane beings, known by our name which also happens to be our definition, “human beings,” are in our very essence as delineated: humane.

If one agrees with this, then it generally follows that any action contrary to such a core delineation makes the human being(s) engaging in such an action essentially inhuman.

Thus, while behaving in the in-humane manner of (a) Torturer(s) to, simultaneously to all intents and purposes, appear to remain overtly human is nonetheless, by its very nature, an aberrational act of sufficient dysfunction as to either move the perpetrator thereof into the category of the non-human (many would argue the sub-human) or to invoke the notion of insanity. Although arguments may be made for the necessity of torture in presumably extremely time-critical enquiries known as interrogations or renditions, these arguments remain unsubstantiated and, upon closer inspection, implausible.

Similarly, one may argue that the necessities of protecting civilization outweigh the requirements of actually having a civilization, but to what purpose arising from what intentionality? One might as well argue that we are a species of liars, and that we merely gave ourselves such a moniker in order to dissemble as a sort of proof-of-concept.

In any event, such discussion remains outside the scope of this document in its current form.

Teleological Considerations in Regard to Moments Wherein the Torturee(s) believe in a Divine Entity or Entities, or believe that (a) Divine Entity or Entities Believe(s) in the Torturee(s):

If the Torturee(s) choose to, or otherwise happen to, believe in an Entity or Entities that Created, and/or is/are Creating and quite likely continuing to Create, what the Torturee(s) take to be the universe, then the Torturee(s) shall, during their time as Torturee(s), consider that/those Entity(s) to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, and submit to said Entity(s)'’s greater understanding(s) of their proper course through what the Torturee(s) take to be reality, in order that the Torturee(s) may adequately evolve or otherwise attain to any presumed ultimate state(s) or goal(s) ordained, prescribed or proscribed by said Entity or Entities.

While in the sway of such belief the Torturee(s) shall, as a generalization, assume their Torturer(s) to be an unwitting tool of such an Entity or Entities except during such moments (if any) wherein the Torturee(s) happen to believe in an equal or greater Force emanating or manifesting from an equivalently non-beneficial anti-Entity or anti-Entities. Although such reflection leads to an entire realm of further contemplation in regard to the nature of polarizations – of Good and Evil in particular, such reflection shall not be engaged upon in this 1^st edition.

In either event, the Torturee(s) will assume their level of torment, plus exposure to the phenomenological constraints of their Torturer(s) to be adequate and sufficient to have driven them, at least temporarily, insane. And, although insane, not inhumane, excepting such situations wherein manipulation of the Torturee(s) to become inhumane is part of the Torturer(s) technique.

In any event, as a generalization, the Torturee(s) will consider their self or themselves to be in such a state of consciousness or states of consciousness and of being as to be essentially at the mercy (and lack of mercy) of said Torturer(s), and also consider them self or themselves as having been constructed (either directly or indirectly) via said Divine Entity or Entities to be of such a nature as to react in whatever manner as naturally (if naturally is the word) arises in relation to the Torturer(s), which as a generalization will be said to include, at a minimum, attempts upon the Torturee(s) part(s) to minimize extremes of pain and to continue to survive.

If such minimizations and continuance require various actions and forms of speech, not excluding prevarications and outright lies, then the Torturee(s) shall at some point consider them to be a viable option. The fact that such prevarications and lies may encourage the Torturer(s) to engage in behaviors or actions that are against the Torturer(s) presumed best interests will fall outside the scope of responsibility for the Torturee(s) in question.

In moments when the Torturee(s) belief falters, or if the Torturee(s) happen to not believe in (a) Divine Entity(s) whatsoever:

This language shall follow that of the section regarding a belief in a Divine Entity or Divine Entities with Omniscient and Omnipotent characteristics, but shall be essentially simpler in ways as yet to be determined.