Understanding Joshua Mauldin (Man Who Microwaved Baby)

Ahnimus

I was vlogging on free-will and determinism, using this case as an example of the two competing theories. But I think it is also a highly plausible explanation of Joshua Mauldin's behavior. I use this example because people on this board were quite upset over it and a few asked how it could happen. Well, here is a plausible explanation. You can tell me if I'm wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OJVSFJlHYw

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

I was vlogging on free-will and determinism, using this case as an example of the two competing theories. But I think it is also a highly plausible explanation of Joshua Mauldin's behavior. I use this example because people on this board were quite upset over it and a few asked how it could happen. Well, here is a plausible explanation. You can tell me if I'm wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OJVSFJlHYw

That sure is some crazy assed shit.

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_140173602.html

May 20, 2007 4:20 pm US/Central
Mom Blames Devil, Not Dad For Microwaving Kid

(AP) GALVESTON A woman blames the devil and not her husband for severely burning their infant daughter after the 2-month-old was put in a microwave, a Houston television station reported.

Eva Marie Mauldin said Satan compelled her 19-year-old husband, Joshua Royce Mauldin, to microwave their daughter May 10 because the devil disapproved of Joshua's efforts to become a preacher.

"Satan saw my husband as a threat. Satan attacked him because he saw (Joshua) as a threat," Eva Mauldin told Houston television station KHOU-TV.

A Galveston County grand jury indicted Joshua Mauldin last week on child injury charges after hearing evidence that he placed his daughter in a motel microwave for 10 to 20 seconds.

The infant, Ana Marie, remains hospitalized. She suffered burns on the left side of her face and to her left hand, police said.

Eva Marie Mauldin, the girl's 20-year-old mother, told the television station that her husband is "not the monster people are making him out to be."

"That was not my husband; my husband is a wonderful father," she said. "Satan was working through his weaknesses."

Eva Maudlin described those weaknesses as an undisclosed mental disability, and that her efforts to get help for him have failed.

Police said Joshua Mauldin told them he put Ana Marie in the microwave because he was under stress. The family had arrived in Galveston the day before.

Eva Maudlin, who met her husband in an Arkansas church, denied those claims by police.

"He would never do anything to hurt her. He loves her," she said. "When she cries he is the one who comforts her. When she is sick, he is the one that takes her to the doctor."

Joshua Mauldin, of Warren, Ark., came to Galveston with his wife and mother because he was called to be a preacher, his wife said. While Joshua Mauldin's mother has returned to Arkansas, Eva Mauldin remains in Galveston.

She is hoping to be reunited with her daughter, but Child Protective Services is working to have her and Joshua Mauldin's parental rights severed. A custody hearing for the infant is scheduled for later this week in a Galveston district court.

Joshua Mauldin faces a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm, which carries a possible prison term of five to 99 years, as well as a fine of up to $10,000.

Eva Mauldin has set up a MySpace page, "Joshua Mauldin is not a Monster," in hopes of defending her husband and making pleas for people to help her.

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

Specifics

Byrnzie wrote:

(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

got your number

Ahnimus

I think the myspace page has been removed I couldn't find it. But I did find this page where Eva discusses it.
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewCategory&groupID=106060870&Mytoken=121B23CD-1C83-4DC3-B926D52FCC7C154346239589

Eva says:
He has problems and I don't believe in condeming someone who is not like everybody else. He is sorry for what he has done and I know that the Joshua I married loved Ana very much and would never hurt her. He tried to get help before this happened. Its not his fault they didn't treat him correctly

All the other comments are attacking her personally. There is no one that defends her. No attempt at understanding in the slightest.

I particularly think this comment is stupid:
your responsible for your own condition

Bipolar Disorder must be a new fad like smoking.

It's stupid, right? What is the point in all these people attacking her? What good does it really do? People say they would do this, or they would do that, but they'd never stand by while it happened. But they don't know what they would do, and most don't even know what mental illnesses are. One describes all mental illnesses as affecting morality, that is actually only psychopathy.

When I was younger I would blackout and go on a homicidal/suicidal rampage. I had no control over it, I was not even aware I was doing it until I was told afterwards. You don't have to experience it to imagine it, so give it a shot.

All of this clamoring to ostracize the couple isn't going to change the past, it will only change the future. In what possible way could it be a positive change?

Sure, I think the child should be placed into protective custody for the time being. Perhaps if the parents could demonstrate a recovery then the baby would be safe.

Collin

I watched it, sounds reasonable.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I particularly think this comment is stupid:
your responsible for your own condition

I think this is completely sensical. We ARE responsible for our own condition. No one else owns it. No one else can make our choices regarding our condition etc. In an episode of bi-polar disorder, I personally did something that is very much socially ostracized and morally unacceptable in the mainstream--something I would never, ever do in a normal state. I understand the "determinants" that caused this, including illness. I personally don't accept any blame for my actions, even though if people knew, they'd definitely judge me big-time. However I am accountable. I can in no way dodge the fact that *I* alone am the person who acted out such behaviour. I am at peace with it because I fully understand it. And understanding it entails owning my own behaviours and the conseqences. It is what it is, beyond judgment. (I just don't own the consequences of the ignorance and small-mindedness of others as seen through their judgments).

One describes all mental illnesses as affecting morality, that is actually only psychopathy.

Bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia are called "major" mental illnesses, because both disorders cause the sufferer to lose touch with their integrity and core self. This means they are capable of doing things that would be abhorrent to them as their normal, healthy selves.

All of this clamoring to ostracize the couple isn't going to change the past, it will only change the future. In what possible way could it be a positive change? ... It's stupid, right? What is the point in all these people attacking her? What good does it really do? People say they would do this, or they would do that, but they'd never stand by while it happened. But they don't know what they would do, and most don't even know what mental illnesses are.

This is why I call you on your destructive responses to situations and say you are contributing to what you don't like. It's adding fuel to the fire to degrade, and minimize and harshly judge anything. That's what stigma is--the effects of this ugly judgment. All of the people who are ostracizing, judging and blaming are dealing with their own immature awareness and emotions on the subject. ALL individuals have understandable flaws and lacks, due to the causes in their lives and our humanness, meaning lack of evolution. They are no less to be understood than child abusers or serial killers. When people are "judging", they are projecting their unconscious ignorance and lack of awareness onto a "target". This is natural. People do this because they are not conscious of their own ignorance and lack of awareness, and therefore they can only learn and accept this ignorance and lack of awareness when they project it elsewhere. It's like watching it play out on a movie screen, where they watch it play on the screen of someone else's life. This way they allow themselves to become conscious of their own ignorance, albeit indirectly, in a way that does not threaten them.

After viewing this ignorance externally, eventually people learn about it, and eventually see it in themselves. They are no longer "unconscious" of it, and therefore they can take ownership and make changes. This happens gradually over a life-span.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I was vlogging on free-will and determinism, using this case as an example of the two competing theories. But I think it is also a highly plausible explanation of Joshua Mauldin's behavior. I use this example because people on this board were quite upset over it and a few asked how it could happen. Well, here is a plausible explanation. You can tell me if I'm wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OJVSFJlHYw

The reason free-will isn't mentioned in any of the soft sciences is because it is outside the scope of those sciences.


When one can understand the complexities of existentialism--the complexities of understanding the ramifications of all kinds of human subjective experiences, and the consequences, beyond the simplified objective understanding, one understands that there are vast, diverse differences between people. As a matter of fact, one understands that considering the variables involved, no two humans have ever been exactly the same, nor will two ever be exactly the same. This is the key of individuality. Each person has entirely unique variables which makes them a unique individual. This makes them who they are. One must delve into subjectivity to fully grasp this--the experience of the "I" or the individual. Alongside this, we all have a capacity to, given who we are, make our own unique free-will decisions and choices. These choices range from being purely determined. And as we evolve, we come to learn to detach our individuality from external sources, thereby ACTUALIZING our individuality and learning to align with it in more empowered ways, making different choices. Because there is a range of choice, and we will accept a range of consequences depending on our choice, we have the freedom to improve or not, and at what pace we do make changes when improving. This is the free-will aspect. And it coincides with the linear causes and effects.

Where free-will/determinism seems to make less sense is in the external judgments imposed on individuals. And rightly so. Our shallow "objectifying" judgments of others reflect OUR own ignorance, rather than understanding of the above-mentioned variables which understand the complexities of human individuality along with determined causes and effect. Understanding these variables is reflected by being understanding. Unfortunately, at this time, it's a mere 2% of the population who have evolved to understand these encompassing variables.

The true merits of the concept of free-will is not about shallow human judgment. Because the majority of humans lacking awareness and understanding of these issues is independent of whether these levels exist, and whether there are appropriate universal karmic fluctuations in response to human choice. In other words, universal accountability, and the universe's connection with and innate "knowing" of all these variables in complete harmony makes perfect sense. The natural universally stemming consequences for poor choices are very natural, appropriate, happen all the time and are not about blame. And still, these consequences are as individual as there are individuals on this planet. If we can get past man-made systems and look to natural systems we can grasp this. However, until one understands the existential worldview, all these variables seem to be random and non-sensical, at the subjective level. They are not. They are as natural, intelligent/rational and perfectly sychronized as cause and effect is objectively speaking.

It'll be great when humans evolve to the level of integrated intelligence so that they can understand, rather than pitting worldview against worldview with finger-pointing, blame and infringement.

Ahnimus

This self-actualizing is just part of determinism Angelica. There is still no free-will.

You should watch my videos, TheModernMystic, cacrosdale and so on.

Here are some other good videos for you.
This is part of Francis Crick's Sunday Sermon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRZk4NRgYs

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRZk4NRgYs

These are like real scientists, in the actual fields they are discussing. These are not people that grab soundbyte facts they want to grab, like a recent article that argues oxytocin proves a universal morality, in-fact it proves there is no universal morality. The Hedonist Imperitive at http://hedweb.com has some interesting facts, but it's also a goal-oriented kind of research, albeit, probably right on a lot of things.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

...in-fact it proves there is no universal morality.

Ahnimus, the cause and effects of human interactions is studied in transactional analysis. And there are general principles that are universal. There are natural consequences for all of our moral, interpersonal decisions, even when man-made judgment is not handed out. These natural consequences are implemented via the universe, itself and is therefore "universal". We get ourselves caught in all kinds of personal dynamics we must live out due to our actions. Unfortunately, the vast majority is totally unconscious of such natural laws that they live. Again, the idea that this is random is a product of worldviews that do not understand the existential levels of existence.

Most scientists are among the vast majority who are have not developed to these levels.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, the cause and effects of human interactions is studied in transactional analysis. And there are general principles that are universal. There are natural consequences for all of our moral, interpersonal decisions, even when man-made judgment is not handed out. These natural consequences are implemented via the universe, itself and is therefore "universal". We get ourselves caught in all kinds of personal dynamics we must live out due to our actions. Unfortunately, the vast majority is totally unconscious of such natural laws that they live. Again, the idea that this is random is a product of worldviews that do not understand the existential levels of existence.

Most scientists are among the vast majority who are have not developed to these levels.

I think sanity is a prerequisite to being a scientist, for the most part.

How do you reconcile children that die? Is that the universe punishing them?

What about criminals, like mob bosses, and George W. Bush who will often go through life without serious consequence?

I think you are consciously blind of these facts.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I think sanity is a prerequisite to being a scientist, for the most part.

How do you reconcile children that die? Is that the universe punishing them?

What about criminals, like mob bosses, and George W. Bush who will often go through life without serious consequence?

I think you are consciously blind of these facts.

You are asking me for human judgment for the natural principles that are in place in our reality system that cause the consequences for each action. I can't answer for the universal sysem of effect for causes. I am humbly unable to judge.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You are asking me for human judgment for the natural principles that are in place in our reality system that cause the consequences for each action. I can't answer for the universal sysem of effect for causes. I am humbly unable to judge.

And you cannot be referring to something that is "Universal" to the human species, because it's different between cultures. Likewise it's different between brains. So really, there is no "Universal" morality.

justam

I'm really annoyed that I'm going to be seeing this thread title.

Things like this baby-in-the-microwave-story stay in the nightmarish part of my memory enough as it is without having to read about it over and over when I'm at the PJ message board. :(

Ugh.

Ahnimus

justam wrote:

I'm really annoyed that I'm going to be seeing this thread title.

Things like this baby-in-the-microwave-story stay in the nightmarish part of my memory enough as it is without having to read about it over and over when I'm at the PJ message board. :(

Ugh.

You should work on not taking things so personally.

justam

Ahnimus wrote:

You should work on not taking things so personally.

I wasn't taking it personally.

I was just expressing my emotional reaction to seeing this thread title.

Ahnimus

justam wrote:

I wasn't taking it personally.

I was just expressing my emotional reaction to seeing this thread title.

I see, my bad.

Do you think it's beneficial to become emotional reactive to such stimuli?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

And you cannot be referring to something that is "Universal" to the human species, because it's different between cultures. Likewise it's different between brains. So really, there is no "Universal" morality.

Universal laws of cause and effect operate independent of how cultures and individuals interpret and live out such laws.

You yourself know people are detached of the determined factors that they don't understand and still experience, including these determined factors that exist within them. Still the principles exist anyway, interactive with humans and human choices at all times.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Universal laws of cause and effect operate independent of how cultures and individuals interpret and live out such laws.

You yourself know people are detached of the determined factors that they don't understand and still experience, including these determined factors that exist within them. Still the principles exist anyway, interactive with humans and human choices at all times.

Right, but cause and effect have nothing to do with morality.

One person can rob an old lady and get hit by a bus immediately after.
Another person can go on to rob more old ladies.

Cause and effect in the massive complexity of the universe don't always result in the same kind of karma type stuff people think. It's not a morality thing, it's a cause and effect thing. Morality is something quite different.

justam

Ahnimus wrote:

I see, my bad.

Do you think it's beneficial to become emotional reactive to such stimuli?

I think it's usually helpful to be aware of one's emotional reaction, yes.

And, in a case like this, if I didn't have an emotional reaction what would that really mean? It would mean that I wasn't horrified or feeling protective of that poor baby. If I didn't feel protective towards a helpless baby, what would that mean about my heart and my mothering instinct? Dead? That's not me.

Ahnimus

justam wrote:

I think it's usually helpful to be aware of one's emotional reaction, yes.

And, in a case like this, if I didn't have an emotional reaction what would that really mean? It would mean that I wasn't horrified or feeling protective of that poor baby. If I didn't feel protective towards a helpless baby, what would that mean about my heart and my mothering instinct? Dead? That's not me.

So, you feel that it is neccesary to feel protective of a baby. Even though you can't do anything. Then you will want to do something, but what will you do? And will it be beneficial?

Let's not forget that there is no way for us to know all the facts about any particular situation that we are not directly involved in, and even some we are directly involved in. We get our information from the media which appeals to our emotions. The media wants you to feel disgusted and they will grossen the story up for you.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Right, but cause and effect have nothing to do with morality.

One person can rob an old lady and get hit by a bus immediately after.
Another person can go on to rob more old ladies.

Cause and effect in the massive complexity of the universe don't always result in the same kind of karma type stuff people think. It's not a morality thing, it's a cause and effect thing. Morality is something quite different.

In the universe, there are consequences for each moral choice everyone makes. These consequences are based on natural universal laws. We cannot remove morality from the universe and put it in a vacuum.

Morality, people, culture, and the universe are all interconnected. Where does morality exist where it isn't also connected to the universe? Where does morality exist that it isn't connected to the individual's neurology? Where does morality exist that it isn't connected to culture? And where does morality exist that it isn't connected to all of the above?