no gods, no kings...

[symbioidlj]

I posted this in reply to polydad's recent post on origin of law...

It's kinda long-winded and I haven't really posted anything like this in ages, so I figure I may as well give my adoring fans (hahahaha, yeah, whatever) something to chew on (whether it makes sense or you agree or not)

I think roadriverrail debated me on this issue. I think more along the usual lines of his thought processes (that is, abstract conceptualizations seem to be a waste of time. That ultimately, law is made by men... that there is no real evolution in law, but abstract concepts to reinforce the law, something along those lines... though I may very well have it wrong. It's been a while since I posted about this. And it was a very vague thing at the time. I also think he may have been misinterpreting my post at that time. Perhaps this makes more sense and goes into more detail than that prior post... I can't find it off-hand (never tagged, apparently, but I did find this other little post of mine from before, that touches on the topic).

Now onto the show (cut for all you haters out there :P)




---
I've thought about this issue... Not your question, actually, but the whole idea of "God as source of Law." And the theological evolution of that. The general idea stems from Babylonian (and probably earlier animist thoughts, of course... in fact, other "civilized" religions). That is to say that the gods were explanations of the natural order in the world. One can bring into this the hermetic axiom "As above, so below", in the same way that man(kind) is made in God's image.

Babylonian ritual was intended to ape the gods and without enacting the rituals, the cycles would fail, and the cosmos would break down. The laws are one more way of keeping order against chaos.

The evolution of this into Greek Philosophy, with the concept of Logos, a word of order. And then into Christianity through it's Hellenistic influences, the Christ as Logos. God incarnate then becomes the Law embodied. Christian theology replaces much of the "Law" with their own mythos of death and resurrection (yet again, a god merely replicating the cycles of the Cosmos).

All this goes on until the "Age of Reason" when Deism takes a hold over the various Theisms. When the Deistic thought takes over, the laws are indeed, still made by god, but the founding principles are no longer decided (supposedly) on holy writ, but observation of the natural world. The legal foundation then slips away from divine to human inspiration (while still struggling to maintain a clutch on the snapping threads of Theistic order)... The deists, of course, are one step away from Atheists.

Believing that natural order is the source of law, apart from a revealed divine origin, was definitely a new concept. That said, the founding documents are still mired in muddy theological thinking and hence have deluded Christians into believing that the Deistic god is the same as their own god. Such is, of course, not the case. The battle for control still exists between the Irrational and the Rational.

The change in perception of what the "word" is, the logos, from supernatural order to logical, worldly order (Novus Ordo Seclorum, indeed), from myth to science... The foundation of modern law, though built upon the myth of divine writ, has moved one step away. The Logos now no longer the decalogue (10 words), but a constitution (a body) of law.

So, we have the foundational myth that law is built upon nature (which is built by a deity), and yet we are struggling to remove the deity from the law. There is a danger to say that law is from nature. For if law is a "natural right" (as opposed to "divine right"), and as the founding American documents idealistically expound, contain immutable truths that cannot be altered by men, we are walking on shaky ground, for this supposed immutability chains us to the ground of nature.

But we come to an understanding that all this is an even greater myth. That, ultimately, all laws are propagated by individuals, as you say "legislators who are selected on a who-is-objected-to-least basis..." The grand theories of origin of law being divine or natural are a myth designed to keep us subservient to a foundation of order (against the rising chaos of "man's natural impulse")... Just as the Babylonian rituals call forth order and re-enact the cycles of nature and gods, so does the present system of constitutional democratic authority keep us subservient to others. The power structure of God/King/President/Daddy to rule over all... Whether we vote on the daddy or not, there's still the daddy to tell us what to do.

It's a very oedipal situation, no? In order to escape, we (who generally love the empathic, feeling feminine/mother/world, real nature, as apart from some logical abstraction) must kill the daddy to return to mommy.

Comments

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

You should read The God Delusion.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

While I love Dawkins (especially for memetic theory), I'm a little leery of fundamentalists, religious or atheist. I'm sure there's useful stuff. I just need to get a free copy, since I'm broke :P

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

Library? That's where I got mine. You have to read it with fundy in mind. He does like to take pot shots at people (not that they don't deserve it but it doesn't usually add to his argument). He also tends to be a little long winded. However, many of the points he makes are good ones.

Actually, a cliff notes version of the book would be really good. It would condense down well.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

"He does like to take pot shots at people (not that they don't deserve it but it doesn't usually add to his argument)"

This is very true. In fact, unfortunately, it shows sloppy thinking. Ad hominem attacks by a proclaimer of logic and truth and science, etc... is weak and sadly, a poor choice for someone who is supposedly so intent upon defending the foundations of rationality. Again, that doesn't necessarily make his other arguments wrong, but it does show that his agenda is more than mere rationality. Or rather, he's no longer playing rationally.

I don't know what the proper route to take in such a matter, because, again you're dealing with fundamentally irrational people who can't be reasoned with (I mean, of course, that Dawkins has tried logic and reason in his other books, and that has failed to influence anyone who is already a fundy). Then again, it's not like this book is designed to "convert" anyone.

That brings to mind a question. What IS the purpose of the book, then? "LOLXIANS"? (as we like to say on metafilter)... Who is it written for, and how much does it bring to the discussion that hasn't already been heard, or even viscerally felt and seen, before?

[vesicular.livejournal.com]

It basically is meant to convert people. He says so right in the preface. Not convert fundies, but people who are perhaps agnostic or non-religious or people who haven't heard the arguements before.

Though I wouldn't say it's sloppy thinking. His pot shots are not part of his logic base, they're just pot shots. It's like he'll make a point and then write something about how perhaps he should rephrase what he wrote because fundies will misconstrue what he's saying because they like to take things out of context for whatever their adjenda. You sorta read that and think "ok, you're right about that, but *I* understood what you meant, no need to add that bit". His rational is most certainly logic based and it does make a lot of sense.

Perhaps for people like yourself there won't be much new in it, but it covers the gamut so there is a lot to swollow. The "meat" of the book is about proving the nonexistance of god. Which of everyone says you can't do, but he brings up the idea of probibility, which most people forget about and uses that to prove why agnosticism is lame and for all intent and purpose god doesn't exist.

The rest of the book touches on stuff about childhood indoctrination, morals, and a lot on natural selection (even down to tying in natural selection into religion in the first place). It's all interesting, and stuff to ponder.

He also has a good part of the book devoted to people becoming ok with being an athiest. I know this is hard for me, as very few people know my religious beliefs. It's just so taboo. Thankfully it's easy to hide, but it makes it very uncomfortable around family when religous conotations come up and I don't participate (or don't want to). It's really not easy. :/

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

IMHO, All of this is circular thinking. Humans are social. Our species cannot exist without being social. Social groups cannot function without roles. Roles cannot exist without rules. Thus, social groups that did not form proper stratification simply failed and died out. Our ability to ask the question about the origin of the law stems from the fact that we are the functions of a process of social survival that stems back to the origins of our species.

In essence, our past perspectives on the law are irrelevant so long as they ensured survival. There is no "why" to them, any more than there is a "why" to our myriad of poorly designed biological evolutions. There are arguably equally many flavors of reason for law, but none of them have more core sense than the others...just differences in their aesthetic appeal. What matters is that they're compelling enough to keep enough people behind them; without that, we'd simply fail.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

I guess, that's ultimately my point. We create a mythos in order to sustain power, to justify the social order of rules and regulations. However, there is, IMO, a difference between tribal non-civilized societies and the bibliological (by that I mean book, not "The Holy Bible") civilizations. I don't think you can look at law apart from the mythos of a given age. I think this difference goes beyond mere appearances. I guess I'm a sucker for the "noble savage" myth. That non-civilized cultures have a more free and less stressful life. There surely are hardships, and it's not an anarchistic society, no doubt... but there are certain things that I think are valuable in those societies that we, as a literate culture have lost. That said, there is no way, with our population density, we could ever go back, so I'm not naive nor stupid to imagine we can have some utopian tribal paradise.

What interests me is how the function of religion has moved from theistic law to deistic law (or rather, how the paradigm has shifted from theism to deism, and the justifications have been altered to fit the new theological stances). Social groups may require roles, but it's quite clear that roles change. What role did Deism play (and, in a sense, science and perhaps protestantism) in the evolution of modern Democracy? Of course, there's the Greek/Roman influence as well. I guess that's what I'm curious. What are the structures not necessarily of social order, but legal power? How did they form (from early banking/temples and coinage)? How did they become what they are now? How did the stories we tell ourselves change through time? What paradigms forced changes? What are the things that are nearly universal in this history of myths of power?

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

We create a mythos in order to sustain power, to justify the social order of rules and regulations.

No. That's not my point. My point is that both this statement and the other statement that mythos implies law are "chicken and egg" arguments and are both wrong. My point is that some means of putting emotional oomph into social roles is necessary to result in order, which is a necessary survival tool humans have. ANY means of providing that oomph will work. It just HAPPENED that a bunch of humans coevolved mythos and social order and each has provided the sticking points for the other. We were pre-scientific, so it's no shock. We're now in a process of generating new ideologies as the West becomes increasingly post-scientific and post-modern.

but there are certain things that I think are valuable in those societies that we, as a literate culture have lost

Like what?

What role did Deism play (and, in a sense, science and perhaps protestantism) in the evolution of modern Democracy? Of course, there's the Greek/Roman influence as well. I guess that's what I'm curious. What are the structures not necessarily of social order, but legal power? How did they form (from early banking/temples and coinage)? How did they become what they are now? How did the stories we tell ourselves change through time? What paradigms forced changes? What are the things that are nearly universal in this history of myths of power?

It's true that we had some Deists running around in the early halls of power. We also had a LOT of non-Deist Christians, too. They were all pretty much universally suckers for romantic notions of classical civilizations, yes, and that does play out heavily in much of our iconography. At a structural level, though, I don't know how much these things had to do with anything. Britain already had a parliamentary system in place by that time. Our country's experiment was not some complete stab in the dark at democracy, but was a stab in the dark at taking a set of social structures already common to their cultural heritage and stripping out their relationships to monarchy and aristocracy. If you think about this in the sense that America was "new land" and people who'd come there to make their own fortunes didn't want British landed nobles claiming the old system over America, then much of this fits into place. Left to their own devices, they pulled from the only non-monarchial things they had at hand, including lessons from their Masonic lodges and readings they had at hand about other non-British republics, which were the idealized Athenians and Romans.

I once heard a professor say he loved political history because it's simultaneously clean and dirty. People speak lofty, and they act lowly. I think I like to look at the lowly so heavily because it humanizes our past, but I guess I overlook the lofty stuff, which is more of what you're focusing on in this thread.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

In a sense yes, I'm focusing on the "lofty" stuff. But I think that, in general, is how we tend to approach things. It seems to me, the lowly tends towards the concrete, material facts (deeds) as opposed to ideological, abstract theories (words)... As you yourself said, speak vs act...

What I meant by "We create a mythos in order to sustain power, to justify the social order of rules and regulations." was, AFAICT the same thing that you are saying with "We're now in a process of generating new ideologies as the West becomes increasingly post-scientific and post-modern."

I use the term mythos in the sense you are using ideologies. We are generating new ideologies, and these ideologies frame the way we think about law and social order. In the same way Deists phrased the constitution, not through some bloody Divine Dictate (in the literal word-of-god sense), but parsed it as "Nature's Laws" (that is, the Enlightenment Ideals of Rationality, observable order in the Cosmos, plain to see in the world...)

This has given, IMO, a justification for their doctrines of law. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm merely saying there is a pattern between the concept of a divine word, the view of deity, and natural and social order. And that as society evolves, our views of deity evolve, our "justifications" evolve.

This, I guess, is what I'm trying to say, and I don't really think we are at odds. I think we're just using different terms to say it. I don't know why I'm not able to communicate this effectively. It may, as you say, be due to the fact that we are discussing two different approaches.

That said, the Masonic lodges have a heavy theological aspect, no? Their hermetic view of the order of the universe, again, plays a role. Perhaps it was a Romantic view of things (in fact, I'm sure it was), but the fact is, it played an influence on their view of the world and their formation of this new political culture. I guess what I'm trying to say is, that the Declaration of Independence is a Deistic document, and the Constitution is Secular. The Declaration, coming from the Deistic Jefferson, portraying the ideals, the hopes of the revolution, are clearly showing the philosophical foundations of a non-theistic theory. Yet, ultimately, it goes back to a myth that IS theistic, in fact that is, in a sense, animistic, when looking at the earliest Sumerian thoughts.

Also, when I talk about mythos, perhaps I should be clear in that I'm not, of course, saying I think mythos is only in existence to further a social structure. I'm saying that is one part of mythos. I perhaps was too vague when I stated it is created to serve the further entrenchment of power. I should say that we created it to explain order in the world. That order is explained by paradigms (animistic, polytheistic, theistic, deistic, atheistic)... This order than gives meaning to the social order, it explains the social order, or rather justifies it according to the descriptors that exist within a given context for that society, as it exists at any particular time. Government and social order are merely part of that. Natural order is also served by these explanations.

In my original post I state "we are struggling to remove the deity from the law." I believe that this, in a sense, relates to "stripping out their relationships to monarchy and aristocracy." from your most recent reply. Again the hermetic axiom "as above, so below" the king is but a divine autarch. So, not only in an abstract sense of theory/philosophy, but also the real implications that has to do with a power structure in a society and how that order is distributed throughout a system. The divine autarch is no no longer a monotheistic deity sky-god, but a distributed, natural, dare I say... gnostic presence in the rationality of all "men". This is the justification. That's also why I relate it to, as you'll note, Protestantism. Every individual has the right to relate to the god-king-government. No longer the hierarchy of priests holding onto the vast secrets of power and order.

But again, that's all lofty verbiage. :D

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

Yeah. You got some stuff to go with there. :)