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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-08 07:12 pm (UTC)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