symbioidlj (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
symbioidlj) wrote2007-02-07 12:39 pm
symbioidlj) wrote2007-02-07 12:39 pm
no gods, no kings...
I posted this in reply to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 thinkroadriverrail 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.
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Actually, a cliff notes version of the book would be really good. It would condense down well.
no subject
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?
no subject
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. :/