What better way to recharge a quiescent blog than to reflect upon the law of all laws? To begin, let's turn to Richard Hooker's Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, a work of the English Renaissance. The text will be from Volume One of The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (Georges Edelen, Editor) (1977) (hereinadter cited as "Works Vol. One"). In The Fyrst Booke (I love the English Renaissance spelling and refuse to modernize it) Hooker states the following:
"All things that are have some operation not violent or casuall. Neither doth any thing ever begin to exercise the same without some foreconceaved ende for which it worketh. And the ende which it worketh for is not obteined, unlesse the worke be also fit to obteine it by. For unto every ende every operation will not serve. That which doth assigne unto each thing the kinde, that which doth moderate the force and power, that which doth appoint the forme and measure of working, the same we tearme a Lawe. So that no certaine end could ever be obteined, unlesse the actions whereby it is attained were regular, that is to say, made suteable fit and correspondent unto their end, by some canon, rule or lawe. Which thing doth first take place in the workes of God himselfe. All things therefore do worke after a sort according to lawe: all other things according to a lawe, whereof some superiours, unto whome they are subject, is author: only the workes and operations of God have him both for their worker, and for the lawe whereby they are wrought."
Works Vol. One, at 58-59.
It would appear that the fundamental law as described by Hooker is the essence of governing oneself. To be truly self governing, one must operate according to one's self generated principles. I say principles instead of principle because only "God is one, or rather verie Onenesse, and meere unitie, having nothing but it selfe in it selfe, and not consisting (as all things do besides God) of many things." Works Vol. One, at 59. In other words, we humans are multiplicities, so that our operations could not be the subject of a unified law each human gives to himself or herself. I would suggest, however, that the quest to be operating in accordance with a principle derived from true self is the essence of the human spirit. I would also suggest that what humans describe as reason and revelation is a single object seemingly in two different places because humans in their quest to operate according to an autonomously generated governing principle look at the object from two different vantage points.
OK, ladies and gentlemen, have at me! May those smitten with neuroscience chastise me for not taking into account whatever processes in the brain they would like to posit as constituting the explanation for what I am mindlessly (so to speak) describing as the quest to govern oneself. Let those of a religious nature bring wrath upon me for speaking about reason and revelation as the same object (for that matter, I suspect, the neuroscientists may also bring some wrath (or perhaps some mind altering chemical) upon me for that assertion). And may partisans of Hillary or Barack or John or Mike state their case that only under the watchful eye of their candidate will self government at any level in any form thrive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Is light a wave or a particle? It has interference patterns similar to waves (think water waves) and can be blocked like a particle (think of standing in front of a flashlight). Things can be two differing actualities at the same time. People's consciousness differ from moment to moment and are a "complexity of unities" in the same moment. Many humans need, I believe, to see others as a unity, static. A rock is understood more than a moving body of water. I see no incongruity in your positions.
I'm always subject to correction, but I would be pretty sure that the fundamental law that Hooker is describing is more likely to be the law of God. It sounds like he is making an Unmoved Mover / Aristotlean type argument. He actually sounds very much like Aquinas. I'm not sure this idea is 100% in line with a biblical worldview, but I admit that I can't fully intrepret what he is saying.
Your second, smaller quote sounds neo-Platonist with this idea that God cannot possess the qualities that he is the principle of. I'm not sure I buy the argument completely, but sometimes I hear the notion that the Trinity is a resolution of this issue, allowing God to posses one and many simultaneously. This same argument may even resolve the monist / atomist divide.
It seems afterwards you go towards an essence-existance idea similar to modern-era philosophy.
I'm not sure where this synthesis is going, but I would suggest that things need not be so complicated.
Even if we had no revelation, I believe that your quest for self-governing principles would be misguided. We would want to be on a joint quest for universal principles. This is how people become members of a nation. Nations don't survive with everyone doing their own thing, and if you might argue that America is that way, and "look at how successful we are," do know that this idea is only of recent origin, from the 1960's onward. I would also say that since the 1960's especially, we have been on a downward spiral similar to the latter part of the Roman Empire.
Part of the reason for affirming revelation is two-fold. One, our world is as inside the system, which means we have no understanding of affairs outside of the world. Two, our own self-seeking motives will always bias our view of the world.
It would take someone outside of this world to teach us to see rightly. I'm sure you are much in awe with the Allegory of the Cave; this is a similar idea.
I'm not sure that scientists really understand the brain all that well, and I would caution against any statements that could be overturned with furture research.
I know I'm going into areas beyond my degree-level, but I don't try to put people in categories beyond what my current knowledge is familar with. Whether my fellow sees a complexity of unities or not, I still see people act in a generally regular manner consistent with their personality.
In summary, however, it is only God's law that is a standard for right conduct, not one's personal feelings at any set time.
If we remember back to those dull days in Hebrew School, and assuming the Torah was taught there, you may be led to believe that such mitzvot (laws) as "you shall not boil a kid in his mother's milk," which future generations of rabbis extended to a blanket prohibition on eating milk and meat together in any combination, are absurd.
However, if one thinks more carefully, the statement is a broader understanding of the relationship between God and man. The idea being that what God shall use to sustain life, man shall not use to destroy life.
This is but one example of what it means to live under the law of God. Once one really gets the general idea, it is easy to understand that living under God's law begins with having the right frame of mind concerning the world. If God is the Creator and we are the creatures, then things become much more clear as to how a man ought to live.
I'm always striving for correction in my understanding.
I appreciate juggler's caution that humans need to see others as a "unity" or "static." When I think about unity or multiplicity, I usually take as the reference myself and my own struggle to achieve some unity out of my various multiplicities. Keeping juggler's caution in mind, I will try to keep in mind that others are also multiplicities and in flux, and that on occasion whatever multiplicities are in control do not necessarily represent a fixed essence.
I also note forbearance's caution about a misguided quest for self-governing principles and his exhortation of a joint quest for universal principles. How about a joint quest for self governing principles, forbearance?
I'm not exactly sure how universal, self-governing principles could be made manifest; is this not self-contradictory? This seems to me to permit all sorts of deviant behavior so long as the subject deems in okay in his mind. If the principles are subjective, they by definition they cannot be universal.
A rational system will inevitably become irrational because of the barriers produced in the subject's own mind. One cannot reason rightly unless he first has his reason ordered rightly.
Even if one rejects the Torah, G-d forbid, then there still seems to me to exist a notion of the law of G-d that man should recognize as a higher authority.
The rabbinical mitzvah of wearing kippa (head covering) is an external affirmation that one acknowledges the law of G-d above the wandering heart of the individual. It is a burden on the head that is to be a reminder of the sovereignty of Hashem ("the Name").
There is also the biblical mitzvah to wear tzitzit (tassles), which is incorporated into the Shema Yisroel ("Hear Israel"), and is found in the Torah as follows:
The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the LORD your God." (Bamidbar 15:37-41)
I'm not sure how one can deny Hashem and Torah, govern himself on his whims and deceiving rationality, and yet still lay claim to a birthright designating himself one of G-d's own people.
Post a Comment