Socratic Questioning Session #2

Remove all ads!

Well I think the easy statement didn't get through, but GM's post are wonderfully descriptive about what I meant.

I agree force can exist without law, but law cannot exist without force. And I certainly disagree that they're totally unrelated, and even more that they're each others opposites.

 

Sorry to write so much on this - I'm not trying to hijack this thread, really - but my Lawful Neutral self just can't let this go!

It's not exactly true, Morgoth, to say that law is made by the stronger. The stronger don't necessarily need law to get what they want by force. A mugger may be stronger than me, but he doesn't need to pass a law before he mugs me.

Maybe it would be better to define state law as "force harnessed to human legitimacy". Custom says that you should obey. Thuggery says that you must obey. Law says that you should, and must, obey. It's easy to get the three mixed up because they often look alike in both means and ends.

If I'm driving down the highway and a police car flashes his lights at me, it doesn't matter whether or not I think I'm guilty of speeding, or whether or not I think speeding should be illegal. I have to pull over anyway. The law - and its legal enforcers - carry an authority which separates them from social custom and petty thuggery. The same principle applies to other laws that I may disagree with - I still have to obey them. And changing those laws I disagree with - because they're unjust, unwise, unpragmatic, whatever - requires that I adopt lawful means. (That's why America's Declaration of Independence appeals to "the laws of nature".)

 

I didn't say that, I said law need force to exist, the weak can't make laws, because the weak can't enforce them.

Or more specific, the weak can make his laws for himself, he just can't enforce them on others.

 

Well, I do still think that not force is the driving force of law, but reciprocity is the driving force of it.

The "law" this thread concentrates is the kind of "law" which is used as tool to change the behaviour of people. Be it mandatory visit of driving school, so that you can expect that people in cars actually can drive. Or the change of behaviour patterns, which are deemed as not longer correct. The change of behaviour patterns is mostly the change of law. A new law replaces an old law and the new law doesn't find a huge social acceptance from the beginning, so the old ways have to be changed with threat of force or actual force.

But I think that all turns around an Iraqi-invention, statutatory-law. King Hammurabi wrote on his tables "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But did he invent this rule or did he just write down what already existed and was widely accepted and his purpose was to clarify it-> An eye and not an arm, a leg or two cows, an eye! So, the statutory-law stated what was already custom and deeply embeded in people minds, even there might have been unclarity in the details. So, law would then be agreed upon custom. And it would be "right" to enforce it concerning people, a small percentage of the whole group, who do not follow it. But the law itself is not enforced on the largest part of people, because I think enforcing a law on people who do not accept it, is a vain attempt, or at least forcing laws on people who do not think it is "right" will soon reach practical limits. But enforcing laws upong individuals or small groups who do not conform with the customs is accepted by the majority and not enforced on the majority too.

So, my point is, I do not think that a huge percentage of the law-body is about law-enforcing or laws which have to be enforced (like the criminal-code). Even if practically a small part of the law like pay-of-debt-enforcing (bankruptcy-laws ?) has a huge significance.

 

Morgoth, have you heard the phrase: "If you're not strong, you better be smart."? The smart can enforce the, and maybe more influential than the strong.

 

The law cannot exist without anything to enforce it, if that was so the structure would quickly cripple under the those with the nerve to take charge and do what they want, anarchy.
I don't see us saying that law is only based on force, of course it isn't.
Since law cannot exist without force, doesn't mean it's all force and not mutual respect.


So we agree law is the the rules or guidelines we follow in our day, (like the tool you describe Yago)?

 

Don't people give respect to a person who has a strong influence on their lives?

Erebus, there are other non-'physical' forces, like charisma and gravity.

To change my position on the issue, I can even say that force and law are the same,
a mugger makes a law and forces it on the victim 'You lost your money, if you don't coorporate, you'll lose your life'.
The force of gravity makes the law 'If you jump, I will push you down'.
The force of society makes laws like 'Don't kill' and will punish you for crossing them.

Of course you can cross a law without a major penance, a victim can kick the mugger and run away, a spacerocket can launch and a criminal can escape.

[ September 25, 2003, 22:27: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Yes, the law are the rules we follow. And we expect others to follow the laws to. So, yes, a guideline. And I still say, that the biggest part of the law is neither questioned nor has to be enforced. I think most people agree with the law and follow it, because it makes "sense", not becuase it's enforced. And I think the law makes "sense" because it's mostly exists out of inherited tradition/custom. So the daly guideline is to do mundane things as mundane things are done.

That is, it depends what "force" is. Reciprocity can be seen as force too, but I wouldn't call it force. It needs to adapt to others. I have to adapt to the rules (law-code) of English spelling and grammar. If I do not, I won't be understood. If others do not follow those rules, I can not understand them. One may say, that my English teacher enforced English spelling and grammar on me, therefore my teacher was a law/rule enforcing force.

I think the other question which is included in the "force" thing is, why should anyone want to change the behaviour of others and use force to do it if it's resisted.

 

Seems like we concluded the original question

Well it would be a happy tale if the law made sense for all and all would follow it out of the goodness of their hearts, however that ain't the case. At least not yet.
Even though majority follow the law of common sense (and this I as well believe is the case), those that do not could easily tip over society if nothing was to strike them down when they did whatever crime they might do (probably rather severe if nothing is to peek over their shoulder every now and then).

 

See? We gotten somewhere with this.

 

That's because these people are part of the society, these are their own laws!

 

Thy Will is the Whole of Thy Law

Alistair Crowley

I do not feel this needs further explanation, but I am not sure if others would agree. A Law is an enactment of thought. Thought is a product of mind and spirit, thus Kant is correct in stating...
"...the moral law within me"
as much as Crowley is with Will.

Nothing is outside ones will, if ones will is strong enough, all else must cede defeat, is buckled and overcome.

I stress *Nothing*.

True Wisdom and Virtue is supposed as; "The Power to do anything and the Will to do nothing."

Divine Wisdom also plays a part in TRUE law for who has the power of will to challenge it, without the Wisdom to know their own folly in once wanting to do so?

Will and Wisdom are intertwined, for one is rarely gained in great amounts without the other.

Thus we return again to the moral code; for though one may suppose a moral code of his own, the attainment of Wisdom, enlightenment, brings, and is brought forth by, true morality, which remains partly clouded to those of us who have not yet attained it.

Kant also stated. "Of all things, Truth is paramount." Thus morality is revealed, for how can something exist if it is not true? These things exist only because they do not. Not existing is the defintion which brings them forth, and causes them to exist, because, to be defined, they must.

Our illision is but a shade of eternity, and what is infinite does not exist as much as it does, for non-being is the true essesnce of absolute be-ness.

I know I have wavered, I do so deliberately to make a point. Truth is a very confusing topic, and who can define the absolute truth in some given situation?

Thus our morality and wisdom are not readilly apparrent, not clear and clarified as a Law should be. Yet we all recognize this spirit of the law, what it is meant to produce, within us, and we internalize every situation, externalize our own inner feeling of what is just, sometimes trying with all our strength to "justify" what we do, for we cannot do something we feel unjust, and, depending on our own situation, the limits of this justification will be produced, I do not say whether this is how it should be, only how it is.

Putting aside metaphysical concepts of philosophy and morality, we follow a law either because we think we should, or fear the consequences, which pre-supposes we belive enough in the cage we have drawn about ourselves, to believe that, if not these specific consequences, then the enforcers of said consequences are just in what the do, or right in telling it to us, or failing that, that our own life or comfort are more important to us than our sense of morality, that it would be unwise to choose that what is right is more important than our own fleeting lives, supposing that it is just, that it is right to be wise of course.
Well, of course I feel it is right to be wise, it is what makes us wise that I challenge.

We can of course, simply walk away...

This takes great force of will for many.

All is choice.

All enactment of choice is will.

Thy Will is the Whole of thy Law.

 

"Nothing is outside one's will", y'say? "If will is strong enough, all else must cede defeat"? This reminds me of a parable from another classy pureveyor of mushy thinking, Star Trek:

"The hurricane would arrive by nightfall, and the small village was evacuated - all except one old man. His neighbors pleaded with him to flee, but he refused. 'I have spent one hundred years in this village,' said the old man. 'It is my home, and this hurricane - without purpose or direction - cannot destroy in a day what I have built in a century. I will defy the storm and humble it, for tonight this mindless wind faces not an empty village but a man of will.'"

"The villagers came by the next day and found the old man dead of exposure."

Which is to say, the philosophy that flows so beautifully in Planescape and Kant hits up against the brick wall of reality - a reality where truth is absolute (whether recognized or not), power exists, death takes no prisoners, and what IS truly IS.

Just one more point: you write that "we cannot do something we feel unjust". That's empirically false. Guilt is derived from a feeling of moral failure, as opposed to shame, which arises from personal failure: you can be ashamed to flunk a test, but you only feel guilty if you cheat. (And you get both guilt and shame if you cheat and get caught - two for the price of one!) To take a casual example from Western history, look at Christianity. Christianity could be true - in which case, people really do act unjustly, and realize it, and therefore appeal to God for mercy. Or, Christianity could be false - in which case, even if there is no God to offer mercy, the deceived worshippers still feel guilty enough to crave that unobtainable mercy. Either way, clearly people are acting in ways that they themselves believe (rightly or wrongly) to be unjust.

You say that you have "deliberately wavered" to make the point that "truth is a very confusing topic". Maybe it would be less confusing if you were less wavering and more deliberate - perhaps starting with a definition of what "we all recognize [as] this spirit of the law, what it is meant to produce within us". What is this spirit, and what is it meant to produce - and how does this deeper reality evade the dialectical contradictions of being and non-being?

Or you could just simply walk away...

[Oh, and by the way - welcome to the Boards!]

 

But there is an image before the deed, and an image after. And an image while commiting.

 

Ah my friend, welcome to my world, I have indeed walked away from this many a time, for I realise the futility of trying to explain something to someone which they are not yet supposed, or willing, to understand.

It is humourous, and here I mean no offense, that you try to explain reality, using (I am assuming here, and admit my assumption may be incorrect) an explanation derived from a fictional televison series. There is truth in fiction, however, as once one uses ones creative aspect, one opens oneself to intuition. Nevertheless, this is a scientific program, and will likely support the ideals of science.

I agree with you. What IS Truly IS, Truth is Absolute, and Death indeed takes no prisoners. Your error is in assuming that this means that what you know as reality, exists at all.

The One reality is Will. "With our Thoughts we make the world." There is nothing that exists that is not thought. Nothing that a stronger thought, a stronger will cannot overcome. In many cases this can be hard, but it is how the miraculous is performed. ANYTHING can be changed with a strong enough will, it is how everything is created, for truly, nothing is ever destroyed.

If this situation with the old man were true, I would say he simply was not strong enough of will. One who was would be able to overcome that storm. The Wind is not mindless, nor those who drive it, nor those who command them.

This world is an illusion, a testing ground for many purposes. Perhaps the most predominant of these is the building of Will, and the learning of Wisdom to control it; For with Will of sufficient strength, it can be shaped and changed endlessly to suit oneself, and often is in a lesser degree by everyone about us.

I know of those who can kill with thought alone, as easily as those who heal.

This is because we are all an extension of each other, an extension of something finer.

All is one-number, issued from no-number.

I do not expect you to believe me, but nevertheless I must try. To try and convince you however would be prideful and irresponcible, it is better you discover these things for yourself, and I would not feel comfortable quoting the texts to which I am privy.

On your other point, Morgoth is correct; at the time of commiting an act we view it differently to afterwards, perhaps because we have not realised the consequences of our actions, or try to convince ourselves they do not exist. In your example of a test, one may feel shame afterwards, but if one truly *knew* truly *believed* that it were totally wrong before hands, one would not act in such a manner. It is these things we must learn.

Is moral failure not a personal failure?

Also, one would not beg forgiveness for something one did unjustly - that is an emotional responce to shame - one would make amends, to be forgiven is not to undo the act, I especially assert this in the case where the same indiscretion is repeated. To truly know something, this would not happen; they perhaps recognize that it is wrong, but do not truly know that they should not do so, and allthough one may *feel* that what they did was wrong in hindsight, If they believed this beforehands they would not have done it, relying on some sort of emotional or logical justification - an excuse.

This is perhaps becoming convoluted, and I apologise for not being able to make myself clearer. Wittgenstein was right in what he said; "There are no true problems of philosophy, only problems of language."

I wavered in an attempt to describe truth and reality - as you can see, a difficult thing to do, and did try to state myself clearly.

I cannot give a definition of what we all recognize as this spirit of the law, I simply mean that we *can* all recognize the spirit of this, that is, we know what something is supposed to uphold, can see when it is twisted and misused, and are able to recognize right from wrong - be the situation physical (like war and politics, the judiciary system et al) or metaphysical - our morals.

This is what it is meant to produce within us, Our sense of virtue that tells us "This is the right thing to do." And, depending on our situation (by that I not only mean what has formed us, but what we are supposed to form, what we must become), this can change dramatically from person to person. It is the sense of right from wrong that we all share, not the things that we sense, one way or another.

Sometimes we act in the opposite direcion, and can tell that it was wrong afterwards, in these cases, we must assume we needed to do the wrong thing, in order to learn that it was, in fact, wrong. It is in this manner that we may develop.

And no, this deeper reality does not evade the dialectical contradictions of being and non-being, it embraces them, that's the point. - But this deeper reality is far removed from us, and it will be long before any of us have ever to think of it. It is non-being because it is ABSOLUTE being. Something that is infinite can not be comprehended by the finite, nor have any finite qualities attributed to it, to be able to describe it would make it finite, and therefore, it could not be the absolute.

I hope I have not caused offense, and if you do not understand what I mean, I will endeavour to explain myself further.

Or perhaps I will just walk away

And thankyou for welcoming me to the boards

 

No, truth dies with you.

Everybody has it's own truth, who is there to hold it up when that person dies?

 

No offense taken, and none meant, either - with my first reply, nor this one. What better way to mix wisdom with fun? But I don't know if we can continue with our discussion of law without first clarifying the most basic presuppositions about reality.

You write that "this world is an illusion, a testing ground for many purposes". I'll grant that no one can definitively prove that anything exists. Hume pointed this out with his radical skepticism - Descartes stopped too soon when he ended his doubting with "I think, therefore I am". One can neither "prove" that empirical reality exists (the senses may deceive), nor can one even "prove" that the rules for "proving" are valid.

Morgoth, it was Nietzsche who proposed that perhaps our view of truth is overly masculine - debaters "take positions", the propositions "fight it out", one side "defeats" the other and proves it has the "stronger" argument. Maybe, Nietzsche suggested, truth is really feminine - gossipy, contextual, shifting, and personal.

Nietzsche is completely wrong in this respect (note my "masculine" attack!), but he does make the good point that you cannot ever definitively "prove" what proof, or truth, or whatever is, because you may misunderstand the nature and rules of truth entirely.

So nothing that I write can prove that reality (as we perceive it) actually exists, nor can you, 31415, prove that reality does not exist.

But that said: we may *believe* that reality does not exist, but we *act* as if it does.

We eat. We sleep. We breathe. We read forum postings and even, too often, play computer games. We walk through doorways, not walls; we walk on the ground, not in the air; we eat food, not sand; we use our hands, not raw willpower, to type; we speak words, not nonsense; we live as men, not animals. No matter how much intellectually we may *believe* that will remakes all and this world is an illusion, we still *act* as if the real world were just that - the real world.

Again, no offense, but to claim that reality is an illusion - yet while still playing by its rules - is either intellectual dishonesty or the edge of madness.

You write that you "would not feel comfortable quoting the texts to which I am privy". I'm not sure which texts you're referring to - obviously, since I'm not privy to them! - but it's interesting that humanity's major religious text, the Bible, both points to a "deeper meaning" in the world beyond and simultaneously emphasizes the very "realness" of this world. The Bible (true or false) opens with a proclamation that reality is real, and created good; throughout, there are promises that the creation will be redeemed; and it ends with a vision of a "new heavens and new earth".

You write that this world as "a testing ground for many purposes", in order that will and wisdom (or the world?) "be shaped and changed endlessly to suit oneself". Shaped and changed to what end, for what purpose, by what standard? What lies beyond "will", that there could be something called "wisdom" which could interpret, judge, and guide its force? To what does wisdom appeal? You write, "I cannot give a definition of what we all recognize as this spirit of the law, I simply mean that we *can* all recognize the spirit of this". But I don't think we're recognizing the same spirit. (I'd say that we're not on the same page, but obviously we ARE, since we're both on this webpage!)

Incidentally, this universal recognition of the true spirit of the law - if true - contradicts the idea that we never do what we believe to be unjust. Since we act differently - one man mugs his neighbor, another does not - either we are all indeed recognizing the same spirit but some are willfully defying that spirit, or some of us have an inadequate understanding of what that spirit of the law is. Both could be true...maybe you could clarify for me what you mean as the spirit of the law, and how it could have any kind of moral force if reality is an illusion.

One more point: you write that "something that is infinite can not be comprehended by the finite, nor have any finite qualities attributed to it, to be able to describe it would make it finite, and therefore, it could not be the absolute." What about mathematics? We can *know* that a number sequence ascends infinitely, and can use that very infinitude in mathematical equations.

OK, I've rambled long enough. Apologies, Erebus, for wandering so far off topic! And thanks, 31415, for being patient with me!

 

Aye, the edge of madness, but I know that I am not yet insane because I doubt my sanity. The moment I stop doubting, I will know I am insane (But of course will no longer care).

(I was asked to change my name, it is 31415).

No I cannot prove that reality does not exist, nor do I wish to, I simply mean that what we are surrounded with is merely a gossamer shade laid across a deeper, finer, yet more substantial, in a non material sense of the word, pervading reality.

This too cannot be proved, but the supporting cases can, things that cannot be explained by modern science, yet are by this. Of course, it may be due to something else, but I feel the constant return to the same facts by so many independantly throughout time a good enough case to sway me - and certain aspects can be experienced, not just believed, by any - through mysticism or occultism and the like - allthough I do not lay any claim to such a profound experience.

I agree with you, we all do act as if this reality is the final one ( an ironic satement, it is the last, but in a series) and this is necessary, or we would never be able to develop properly. If we had such strength of Will (and I refer to spiritual, or divine power) we would not be here, our lessons being learnt. This does not mean it is not possible in smaller amounts, nor that it is not possible to know of this and strive for it (though to strive so would be incorrect - even to desire not to desire is still to be caught on the wheel).

The key is not to intellectually believe, but to know, to be. Not an easy thing to accomplish, for one (like myself) who has not yet grasped the simplicity of it.

The path is through playing by the rules set before us, by menial existence, and total dedication to every aspect of that existence (mindfulness), while doing our all to serve humanity in the best way we can - abiding by our morals, compassion, the learning of inner truths so that we are not misguided in trying to be helpful, to improve ourselves that we may further lead others to improve et al.

So you are correct in the importance of the realness of this world, I only mean to say that it, while important, does not limit us. As you are also correct in the similarities between the bible and what I have said - this to the best of my knowledge is due to the fact that the old testament, based almost solely on the works of Chaldea, which in turn were based upon older texts based upon the same texts that the works I refer to are based upon - if that makes sense, these are available to all, as was once not the case, but nevertheless are rare, and to bandy them about when I am not certain of the precise meaning would leave feelings of both shame and guilt in me

Any text such as the new testament, given the errors in translation and misinterpretation, being based upon the works of Jesus, will be similar to any other like it based upon the teachings of other prophets, Guatamma (commonly known as Bhudda) Krishna, Odin, Horus, etc. etc., because they speak of the same things. It amazes me that it is usually the agnostic that realizes these similarities, not the religious one, who is usually not even aware of the esoteric teachings of their own religion.

As to the next; Sorry, my mistake, I meant will and wisdom are to be learnt, and that once they are learnt, it would be possible to do these things, and that the world is influenced, in a physical, empirically recordable manner, to a lesser extent by many.

I would never dare to try and give a precise definition of Wisdom!

You are of course, here correct again, we do not recognize the same spirit, merely a spirit. I think you will all agree with me that although a deeper sense of something may be recognized, that while indeed similar, it will differ from person to person, depending on their situation, and requirements.

This deeper meaning is our own impulses of spirit, and you are correct that they may differ from person to person. This is a difference on a material or an intellectual level or the crossover, an emotional one.
Many do sense it and try to defy it, using quasi-rational or logically emotive reasoning.
Many more do have an "inadequate understanding", that is, they have lost touch with their impulses of spirit - the spiritual death, or they have not obtained or consolidated them. In this modern age of machinery and wealth, of pride and anger, is this any wonder?

It has moral force because it supercedes this plane of existence, reaches back through our many layered form to another, older, wiser, stronger, which we must all obey.

Of course you will now ask then how do we defy such an impulse? It is because we are here to do just that, to become distinct and seperate and learn for ourselves this inner moral law. By doing this we do not in fact defy ourselves, because it is what we are intended to do, and our path, or it's way-points if you will, are allready set before us. I do not suppose that we are bound to fate, no, but that we have allready created it for ourselves, if not the specifics, then what we shall have obtained at the end - this is a cause for the old maxim, that it is the journey that counts, not the destination, becasue the journey (with few exceptions) is what we control, what we are able to direct that we may reach any end, any final point, for they are all in fact the same, and it is the learning of these things that is important, not having learnt them.

Will is something greater than willpower, it is more than how we enact choice, but how we create that choice, and the driving force behind the universe; Thus we develop it that we may use it as a shaping, creating force - it is the only true law - but our own Will is not the only one that must be measured into the equation, unless we speak of ourselves, where it is pre-dominant.

Our Wisdom, comprising the sum total of what we have learnt from our experiences, which encompasses our morals, and is set free from emotion, pride, and any self-serving forms of logic, is the guiding force behind how we choose to use that Will, or if we choose to use it at all, or if we infact recognize even the existence of that choice.

It is this that is formed from the impulses of spirit of which I spoke - which also have a registering effect as conscience - it is a slow transition from one to the other, I admit, but the end result is that which we begun to see perhaps as a need for knowledge - the feeling or thought that there is something we either are missing, or should know, or even simply want to know, which is caused by an unconscious awareness of the same aspect which we are aware of as conscience, combine in Wisdom, and give us a deep enogh understanding of ourselves and our environment, that our Will is no-longer self contained, or rather, that self is no longer contained within "ourselves" that this Will becomes the pre-dominant force in all aspects of our life, and wisdom too is an aspect of Will, as it is what we rely upon to make choices.

What I have tried to explain is what I meant by the effect of morality upon our Will. They both, in fact, stem from the same source. This world can be seen as a dream. Once it becomes lucid, once you are aware you are dreaming, it can be altered and *understood*, thought form is what comprises this plane - matter and spirit being two differntiated aspects, one dense, one fine, of the same substance - physics tells us that even what we view as matter is 99% empty space, it is merely an energentic vibration, a passive form of the assertive or active - spiritual will.

On a final note, mathematics is a sometimes foul perversion of number-science, but it is useful nonetheless, invaluable in our modern lives, oh well.
To my understandung, the term infinity in calculus and algebra is used merely to represent the approach to very big numbers (or very negative) or a continuing sequence, and is not a representative of the absolute, merely an endless chain of numbers (or at least to our limited perception), while the term infinty is useful for describing this situation of continuation, the same can apply, say, to the division of smaller and smaller sequences of time, you could divide a second indefinetly I am sure but endless does not mean all-encompassing, again, a problem of the language that I have used. Were it I knew the ancient senzar I am sure this would not be a problem, but english must suffice for now.

I hope I have not come across as arrogant or dismissive in my statements, and I assure you, they do not stem from religious beliefs or any similar personal dogma. I merely say what I have learnt because I believe it to be correct, have experienced, or know those who have where I have not, the truth in something other than the cut-and-dry world of empirical science, indeed, many of these things could be proved empirically, beyond any doubt of probability or chance, but to disprove them would be impossible, thus science turns it's head, ever the escape route it was devised to destroy, hiding the facts it once set out to discover as "anomalies".

Behold our mighty abilities at post hi-jacking! don't laugh, your forum could be next!

 

That was the most persuasive thing I have ever read, I think we have a winner people.

 

All that talk about Will and dreaming and deeper beyonder worlds makes me think of something my father told

"Are we humans dreaming to be butterflies, or are we butterflies dreaming to be humans"

Either way, what is then the meaning of their life? You may say that there is a hidden deeper world beyond this world and that that is the meaning of this world, but what is the meaning of that world?
It should have one, else it is no more than a dream to this world.
But then we stand there conquered all, we shape the world with our thoughts and all, and then what? That's the meaning of this world?
I't looks like a bigger more extended version of this one

Nietzsche states that wisdom can be seen as a woman because she'll fall in love with a warrior. The masculine part!