What
Is Law…?
Scientific Method:
"Therefore, the seeker
after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and,
following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one
who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one
who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human
being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency.
Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." Abu Ali al-hasan ibn al-hasan ibn al-Haytham_11th century
Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." Abu Ali al-hasan ibn al-hasan ibn al-Haytham_11th century
Hi, name’s
Law. Thought I’d pay you a visit. You’re probably thinking, “Who is this entity
calling herself the Law?” Well, I am what I am, but, it’s really quite a deep
story__a very deep story. I’ve written thousands of books, built courthouses,
libraries, law archives and hired judges and lawyers, tried millions of cases, jailed
many criminals, built countless institutions to teach you, and you still ask
the question, “What is Law?” I must be quite a mystery to you, when you have to
sit down and truly figure out what I really am. Let me see if I can help you
out.
One thing I
know is, just by you still asking what I am, certainly tells me you do not
really know what I am. You seem to be as perplexed as ol’ Socrates was,
especially after the Oracle had pronounced him “Wiser than the Gods”, and
someone asked him “What is Law?”, and he was completely perplexed. It wasn’t
because Socrates didn’t know what the written law was, because he certainly
did, but the question was asked in the wider context of its deeper meaning,
“What is Law?” How do we completely define Law? What makes law, Law? Why do Chiefs,
Kings, dictators, monarchs, church fathers or any other figures of governments,
or authority have the power to pass laws for and against the wishes of the
people? Oh, I full well know there are good laws, but there are also many bad laws
people don’t agree with, when such laws limit the freedoms they feel they have
the full free-will right to exorcise. So, what’s up? How can we have a good
society, when bad laws, to certain groups, are also needed? Or are bad laws
even necessary? We certainly know we do have bad laws, as well as many good
laws. Is this necessary? It seems quite contradictory.
If I ask
you the question, “What comes first to your mind?” And, I mean absolutely
fundamentally first, that very first presentation. “What do you see?” Don’t
tell me Law, because I’ll know you are lying. When you first awake in the
morning, “What exactly comes to mind?” Is it words, images, pictures, ideas,
sentences, propositions or what? Think about it, but don’t think too deeply or
you’ll go right past what I’m asking. Let me give you a hint. “Isn’t it a
presentation of pure awareness, of that ol’ global or universal general image
or movie, you’ve been carrying with you since childhood?” Don’t tell me it’s
not there anymore, because it’s been replaced by all the ideas and education
you’ve been bombarded with all your adult life__that’s just a cop-out. Relax,
let your mind drift to its pure awareness state. And, no you don’t need any
Buddha, yoga or meditation to see the pure awareness state__it’s right there
behind all the noise you listen to. And no, don’t block it out, just relax and
let your initial image come to you, in its largest possible sense. It’s the
most huge image-state you ever experience__It’s pure experience__pure awareness,
and it’s beautiful. That’s part of what I am. No, it’s not Law, but it’s the
similar territory Law covers, as it’s the highest state of universal generality
of perception. You can’t see me until you can see you. Don’t kid yourself,
you’re there, hidden behind all that excess noise.
Now, I can
try to describe this initial awareness presentation to you, but it loses all
meaning when too much description is added, as it’s not a logical,
psychological, propositional, syllogistic or any kind of normal description,
other than pure 1st state direct perception, of all inner and outer
experience__metaphysics, theism, ontology, materialism, capitalism, Marxism,
Democracy, epistemology, rationalism, idealism, nominalism, or any other form
of axiology or teleology, etc., except it’s simply the pre-position view of all
these states, as a totally conflated ‘oneness
of parts’, completely as presented by the natural neuro-biological
functioning of the mind, in its purest state, before you tamper with it with
words, thoughts or feelings__simply put, it’s “The Soul of the Everything State
of You.” Nothing is more beautiful than seeing this initial state of nature, in
its purest naturally given form, as that 1st initial vision. Now,
you may ask, “But, what’s this got to do with law?” Simply put, that’s just how
huge the definition of Law truly is. There is no possible way for you to see
the Law until you can see this 1st initial natural image of the
presented whole of all the parts, lil’ ol’ nature naturally gives you. The
general aspects of this image, or movie to some, and its contents are generally
the same, in the fact we all will be presented with the real world of known
objects_trees, lakes, frogs, etc., and basic feelings and instincts, about what
we see in the raw, of this 1st innate state of mental projection.
“How do I know this?” I know nature is ‘gazillions
of times’ more vast than any of us, and she puts that ‘gazillions of times’ more vast picture of herself, in all of us,
by simple independence of our meager choices, without one speck of aid from us,
other than opening our eyes and ears. Nature works the wonders of perception
and memory, totally independent of us measly beings, all by herself, and this
makes up our most fundamental auto-logical background system, lying right there
in memory, of the 1st law assists of Myself__Law. She’s Law, because
she’s absolutely auto-logically independent of our personal actions, but she’s
only a general normative influence on us, with her much weaker “Normative Generality”,
than our “Social Esthetic Normative Generality.”
You say,
“There’s no such auto-logical entity in my mind.” Oh no?, then please explain
to me where all those real world perceptual images and sounds go to, if not
into your memory, as long as your eyes are pointed at them, and the sounds are
loud enough for you to hear them, as per say, music? And further, please
explain to me how the world of nature and even the universe of real world
objects and actions is not a rational existence and action system creating this
auto-logicality I speak of, except of course for our meager meddling, with
feelings and personal counter-rationalisms. You can’t, because there’s simply
no exit from the effects of real world objects and actions upon us. You are
trapped in the 1st laws of Law, within the universal law systems,
and I’m trapped inside your self-created law systems, due to the fact that you
can’t, not only see what I am, you can’t even fully see what you and nature
truly are. Now, “Ain’t that quite a pickle we’re both in?” You, trapped in
ignorance, and me, trapped in your ignorance, but, “I’m Law, and I want out of
your ignorance.” “Please, help me to escape this legal stew.” “I don’t like it
any better than you do.”
If you
allow me to look deep inside you, as you look deep inside of me, I think we can
both help each other out of this smelly stew. “What do you say?” Here’s how
we’ll go about it. We’ll start from that “Highest Normative Esthetic State Vision”
of “Nature’s Pure Image”, or our “Soul as The Same Vision”, deduce a few laws,
ideologies and basic instincts and desires from it, rework a few
pre-suppositional ideologies and dogmas, build a few virtual systems of
comparative Law, talk a bit about which entities have the most power at
dynamic, normative, natural, common and positive Law__and see just what we can
come up with. It’s gonna’ be a bumpy ride, but I’ll run the air in the tires as
low as possible, to soften it a bit. First, “What basic element do you think is
the most formative of Law?” Is it The positive Law? The natural Law? The common
Law? The Laws of Nature? Political Law? Contract Law? Social Law? Economic Law?
Social Contract Law? Constitutional Law? Mickey Mouse Law? Goofy Law? Or, “What
Law takes precedence over any of the above?” Or, Is it even any one, or a
mixture of all?, the old “One and The Many” problem. See what I mean about them
thar’ bumps? Now, add in all them thar’ pesky ol’ ideologies, dogmas,
skepticisms, criminals, greedy Grinches, thieves and what-not, and we start to
get a picture, quite different than that 1st pure initial image.
“Why don’t the two match?” “Could it be you humans ain’t paying enough
attention to the 1st initial vision?” “Do you suppose, you may be
just a tad incompetent?” Just a tad?
In that
last paragraph, I asked, “What basic element do you think is the most formative
of Law?” That’s Me, in case you didn’t notice. “How about considering your-self,
or really all of humanity, and their basic instincts, emotions, wants and
desires as the most formative element of the Law?” You’re probably saying, “How
can that be, with all the a priori rationality, a posteriori empiricism, a
fortiori debate and all the institutional intelligence, and you say it’s fundamentally
basic innate common sense?” My answer is simply, “What to hell do you think is
the foundation of all your ‘iori-ism-ology’ nonsense?” “Wake-up, it’s basic
common sense.” Though it is basic common sense, nothing could be more
complicated than when all these ‘ioris-isms-ologies’ get involved in Law, never
such a cross purpose set of common sense motives you’ve ever seen__hundreds of
cultural cross-purposes feeding into the formation of the Law systems, over
history, multiplied by millions of varying degrees of legal ideas, wishes and
desires within the citizenry. Nothing imaginable could be more
complicated__Nothing. At first, kinda’ even makes me a bit teary-eyed, to think
about it. No fret, I’ll straighten you out. Just follow the yellow brick
road__That’s some lotta’ gold there, ya know.
You may
ask, “Why do I need all this noise to understand Law?” Well, that’s not my
fault. It’s you humans who wouldn’t believe the first great men who told you
the truth about Law, so now you’ve got so many varying degree arguments
involved, it’s no wonder the average yokel can’t even begin to see the light of
day. Let’s see, if you can simply first realize you are going to need a new
vehicle to get from a, to b, to c, to d, and not e__just maybe we can come to a
mutually beneficial understanding. Most of the vehicles you humans threw away
millennia ago were and are what you truly need to get from a, to b, to c, to d,
and not e, due to all the arguments seeming to have logical validity enough,
so’s you’ve ended up with cultures of nothing but useless nominalism and
cultural relativity. Each of the foolish negative arguments against sound ideas
have made the sound thinkers think they don’t think right any more, but in
fact, they do__but they simply know of no new mental-vehicle to get from a, to
b, to c, to d, and not e, as it’s simply been lost to history’s massive schools
of negative arguments. Those vehicles are “The Methodological Sciences” and “The
Normative Sciences.” Culture has simply lost track of the fact that all those
‘-isms and -ologies’ I mentioned in paragraph #4 all started out as “Methodological
Sciences” and “Normative Sciences”__Yet, modern society has completely gutted
their real meanings, in favor of some cultural relativisms, extreme
rationalisms, extreme natural rights experientialisms and even more extreme nominalisms,
if not even worse absolute skepticisms and solipsisms. We’ve gotta’ shine those
old vehicles up again.
Since the
anti-realists and anti-intelligence groups have destroyed most all connections
from values to rationality, new bridges must be built for our shiny new
vehicles to drive over. The shiniest vehicles needed are “Normative Esthetics”
and “Real Scientific Respect” as relates to fundamental meanings. “Why do I say
Esthetics?” “Is there any other known vehicle to be both instinctual emotional
sourced and intellectually rationalizable, at the same time?” “None that I know
of.” Well you may say, “Just why is this vehicle needed to bridge the gap
between values and intelligence?” “Ahhh, didn’t I just mention above about the
empty-headed critics destroying all possible bridges of communication from a,
to b, to c, to d, and not e?” Since they’ve blown up all the bridges, we done
gotta’ build em’ anew, once again. You see, Esthetics is sourced in emotions
through its infinite side of beauty, idealism and perfection, and also sourced
in real world objects through its finite side of form, function and action,
thus allowing the intellect to intellectualize instinct and values, fully valid
and compatible with rationality and the hard sciences, which it at present is
not able to do, as the critics have built contradictory cross-purpose schools
of thought against sensible uses of such pragmatic values, experience and
common sense of “Normal Experience and Rationality.” “This is why we need the
shiny new vehicles and bridges, of “Normative Esthetics” and “Scientific Methodologies
of Thought”, to reach the yellow brick road of real truth and wisdom, once
again.” The most basic foundation of Law__“Me”__is Esthetics and Science, as it
takes Esthetics and Will to intellectually import values into ethics, and it
takes the Scientific Method to fully understand, communicate and institute the Law
of such values, because feelings and values can’t talk sensibly about feelings
and values, to Law, without becoming thoroughly lost in feelings and values,
due to its required circular reasoning within its own naked self__that’s just a
fact of the nature of private personal language, lacking the Esthetic
go-between vehicle. Sorry__but, The ‘Big-Shot’ a priorists defeat the
minimalist experientialists, at intellectual contest, almost every time,
otherwise.
Ok, back to
“What is Law?” Let me take a new route to more deeply explaining law to Law.
Law can only be thoroughly explicated by an “Analytical Scientific Method”, as
all other methods fail, by not being dynamic enough. By dynamic, I here mean
changing over time, which the Analytic Scientific Method allows, as Science
readily admits its subject, “Method”, is always evolving, and never complete,
as culture adds new material and actions every day. Of what has been mentioned
above about ‘ioris-isms-ologies’, etc., and possible bridges of communication
from a, to b, to c, to d, and not e, let’s set up a few virtual models of Law
Systems to see if we can begin to put the story straight, in our minds.
A
comparative analysis of any of the present pre-suppositional
‘ioris-isms-ologies’, etc., will quickly reveal their strengths and weaknesses.
Let’s take the “Common Law” first, as it’s the most studied of all the “Law
Systems” from Cicero onward, if not earlier, but the earlier and some later
periods are more dominated by the “A Priori Rational Systems.” The “Common
Law’s” strength is in its highest plurality of citizens’ considerations and
actions involved, compared to any other system. The “Common Law” is the second
deepest sourced system, being that of most of the populations’ wishes, desires
habits and actions__even though not all the citizens directly participate in
this Law’s enactment, they all are indirectly involved through the social
function of personal and community values’ “Normativity.” Now, of course right
here, the “A Priorists, A Posteriorists and A Fortiorists of Law” will stand up
and scream, “Sir, you are absolutely wrong; The rational and experiential instinct
of intellect is by far the most controlling aspect of all laws passed. Who do
you think the Legislators and Justices, passing all the laws, have studied
most?” Well, they have a point, but, only at the great expense of ignoring “The
Deepest Natural Law”, “The Common Law” and “The Normative Law” as well, and
concentrating solely on “The A Priori, A Posteriori and A Fortiori” nature of
the laws and Law. They completely block out the “Descriptive” and “Prescriptive”
“Normative Functions” of “The Natural Law” and “The Common Law”, to hoist their
“Naked A Priori” or “Naked A Posteriori” or “Naked A Fortiori” upon the feelings
and intellect of the culture, at least as much as they can get away with, and
believe me, that’s quite a reasonable sum, especially when they mix “Natural
Law” in, to strengthen their own positions, but totally deny they are doing so.
They fail to realize “Natural Law” is the pre-suppositional state__visible or
invisible, admitted or not__of just about everybody, at the core of fundamental
thought and action.
By doing
this, the “A Priorists” “A Posteriorists” and “A Fortiorists” are missing one
of the most important aspects of the Law, which is “The Normative Law’s” actual
street to legal functions; all the people’s traditions, habits, mores,
ideals and histories, as are so aptly pointed out by such notables as Cicero,
Grotius, our Founding Fathers, Holmes, Hand and Griffith, just to mention a few
who dealt with the “Norming Functions” of History’s “Natural and Common Laws.”
But; What of the weaknesses of the “Natural and Common Laws?” And, here again
we see the problem of ignoring the other side’s “A Priori” “A Posteriori” and
“A Fortiori” views, by not analyzing the full and true depths, breadths and effects
of the others’ “Law Systems” which in actuality do have the same but different
degrees of “Norming Affects” on society, to produce the “Legal Effects” of its
cultural habits’ coercions and enforcements upon culture’s “Final Legal Product.”
So both sides of these “Legal Ideologies and Dogmas of Law”, and I’m only taking a few here to not be too
long winded, are ignoring the “Greater” part of “The Law”; the “Normative
Sciences” and “True Actions of Law”, not to mention, the “Real World Effects”
of “All Systems’ Cultural Normative Forms and Functions”__Which almost entirely
are lost to the “Historical Stew of Thoughts and Ideas’ Collisions.”
For just a
short and trivial note about most all the other confusing ‘ioris-isms-ologies’,
etc., being impossible and possible bridges of communication blocks from a, to
b, to c, to d, and not e, which prevents the good of the other systems not
being, or being, generated, due to the fact, most of them are confusing and
conflating most of the “Legal Points” addressed in the previous few paragraphs.
Just take “Skeptics”, “Nominalists”, “Relativists” and “Solipsists for a few
examples; of them filling the “Mental and Legal Gaps” being missed; mainly
“Social Normativity”, and one quickly sees what gives these false and
pseudo-systems their seeming room to operate, and heavy weight, that they can’t
cross the new bridges “I, Law”, am trying to build for the shiny new vehicles
to travel across, to true knowledge, best liberty states and possible wisdom,
unless they themselves hitch a ride in the new vehicles. Most all these other
‘ioris-isms-ologies’ simply block the necessary mental paths, roads and bridges
our proper communication and understanding must follow, to rise to the “Truth
of Law.”
Finally,
maybe I can get to that, all this time waited for, definition of, “What is
Law?” Law is the interactions of everything mentioned in this paper about human
motives and habits; that is as far as the social Law created by all our
self-controlled human actions and interactions __ psychological, theistic or
logical, etc. Of course, self-controlled human actions and interactions involve
all the varying degrees of emotional motives, desires and values of all humans
in competition with all the opposing varying degrees of others’ emotional
motives, desires and values__through the free-wills of all involved. This
action and interaction also involves all the cross-purpose and cross-motives of
all these minds’ rational intelligences as well as the personal motives, habits
and actions, also in competition, through free-wills, of all opposing and
compromising actions and interactions. This all comes down to simply personally
thinking out all the feelings, habits, motives, experiential and intellectual
potential of all the people’s actions, especially including one’s own, being
applied to Law, from and to all the disparate sources, where a realization of
governmental restraint’s necessity begins to seem natural to be the core
arbiter of all these differences, through its necessary governments and courts,
due to frail humanity’s lack of enough “Esthetic Virtue” to do without such
governments and courts. Law is the complex dynamic organization of being the
high “Normatizing/Normalizing Overseer Power Arbiter” of all social change over
history, showing itself in much the same vision of that natural 1st
state vision of pure nature, except it’s, at bottom, a purely human, mostly
self-controlled creation of Law, where, Law’s purpose is to “Normatively” reign
in the evils of human nature, thus creating the good. Law is fundamentally, “A
Normative Scientific Form and Function” upon all cultures__Being individually
and collectively or group self-imposed upon all modern highly developed
cultures, by all upon all, if only all were to choose to participate, so they’d
realize their part. Whether they participate or not, “Law” is still a
“Normative Scientific Function” upon all cultures__Self-imposed upon all modern
developed cultures, by an “All Upon All” “Cultural Effect and Action Process”,
as long as they have some form of participatory governance, as even the least
participate at some level, even if it’s only no more than executing a seeming
invisible contract to buy a hot-dog. That’s still a real “Norming Effect” upon society,
as the hot-dog purchaser sees the habitual actions of other hot-dog buyers
acting either civilly or uncivilly, and due to “Normativity”, chooses to follow
suit, or not.
Hi… “Law”
here; Kick the tires a few times, to see if the shiny new vehicles are sound.
Good night
all,
“The Law”
P.s. “Normativity”__or
“Liberty” and “Morality” as symmetrically the same__is also a “General
Universal Idea and Ideal”, but is real world measurable through history’s court
records’ and libraries’ largest “Scopes of Evidence”, possible to recover and
measure, in all forms of Law.
Morality
requires a “Scientific Vehicle” to transport Morality into Science. That
Vehicle is “Esthetic Normativity.”
You are a
“General Normative Moral Soul” if you choose to be__It’s your ground__That’s
it…
No comments:
Post a Comment