Present human knowledge points to the greatest likelihood that law is the fundamental principle a priori to any and all phenomena or event. Law is more primal than philosophy, science, mathematics, space, motion or physics in form and function in any system or process.
Perhaps the oldest understanding in the human cognition of Law, the never violable principle implicit in the relationship between cause and effect, formalized in the ancient Indian concept of karma, related causal function in one life to effective form in a successive life, in a series of reincarnations called “samsara”. According to this very old paradigm, proper function inspired by good will is always supremely rewarded by progressive reincarnations into higher, more capable form, closer to divinity, whereas improper function is punished by regressive reincarnation into lower form so as to restrict capability, and therefore inhibit evil will.
This rather obvious ancient herald of evolution theory strongly suggests the plausible probability of earlier peoples’ subliminal and vague, but relatively perfect “lower” subconscious cognition attempting to link to an imperfect “higher” state of comparatively organized, concentrated, conscious awareness and comprehension seemingly vastly more well controlled by will, or the conscious will, at least. We are still trying to this very day, but, perhaps not quite as earnestly, due to the common “perception” that life has become much easier than it was, long ago.
The basic idea of good triumphing over bad is also deeply imbedded in the concept of karma. Such natural, inherent superiority of sound action, movement and its consequent position, or situation, in accord with the deictic and didactic implicit in any reasonably honest or objective observations of evolution, generally defeats entropy, and all of its manifold ramifications of ultimate doom. While people generally seem to instinctively, or otherwise intrinsically cognize some conflict inherent everywhere in nature, this eons old awareness is quite vague and amorphous when compared to the relatively sharp clarity and focus of things as viewed from the conscious perspective.
Always, in this apparently desperate struggle between good and evil, our instincts firmly direct us to raise our awareness of reality into the light of day, but it can be quite painfully blinding to open the eyes wide while the pupils are yet dilated, and visual purple is still a dominant, though transient, presence in the visual apparatus which has conventionally adapted to dim light. This is especially true if viewing an intensely disturbing scene for the first time, and such as this frightening an experience can quite effectively discourage, inhibit and constrain further investigation, examination, observation, and even curiosity.
When beings naturally attracted to beauty encounter the gruesomely corrupted and grotesque, they sometimes still see, yet quit really looking at anything much at all, for a while, anyway.
Later, derived from Mosaic Law, and tempered by the Ten Commandments, as is well described in the Hebrew Torah, “an eye for an eye,” and so on, rhetoric emphasizes specific penal consequence “required” to maintain the natural balance of forces. Vengeance will conserve a now slightly more abstracted deictic and didactic to the inherent principle of cause and effect. The main theme of cultural concern and practice here has subtly shifted from a validly sound epistemological paradigm to one more centered on political control and maintenance of an ever-growing population. This is a really risky step to take in a reality thematically centered on accurate memory, integrity, and other such main concerns with honesty and honor. There, the slope can be quite slippery, especially when “all wet”.
A less severe, more evolved, interpretation of the Ten Commandments came later from the more forgiving Christians during the advent of their influence. The Golden Rule was a noble attempt to generalize more soundly from the Mosaic Law. While the principle relating cause to effect was partially liberated from condemnation and strife, it now bore some slightly abstract stigma of uncertainty, almost as if others might not do unto you as you had done unto them. This inadvertently introduced a potentially devastating apparent subordination of God’s will to that of mortal man, betraying perhaps some fundamental weakness inherent in forgiveness for violations of the Ten Commandments.
Through the following centuries, sophistication and elaboration of methods for the codification of divine law interpretation led subsequent Semitic tribes to attempt the perfection of such codification through open, thorough, intensive and highly disciplined analysis, examination, synthesis, and definition. But the ironic results were to invent a severely strict system of interpretation so stiffly intolerant and uncompromising that one would easily be led to believe its brittle self-righteousness surely flowed from some source of divine inspiration and absolute truth. Thus, the Islamic system of law, most commonly called “Shariah”, slowly developed during the time of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad, and after his death in 632 A.D., this legal code, considered to be perfect, was rendered fixed and immutable. Shariah became a rigidly static system, perhaps somewhat resembling the ideal Omega Point postulated later on by the Catholic theologian and philosopher, Tielhard de Chardin, et al, as being the final culmination, the perfect end of divine means and purpose … and any and all dynamic …
In fact, they almost sound like “the chosen ones”, those “other” Semites.
However, in spite of such “perfections”, Shariah can be, and, according to Islam, is violated by mankind, thus completing law’s slow but sure departure from inviolability as first suggested by the Golden Rule. Such fundamental error only grows more intense and quite exaggerated through time, until it seems to be virtually infinite in its vastly overwhelming complexity, and incomprehensible by any reasonable “seeker”. The irony of its practical untenability and awkward and ungainly lack of real, applicable utility eventually becomes its feature characteristic, inadvertently manifesting some infinitely larger and vastly more capable, subtly overriding natural system of absolute checks and balances. While Shariah begins to compete with Roman-Byzantine and Persian-Sasanian organizational structures, among others, at least the Muslims have never hogtied their legal system with high paid whores and pimps, euphemized as “lobbyists”, greedily sucking the very life out of it, essentially eating the hand that feeds its insatiable avarice, and, ergo, ultimately stupidly doomed.
With such dissipation of influence quite naturally occurring in many succeeding political acts of burgeoning legislation across the globe throughout history, real, truly active law becomes so thin in substance and capability as to have lost all durable or legitimate validation. The irony is now complete, as we are all left with “law” so codified in such extremely “well” defined terms as require several years of intensive “expert” instruction for their proper “use”. Specificities in “modern” legislation of law only dilute and then diffuse, to weaken its basic integrity and, hence its intended true effectiveness. Though this is an apparent major setback to the successful interpretation and application of natural, true, inviolable Law, it does nevertheless provide all a good opportunity for examinations of its natural integrity manifesting the ultimate metaphor symbolic of supreme sound order in the midst of apparent chaos and confusion seeming chronically, inextricably, bound to the fundamental processes of creation, or evolution, or, most probably, both, synonymous in all reality.
Incidentally, this begs the question of the present adversarial process of the current legal system being more balanced adequately by utilizing some complimentary process of co-operational discovery in some new system of bilateral investigation, for a possible example.
While the noble aspirations of Law may reveal nothing less than divinity, our absolute relation to the infinite, and probably even God, in the abysmal depths of ever more abstract, analytical, and falsely separational detail, we only seem to be vexed by none other than the one we always find lurking among all the tedium and toil, the devil.
Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.
What does all of this really mean? Could one be rather easily led to conclude that mankind’s religious path through his relatively recent, recorded history has, in all reality, been along the track of some kind of desperate escape from the rule of God? That might be a bit too tricky for a finitely mortal creature up against a universe which, by all true reckoning, seems to be utterly ruled by irony. Given this, and a vast, unbounded but nevertheless finite, positively curved space described by the great genius Einstein, we could well end up, in the very process of evasion, running right into the arms of God.
But who says we’re really finite?
Did Xenophanes’ faith that men create gods give us a clue?
Indeed, in whose image was Who really created?
LAW A Cosmic Interpretation of Universally Inviolable Principle ©2005MACameron
All Rights Reserved
Published in the U.S.A.
Registration Number / Date:
TXu001268502 / 2005-10-31
Title:Law : a cosmic interpretation of universally inviolable principle.