/ Law /
Law uses science. Sometimes, at its convenience.
But law is not science. Law is far closer kin to ritual.
Understand, law seeks uniformity, consistency, a common denominator (in its scientific sense.
Ritual as its base is magic. At its best it seeks to make something true that isn’t true. I seeks authority.
Law and science are more likely to be in opposition than in agreement. And note that it’s the lawyers who run the scientists, not the scientists who run the lawyers.
Science seeks truth. Technology, so routinely confused with science, seeks power.
Did law start out seeking truth and then succomb to power? Or was law basically selfish and dishonest to begin with, and then gradually, almost accidentally, become truthophilic?
(How many drafts will this take before it achieves essay quality? Some is already philosophy quality.)
Gathering a couple of points already much made at K: the gospels have it that the Jews cajoled the Romans to bend their laws to crucify Jesus, the guy who ruined the day’s business at the Temple. [2016 01 18 Distinguish Jewish law from Roman law: Roman law baldly sought to serve Roman hegemony, Roman prosperity, power; Jewish law pretended to issue from God, the Creator, the owner and boss. Still, there were hints that this world of this god were true, actual: would be supported by experience, not contradicted by experience.
I mean to do this right, then get yanked by digressions, tripping over the commonality by which common sense is wrong, wrong, wronger.]
The gospels have it that it was the Roman soldier with the spear who killed Jesus. The cross tortured him, the spear killed him. There were no forensic pathologists on hand, we can’t confirm it, but that’s the story.
(At Judgment, if God shows us the facts, we won’t need any forensics, or any gospel. Science, God … truth, the bible would then be redundant. Authority and experience would at last merge.)
Interpreted, the gospel story has it that the reason the Jews with their rabbis and their Temple and its Sanhedrin killed Jesus rather than continue the torture was that day, Friday, was ending. At sunset the Sabbath began. Jewish law made it a sin to murder and torture on the Sabbath. So: the soldier didn’t care if it was the Sabbath; he wasn’t Jewish. But the Jews cared. They didn’t see it as on their soul to murder Jesus, even after he said he was the Christ: but it would have been on their soul to torture Jesus (or Barabas or anybody) past sunset! So: they didn’t kill Jesus to put him out of his misery; they killed Jeses to forstall their misery: at God’s vengeful hands.
It’s OK to murder God’s son; it ain’t OK to murder God’s son on the Sabbath.
Now: notice: the role(s) of ritual.
Ritual trumps law.
Is it the rabbi’s blessing that makes the food kosher? or does he bless it because it’s kosher?
The more you know, the more sense things make: right?
Reflect: God walked in the garden in the cool of the evening. (I love this part of the story.) He calls out to Adam (and Eve). Adam says he’s hiding. Why is he hiding God wants to know. He’s hiding because he’s naked. Of course he’s been naked all along, eve too, but he didn’t know it. God specifies, “Who told you that you were naked?”
If you’re a marine and you want to hide from God, what will you do? Wear camouflage, right? And you’ll paint your face with soot, smear it with black grease: part of the camouflage. The warrior paints himself as a tiger, makes himself appear to be fierce, by painting, the painting a ritual disguise. If the warrior is hunting and his camouflage is no good, he won’t get the deer, the pig, the ‘possum. What if his ritual tiger is no good? Will he still kill his his enemy? What if he himself gets killed?
At Judgment we may presume that God will show us the facts, will prove the facts to be facts. We imagine that God will be right, tell the truth, show the truth. At Judgment only the good camouflage will work. earlier draft was lame on this point
Naked Adam had better be painted right.
In college my friend’s mother warned him not to waste time on me, because I wasn’t “clean”. I was a neat freak; Myron was a pig. He saw the expression on my face and waved it off: No, she didn’t mean dirty: she’s not talking about soap and water; she meant not kosher. That is to say, missing the right ritual, rightly ritually performed.
Notice now, it will come up more fully later: How stupid is Adam to think that God will be fooled by his hiding? I’ll tell you how stupid: stupid enough to think that ending Jesus torture just at dusk will get them off the hook for the crucifixion.
How stupid is God to have created such a creature? Never mind: but here’s an answer off the wall that will actually answer everything:
The Jews think that solving part of the problem will solve the whole problem!
Not torturing Jesus beyond sunset will cancel the venality of the rabbis who were cheating the worshipers by their sacrificial animals racket in the Temple. It’s the same, exactly the same as the scam by which they think they can fool God with their abundance of laws, any one of which can be got around by cheating.
[2016 01 18 Note: the gospels’ Jesus simplified God’s rules from ten to two. But then the Catholic Church multiplied Jesus’ simplification to almost rival Leviticus etc.]
I don’t doubt that there are laws in the universe: any more than I doubt that there is a true essence of existence (which I call god) (sometimes allowing it to be capitalized: orthographic niceties having little damn bearing on the truth.
(In other words I am not a swallow-the-bait-whole believer in ritual.)
But never mind Jews. Who cares about Jews? Everybody hates Jews, including Jews, especially Jews. Take Americans for example. We too pretend to have laws. We too act as though God(or god, or the essence of things) is foolable! We act as though the camouflage works when the camouflage is not working. We act as though the tiger is scaring the enemy. We act as though the priest disguised as Galileo is a scientist when the priest (and the Church) call(s) him a scientist after the real Galileo has been silence by the threat or torture.
At Judgment who will have proved to be stupid?
Or are both sides so stupid there will be no Judgment?
No, no: words mix everything up: try this: Is there no truth?
Never mind Judgment, is there no truth? When Congress approves mislabeling, is there now therefore no poison?
(I’ve been watching a marvelous doc recently in which the claptrap fraud behind federal nutritional guides render cafeteria meals little better than whipped cream on marshmallows.)
re: fair trial next
I’ve sort of half-made my point, but not as well as I meant. The points are subtle, they disappear even on me, gotta keep re-looking.
Of course it doesn’t matter how well I say what I mean: the damned still won’t get it. The damned still won’t get even that there is anything to get. The damned can’t imagine their not understanding something, can’t see their mortality, their venality, staring them in the face.
Good. What happens in this universe is just a joke. Did it matter in the Third Reich what the Nazis said they were up to? Does it matter if Congress votes unanimously that the kleptocracy’s lies are actually “history”?
The Day’s Business
on his deathbed
sold me this watch.
Law & Ritual