The interaction dynamics of love between two people, on this earth, are universal and immutable. One person that loves another, and wishes it in return, approaches that person and in some manner and in some degree expresses it. That person then freely returns an expression of interest, or expresses otherwise. There is no other way that the love of another person, on this earth, is worthy or has power.
The character and plot in the second Kate Blanchett ‘Elizabeth’ depicts this immutable law. Able to command an empire and all within it, the queen is unable to command the affection of Drake. All powerful in all other aspects but one, the queen is untouchable in all other realms of life in England but one. The situation of such a monarch, where all her life her command was granted and where others were subordinate, suddenly vulnerable, would be a vexation and torment. It is the human “glitch” in the outlook of the divine right of authority- the affective fragility that though they may be “gods” on earth, monarchs are real human beings.
All persons who have been in love, whether they are conscious of it or not, already know this- the vulnerability they have towards the one they love. Each of us is the awkward 'horse and hound' writer in the movie 'Knotting Hill' before the star of our hearts.
By it’s very nature, it cannot be forced and cannot be commanded because then it is not the free choice of the other- that “he or she chose me”. It is this free choice that gives the power that the love from another person has for people. That they smile when they see you, that they are happy to wake up with you, that they look forward to going home from work to you, that when they have the choice to do anything they want, just being with you is their choice, these actions of loved ones compare with no other action with regard to the effect on us.
When an other of substance- beautiful, intelligent- expresses that she chooses you, and expresses it in the ways described in the paragraph directly above- there is absolutely no substitute that can replace it, nothing that equals it. It is a “winning”, the victory of which in this realm of life, IS “the only thing”.
“She chooses me”- “can it be!?”…..then “colors seem brighter and the grace of god falls on us. "I feel wonderful, because I see, the love light in your eyes..."
To discover that “it’s always been you, all my life" from the "princess" in your eyes has no answer in words that can approach addressing and be worthy of addressing. Such a situation could only be answered through the truth of action of love in return.
"Moreover, the law entered... grace did much more abound."Rom. 5:20
"Conquering Vs. 'Wonderful Tonight'
Twice over the last 25 years in conversations the theory that Love is nothing more than a "conquering" of the other, of the one desired, was presented for consideration. The argument never made sense to me from the standpoint of someone living freely under and in accordance with the protection of Law of the United States constitution and the Declaration of Indepedence, where we are taught that "all men are created equal", and taught to have a "decent regard of the opinion of others".
I countered that such a view was rooted in an aggressive and self-centered view of the self, where what mattered most was the power of the self, rather than two people together. I responded that this view of love was false. I still find this to be the case.
It is in this manner that those that operate from a martial perspective that is based on the false view that "nothing human is trustworthy", and of the individual human being as natural born killer, criminal, depraved, find themselves in a world without real love, but only with the dynamic of "conquering" that serves badly as a substitute- but is vacuous.
Conquering as a principle, the attempt to render the other submissive to personal or physical power and force, really just destroys the chance at really having what is described in Eric Clapton's "wonderful tonight". Without the respect of the other, without the view that others have intrinsic value, and without the free choice of the other choosing you there is no real trust gained in the dynamic of "conquering". The "lubricity"- the shininess- in the attraction to new people that stays and strengthens with respect for the other and real love just fades ever so quickly without it. And so Emerson laments, (post on Cavell and Emerson) because there is no real lasting love or value where "nothing human is trustworthy" is the basis of belief.
When freely and without having to materially and physically threaten, a woman often receives "wonderful tonight", when their guy is just incredibly happy to go to bed and wake up with her, come home to her after work, just because of what it is like to be with her- what more is there really to win.
Structural social and personal compatibility issues are always a factor- occupation, income, education, etc., but once someone falls within respectful parameters, the personal dynamics and the power of being with someone you freely choose, and that freely chooses you is SO much more profound than the falseness of self-centered "conquering".
It is for these reasons, whether an individual believes in the spiritual aspects of Christianity or not, that the words that describe the human, existential truth of real love between two persons that respect each other, and what makes it literally sacred for free people, are expressed and understood profoundly in Corinthians in and through the simple language of demonstration, through acts making the benevolence in one's heart material : Love ("charity", in earlier texts of the King James) is patient and kind, not arrogant or rude, not jealous or boastful, not irritable or resentful.
Eric Clapton- 'Wonderful Tonight'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F44BcGjIbAA
1) Avril Lavigne- 'Girlfriend'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8146371784531658546&ei=8dvTSLX5O4yirAK_1ejGAg&q=avril+lavigne+girlfriend+video&vt=lf&hl=en
LOLOL ;)
2) Counting Crows- 'Accidentally in Love'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS0Q98Ytcog
3) Alison Krauss- 'When You say Nothing at All'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsjZWlRVvo
4) Mariah Carey- 'Always be My Baby'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QapwJpAe7w
&
5) Carrie Underwood- 'Small'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUtFEKhtB30&feature=related
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Strauss 'Natural Right and History' and "Total War" Ideology
The third element of an ideology of “total war” is found in Thomas Hobbes restriction of individual right- with the claim that the authority of the sovereign is the sole basis for law. It is important to understand why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function for governing a population, and has no just basis for governing a population.
This was present, as of January 2008, in Leo Strauss' treatment of “Natural Right” in his book 'Natural Right and History'. Section 1 and section 5 of the argument were formed by Paul Ricoeur and conveyed in informal conversations with myself, Marcello Villaverde and others during a break in one of his seminars at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1989.
Aside from fleshing out the history surrounding the concept of Natural right, Strauss makes two major claims concerning natural right: 1) the basis of natural right; and 2) what Ricoeur called the "social claim".
1) the basis of Natural Right-
The basis of natural right, according to Strauss, is the fear of death from violent attack. But according to Ricoeur this is not only the 'basis' of Natural right, but also the original 'claim' of natural right. Strauss just doesn't state the claim. The idea of right is justice- i.e. the correctness of the claim communicated to others. Here is the “original claim” in stages, as Ricoeur formed it: a) "it is right(just) that; b) I do whatever is available within my power to defend against the other- "enemy" - from violent attack; c) because I fear death”.
but this is only the first part of the claim... because according to Ricoeur any "just" claim also contains the remaining parts: d) “and you know this to be true; e) because to fear death is the same for you".
The basic claim of natural right is "just"- is "right"- because it is true.....for all people.
To go further into Strauss statement from his derivation of the basis of natural right to the basis of the fear of death means we must look elsewhere, as Strauss does not elaborate it. The basis of the fear of death though is unstated in NR&H(at least as of January of 2008), but is found in two other philosophers- Immanuel Kant and Theodor Adorno.
As Kant would put it, the basis of the fear of death is the same for all people because of our pathologically affective nature- the fact that we are creatures that feel and that this feeling can be communicated. Kant calls this the "sensus communis"- the common sense. (But it is not the common sense of normal reasoning that we normally associate with). The concept of the "common sense", shared by humans, exists according to Kant, because we do communicate. Thus it is the common sense we share at the basis of experience that makes experience the same and communicable for us, and what makes the claim of natural right thus "just" and "right"- because it is "true". The original claim of natural right is right, is just, because of the "just" nature of the fight against death that we all know to be true.
The Fear rooted at the basis of natural right has a more physical root in the “common sense” that is not expressed in Kant, because fear is one of a type of "sufferings". Pain and fear are thus the physical roots of this "common sense", and so a more physical expression that is closer to this root is found in Theodor Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics'. In ND Adorno drills down to the root of this pathologically affective root of communication in a phrase that I can find no equal- "the physical moment says that suffering "ought not to be". This phrase expresses that the feeling of suffering, including then pain and fear, is itself simultaneously a type of "saying" that says "stop". Because of this "saying" in suffering, this inherent communicable nature of suffering, because it is the same for others and they thus know it, we can make the claim to others of unjust injury.
Some have described suffering as "being towards death" (see Elaine Scarry "the body in pain"), because to suffer "feels like dying". This is what we know physically of death, as we do not experience death ourselves but only see others die.
The fear of death is rooted in the suffering we feel, the basic unjust feel of it, and the claim of natural right can be made because others know this as well. It implies the duty that because we know this we "ought not" to do this to others. So natural right has a dialectical relationship with duty- there is always duty. Strauss is correct to say that the feeling of natural right is primary to duty because it is always what is experienced IN US.
It is in this sense that Jefferson is indubitably right to claim in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”.
2) The "social claim" of natural right.
Strauss asserts the main 'social claim' of natural right- that "the greater should govern the lesser". This claim of natural right is correct, but why?
It is correct because of how this relationship between "greater" and "lesser" is formed- in the contest of subordination. These contests we know as contests of election, appointment, or force. The contest of subordination through force is the use of force to change the relationship between the parties, from equals or rivals, to one superior and one lesser, and in the pushing down of the lesser the victor becomes greater. It is contest then that makes true - that justifies- that makes 'just' the subordination of the other. This is the truth in the social claim of natural right that the greater should govern the lesser, in contest it has been proven.
3) So the two main claims of natural right- that of the contest of the individual against death, and that of the contest to determine the social order, are expressed as rights through the JUSTIFICATION of CONTEST.
4) So far I have no disagreement at all with Strauss' elaboration of Natural Right. (as of January 2008).
5) One then can return to the Hobbes notion of the suppression of individual rights subordinate to the "authority" of the sovereign as the sole basis for law, in order to round out why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function and has no just basis for governing a population.
Hobbes restricts this basis to the authority described in the "social claim"- the social relationship of subordination between "greater" and "lesser". But both Hobbes and Strauss (as of January 2008) ignore the "authority"- what makes the basic claim of natural right "just"- which is TRUTH. There is the "authority" of truth...the primary "justness" of the basic claim of natural right. Strauss- as of January 2008- is wrong to ignore it.
Human freedom is thus found through an "order that provides it", but in accordance with the limitations of the "logic of sense". As the "social claim" of natural right is based on the first "basic claim" of natural right, it is indisputable that within natural law the "authority" of the sovereign is limited by any system overly despotic- that inflicts unjust suffering on its people by mere fiat. In natural law the sovereign is restricted by the physical tenets of respect in the common "law" and truth of human life- that the physical moment says that suffering ought not to be.
This was present, as of January 2008, in Leo Strauss' treatment of “Natural Right” in his book 'Natural Right and History'. Section 1 and section 5 of the argument were formed by Paul Ricoeur and conveyed in informal conversations with myself, Marcello Villaverde and others during a break in one of his seminars at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1989.
Aside from fleshing out the history surrounding the concept of Natural right, Strauss makes two major claims concerning natural right: 1) the basis of natural right; and 2) what Ricoeur called the "social claim".
1) the basis of Natural Right-
The basis of natural right, according to Strauss, is the fear of death from violent attack. But according to Ricoeur this is not only the 'basis' of Natural right, but also the original 'claim' of natural right. Strauss just doesn't state the claim. The idea of right is justice- i.e. the correctness of the claim communicated to others. Here is the “original claim” in stages, as Ricoeur formed it: a) "it is right(just) that; b) I do whatever is available within my power to defend against the other- "enemy" - from violent attack; c) because I fear death”.
but this is only the first part of the claim... because according to Ricoeur any "just" claim also contains the remaining parts: d) “and you know this to be true; e) because to fear death is the same for you".
The basic claim of natural right is "just"- is "right"- because it is true.....for all people.
To go further into Strauss statement from his derivation of the basis of natural right to the basis of the fear of death means we must look elsewhere, as Strauss does not elaborate it. The basis of the fear of death though is unstated in NR&H(at least as of January of 2008), but is found in two other philosophers- Immanuel Kant and Theodor Adorno.
As Kant would put it, the basis of the fear of death is the same for all people because of our pathologically affective nature- the fact that we are creatures that feel and that this feeling can be communicated. Kant calls this the "sensus communis"- the common sense. (But it is not the common sense of normal reasoning that we normally associate with). The concept of the "common sense", shared by humans, exists according to Kant, because we do communicate. Thus it is the common sense we share at the basis of experience that makes experience the same and communicable for us, and what makes the claim of natural right thus "just" and "right"- because it is "true". The original claim of natural right is right, is just, because of the "just" nature of the fight against death that we all know to be true.
The Fear rooted at the basis of natural right has a more physical root in the “common sense” that is not expressed in Kant, because fear is one of a type of "sufferings". Pain and fear are thus the physical roots of this "common sense", and so a more physical expression that is closer to this root is found in Theodor Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics'. In ND Adorno drills down to the root of this pathologically affective root of communication in a phrase that I can find no equal- "the physical moment says that suffering "ought not to be". This phrase expresses that the feeling of suffering, including then pain and fear, is itself simultaneously a type of "saying" that says "stop". Because of this "saying" in suffering, this inherent communicable nature of suffering, because it is the same for others and they thus know it, we can make the claim to others of unjust injury.
Some have described suffering as "being towards death" (see Elaine Scarry "the body in pain"), because to suffer "feels like dying". This is what we know physically of death, as we do not experience death ourselves but only see others die.
The fear of death is rooted in the suffering we feel, the basic unjust feel of it, and the claim of natural right can be made because others know this as well. It implies the duty that because we know this we "ought not" to do this to others. So natural right has a dialectical relationship with duty- there is always duty. Strauss is correct to say that the feeling of natural right is primary to duty because it is always what is experienced IN US.
It is in this sense that Jefferson is indubitably right to claim in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”.
2) The "social claim" of natural right.
Strauss asserts the main 'social claim' of natural right- that "the greater should govern the lesser". This claim of natural right is correct, but why?
It is correct because of how this relationship between "greater" and "lesser" is formed- in the contest of subordination. These contests we know as contests of election, appointment, or force. The contest of subordination through force is the use of force to change the relationship between the parties, from equals or rivals, to one superior and one lesser, and in the pushing down of the lesser the victor becomes greater. It is contest then that makes true - that justifies- that makes 'just' the subordination of the other. This is the truth in the social claim of natural right that the greater should govern the lesser, in contest it has been proven.
3) So the two main claims of natural right- that of the contest of the individual against death, and that of the contest to determine the social order, are expressed as rights through the JUSTIFICATION of CONTEST.
4) So far I have no disagreement at all with Strauss' elaboration of Natural Right. (as of January 2008).
5) One then can return to the Hobbes notion of the suppression of individual rights subordinate to the "authority" of the sovereign as the sole basis for law, in order to round out why an ideology of “total war” doesn’t function and has no just basis for governing a population.
Hobbes restricts this basis to the authority described in the "social claim"- the social relationship of subordination between "greater" and "lesser". But both Hobbes and Strauss (as of January 2008) ignore the "authority"- what makes the basic claim of natural right "just"- which is TRUTH. There is the "authority" of truth...the primary "justness" of the basic claim of natural right. Strauss- as of January 2008- is wrong to ignore it.
Human freedom is thus found through an "order that provides it", but in accordance with the limitations of the "logic of sense". As the "social claim" of natural right is based on the first "basic claim" of natural right, it is indisputable that within natural law the "authority" of the sovereign is limited by any system overly despotic- that inflicts unjust suffering on its people by mere fiat. In natural law the sovereign is restricted by the physical tenets of respect in the common "law" and truth of human life- that the physical moment says that suffering ought not to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)