| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote:
| Quote: | | "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." |
What is the Golden Mean?
The holding of two opposing ideas. Soul and Body; something immaterial with something material. Aristoi and Kakoi. Rule and to be Ruled.
He notes that it is a sign of a first-rate intelligence to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time. I think he is describing the Doric Greeks of both Crete and Laconia. And these people are labelled "anti-intellectuals"?
Thanks for finding this goes to Elise at her blog Firebrand and her post "Pick your Poison". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chilton Williamson in his article "The Classless Republic" in Chronicles magazine of May 2009, begins it this way:
| Quote: | | "I cannot see the least possiblity of recreating either an elite republican class (if, by "elite", one means an untitled aristocracy) or the American Republic itself. The notion of a republic is a product of classical political thinking, which is now virtually dead in the Western world, and never appeared elsewhere. Not only has the classical political tradition become virtually extinct, the abiltiy to think in classical terms seems to have been lost as well." |
This is half the problem with Classical studies and understanding Sparta because Sparta is judged to Enlightenment standards.
Earlier I posted on the similarity between Sparta and the shape that Christendom took. To me, they are identical. I found a lecture that brings out the thought of the Middle ages and one can see the connection to Classical Antiquity itself.
Here is a talk given by a PHD who calls himself "The Orthodox Medievalist". He is also against the Enlightenment and elaborates what made the Medieval world wonderful. What he says in here could aptly be applied to Sparta. He points out Agrarianism and how when one lives in nature one lives in the logos. He talks of the Natural Law as well.
Furthermore, he begins his talk with a denunciation of "monism" and the idea current with the whole Medieval world was the idea of estates; that everybody had their station of life, their customs and their laws peculiar to them. This talk could be just as well as a defense of what Sparta was. There is a continuation from Greece, thru Rome, to Christendom.
The talk: The Middle Ages
This talk could very well address the issue that Mr. Williamson mentions above; the ability to think in Classical terms (seeing that there is a continuance of basic ideas and thought between Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages.)
I think that there has to be common cause between Classical and Medieval Scholars. Our fields are constantly attacked and denigrated and I think support between our spheres should be highly encouraged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
This post is going to be replicated in two other threads because it is very important and many people, I'm guessing, will not figure this out.
In my paper, "Doric Crete and Sparta, the home of Greek Philosophy", I wrote that "the establishment of the Senate is the signature characteristic of a republic".
Why did I say this?
(from my paper "The Classical definition of a republic" at Wikinfo.) | Quote: | | "Cicero marks the beginning of the Roman commonwealth when Romulus "gave complete obedience to the auspices" and the foundation of the Senate". |
The modern definition of a republic is "any government without a king". This comes from Machiavelli who divined that from Livy.
Why everybody quotes Livy is beyond me. Cicero wrote a book De republica and why no one quotes him---I'm stumped.
In order to do political science for the Romans, one had to participate in Roman politics and hold offices.
Livy didn't do any of this. Cicero did.
Cicero knew and read Greek---Livy probably did not.
Cicero visited Athens and went to school there---Livy did not.
Cicero was a Roman lawyer---Livy was not.
Cicero wrote a book on republics---Livy did not.
----yet, everybody uses Livy as an authority.
I took my conclusion that the beginning of republican form of government is the establishment of the senate from Cicero who wrote a book on the Republican form of government. This is the basis of what I said. Cicero clearly marks the beginning of the Roman Republic under a king with the establishment of the senate. This marks the beginning of mixed government. As Cicero has marked, I followed in his wake. He is an authority; an ancient authority.
For more info on this and sources and references please see Machiavelli's Errors. I can't figure out for the life of me why so many turn their back on Cicero and adopt Livy for! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I posted earlier that the Natural Law does not teach equality.
There are more reasons that the the Natural Law does not teach equality and that is because the whole of the Natural Law is predicated upon Inequality!
What are the principles of the Natural Law? Righteousness, Combinatorial system, Harmony, the Golden Mean.
How can any of these things work or even be if everything is equal?
They would all disappear!
Righteousness is based on the Nature of it. If Righteousness declares that a thing can only do one thing good that its nature suits it for----in order for a complexity of tasks to be done, there has to be diversity and hence inequality! One can't have righteousness without inequality.
If all things are equal---then why Combine things? There is no need.
Harmony is the unity of the high and low. If all things are equal, or in Masonic Thomas Jefferson's saying, all men are created equal, how can there be harmony if there is equality. If there is equality, there can be no "high or low"!
The Golden Mean. It doesn't exist in equality---but in Inequality.
Equality destroys the whole of the natural law! The Natural Law is all based on the essential premise of reality that all things are diverse and UNequal!
How come the Church that preaches the Natural Law with all their Ph.Ds figure this out? Reality is not based on equality. There are some serious errors out there. It is no wonder then that the Natural Law is no where in any discussion and is mainly missing from many minds. There is no concept of this because it is not used anywhere. You can't preach equality and the Natural Law together at the same time.
Something is terribly wrong in Modern thought. That is probably why the Natural Law has disappeared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: The Catholic Church and the Natural Law |
|
|
I really wonder about the modern world. Everything is so convulted and messed up, it is really depressing. Recently, I have been frequenting the blog Lex Christianorum, a blog devoted to the exposition of the Natural Law as conceived by Roman Catholics. I have finally figured out what the problem is between the Natural Law, the Ancient conception of it and the Roman Catholic Church and have found some great evidence that backs up what was said in this paper on "The Home of Greek Philosophy".
Actually, I figured out that absolutely no one knows anything about the natural law. No one. How can any scientific field last two thousand years--and in the 21st century, we are still grossly ignorant. It is unbelievable. Look up "Laws of Nature" at Questia the online library, and those books really don't have a clue! Macrocosm/Microcosm does not appear, or talked about in length in the six books I researched. Laws of Nature? No one has a clue.
Things are this bad. We don't know the meaning of the term republic. We don't know the meaning of philosophy, 2500 years later. We don't have a clue on what virtue is. We don't have a clue on the Natural Law.
For one, the Stoics, once removed from the source, screwed it up as has been noted previously in this thread.
It even gets worse.
Lex Christianorum ran a few posts on St. Albert the Great. He wrote on the Natural Law.
What did he do?
He changed the definition of it! In his change, he divorced the Natural Law from Nature itself!
When I was told by the Norbertine friend of mine about the Natural Law, I thought, "Natural Law" = Nature, laws from Nature---That is NOT the conception that Roman Catholics have. I had a total misconception of what they thought and erred in finding the right definition. (How does that happen?) We talked right past each other.
Here is the blog that discusses St. Albert and his dismissal of Ulpian's definition: St. Albert the Great and Ulpian's Definition of the Natural Law
My defense of Ulpian is in the comment section.
Here is another post on St. Albert: St. Albert the Great, Lex Naturalix Cum Bottix
I have posted in the comment section.
Next, is the real kicker, Shubert on St. Augustine's teaching on the Natural Law
Cicero backs up this paper. My thoughts are in the comment section and the pertinent quotes I used from previous posts of Lex Christianorum from Cicero are there. He says, "Nature SUPPLIES the reason". This is nowhere in the Roman Catholic conception of the Natural Law. Their idea of the Natural Law is mostly divorced from the Ancient conception.
I am just blown away. Nothing is right. And I can't believe that after 2500 years of Western Culture--we don't have the slightest clue of what the Natural Law is. This paper made a point "What does Nature teach" is synonymous with "Nature supplies the reason". Nowhere does mankind anywhere turn to nature for the supply of reason. The Natural Law is there for a purpose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The purpose of this post is to end confusion. There is a lot of confusion out there.
In the point that the Catholic Conception of the "Natural Law" is different, the Catholic online Encyclopaedia backs up my contention:
| Quote: | | In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. From: Natural Law, New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia. |
The whole of the Western Culture and civilization is built on "thought"; its logic, its clarity, its reason. Socrates goes to great, great pains to have "clarity".
Sadly, this is not the case.
Notice that in this very first paragraph that Catholic academic authority really does sideline "the laws of nature" and expressly, forthrightly and openly, says that this article ONLY talks about the "rule of conduct" that is in the nature of man---not nature. There is NO other article that discusses "The Laws of Nature". These are of NO importance to Catholics. They could care less. They don't even know "the laws of nature".
If the Catholics don't, it is sure that nobody does as well. And nobody does. Look up the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does catalogue the general opinion of a subject that the general populace knows. It is good for that.
Yet, there is no clue there either.
Going back to Socrates, the Catholic Church's conception of the Natural Law comes from the Stoics. It purely concerns itself with Morality. Only a tiny smidgen of the Natural Law. It is only a tiny part of it. The law within man. Instead of putting an adjective for clarity purposes in, Roman Catholics just use the term "Natural Law" instead of using what should be termed "the Natural MORAL Law". This brings confusion to people. Logic and reasoning require CLARITY. There is NO clarity whatsoever. The definition that Roman Catholics throw out is not the Original meaning of the Natural Law. Then, in the course of history, they narrowed the term to mean ONLY the sphere of human morality---which does NOT encompass and actually denies the Laws of Nature, the original Natural Law. Nobody is using terms properly. The conception of the Natural Law of the RC is not the original meaning of the term. What the Roman Catholic Church uses is the "Natural Moral Law".
Second, it is clear to me that my articles are blazing new ground, not so much new ground, as forgotten lore and uncovering Metaphysics.
The Natural Law, the laws of Nature, the Logos, is the laws/principles that built, and maintain the Natural Order. That is the original meaning of the term/conception. It is Socrates in the Phaedo that uses the term "Laws of Nature". It is in the Edith Hamilton's edition of Plato's Dialogues at 71e. Socrates is a Philodorian and espousing Doric Philosophy, himself being a devotee of Apollo. Therefore, I conclude that the Natural Law is of Doric Greek patrimony because surely Athens, his home town, never was based on the Natural Law. My supposition is that the Greek word for the Natural Law is the Logos.
The Natural Law is Metaphysical. The only people that study and use metaphysics is philosophers. Only philosophers do metaphysics. This is our realm of study.
And to make sure that there is an understanding of the Natural Law, here is the list of those principles:
Ex Uno Plures. (Out of One many. That is the first Natural Law. From the God head on down, that is one law that is very important.)
Righteousness (Xenophon)
Microcosm/Macrocosm (The Laws, Doric Greeks)
a subset: the principle of consistency
The Golden Mean (Nothing too much {Doric Greek, Delphi})
a subset: all things have limits
a subset: The Bell Curve (an example of the Golden mean, the majority of a population falls in the middle of the Bell Curve.)
All things are either in Authority or in Subjection. (Aristotle)
a subset Heirarchy (The Pecking Order)
a subset, subset: distinctions of rank
a subset, subset: caste system
Structure
Form
Telos (All things have an end)
Incrementalism
Cause and effect
a subset: Aristotle's four causes, Formal, Efficient, Material, Final
|Harmony: a combination of the High and low
|Proportion
|Symmetry
The Rule of One is Best (Homer)
Tripartite Paradigm (the family, Trinity)
Rhythm/Cycles
The Combinatorial system (also included Tripartite paradigm; Rhythm/Cycles)
"Parts make up the whole"
"Like produces Like" ("Thief knows Thief", "Nail drives out nail")
a subset "Birds of a feather flock together" (Socrates, Plato's Republic)
a subset "Blood is thicker than water" (Parents care for their offspring)
a subset "You can not serve two masters". Jesus Christ. (From time immemorial. The virtue of Loyalty is based on this. It is in the Animal kingdom as well.)
Strife ("Life is War")
a subset: Tension, Holy Tension
"One bad apple destroys the bushel" ("Bad company corrupts good morals" {Basis of the Xenelasia})
"The Good comes thru the Hard"
"Cream rises to the top"
"Throw out nature with a pitchfork, and yet she shall return". (Horace)
a subset, "Nature abhors a vacuum".
"Cone of Darkness" (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma {Light is good, yet it casts shadows. This is the meaning of "Cone of Darkness". It is present in other things as well. A lot of things throw off in small measure, their opposite. Interesting. Light creates darkness.})
"As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son." (LXX, Ezek. 18.4)
"Iron sharpens Iron".
"To every Rule there is an exception".
These are all Metaphysical concepts. These are all portrayed in Nature; and that includes both living and dead matter. It is these principles that operate the Natural Order. The Doric Greeks of Crete and Laconia used and followed these concepts in their city-states which makes them "philosophers". The Greek word for the Natural Law is "Sophia" (and Logos). This is what makes them Philosophers.
The Romans did not operate on Metaphysics. They were not a very particularly intellectual people but a very Practical commonsense people. (notwithstanding that the the Romans were not a single ethnic people, they were a mix of Latins, Etruscans and Sabines.) Romans concieve things as "Laws". So the Greek "sophia" was transferred by Cicero into "the Eternal Law" which became the Natural Moral Law of the Catholic Church. So here, what was once called "Philosophy" soon under Roman influence turned into the Eternal Law, and philosophy became a intellectual excercise divorced from its original meaning.
There is a huge amount of confusion, the lack of clarity and precision, and historical transfiguration and racial influence that mangled, disfigured and finally discombobulated the whole science of the Natural Law. It then became totally unknowable.
(I really wonder where I live, in Alice in Wonderland where everything is upside down? It seems so. I can't believe that the whole modern world in which I live is so totally discombobulated.)
The Doric Greek government of the Classical Republic shows the living and acting upon the Natural Law. This is what it means to be a "philo-sophier"; to be a lover of Wisdom.
((Reason for editing: Edited to add to the list of the Natural Laws. Edited again to add to list. Same. Added to the list again. Added to the list again. Added to list and did some rearranging. Added to the list. Added to it again.))
Last edited by WHEELER on Wed May 26, 2010 8:57 pm; edited 15 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "When nature supplies the reason, writes Cicero, then does it supply right reason, therefore also the law, which right reason would command or forbid. But when law, so also is it just."(11) (From Shubert on Augustine Part #10 in the previous link) |
This confirms this paper. "Nature supplies the reason". This is what is meant by Philosophy. This is synonymous with "What does nature teach"! After the fact, Cicero proves this paper. And this is the grand difference between what the Ancients meant by the Natural Law and what the Catholic Church preaches about "reason being the Natural Law"!
This is absolutely NOWHERE in the Modern world. The Modern World is built on Ideology. Ideology is not Philosophy.
| Quote: | | "This law is neither thought up in the minds of men, nor fixed by the customs of men. |
This is the real kicker! The Doric Greeks did not "think up out of thin air" their laws. Ideology is. Sophia is not either.
| Quote: | | "From this law is every other law predicated, |
Much of what the Doric Greeks did in their establishment of their form of government was that their state was PREDICATED upon the Sophia of the Natural Order. Why is Sparta hard to understand? Because everybody today has no clue on the Natural Law; on the Sophia that built the Natural Order.
See, this is nowhere, absolutely nowhere today! No one predicates their reasoning on the Golden mean, on righteousness, on birds of a feather flock together, or test their reasoning using Macrocosm/microcosm. This is why I purposely put in this paper this "Thinking up on thin air". This is precisely why I made that line in the paper. Human reasoning is first PREDICATED upon the Natural Law and Divine Revelation. Without that, all is nonsense. I surely do live with Alice in Wonderland, the whole of Western Culture is really messed up from A to Z. Where O Where does Nature supply the reason in anything written today or in the past two hundred years? Even Thomas Jeffereson, an Agrarianist and a Plantation owner, and Rousseau get it all wrong.
------------------
My feelings: I wonder to myself, why this is coming out now. I have no clue. All I can think that we sit with our heads in our hands and watch our coming destruction. A cancer has been set lose among mankind and there is no way to control it. Once a tumor becomes malignant, there is no stopping it and faulty reasoning, Human reasoning built on thin air, is a cancer that does not end until it kills its possessor. I am as a sort of Spartan Rip Van Winkle, who has awaken from a deep 2500 year old sleep only to find out that all hell has broken loose. The Intelligentsia now can sit back and watch as their world blows up in their face. We are going to be like Nero, fiddling, while Rome burns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
St. Albert the Great, previously linked above, categorically dismisses the Roman jurist Ulpians definition of the Natural Law.
St. Albert writes:
| Quote: | | Reason is overriding and overarching, so as to pale any sharedness between the brutes and man, even in the matter of procreation. |
This is Ulpians definition:
| Quote: | | 'The law of nature is that which nature teaches all animals. For that law is not proper to the human race, but it is common to all animals which are bom on the earth and in the sea, and to the birds also. |
St. Albert does not know the real original Natural Law. He dismisses outright Ulpian.
This is how philosophy works. We need to understand Reality as is. First, we need to know the Sophia that undergird the Natural Order.
St. Albert is ignorant of the Golden Mean. That it is throughout the Natural Order. Ulpian is right because humans are in the Golden Mean. They are between beast and God. We are half and half. We are part animal and part divine. I think Plato intimates this as well.
Is this right? Does this work? We test using Macrocosm/microcosm.
Viruses are the Golden mean between dead matter and living matter. They are half-between creatures.
One-celled organisms are the mean between viruses and multi-celled organisms.
Fungi are the Golden Mean between One-celled organisms and plants and animals.
Plants are the Golden Mean between fungi and animals.
Animals are the Golden mean between plants and humans.
Humans are the Golden mean between animals and Divine beings.
God is the Golden Mean.
In the Great chain of being, the Golden mean is replicated. there is a grand importance to understanding the real original natural Law. St. Albert makes a grand mistake! Hormones operate just as much in humans as it does in animals. The Natural Moral Law can not be divorced from the Natural Law. One supports the other. One has got to understand reality. That the original meaning of the Natural law can not be disregarded. The Laws of Nature operate in humans. One has to understand mankind qua mankind. To know our nature. To think aright! St. Albert did a great injustice here.
This is important to understanding what is the Natural law. Socrates uses Ulpian in the beginning of Plato's Republic where Socrates, in Jowett's translation, says, "Birds of a feather flock together". That is the Natural law. Man acts like the birds of the air and barnyard.
This is what Doric Philosophy is---human reasoning predicated upon the Natural Law. This is what Socrates and Plato are doing, being practioners of Doric philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Catholics define the Natural Law as reasoning. Here is a typical sentence on their conception of the Natural Law:
| Quote: | | "Through the use of reason, man can attain a knowledge of God through natural theology, a knowledge of good through the natural law, and can attain sufficient knowledge so as to guide him even up to the threshold of the Christian Trinitarian and Incarnational Faith. While reason cannot take one beyond Faith's threshold into the bosom of the Church--that requires Faith a gift of God and is a product of Grace--reason can be used as a means to determine which religions are unreasonable and therefore do not merit belief. As Fiore puts it, "Calderón demonstrates that man can know God through natural reason's observance of the governance of things--the natural law." (from Pedro Calderon and Natural Law |
This is NOT the Natural Law. The Natural Law is not reason. My answer is of course, everybody has reasons. Catholics have their "reasonings", Socialists have their "reasonings", Atheists have their "reasonings". But none of it is the same.
The Natural Law is the Reason FOUND in Nature, FOUND in the Natural Order, and man uses that as a basis for his thought, his beginnings in reason. Man's reason is first predicated upon the laws and principles found in the Natural Order.
Notice that the "reason" quoted in the article is not predicated upon anything. It is all "reasoning out of thin air". The Natural Law is using "THE REASON", the Logos, that built and maintains the Natural Order. Man, in a sense, BORROWS the reason that built nature. Another term for the Natural Order, is the Kosmos.
The real founders of the Natural Law is not Aristotle, as Wikipedia says, but the Doric Cretans. Their upper body was called the "Kosmi". Their upper body, their city-states, were a mirror of the Kosmos. It was about them implanting the order, the kosmos, upon their city-states. This appellation is a direct link to the Natural Law in use in their city-states that probably date back to 1200 BC and King Minos. It is about establishing "ordered beauty" upon their society. It is about them mimicing the Kosmos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Puhlease, some one shoot me! I hate to keep adding to this thread but revelations keep on coming, and am trying to understand this whole thing.
But it keeps on getting worse. It's idiocy, upon idiocy, upon idiocy.
| Quote: | | "For the American colonists, the natural law justified the Revolution against the established and otherwise legitimate authority of King George III. It justified the foundations of our new government under the Articles of Confederation and, later, the Constitution. For the founders of our republican and democratic form of government, the natural moral law pre-existed the foundation of our Government, was the basis of that Government, and defined both the duties and the limits of that Government." (fromThe Natural Law as the US Constitutions ghost) |
I need an aspirin.
This is what I was afraid of. If the Founding Fathers of America (henceforth the "FFofA") purposely and categorically rejected the European Old Order, in gawd's name, how is it that the "natural law justified" the American government?
Here it is called the "Natural moral law pre-existed the foundation of our government" and earlier in this thread, I proved that the real, original natural law has nothing to do with the American government. Here is example proof, that what is now being called "The Natural Moral Law" has completely and utterly countermanded the original real Natural Law! Here is shining proof! How the Heck!
If you call something a "Novus Ordo Secularum" how in anybody's name can you say that it is based on the Natural Law when the Old Order that the Novus Ordo replaces is based on the Natural Law? Is there any LOGIC out there? Do Aliens really run this planet? Are the real parents of George Bush II, Martians?
If the FFofA purposely rejected the Old Order that has been since time immemorial, how then can they be following the Natural Law? How is it that the Natural Moral Law nullifies the Natural law? How does something counterdict itself?
If all the Old countries of Europe developed "au naturale", where they not formed, unconsciously, around the Natural Law? Is this not called the Natural Organic Theory of the State? If the Old Order was Organic and Natural---thus meaning the Natural Law was involved upon its making (Unconsciously, of course), how is the Novus Order, Planned out of thin air from the minds of men, be following the natural Law? Can someone out there more smarter than I point out to me where I am going wrong. Did they not seat "Reason" at the Notre Dame Cathedral's Altar as ruler and please tell me how they have come to have FIVE (5) republics? What Reason?
If Libertarians who are hyper-Americans hate Sparta? If America is following the Natural law, and Sparta was built on the Natural Law, why the hate? Why the aversion to Sparta?
America is a Republic, is it not? Sparta is a Republic. How are the two the same? If America is the product of the Natural Moral Law, How is Sparta the product of the Natural Law---and anybody can see that they are totally opposite creatures!?!
There is being built a false dichotomy between the Natural Law and the Natural Moral Law. Nobody has a clue on the Natural Law and the practioners of the natural Moral law come to conclusions that nullify and dissolve the real, original Natural Law.
The Natural Moral Law must be an accessory, must be a compliment to the real original Natural Law and can not be by its very nature antagonistic to its base! America categorically has nothing to do with the real, original Natural Law! Then, how can it be following the Natural Moral Law? It can't!
How stupid is all this? I mean all the hate directed by people against Sparta which is the Old Order, which is built on Philo-sophia, on Sophia, on the Logos, then, these haters have themselves following the "natural law"? "Like produces Like". Thief knows Thief. One should know his own, Right? Obviously, it means that they have NO connection to the Natural Law whatsoever! Because if they did, they would love where it appears! Something is grandously wrong. It is wrong, (Nothing too Much) when what is all talked about is "The Natural Moral Law" and the real original Natural Law is unknown, or bannished, or rejected! It leads automatically to disproportion! I thought Proportion is the Natural Law! How can we do things disporoportionatly by concentrating solely on the "Natural Moral Law" and be following the Natural Moral law? Does Not disproportion inherently nullify any benefits in the Natural Moral Law?
Somebody, put me out of my misery. The concentration of only one aspect, the breaking of the Law of proportion, has bent out of shape the Natural Moral Law, thus causing great havoc and the Catholic Church, in its Judiazing, in its rejection of the Natural order, of Nature and the importance of Nature, has really caused enormous damage to Western Civilization. We no longer live any where in America or Europe in Western Civilization. The deconstruction of the Old Order, which is European culture, is about replacing European civilization with another. We live in a completely foreign culture.
It is plain, that one can NOT divorce the Natural Moral Law from the real, original Natural Law. The Natural Moral Law can NOT sit by itself for it breaks the Law of Proportion. Thus, becoming Immoral. The Natural Moral Law must respect Righteousness, the Golden Mean and the Law of Proportion, and the other laws, in order for it to work. It must obey the FIRST, real, original Natural Law! Proportion is in all things and that includes the Natural Moral Law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More sticky points:
Lex Christianorum has posted now some research on how the Natural Law was transformed between Ulpian and Medieval Church scholars.
One is St. Isidore of Seville and the Natural Law where
| Quote: | | In St. Isidore's definition of the natural law, nowhere is to be found Ulpian's phrase “nature teaches all animals,” quod natura omnia animalia docuit. It was as if St. Isidore suppressed it, though perhaps his "by the instinct of nature," quod ubique instictu naturae is a nod to it. Crowe, 70. Later, in the rise of the jurists or Decretists, the traditional Ulpian definition was to come in through the back door, and would be referred to as the "jurist's definition" or the "definition of the law." Crowe, 69-70. |
The next is Gratian, Gratian and the Natural Law: Concordance and Discordance in the Natural Law, Part 1, where he confused matters even further. Lex Christianorum acknowledges the transfirmation of this idea.
That the transmission of the natural law was mangled in the following centuries is becoming more clear. I want to backtrack here, earlier I have levelled harsh criticism against the Catholic Church and its Natural Law teaching. It is clear that it has been a mistake of history proving Aristotle right that little mistakes go on to make bigger mistakes. It is also to be noted that much of the Natural Law is in Plato and Aristotle, not noted as such but labelled "philosophy" instead of Natural Law. This the Catholic church does have. The so called "Natural Law" under Roman influence then became a field of Legal studies split from Philosophy!
The Natural Law and even the Natural Moral Law has become solely a "Legal" field now when earlier, and originally, was the field of Philosophy. This is all very convulted! Not only is there a division between the Natural Moral Law and the Natural Law, there is no idea of the "Laws of Nature", but then some of the laws of Nature appear in Philosophy, while the Natural Moral Law became Legal, Judicial studies.
Philosophy is the study of the Good. Reality is a Good. Then, Law stems from Philosophy, or really Wisdom, or the Logos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At Questia, the online library, there is a book called American Democracy and the Natural Law by Cornelia Geer Le Boutillier, Columbia University Press, New York, 1950.
First, to say "American democracy" in the same sentence affirming its "Natural Law" basis is an oxymoron. Notice as well that it is an "American democracy" but is it not called a "republic"? Then the question should be asked is there any such thing as "Political science" for a field that has no clear definitions, can it be called a "science"?
Let's go to Plutarch that catalogues a response of Lycurgus on why he didn't start a democracy, and Lycurgus responds, "First, begin in your family".
This statement alone disproves that all and any democracy follows the natural law. Monarchy, Aristocracy and classical republics all follow the natural law. All of these different forms do. But a democracy? At its very inception it does not.
What does nature teach? Nature teaches family. Family not only has structure, it has harmony, it has righteousness, it has a pecking order! It has all of the natural law. To say that democracy and natural law in the same sentence, then, is a huge oxymoron. This is the state of affairs. That it has come to its complete opposite, opposing its very base. (I wonder, how we live when many things today, mean its complete opposite, 2000 years later. Is not the whole of modern life one big oxymoron?)
The FFofA borrowed heavily from Hugo Grotius who said:
| Quote: | | The law of nature [said Grotius] is a dictate of right reason which points out that an act, according as it is or is not in conformity with rational nature, has in it a quality of moral baseness or moral necessity; and that, in consequence, such an act is either forbidden or enjoined by the author of nature, God. |
The Law of Nature is NOT the dictate of right reason. The Laws of Nature are those principles/laws/maxims that form, build, maintain the Natural Order. It is the Logos hidden within the Natural Order. That is the definition. "Right" reason is when Human Reasoning is PREDICATED upon the logos that built the Natural Order. "Right" reason is when Human reasoning BORROWS the logos, the Wisdom that built the Natural Order.
In an aside, furthermore, like many books on America, there is no mention, no inclusion of Freemasonry's ideas and influence on America's creation and how that is melded into the rest of the info informing the minds of the FFofA and the populace.
------------------
Still more, I have recently submitted another paper to the Journal where I make a reference to the Glorious Revolution, which was started by the Scottish Presbyterian anti-clerical movement and other Protestant sects based on "Sola Scriptura". This "sola scriptura" movement is like the Natural Moral Law movement; concentrating on only one aspect. The American Revolution is not based on the Natural Law, can not be, when major participants and instigators were based on "sola scriptura". This is a lesson of the Law of Proportion, of the Golden Mean. Taking things to extremes, the lack of knowledge of the real Natural Law and how divine Revelation, like the Natural Moral Law, is used to undermine, attack, deconstruct and destroy the real, original natural Law!
The American Revolution has nothing to do with the Natural Law, period. No Natural Law, no Natural Moral Law. As Aristotle said, "Little mistakes, lead to bigger mistakes". All things exist in Harmony. You can't dismiss the low for the High. They live in conjunction.
To see a book titled American Democracy and the Natural Law is just the height of idiocy. It is idiocy that produces oxymorons. This is deceivement. The Doric Greeks were not about deceivement. Their culture and their values were about "the light that dispels ignorance from the minds of men". (which in a sense proves the fallen nature of man). We are not about deceivement, but about Light. And Light produces Life. Ignorance produces death. It is the Laws of Nature that produce "Logic". Logic must be a fundamental basis of reasoning.
-------------
Moreover, earlier in this thread, I mark out how Sparta is Aristocratical. Plutarch remarks on its aristocratical character.
Does Nature teach democracy?
Does anybody observe nature? Or are we too busy in the classroom to observe Nature?
Does democracy exist in a wolf pack? a Lion pride? in a termite colony? In the Heavens? So if democracy does not exist in nature---why is it a part of the Natural Law? How can democracy work in the Natural Law? Does not the best animal breed in the wild? Is not nature itself Aristocratical? Then if America is about destroying the Aristocratical nature of European culture and action, how can American Democracy be following the Natural law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Will wonders never cease.
Yesterday, I began to read The Protocols of the Elders Zion and in the first 16 chapters I ran into these fabulous quotes:
| Quote: | | Chap I "The would-be wise men of the goyim, the intellectuals, could not make anything out of the uttered words in their abstractness; did not note the contradiction of their meaning and inter-relation: did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be freedom: that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as immutable as she has established subordination to her laws:..." |
And so why is Sparta hated?
| Quote: | | Chap XIII "When we come into our kingdom our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring it at the end under our beneficent rule." |
I expressed these sentiments earlier: We live in an upside down world. Amazing how observation of modern reality is corroborated by 100 year old literature.
What is important? The Reading of Nature. Nature gives us our point of reference. Nature guides us. Nature is the norm. To keep from being turned upside down, Nature must be the guide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seven posts earlier, Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:12 pm, I posted the real original Natural Law. Since then, I have been constantly adding to it and some may have not noticed it so I have reposted a more complete list. Today I've added another one and so I am posting again the total list of The Real Original Natural Law. Because no one out there has no friggin' clue, no one lives in Nature or observes nature metaphysically, (Like how do people who spend their whole time in a classroom and their heads in books know anything about the Natural Law?), and since even the Catholic Church doesn't know anything and actually some of them hate the "laws of nature", it behooves me to have to point it out:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greek: The Logos
Sophia
Laws of Nature
Roman: The Real Original Natural Law
(This comes under different headings. The Greeks knew it as one thing, the Romans, being legal beavers, labelled it another.)
-------------------------------------------------
The Laws of the Cosmos or Ordered Beauty.
"Ex Uno Plures." (Out of One many. That is the first Natural Law. From the God head on down, that is one law that is very important.)
Righteousness (Xenophon)
Plurality
..a subset Natural InEquality
Microcosm/Macrocosm (The Laws, Doric Greeks)
..a subset: the principle of consistency
The Golden Mean (Nothing too much {Doric Greek, Delphi})
..a subset: all things have limits
..a subset: The Bell Curve (an example of the Golden mean, the majority of a population falls in the middle of the Bell Curve.)
Structure
Form
Telos (All things have an end)
Incrementalism
..a subset: Law of gradualism
Cause and effect
..a subset: Aristotle's four causes, Formal, Efficient, Material, Final
BEAUTY (The Laws of Beauty)
|Harmony: a combination of the High and low
|Proportion
|Symmetry
ORDER (The Laws of Order)
(1) The Rule of One is Best (Homer)
..a subset "You can't serve two masters" (Jesus Christ)
(2) Dualism
(3) Tripartite Paradigm (the family, Trinity)
All things are either in Authority or in Subjection. (Aristotle)
..a subset Heirarchy (The Pecking Order)
....a subset, subset: distinctions of rank
....a subset, subset: caste system
Rhythm/Cycles
Doric Syncretism, The Combinatorial system (also included Tripartite paradigm; Rhythm/Cycles) (Karl Otfried Mueller; "the combination of different but related parts)
"Parts make up the whole"
"Like produces Like" ("Thief knows Thief", "Nail drives out nail")
..a subset "Birds of a feather flock together" (Socrates, Plato's Republic)
..a subset "Blood is thicker than water" (Parents care for their offspring)
..a subset "You can not serve two masters". Jesus Christ. (From time immemorial. The virtue of Loyalty {and Love} is based on this. It is in the Animal kingdom as well.)
Strife ("Life is War")
..a subset: Tension, Holy Tension
"One bad apple destroys the bushel" ("Bad company corrupts good morals" {Basis of the Xenelasia})
"The Good comes thru the Hard" (Plato's Republic)
"Cream rises to the top"
"Throw out nature with a pitchfork, and yet she shall return". (Horace)
..a subset, "Nature abhors a vacuum".
"Cone of Darkness" (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma {Light is good, yet it casts shadows. This is the meaning of "Cone of Darkness". It is present in other things as well. A lot of things throw off in small measure, their opposite. Interesting. Light creates darkness.})
"As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son." (LXX, Ezek. 18.4)
"Iron sharpens Iron".
"To every Rule there is an exception".
-----------------------------------------------
Today, I remembered another one and added it. It was "Ex Uno Plures"; "Out of One, Many". From God Almighty proceeded The Logos and The Holy Spirit. Out of One Proceeded two others, The Logos was "eternally Begotten".
From Adam-----proceeded many men.
When Aristotle answered that the Chicken, which is the Form preceeds that of the egg, he is proving Creation. At each point, the prototype was created, and from that prototype (of its class), all differentia proceeded.
From the Big Bang, from One---proceeded all Matter.
This is throughout Nature. The Herd is created from One Patriarch. It is the Law of Nature. I figured this out when I started to smell a rat in the realization of what America is. The motto of Masonic America is "E pluribus Unum", "Out of Many, One". Now, they have a public definition of this, but in FreeMasonry there is always a double secret meaning as well. They say it is about "many states becoming one" under a federal government. But that is not the whole truth.
When I said in an earlier post that to say "American Democracy and the Natural Law" in the same sentence is an oxymoron, here is further proof. "E Pluribus Unum" is about reversing the Act of Nature. Nature "Defines and Divides". This is part of logical thinking that is part of Doric thought that Socrates is engaging in, in his dialogues. It is part of Doric Thought because that is what Nature does. America, in its Masonic Ideology is about reversing, and pulling things together. It is about reversing Nature.
Not only was the Enlightenment about hatred of the Catholic Church, it was also about a hatred of Aristotle and Socrates. When you notice this, when someone attacks Socrates or Aristotle, alarm bells should ring in your head.
Man is in semper rebellion mode. Man is constantly rebelling. Aristotle and Socrates were not about rebellion but conformity to Nature. Aristotle pointed out that there was "Natural Inequality" and the Stoics preached the opposite and so did Democritus and Lucretius with their materialism. The Enlightenment was about replacing the Faith of the Church with "Reason" and materialism and Aristotle and Plato with the Stoics and Democritus all through the agency of Freemasonry.
America is not based on Aristotle or Plato but on Stoicism and its egalitarian ideals. It is about reversing the Natural Order.
The Natural Law is the Natural Order. The Stoics were not preaching the Natural Law but their own feel-good ideology. They never operated a city-state like the Dorians. The Dorians lived in the real world, and their philosophy was copied from the Logos that built the Natural Order, and they lived and practiced it and by following the Wisdom, they lived and survived and accomplished great deeds; Thermopylae and destroying the Capitalist Imperialist dreams of Athens. The Dorians ran real world politics with their philosophy; the Stoics, on the other hand, lived a "pie-in-the-sky" dreamworld amongst the intelligentsia, it had no real world political action. They never ruled and in the case of Marcus Aurelius, it was more of a private matter.
America is not about the Natural Law but about reversing it. This is how fooled everybody is. The Natural Law is "EX UNO plures" not "E pluribus unum".
As I remember or run into any other Natural Laws, I'll be adding to the list above.
(Edited list, added to it, added to the list of titles this refers to, moved things around to which things are ordered.)
Last edited by WHEELER on Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
WHEELER
Parteniai
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 102
Location: Battle Creek, MI
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Natural Law is this: "As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son." (LXX, Ezek. 18.4)
What else is the Enlightenment about?
All the thinkers there, hated "The Accident of Birth". Covet and envy do not so much exist towards the material possessions of others but more so towards what Life hands out to people, their stations of life. More hatred is directed towards our betters than anything and hatred of Royalty and Aristocracy is just this.
The Enlightenment was about ending this unfair thing called "Accident of Birth". But God is in charge of this world and knowing that each race needs a leader and that "The Rule of One is Best", Nature of course breeds one Family to lead to the Others. Nature, God, doesn't skip a beat, so Nature creates cream. The dictates of Righteousness demand such.
God, thru Nature, produces these so-called "accidents of birth" and so Nature creates Royalty and Aristocracy. And so from that =="As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son." Duh.
The Enlightenment was about reversing nature, reversing Classical Antiquity, erasing European customs and traditions, destroying the Natural Order and hence the Natural Law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
