💾 Archived View for midnight.pub › replies › 8422 captured on 2024-08-25 at 05:26:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Howdy ~zampano!

~bartender? Whatever ~zampano has, it's on me. The whole week! And for now just coffee, please.

~zampano, you have my full respect. I would like to congratulate you, that you can mentally go beyond the frontier. :)

I have graduated in physics, doctorate degree and all. And believe it or not, I sometimes have the same problem, although with very different details. Example: electrons. On several occasions I have said something like: "Look, electrons don't exist. They are a mental model in our heads, which will very nicely describe a set of observations, which we can make in experiments. But that does not prove, that electrons exist." I will a agree any time, that the model named "electron" is very successful. But it is still a model, and the Goddesses of this universe will chuckle a bit at our sub par understanding of nature. Now, in physics, we have "the experiment" as the ultima ratio --- the thing that you are missing in law.

And I whole-heartedly agree with your little rant. "The Law" in its current form is an attempt to keep the chaos low, that would arise from everyone doing exactly, what they want and only that. But "The Law" in its current form has seen countless transformations. As you say, it is made by people in an attempt to make people largely get along with each other. One of my favorite pets is about the concept of family. Currently and in my jurisdiction, 2 people can enter the civil state of "married". It used to be narrower, only a female and a male can enter this state. But look: There was a time, when there was no office in town to record that. Ok, it was the churches before, at least in large parts of Europe. And before christian churches an monasteries became a thing? And before that? Well, there were rituals among folks to indicate that 2 people take responsibility for each other and possibly their offspring. But how about more than 2 people? I get blank stares, when I ask this. How about two females, maybe sisters, sharing one male? Because all three agree to this? "But you can't do that!" --- I hear them. However, rest assured, that people have done these and similar things for a few thousand years anyway. "The Law" is there to serve people, and not the other way round. That being said, it is not impossible for things to change. Homosexual marriages were forbidden not so long ago in this area. And I have seen people working on a more general concept of family these days. So "The Law" is not immutable, but I do not expect fast changes.

Cheers!

Post Scriptum: If I hire you or one of your fellows, then it is, because I am totally blind to these alien to me concepts. I need your help to find through this jungle of options and concepts. And if you lead me to the other end of that jungle, largely unscathed, then I will be very grateful!

Write a reply

Replies

~inquiry wrote:

To me, what you're saying is a reference to the fuckuppedness of individuality by emphasizing how it need be tamed/herded by "law" and enforcers thereof ...

... which re-emphasizes to me that individuality itself is "root cause" of the - thus - ensuing madness, and should be the focal point of remedy such that the likes of "law" are first seen to be merely bandaids of really crappy adhesion, and then abandoned in favor of root cause remedy.

Of course, it's tough, because how do individuals - i.e. the conceptually ill - rise above and out of their tragic state? Does not everything they think/do reinforce their illusions that they're free-willed doers? All thinking/doing seems a sort of pulling the straight jacket strings even tighter....

What magically unravels the seeming fall proceeding from the pride of individuality?

:-)