Tag: theology

69

summer 22, reading the Dawn of Everything, re. p. 159 on sacred & private property:

maybe history has in fact not whitnessed a de-sacralization, but instead a total sacralization:

[transitioning over millenia] from the sacred being limited to special rituals     to the abstract god’s sanctity: omnipresent locally and temporally, extending down to every man & thing through the sacred rational structure/institution called law –

thus replacing the functional, informal {property/safety/freedom}-{ensuring/producing} relationship of inter-personal trust with the alienating/particularizing individual connection to [quasi/de-facto ]monotheistically centralized law … culminating historically in the abstract sacral legal structure of money

– of course, single entities can no longer be sacred per se, but instead only relative to their connection to the one god – i.e. through their ‘value’… 

(…and historically this relation spreads automatically, through commerce and rational governance, to everything and anything that exists in [mainstream culture’s consensus ]reality… and once it becomes global and total, it is no longer noticeable that our reality has this sacral, magical property.

59

Maybe it is very significant that analytic philosophy has a traditional consensus that words have meaning, not things.

An analytic philosopher is so used to the praxis of this consensus that this may sound like a bizarre attack on a notion that is trivially correct. But isn’t this actually a pre-supposition that’s both obviously contingent/questionable & vastly impactful/consequential? (& indeed ideological, begging much explanation?)

  • furthermore, words are taken as having (primarily or only) extensional meaning, which can be regarded as disconnecting/removing meaning from individual minds/persons…

so: Therefore, naturally focusing on that which seems most meaningful – and specifically words being that -, the focus of the analytic methodology and tradition in general is on words! – And this focus and prioritisation in turn(, especially considered beyond the limited aspects/interests of philosophical enquiry,) gives words[, in principal and in general,] authority and power.

or, more simply: The rational mind sees words as the locus of meaning, therefore focuses on words, thereby endowing them with power… Rational traditions supports the power of the words, and more specifically commands and law-utterances, of authorities. I.e. such traditions support [power-]hierarchy.

  • So, this seems to fit perfectly with the law & order of [the lord] god & [church] hierarchy – & theology?

– Both the things [esp. nature] & the common/lay people have no [inherent] meaning – & should thus submit under the law/order of the word, the word that is authority and power due to carrying/holding meaning, indeed the totalised, objective meaning of the god-perspective – whether explicitly or implicitly – whether administered by a monk or a philosopher…

p.s. just as a reminder for contrast: The alternative is to consider it generally reasonable and possible that things have meaning – natural entities, phenomena, people, etc. – whilst words are just compromising, abstracting tools of communication between minds and meanings. (And of course, why not also that things are meaning? – An absurd notion in our reality, but really not absurd at all.)