What Law?

April 12, 2009 § 7 Comments

I found this really really kewl page on Pemes (Political Memes) … but don’t believe me blindly, and check for yourself.

Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles of South America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its unique language with its own structure. The language of Tribe 1 (Language 1) tends to be very literal. A man who fishes, for example, is called “man-who-fishes.” The same man, while sleeping, is called “man-who-sleeps”; while talking, “man-who-talks”; while running, “man-who-runs”; while eating, man-who-eats”; while writing, “man-who-writes”; while making a chair, “man-who-makes-chair”; while giving orders, “man-who-gives-orders”; etc. In Language 1, distinctions are made between different kinds of words: “Thing-words,” “Do-words,” “How-words,” “Story-words,” “Funny-words,” “Order-words,” “Panic-words,” “What-words,” “Who-words,” “Why-words,” “When-words,” “Where-words,” etc. High-level abstractions are rare in language 1. To the people of Tribe 1, any word that doesn’t refer to something physically perceivable, is highly suspect. Their test for reality is physical.

The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very different. A man who obtains his wherewithal mostly by fishing, is called “fisherman.” (This system of nomenclature would seem absurd to the people of Tribe 1 — how can you call someone a “fisherman” when he is not fishing, but sleeping?) Language 2 contains many high-level abstractions — like “happiness.” People from Tribe 2 can talk for hours about “happiness.” (To someone from Tribe 1, this would be incomprehensible — they only talk about “woman-who-is-happy” while she is happy, and “woman-who-is-sad” while she is sad. The notion that you could separate “happiness” from a real person being happy, and talk about “happiness” as if it existed by itself, would be completely unthinkable to someone from Tribe 1.)

To the people from Tribe 2, any word being used is automatically assumed to be part of existence, otherwise people wouldn’t use it. (To someone from Tribe 1, the word “existence” would be a meaningless absurdity, because in their mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2, the test for reality is agreement. If other people agree with a word and the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically accepted as valid and useful.

One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of the tribes live. For the sake of clarity I put the stories of the encounters side-by-side:

They ask him: “Who you?”
He: “I King.”
They: “Your name King?”
He: “No; my name John.”
They: “Why call self King if name John?”
He: “I special person, agent of God.”
They: “You look different but not special; who God?”
He: “God creator of world.”
They: “Where God?; How create world?”
He: “God everywhere; God all-powerful.”
They: “How we see God?”
He: “Can’t see God.”
They: “You speak crazy.”
He: “No; I special; I show you.” Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear.
They: “You clever man-who-tricks.”
He: “I special; I King.”
They: “You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks.”
He: “I King; my word law.”
They: “What law? — special word?”
He: “Yes; my word law — you must obey.”
They: “Ah! You mean order-word!”
He: “Yes; I King; I make law.”
They: “No; you speak order-word?”
He: “Yes; I special.”
They: “What special? — Anybody speak order-word?”
He: “You not understand.”
They: “No.”
Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of Tribe 1 that he has a “special status” and that his words are different from the words of anyone else — so he leaves, to search for more gullible and impressionable victims elsewhere…
They: “Who you?”
He: “I King.”
They: “Your name King?”
He: “No, my name John.”
They: “Why call self King if name John?”
He: “I special person, agent of God.”
They: “You look different; what God?”
He: “God creator of world.”
They: Where God?; How create world?”
He “God everywhere; God all-powerful.”
They: “Show special?” Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear and disappear.
They: “You King, agent of God.”
He: “Yes, my word law.”
They: “What law?”
He: “Law special word of God through me; you must obey.”
Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John — they do not habitually test abstractions against reality, so they readily accept John-the-stranger as their “King” and his word as “law.” Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is open his mouth…

Okay, Frederick-Mann-who-touches-on-pemes, much appreciated!

Lesson learned: this is the part of us that can be pushed, pulled, or coaxed, usually run by sexe-related patterns, and, if we build strength of mind and critical judgment, it is the part that verifies and validates patterns congruently. I am okay, you are okay, we are okay.

Sexe-related? Of course, there’s also memes, highly contagious “female” thoughts that are spreading like wildfire.


Tagged: , , , , ,

§ 7 Responses to What Law?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading What Law? at Stone Circles.


%d bloggers like this: