I killed one post-moot comment as it just seemed dead-mouthed. Another tussle here:
Anarchy is not chaos. So there is order, which I think is Law/Lore in some sense. But, if Holy, then an order born to twinned to freedom not necessity and its servant violence. In trying to think about this post-messianic law it is hard not to think of that Hebrews bit about a law written on hearts that is the biome of a people actually being a people of G-d. This seems to be the antithesis of the move away from the Wild into the Monarchy. Samuel's reaction to the people seeking the State (a king like all the other nations) ws to recoil and for G-d to proclaim His/Her own exile.
Is there a clue about this post-apocalyptic law/lore in human language itself. Adam's naming of the Others was not an imposed domination that bent or formed from without, but a symbiotic sounding out of what was/should be/will be. It was sonic movement, like music that lacks either/or of the top/down bottom/up divide as subject and subject both speak and listen in full, more chant than monologue.
Law as we know it now seems like a makeshift directing due to the lack of sight while whatever is not yet and maybe becoming seems more like a re-membering of the eye, the spit of G-d making a sea in the ash at our feet and, next year in Jerusalem, opening the windows of the soul to vision.
I did find myself recoiling from the end of law in some sense. Not in any need alleged love of the Pharasaic bindings but more in key with Chesterton's Ethics of Elfland. In Fairy there is never a lack of Law. One must be back by midnight, or enter only through the one door. There is so much deep pleasure in these constraints in our dream-stories. They prepare us for Here but also There I think. Law for the sheer love of the way it may shape the enternal Telling we are in? I am sure I will want to change half of this but two cents on the thing we did.
"in fairy there is never a lack of law". Hi Andrew. Yes I resonate. I think Catherine in the gathering talked about different kinds of law, and a certain caution toward crude law-hatred. I'm thinking of the start of Romans 8 and the juxtaposition of the law of sin and death against the law of the spirit of life. The animate creaturely world has a law of life and balance and needs no law of violent hierarchical human management. I also find myself thinking of the proverbs eulogies to wisdom: she is sort of the law of how things really are, to which one must reconcile in order to live. I think there is something beautiful in this. One distinction would be between a law that requires some people to wield power over others, and a lore beyond that sort of thing. I think one of the reasons I warmed to the language of anarchy, in some guise at least, is because I realised I believed in a law, or a lore, beyond. I'll go ponder the Hebrews reference you mentioned...
I am your huckleberry, baby. How can I wave? Is this a wave?
That is to say..."May I sign up?"
Yes you certainly can. Can you message me your email?
I killed one post-moot comment as it just seemed dead-mouthed. Another tussle here:
Anarchy is not chaos. So there is order, which I think is Law/Lore in some sense. But, if Holy, then an order born to twinned to freedom not necessity and its servant violence. In trying to think about this post-messianic law it is hard not to think of that Hebrews bit about a law written on hearts that is the biome of a people actually being a people of G-d. This seems to be the antithesis of the move away from the Wild into the Monarchy. Samuel's reaction to the people seeking the State (a king like all the other nations) ws to recoil and for G-d to proclaim His/Her own exile.
Is there a clue about this post-apocalyptic law/lore in human language itself. Adam's naming of the Others was not an imposed domination that bent or formed from without, but a symbiotic sounding out of what was/should be/will be. It was sonic movement, like music that lacks either/or of the top/down bottom/up divide as subject and subject both speak and listen in full, more chant than monologue.
Law as we know it now seems like a makeshift directing due to the lack of sight while whatever is not yet and maybe becoming seems more like a re-membering of the eye, the spit of G-d making a sea in the ash at our feet and, next year in Jerusalem, opening the windows of the soul to vision.
I did find myself recoiling from the end of law in some sense. Not in any need alleged love of the Pharasaic bindings but more in key with Chesterton's Ethics of Elfland. In Fairy there is never a lack of Law. One must be back by midnight, or enter only through the one door. There is so much deep pleasure in these constraints in our dream-stories. They prepare us for Here but also There I think. Law for the sheer love of the way it may shape the enternal Telling we are in? I am sure I will want to change half of this but two cents on the thing we did.
Going to try to make it this time! 🤞
"in fairy there is never a lack of law". Hi Andrew. Yes I resonate. I think Catherine in the gathering talked about different kinds of law, and a certain caution toward crude law-hatred. I'm thinking of the start of Romans 8 and the juxtaposition of the law of sin and death against the law of the spirit of life. The animate creaturely world has a law of life and balance and needs no law of violent hierarchical human management. I also find myself thinking of the proverbs eulogies to wisdom: she is sort of the law of how things really are, to which one must reconcile in order to live. I think there is something beautiful in this. One distinction would be between a law that requires some people to wield power over others, and a lore beyond that sort of thing. I think one of the reasons I warmed to the language of anarchy, in some guise at least, is because I realised I believed in a law, or a lore, beyond. I'll go ponder the Hebrews reference you mentioned...