Tuesday, December 20, 2011

To all things there is a limit,

Including the size of the natural, i.e. at human scale, State.

As modern Americans we've come to think of our whole united States as single sovereign state, and likewise think of it as properly ordered and as natural because it's what exists today.

The same with all the other nation states that populate the world about us. We likewise see France or Russia or China, or Australia, etc, we also think of those as properly ordered and natural as sovereign states. But they're not properly ordered because they are not at human scale, and thus in turn neither are they natural.

This natural limit according to human scale is also true as well as for all other smaller communities that exist within the natural sovereign state. We've come to think of large scale cities with shopping malls and vast tracts of houses as properly ordered and natural, but they're likewise not properly ordered and natural.

In fact, very little of society today is properly ordered or natural.

As to the sovereign state, when a state isn't natural it can be said in a very real manner doesn't even exist. Or I should say, doesn't exist except as in the same manner as an unjust law exists (art. 1 reply 4), which is that it exists as a pretender of that which does properly exist. Or as Aristotle writes in book 5 of the politics, to all things there is a natural limit, including the size of the state. Which in turn makes the U.S. an unnatural creature, i.e. a leviathan.

But it does make sense, if one thinks about it, and is likewise a reason why our society is in such discord because we no longer live according to human scale. Which in turn is what this blog is about, living according to human scale, which is the scale God created us as at. As opposed to the scale the devil tempted Eve with where he said "you shall be like gods" which is likewise the scale of modern society.

The notion of the US as sovereign State first became popular during the time of the war of northern aggression when Lincoln proposed that the union created the States. Never mind that the States as individually sovereign clearly existed prior to the Articles of Confederation.

The States were held as each being independent and sovereign, and only secondarily as united because society was ordered according to subsidiarity.

But let it be granted for sake of argument that the Constitution was intended to cause the States to exist as creatures of the Federal Government. That intention would no more have the capacity to cause the States to exist as creatures, than my saying horses are rational would cause them to become rational, because the cause in both is less than the effect.

What have today isn't a natural State, but instead a propositional State. Which is why federal soldiers pledge to defend the proposition, i.e. defend the constitution. And it's likewise specifically why those same federal soldiers do not pledge to defend kith and ken, blood and land as our forefathers had always done before. Federal soldiers take an unnatural pledge to defend an unnatural creature.

[not that the federal pledge is unique, the States such as Virginia from it earliest days also speak of defending their own constitution]

In contrast to the unnatural federal pledge to defend the unnatural social compact, we by nature we have a duty to defend our own, beginning with defending the family, from which follows defense of society. But not defense of any society, defense of the society we belong to according to human scale. Which is in turn why just title to war is grounded in self defense.

What does exist is society at human scale, because we as men are the cause of society, not as contrived social compact, but by nature so that where men are together community naturally exists.

As with our own bodies, life does not exist, and cannot exist unless the flesh is suitable for the purpose. For instance, a decapitated body is cannot support life, and so likewise is it with a community which naturally exists, it likewise can only exist in a suitable subject.

For instance, a personal parish is not a natural parish, because joined land is not accidental, like homeschooling, or NFP as I've spoken of before, personal parishes like much of modern like fall in the category of the medicinal. We choose a personal parish because some defect makes the choice superior. We require the material to be of a certain kind, or at least within a certain limit. And with a parish what is looked for is a cultural limit because what we look for is formation of ourselves and formation of our children.

While modern modes of communing do allow for greater distance, a parish spread across a vast area of a thousand mile is obviously not suitable for purpose of forming a true human scale parish, such a parish is like a decapitated man, it is nothing more than a contrivance. And as I have written elsewhere just as distance in miles matters, so likewise does cultural differences matter when it comes to formation of human scale society because the more distant cultures are from each other, the less suitable those diverse cultures are for formation of a true society.

Holistic is to encompass the totality of man as opposed to breaking him down into parts as if those parts can actually be understood apart from the whole. It sees man as inseparable from society where what exists are not social compacts but natural cohesion. Which is for the most part how we actually live.

Its the difference between traffic laws and cultural norms. The first are imposed, the second form human interaction as it exists moment to moment.

Traffic laws of course need to exist, but they have more the character of tool, as opposed to courteous driving which forms the constant flow and relationship of people on the road.

I suppose its the difference of what flows from what? The laws, compacts agreement and such are caused by society, they don't cause society.

The form of society is not the method of government, the method of government is a means used by society. The form of society is the people. And just as cultural norms, traditions and similar are proper to society, so likewise is using some method of bring about laws and similar. What is important to note is what is closer to the very nature of the people as society.

Perhaps a good way of looking at it is to look at customs that are inculcated into the people, such customs are also laws, and often far more important to the governance of a community than some over arching system of courts and such because not only do they rule the everyday life of the people, but are inseparable from the people where as its possible to change rule from aristocracy to some other form .

Please note, my thoughts on the matter are far from well formed. As typical I simply look at such matters intuitively.

more later. . . .

No comments:

Post a Comment