"'...the first real knowledge of the universe and the first strong ideal of liberty.'"
-Poul Anderson, The Shield Of Time (New York, 1991), PART SIX, 1990 A. D., p. 434.
- and that our history, guarded by the Patrol, will:
"'...at last take us beyond what our animal selves could have imagined.'"
-ibid., p. 435.
I would have preferred a straighter route to such an end. However, let us not just hope but act to bring it about.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
You keep saying "medieval" church and state conflict, but that conflict has never truly ended an continues to rage globally in varying degrees. The Catholic Church and many Protestants endures harassment/persecution in many parts of the world, from secularists trying to force nuns to pay for abortions in the US to vicious persecution in Maoist China or many Muslim nations. Tyrants feel threatened by the Church's refusal to yield to Caesar what belongs only to God!
Anderson was right, tremendous consequences flowed from Matthew 22.15-22. The resulting conflicts between Church and states helped lead to philosophies of ordered freedom and the limited State.
Where I disagree whit what Anderson had that Danellian saying is that we will somehow transcend "animality," our Fallen nature. And when push came to shove Anderson agreed, as he stated in one of his letters to me, saying human beings were either incompletely evolved chimps or Fallen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
THE SHIELD OF TIME refers to the Emperor-Pope conflict, the "investiture controversy."
Not sure what "incompletely evolved" is. Having evolved from another species, we inherit some of its characteristics while developing new abilities and we can continue to evolve and change further.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The Investiture Controversy was the quarrel between the Church and the Holy Roman Emperors over the appointing of bishops, with the Church resisting this kind of interference by the State. And we are seeing exactly that again in Maoist China, with the Peking regime intruding hand picked bishops into dioceses. The late Pope Francis was too accommodating to the Maoists, and I hope Leo XIV will be more resistant.
Persecution and harassment of Christians is real, such as the massacre of 30,000 Christians in Nigeria alone over the past decade by Muslims.
Anderson's point was that he did not believe mankind will somehow cease to be so prone to being violent and strife prone.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are many conditions in which human beings are not prone to violence or strife.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And those "conditions" are possible only because the existence of the State, with its monopoly of violence, at least sometimes cows those who don't want to be peaceful.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Those conditions are not possible only because of the State. I do not attack my neighbour because I have no reason to attack my neighbour, not because there is a State. The kind of relationship that exists between me and my neighbour can be encouraged and fostered across the whole of society.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, because you cannot speak for all who live in the UK, many of whom are not peaceful. It's good to foster better ideas--but I don't believe many, many will either accept them or give a cuss about them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree.
I do not speak for everyone in Britain. Many are not peaceful now, of course. Xenophobia is being whipped up to cover for government failings.
But I do observe people. I do see that, if they did not suffer from economic austerity, then they would have no reason to blame immigrants for austerity. Immigrants work in, indeed prop up, our Health Service. The government should praise and reward them for that instead of assuring racists that they will put more and more restrictions on immigration. It is racists, not immigrants, who should be made to feel unwelcome. That will lead to a better and more inclusive society.
Paul.
"Investiture Controversy was the quarrel between the Church and the Holy Roman Emperors over the appointing of bishops, with the Church resisting this kind of interference by the State. And we are seeing exactly that again in Maoist China, with the Peking regime intruding hand picked bishops into dioceses"
I think the Holy Roman Emperors had better cause for their actions than the current Chinese government. The bishops of the medieval church often had considerable secular powers over districts. Separating the bishops from governmental power would be needed to eliminate the case for Imperial control over appointment of bishops.
Kaor, Paul!
And I do not agree unlimited immigration is good. Illegals get "scapegoated" because they are rightly perceived as being wrongly in other peoples countries.
Nor do I care about "racism," because that is not the point here. Your error is persisting in refusing to accept how flawed, imperfect, and prone to strife and violence human beings are. Whatever peace any society has is because of the existence of the State, in whatever form.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Illegals flee from wars and other horrors in which the great powers are complicit. No immigrant should be illegal. All should be welcomed and given sanctuary like Jews from Nazi Germany. No one should be scapegoated. You do not care about racism? (No quotes needed.) It is not an issue? It is a very big issue.
Your error is in continuing to say that human beings are flawed, imperfect and prone to strife and violence. I have shown and it is obvious that there are conditions in which people are not violent and that this is not just because of the State.
Paul.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: Oops! I overlooked your comment. Actually, you made a good point. The extremely decentralized structure of medieval governance did end with many bishops exercising political powers, often formalized in them being granted fiefs. But it still meant the Emperors treating bishoprics like patronage plums, posts to be awarded to loyal supporters, and that would not be good, long term, for the Church.
Paul: Then we agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not trying to agree. I can have illuminating arguments with people with whom I disagree without either of us thinking that our purpose is to reach agreement at the end of any single conversation. The issues are considerably more complicated than that.
You can hardly deny that illegals flee from wars or that Jews needed sanctuary when fleeing from the Nazis. There should be some measure of at least partial agreement here.
Paul.
Borders are sacred, and a country belongs to its citizens -- it's their turf. So the citizens have an absolute right to determine conditions for entry; "no stranger on my tribe's land without our leave", as the saying went.
That's a precondition for democracy, which means rule by -a- people in -a- sovereign territory.
I believe that people are sacred and have a right to freedom of movement. Thus, the number of voters should increase as the number of residents does.
Post a Comment