01-04-2012, 01:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2012, 02:51 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(01-04-2012, 01:09 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Not necessarily -- that's referring to intentional enslavement, while we're discussing unintentional.
I appear to be struggling with how "unintentional slavery" could exist in a society without the veil. Can you think of any possible scenarios?
βαθμιαίος Wrote:By the same token, what would the purpose of governmental structures be? Ra said they were produced by disharmony. It seems to me that attempts to codify response are a logical consequence of attempts to deal with disharmony in a structural way. That could be just my own presumptions speaking, though.
Here is an example: Let's say a given society were to agree to the existence of a common store of foodstuffs, such as a granary. A governmental structure may be put in place to attend to the administration and distribution of said foodstuffs to the populace.
The notion that one must adhere to a codified behavioral system in order to access said foodstuffs need not necessarily apply. I can see the possibility for one, and not the other. A given society could choose that all people have the right/ability to draw from common resource pools irrespective of their behavior and/or social status. Though, according to our historical record, these two concepts appear to have gone hand-in-hand.
(01-04-2012, 11:10 AM)Oceania Wrote: if you don't pay your taxes, the irs comes and shoots you.
Oh, come now, the IRS wouldn't shoot ya! That would result in the dissolution of your slave status.
![BigSmile BigSmile](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/smilies/happywide.png)
(01-04-2012, 12:29 PM)Diana Wrote: In my opinion, we are only slaves to what we are attached to.
An interesting thought. I observe there are many similar, but fundamentally different, words which are used to describe one's relationship to law. Besides attachment, one might use adherence or accordance.
For example, an individual (or sovereign) might choose to live in accordance with a given set of laws. However this would not subject them to retribution should their actions appear as discordant to others.
I find these particularly fascinating:
The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep Wrote:Beginning of the arrangement of the good sayings, spoken by the noble lord, the divine father, beloved of Ptah, the son of the king, the first-born of his race, the prefect and feudal lord Ptah-hotep, so as to instruct the ignorant in the knowledge of the arguments of the good sayings. It is profitable for him who hears them, it is a loss to him who shall transgress them.
The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep Wrote:But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite.
The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep Wrote:If you abase yourself in obeying a superior, your conduct is entirely good before Ptah. Knowing who you ought to obey and who you ought to command, do not lift up your heart against him. As you know that in him is authority, be respectful toward him as belonging to him. Wealth comes only at Ptah's own good-will, and his caprice only is the law; as for him who . . Ptah, who has created his superiority, turns himself from him and he is overthrown.