This was excellent Katy. I just completed a PhD in law from UNSW. My work dealt with how mining contracts often violate international human rights standards in PNG and Tanzania. I've noticed how certain viewpoints tend to dominate the discourse within human rights law, hindering the exploration of diverse perspectives. For example, an examiner commented that Hayek's inclusion in my thesis is odd whereas I thought that inclusion of Hayek enriched my thesis. This podcast reminded me the need for fostering more open and inclusive conversations within academic environments.
I have used Hayek’s concept of the common law as evolutionary in my work before. There is nothing wrong with using diverse sources. Well done you - I personally would have applauded your breadth.
Thanks Katy. I appreciate your wishes. The reality of the academy, as you lay out in your podcast, is that the need for "appearing" morally sanctimonious is high. Ah well, we persevere.
That’s the thing: as soon as you ask questions or express doubts - you’re a traitor and fascist. I hate that kind of absolutism. That kind of attitude is really worrying. I must write a post about witch hunts. An English friend pointed out that England stopped having witch hunts. I said - “It’s not that England is morally better, it’s just that you sent the witch hunters off to the US and they settled there,” and then we paused as the import of that settled in… Well, it’s one explanation of why a lot of this stuff comes from the US??!!
Mmm. Thank you. You have given me the idea for my next post. And I should call and kvetch to you about a book I’m currently reading, on the topic of law… Husband looked at it last night and I have covered half of it in red scribbles and exclamation marks (only half-way through). “So you like this book a lot?” said husband, sarcastically.
And ooh, you are starting a substack? I have subscribed. I need to get back to the animals and Torah piece some time… I remain convinced that Rashi influenced the French.
Also for research purposes, I’ve been reading St Thomas Aquinas lately - interesting to see his stuff and compare with the Tosafists. Did you know that St Thomas Aquinas had an influence on common law contractual remoteness rules?! No, nor did I until I did this research.
Having avoided formal education with a passion my whole life(admittedly my daughter just finished second year law), I think I qualify as a disinterested observer.
My opinion is the problem goes to the central foundational principle of Western culture; Monotheism.
Remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures. The family as godhead. To the Ancients, monotheism equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god.
The Romans adopted a monotheistic sect as state religion around the time the Empire was rising from the ashes of the Republic. Basically to validate The Big Guy Rules.
Logically though, a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. More the light shining through the film, than the images and narratives played out on it.
The problem is that ideals are not absolutes. Truth, beauty, platonic forms are ideals. Every village totem is an ideal. The clinical term for people who think an ideal is absolute is "obsessive/compulsive."
When every possible ideology/religion/cult must assume its model as universal, or be dismissed as subjective, there can be no discussion. No looking at the situation from others points of view.
The reality is that an objective point of view is an oxymoron. We are all biased. The basis of the entity, from individuals, to nations, is synchronization. That being on the same wavelength, that brings together.
Yet these nodes build up and break down, in the larger ecosystem. The essence of which is harmonization, as it all balances out. Everything between the absolute and the infinite is relational.
So, this too shall pass. It is the breaking down of a culture that didn't quite get it right, so the negative feedback is kicking in.
This was excellent Katy. I just completed a PhD in law from UNSW. My work dealt with how mining contracts often violate international human rights standards in PNG and Tanzania. I've noticed how certain viewpoints tend to dominate the discourse within human rights law, hindering the exploration of diverse perspectives. For example, an examiner commented that Hayek's inclusion in my thesis is odd whereas I thought that inclusion of Hayek enriched my thesis. This podcast reminded me the need for fostering more open and inclusive conversations within academic environments.
I have used Hayek’s concept of the common law as evolutionary in my work before. There is nothing wrong with using diverse sources. Well done you - I personally would have applauded your breadth.
Thanks Katy. I appreciate your wishes. The reality of the academy, as you lay out in your podcast, is that the need for "appearing" morally sanctimonious is high. Ah well, we persevere.
That we do! So glad you found the post and podcast helpful.
Haven’t listened to the podcast yet. But the substack post is awesome. But you only say this because you’re a radical right winger/known fascist ;)
LOL. 🤣🤣🤣
That’s the thing: as soon as you ask questions or express doubts - you’re a traitor and fascist. I hate that kind of absolutism. That kind of attitude is really worrying. I must write a post about witch hunts. An English friend pointed out that England stopped having witch hunts. I said - “It’s not that England is morally better, it’s just that you sent the witch hunters off to the US and they settled there,” and then we paused as the import of that settled in… Well, it’s one explanation of why a lot of this stuff comes from the US??!!
Mmm. Thank you. You have given me the idea for my next post. And I should call and kvetch to you about a book I’m currently reading, on the topic of law… Husband looked at it last night and I have covered half of it in red scribbles and exclamation marks (only half-way through). “So you like this book a lot?” said husband, sarcastically.
And ooh, you are starting a substack? I have subscribed. I need to get back to the animals and Torah piece some time… I remain convinced that Rashi influenced the French.
Also for research purposes, I’ve been reading St Thomas Aquinas lately - interesting to see his stuff and compare with the Tosafists. Did you know that St Thomas Aquinas had an influence on common law contractual remoteness rules?! No, nor did I until I did this research.
Thank you. I am. Although I haven’t fully worked it all out. And yes. Please call and kvetch about the book. Sounds glorious ;)
Having avoided formal education with a passion my whole life(admittedly my daughter just finished second year law), I think I qualify as a disinterested observer.
My opinion is the problem goes to the central foundational principle of Western culture; Monotheism.
Remember democracy and republicanism originated in pantheistic cultures. The family as godhead. To the Ancients, monotheism equated with monoculture. One people, one rule, one god.
The Romans adopted a monotheistic sect as state religion around the time the Empire was rising from the ashes of the Republic. Basically to validate The Big Guy Rules.
Logically though, a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. More the light shining through the film, than the images and narratives played out on it.
The problem is that ideals are not absolutes. Truth, beauty, platonic forms are ideals. Every village totem is an ideal. The clinical term for people who think an ideal is absolute is "obsessive/compulsive."
When every possible ideology/religion/cult must assume its model as universal, or be dismissed as subjective, there can be no discussion. No looking at the situation from others points of view.
The reality is that an objective point of view is an oxymoron. We are all biased. The basis of the entity, from individuals, to nations, is synchronization. That being on the same wavelength, that brings together.
Yet these nodes build up and break down, in the larger ecosystem. The essence of which is harmonization, as it all balances out. Everything between the absolute and the infinite is relational.
So, this too shall pass. It is the breaking down of a culture that didn't quite get it right, so the negative feedback is kicking in.
More yin and yang, than God Almighty.
Even the sexes are a biological yin and yang.
I hope you’re right - that this is just a society in flux and it will right itself. Worrying times, nonetheless.
Without the ups and downs, it's a flatline anyway.
The energy is constantly pulling us together, or pushing us apart.
Lots of switches, from the micro to the macro.
The future is not determined, because the act of determination only occurs as the present.
The future is a continuation of the past, until it becomes a reaction to it.