Exegesis.

[Guest guest]

Dear Marte,

marte wrote:

If Lord's Prayers can be executed on the heads of pins, I suppose that

exegeses can be done on thumbnails. But I am not competent to give an

exegesis of _Natural Right and History_. Even if I were, why would I

deny you the pleasure and the benefit of discovering it yourself?

You have a right to acquire a copy of _Natural Right and History_. If

you cannot afford such a copy, one will be provided for you - by me.

Let me know.

Should you get interested, you might also want to look at the fully

capitalized word(s) that occur at the beginning of each of the seven

chapters, and see what you think about that.

best regards,

Dan Watkins

To Dan:

For those of us who _don't_ happen to have a copy of Leo Strauss'

_Natural Right and History_ would you have any interest letting us in

on what those two sentences are? Or would that too much deflate the

fine style of this dialog between you and ? In that case, "for

those of us" who never considered ourselves "Straussians" or even

wondered much about what that might be or mean till starting

following some of your posts (especially a time back on Heward's

list) would you care to share a thumbnail exegesis (if exegeses can

be done on or with thumbnails)?

marte

> >>

> >>

> >> >My point, to repeat, is that if Darwin is simply

correct, as

you

> >> say, then

> >> >our entire "kinder, gentler" approach to politics in

the modern

liberal

> >> >democracies must be rethought. If our purpose is not

just the

> >> propagation

> >> >of the race, but the improvement of the race (as

Darwin seems

to be

> >> >advocating in the passage above), then we must take

the

measures

> >> that he

> >> >points to.

> >>

> >> My way of looking at it is this: Nature's process takes

care

of "the

> >> improvement of the race". This process underlies much of

our

bio/psychic

> >> functions - ie, instincts. Nature seems to expect us to

flow

with our

> >> "first feelings" and let the rest happen. This seems to

have

been the

> >> way

> >> of the world for many thousands of years.

> >> With the advent of philosophy - ie, science, ethics,

theology

etc -

> >> we have

> >> slowly but surely come to believe that against the

instincts are

set

> >> another balancing group of "laws" which in many cases

advocate

the

> >> opposing

> >> value.

> >

> >

> >

> > Is man, then better off with philosophy? Or does philosophy

debase his

> > humanity? You seem on the whole to be calling for a return to

the

> > garden - I mean this in both an epicurian and a genesis sense.

> >

> >> Holding this tension - created by the discrimination of

values

from

> >> both the instinctual and archetypal sides of the question

reflects

> >> within

> >> the "individuation" process that Jung described at the

personal

level

> >> and

> >> within the society as a measure of its responsibility to

both

natural

> >> and

> >> metaphysical values.

> >>

> >> So while Darwin's discrimination of nature's obvious

genetic

> >> functions and

> >> the psychic mechanisms it engenders to maintain such

functions

within a

> >> conscious environment might be undeniable and obvious -

this

does not

> >> to my

> >> mind at least - require me to assume control of, nor a

position

of

> >> enhancement of such functions by any deliberate political

course

or

> >> ideal.

> >

> >

> > But that does not appear to be Darwin's view.

> >

> >

> >

> >> As with all things, it appears nature is best left to

work on

its own

> >> account - which is why Jung insists that the

individuation

process

> >> requires

> >> man to be responsible for his own decisions.

> >

> >

> > It appears to me that your "letting nature takes its course"

is

no

> > longer a possibility, if it ever was. Prometheus finished

that.

So the

> > question becomes, do we pursue a deliberate politics or do we

simply

> > let the passions rule?

> >

> >>

> >> Since such decisions are unlikely to ever be free of the

political

> >> domination created by collective idealism and law, it is

therefore

> >> unlikely

> >> that natural process will ever be able to work unopposed

in a

> >> "society" of

> >> conscious individuals and that some stance must be taken.

It

would seem

> >> that the history of our epoch has been dominated by just

such an

> >> oscillation of values - in many cases twisted values

generated

by

> >> misinterpreting the natural order through religious

process and

its

> >> shadow

> >> images - and that this process is likely to continue and

create

a

> >> sort of

> >> never ending confusion where natural process is ever

embroiled

in

> >> arguments

> >> which miss the point but insist that the point is

otherwise.

> >>

> >> Thus it is not implicit that we attend to nature's

apparent

drives in a

> >> conscious manner - nor ought we create ideologies from

that

which

> >> underlies

> >> all ideologies anyway. In so doing we step beyond our

natural

process

> >> and

> >> create a system (which is by the way, ever the state of

man)

> >

> > If it is ever the state of man, then it is hard to see how it

is

not

> > our natural process.

> >

> >

> >> wherein every

> >> political adjustment we make to engineer a "good society"

(no

matter

> >> what

> >> this might be in the current ideology) is in some way an

adjustment

> >> against

> >> nature. Thus our stances upon matters such as this or any

other

which

> >> embroil us in such political definition of "correct"

behaviour,

will

> >> ever

> >> be stances which only dig us deeper into the pit of our

own

hubris..

> >>

> >> Thus man is ever in conflict with is nature and the

resulting

political

> >> problems, arguments and laws which flow from his endless

attempt

to

> >> align

> >> his political nature to his individual nature are ever

doomed to

> >> suffer an

> >> inherent disposition of polarity - for in man we see the

polarity of the

> >> natural order abstracted to consciousness and played out

as an

> >> ongoing war

> >> between the opposites.

> >>

> >> How then shall a man live for the best, you ask?

> >>

> >> Very quietly.

> >

> >

> > Certainly one sees the attraction. I'm not sure that I'm

quite

licked yet.

> >

> > You acknowledge that politics is inevitable. In that case, it

does

> > seem that we must play.

> >

> > Best,

> >

> > Dan

> >

> >>

> >> regards,

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> > "Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means

whereby

> > beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory

experience

and

> > suffering."

> >

> > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

> >

> >

> >