In the human quest to authenticate the validity of thy individual wisdom some will confuse intellectual pursuit and the capacity to absorb knowledge with that of being the same as having acquired a divinely anointed savant for being wise.
Of course the compulsion or attraction to such illusions must first touch glass to lips and then slowly sip and savor the dry tannin of thy earthly bounty of scholarly notions in order to become inebriated with the intoxication of one’s minuscule brilliance.
From there a methodical sedation can more easily begin to relinquish one from their individual responsibility and allow one’s individualism to become exchanged for that of a consensus in understanding.
In such an exchange one’s reasoning must first become swaddled in the assurances of comradely gestures and then rise to the BAR of indoctrination. The boundaries for like-mindedness are predicated upon rules for companionship and the trends of thinking that evolve must always stay within those adjudicated parameters, if one wishes to become and remain a member of such a club.
As one’s authenticity for such brilliance can only be validated by the precedence that parallel a reliance upon case study interpretations and therefore in doing so the “Club of Law” can insure that history will once again, repeat itself…hum?
The certification process that attempts to authenticate the validity of many such gestures in order to formulate companionship really only parallels the definition of prejudice, which is; “a preconceived opinion that is not based upon sound reasoning or actual personal experience.“, correct?
It is in the illusion of one’s saintly veneration that the Club of Law’s authority affords a cloaked deception for the hidden truth that “lies” in wait behind too many prejudicial decisions. The robes, posture and semantics of an elevated status unwittingly disguises the culprit that influences the individual human frailty in one’s ego and vanity! If an argument challenges the precepts in which such an ego and vanity are anchored then such debate will be deemed in contempt of thy saintliness and shall feel the wrath of blunt force trauma from the Club of Law…hum?
1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
It can be in the intellectual pursuit of wisdom that the nourishment of knowledge can spillover from the edges of the containment vessel (one’s cerebral cortex) and an over abundance may serve to feed one’s own ego and self reliance upon the default fallibility of mankind’s vanity!
It should also be recognized that as thy cup runneth over (Psalm 23:5) one can also loose a sense of appreciation for the obligations that came with such blessings.
What can easily become misinterpreted from the inheritance of the abundance of brilliance is the weighted worth that was bestowed (intelligence quotient) from something that wasn’t actually acquired from the fruit of one’s own labor but from the blessings of a higher authority!
It is under such influence that the whole of society shall be swayed by the profound effects that ensues while being placed under the spell of such brilliancy! Thus the greater challenge for such an individual in that of wielding such power over the masses isn’t jurisprudence but, to remain in control over one’s ego and vanity while holding the club of an unbridled authority. Restrain not self vindication, humility not an anointed seat above the masses but a view from the window of the commoner.
If the truth was to be universally acknowledged then society could see clearly that such “appointments” are all too often predicated upon a predisposition that leans toward a political polarity, not truth, justice and the American way! If testimony was cross-examined and one was to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth wouldn’t the perjury in such testimony become transparently evident!
Historically the laws that govern mankind have all been predicated upon such premise and in that of bestowing the transmitted interpretative merits behind the law to a select group of individuals who are in charge of administering the meaning and weighted conviction for the law, the law can become merely an extension of one’s own vanity, by definition! i.e.;excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievements
If you have any doubt about how intoxicated such brilliance becomes in wielding such power just spend a day in traffic court or in a child custody proceeding or as a juror in a trial by one’s so called peers. Just watch as the scale of blind justice peeks out from behind the blindfold in an elevated seat above the courtroom. Watch how the argumentative (Lawyers) rationalizes the skirting of truth and justice for all, all along while strictly adhering to the comradely gestures of half knowing (at best) implications. Look closely at how they toy with the brilliance of one another in suggesting a balance is to be had between conviction or acquittal. See how loosely either side opens the door to conjectures of influence while hinging discredit upon the presumptions of only two possibilities;
1.) Evil Intentions or
2.) The Merits of a Good Nature
All along what too often hangs in that balance that’s held over the heads of thy subjects isn’t justice at all but a Court’s contrived motion being applied by a presiding authority’s subjectivity!
After all in order to convince others that one is worthy of being bestowed the deliberative powers to interpret and transmit thy verbatim intent behind divine providence one must first become possessed with a belief that they themselves are anointed the power to do so above all, correct?
In the liberties taken from such self-anointed inspiration modern civilization humbly subordinates to the ritualism of a ancient proscynesis practice, social ranking! We divest our power over many of our decisions and pass that baton of power to these collaborative appointments. In due course (of course) the weight and burden of judgement is more easily carried by those who may possess a special scrutinizing intellect, as well as a commanding behavioral idiosyncrasy, correct? Who better to impose the rules for superiority but those of a higher rank, correct? And what better way in which to bow our heads in respect for this proscynesis practice than; “all please stand for the honorable“…hum?
If the weight of a decision from one individual isn’t enough well then the baton for such decision can be passed on to a circus court (my apologizes, Circuit Court) where more appointed brilliance may weigh in. Thus putting any appeal to a decision further beyond reproach by any mere individual.
If for some reason the desires of man’s interpretations (again my apologies), what I mean to say is the translations for the meaning of the law can’t be prejudged well then a Grand Jury can be convened in order to examine a narrower spectrum of evidence and issue indictments. Once again, only if “they” believe that there is enough subjective evidence for a trial. Realizing of course that there will be no representation of the defense in the presenting of any of this, as a Grand Jury only hears the arguments from the prosecution.
If our constitution is anchored upon the foundational precept that all men are created equal, then why aren’t all men (and women) treated equal? What happen to the American justice system’s first commandment that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt? How much reasonable doubt can remain when the deck is stacked against you and only the prosecution is allowed to enter the evidence.
I’m no lawyer by any means (thank G_d!) but what I’m getting at here is that too many involved in jurisprudence assess their reckonings for comparisons as being superior to much of mankind’s ability to reason. This arrogance stems from an egocentric addiction to their appreciative yet narrow spectrum of intellect, which seemingly has been acquired in viewing the world from behind such eyes.
If society could actually take inventory of all the possibilities for the vastness of an all knowing capacity for brilliance what could then be evaluated in the totality that resides between the two ears that spans the grey matter of such brilliance…hum?
True it is…that many examples of astute intelligence such as accredited doctors, lawyers, theologians and scientist have all come to learn about the Laws of Nature and the Nature of Laws but how would an all knowing divine capacity…who’d orchestrated the magnificence that spans the grand universe affix a GPA?
Would he need to grade on a curve for the accumulative accomplishment of all the scholarly assertions of knowledge in each of their own particular curriculum’s of study?
Where would each fall upon the bell curve of knowledge for all the possibilities in an infinite comparison for all things possible…hum?
In scaling the weighted worth of acquired knowledge and weighing that substantive measure against an all knowing divine capacity (who’d conceived of the long math and equations for endless spans of grandeur), what measured worth could be seen on the head of a pin that man makes claims of possessing?
Do you suppose this divinity would also need to affix a contrived value to such scholarly assertions in order to authenticate thy validity of “I am” under such scrutiny…hum?
Thus…we as humans are really only able to comprehend a tiny fractional equivalent for the breadth of knowledge that would involve the ALL KNOWING yet even in this infancy of KNOWING (which is barely measurable in the extended zeros to the right of the decimal point), we attempt to apply some form of law and order to the chaos that abounds us!
Too often we delegate the pursuit of knowledge to the self-proclamations being made by deputized academics who in the absence of a truer knowledge apply the weighted bamboozling of phraseology or debated weasel words in order to bait and switch knowledge for what can appear as wisdom.
In turn, this offers us what can appear as a seemingly sound argument for the merit behind our “LAWS” but in fact such examples fail miserably at providing a replicated exhibit for universal truth.
As an individual member of the JURY, shouldn’t one be asking at least a few questions before subordinating to the whims of earth bound brilliance?
a.) Who’s laws are these and for what purpose are these laws to be universally adhered to and respected?
b.) To whom is authority delegated for taking action in support of an argument that the law is the law?
In the practices of delegation to the jurisdictional officialdom’s of authority do we engage as witnesses or as bystanders? Is our inspiration derived in that of validating our own individualized prejudices and perceptions for a given belief system or do we scale the weight of our decisions as incremental grams for each of the contingencies that could otherwise titter the scale of a real form of justice?
Who is really in charge of interpreting G_d’s authority over our earthly domain and as well who acts whole-hardheartedly in an attempt to comply with the merit of the transmitted meaning of such laws?
Whether the laws originate from the Jewish 613 commandments of mitzvot in the Torah and as transmitted as G_D’s word to Moses (peace be upon him), or derived from the Sharia religious precepts of Islam in the Quran and the Hadith, as a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Realize of course that even just in these two examples, that the G_D of Abraham’s laws are a source of widely contested differences. It isn’t the laws themselves but their interpretations and often the failure to respect such valued precepts which were designed to regulate behavior or thought.
Yes, I know fairly obvious right? Unfortunately, obvious to whom, as when it gets left to lawful interpretation they only seem to incite the continuance of further tribal warfare…hum?
Both of these religious theologies share 24 of the 25 Prophets mentioned in their teachings, which are as follows:
- Idris (Enoch)
- Nuh (Noah)
- Hud (Heber)
- Salih (Methusaleh)
- Lut (Lot)
- Ibrahim (Abraham)
- Ismail (Ishmael)
- Ishaq (Isaac)
- Yaqub (Jacob)
- Yusuf (Joseph)
- Shu’aib (Jethro)
- Ayyub (Job)
- Dhulkifl (Ezekiel)
- Musa (Moses)
- Harun (Aaron)
- Dawud (David)
- Sulayman (Solomon)
- Ilias (Elias)
- Alyasa (Elisha)
- Yunus (Jonah)
- Zakariya (Zachariah)
- Yahya (John the Baptist)
- Isa (Jesus)
- Muhammad: (only recognized by Islamic belief as a Prophet)