[Amazingly, the children of Israel returned to their homeland.
Interpretations of the Mosaic Law were formulated, in the centuries before Christ, by an (infra)sovereign religion.
Obligations were formulated according to a thinkpro-object obsessed with ritual purity. The Saduccees and Pharisees became experts in the obligations of ritual purity. This expertise was a ticket to wealth and status.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[So what happened?
I continue my guess.
Obviously, problems came from establishing a king.
The formation of a sovereign encouraged competition among contending points of view. Sovereign power offered opportunities for exploitation. Royal decrees put people in bondage. The court deprived the people of what they own.
The kingdoms of Israel and Judah failed due to royal immorality and incompetence, as well as the alienation of their own subjects.
Oh, plus an attacking empire.]
[Also, the obligations of tribe and family are particular.
My particular tribe and family may have a tendency to micromanage. Petty demands add to time-honored expectations.
Plus, there will always be a slacker in the house.
Plus, the family and tribe may have a debilitating tendency to blame all their woes on one person. Everyone wants to be blameless, so nothing gets done.
The Law of Moses mitigated that.
The Law of Moses held out the possibility of reward (or, at least, not punishment) for the individual with initiative, despite family and tribal obligations.]
[In contrast, tribe and family may been trapped in their own word-games.
For example, the tribe is always at war with the rest of the world.
The 10 commandments do not encourage the universal thought experiments.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Compared to the obligations3a(2a and the exercises of the heart2a(1a)) of the family and tribal traditions, the Judaic Law must have felt liberating.
The Law of Moses lays down obligations that are universal. They apply to all. Including everyone in the tribe and family.]
[The mirror of the world3a was illuminated by unforgiving traditional ways.
Something2a was either freedom within one’s tribe or family (provided you accept your responsibilities) or slavery to another tribe or family.
So the possibilities inherent in me1a faced two stark choices.
Weirdly, these choices support the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by pre-existing responsibilities.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Did traditional Judaic interpretations of God’s law lead to bondage?
Here is my guess.
Before the Laws of Moses, tribal and family traditions predominated.
The choice was between the obligations of tribe and family versus slavery to another tribe or family.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here is an easy example.
A parent says to a child:
“You are free as long as you do your homework.”
Then the child does not fulfill “his” responsibility.
As soon as “he” turns on the TV, sitting and watching2a becomes the something2a that enslaves “him”.]
[What is the actuality2a that fundamentally transforms freedom2a(1a) into bondage2a(1a)?
This ‘something2a’ emerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.
The mirror of the world3a or the thought experiment3a brings ‘something2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me1a.
I may think that something2a enslaves me.
Actually, the relation3a enslaves me.]
[Let me examine the co-opposition between responsibility3a(2a and freedom2a(1a)) in the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Freedom2a(1a)) corresponds to something2a(possibilities inherent in me1a).]
