Authority Examined
or
A Man is Known by the Company He Keeps
June 12, 2017
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
Some time ago, Apprentice Denver freely, and without any prompting, offered his opinion that Yours Truly has a problem with authority. My response was quick (for a Capricorn): if I had issues with authority, management would not be a suitable vocation, nor would business ownership, and I've never advocated the absence of authority or anarchy, as I detest chaos. The suggestion that a typical Capricorn holds authority in contempt betrays a lack of insight regarding a rudimentary understanding of the science of Astrology.
Interestingly, Wil, presumably independently of Apprentice Denver's nefarious influence, recently expressed his opinion that I have a problem with authority and he suggested that most people would agree with this observation. Needless to say, these comments, when taken together, sent Yours Truly to an objective source: the dictionary.
Authority: the power or right to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience.
Clearly, Yours Truly has no hesitation receiving orders and accepting decisions. Yet, the wording to “enforce obedience” causes some concern, so we return to the dictionary.
Obedience: compliance with an order, request or law or submissive to another's authority.
Yours Truly has complied with orders, directives, and requests from varied sources over many years, nor do we ignore nor disparage the law, for chaos is not our friend. However, the wording “submissive to authority” is not to my liking, not for what it means, but for the implications. Our final foray in the dictionary:
Legitimate: to conform to the law or to rules.
Once again, Capricorns conform, as their ruling planet is Saturn, the Lord of limitations and restrictions, is not a free spirited planet.
Therefore, I remain adamant that I have no issues or problems with authority.
Interestingly, Wil, presumably independently of Apprentice Denver's nefarious influence, recently expressed his opinion that I have a problem with authority and he suggested that most people would agree with this observation. Needless to say, these comments, when taken together, sent Yours Truly to an objective source: the dictionary.
Authority: the power or right to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience.
Clearly, Yours Truly has no hesitation receiving orders and accepting decisions. Yet, the wording to “enforce obedience” causes some concern, so we return to the dictionary.
Obedience: compliance with an order, request or law or submissive to another's authority.
Yours Truly has complied with orders, directives, and requests from varied sources over many years, nor do we ignore nor disparage the law, for chaos is not our friend. However, the wording “submissive to authority” is not to my liking, not for what it means, but for the implications. Our final foray in the dictionary:
Legitimate: to conform to the law or to rules.
Once again, Capricorns conform, as their ruling planet is Saturn, the Lord of limitations and restrictions, is not a free spirited planet.
Therefore, I remain adamant that I have no issues or problems with authority.
2
Whenever the subjects of “obedience” and “disobedience” appear, Yours Truly recalls the various adventures in the Garden of Delights. We will attempt to find similarities between Yours Truly's view of authority and the respective responses of Adam and Eve to authority, actual and perceived. By seeking examples outside of ourselves, we hope to be less biased than we might otherwise be than when our person [“I am the least interesting person I know.”] is the topic of discussion.
All humanity has the ability to reason, yet not all reasoning is mature, perhaps the vast majority of reasoning is immature. We cannot expect immature beings to voluntarily submit to authority, in the absence of mature reasoning, they must be forced; the only two categories that must be consistently forced to comply are children, due to their limited life experiences, and prisoners.
We now turn to the woman who knew of the prohibition of eating of the tree from the man. She responds to the serpent’s inquiry that she must not eat of the fruit, nor can she touch it. The reader knows that the Lord God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree, but the reader cannot know if Adam told Eve not to touch it, or if Eve’s response to the serpent was of her own creation. Almost immediately from our initial inquiry, we are encountering a difficulty in the complete understanding of the story.
Eve has no first hand knowledge of the prohibition, she only knows what Adam has told her and this information is not shared with the reader. There is no reason to suggest that the Lord God did not have authority in the garden, hence, he can issue directives concerning appropriate behavior in the garden by his will alone. We recognize the Lord God’s authority as valid. However, for an authority to be valid, it must be known; an unknown authority is the same as no authority and is the same as the absence of authority.
For the benefit of Apprentice Denver:
All humanity has the ability to reason, yet not all reasoning is mature, perhaps the vast majority of reasoning is immature. We cannot expect immature beings to voluntarily submit to authority, in the absence of mature reasoning, they must be forced; the only two categories that must be consistently forced to comply are children, due to their limited life experiences, and prisoners.
We now turn to the woman who knew of the prohibition of eating of the tree from the man. She responds to the serpent’s inquiry that she must not eat of the fruit, nor can she touch it. The reader knows that the Lord God commanded Adam to not eat of the tree, but the reader cannot know if Adam told Eve not to touch it, or if Eve’s response to the serpent was of her own creation. Almost immediately from our initial inquiry, we are encountering a difficulty in the complete understanding of the story.
Eve has no first hand knowledge of the prohibition, she only knows what Adam has told her and this information is not shared with the reader. There is no reason to suggest that the Lord God did not have authority in the garden, hence, he can issue directives concerning appropriate behavior in the garden by his will alone. We recognize the Lord God’s authority as valid. However, for an authority to be valid, it must be known; an unknown authority is the same as no authority and is the same as the absence of authority.
For the benefit of Apprentice Denver:
Unknown Authority=No Authority=Absence of Authority
Since Eve knew of the prohibition from Adam, she knew only what Adam told her and could she not know what, if anything, the Lord God said to Adam before her formation. We may say that Eve does not know of the Lord God, or if there is an entity called the “Lord God” in the garden, for she has neither seen nor heard him. These facts may lead Eve to question her experiences as they are explained by Adam:
“I was formed from a rib? What's a rib? I've never seen a rib? Adam was alone, so I was formed to be his “helpmate”? Yet, all the animals are found in pairs, so after making all the animals in pairs, the Lord God made a man without a woman? And as none of animals are made from ribs, is it possible that Adam is mistaken about my origin or my purpose or both?”
|
When the serpent asks “Has not God said ye shall eat of the fruit of the garden?”, Eve must have realized that she cannot answer that particular question, as she does not know what the Lord God has said or not said. Eve cannot know if the Lord God exists outside of Adam’s story. Due to Eve's ignorance regarding the supposed directive of the Lord God, she cannot have a valid opinion on this subject. We agree with the unknown commentator: the serpent is subtle.
The serpent’s question demands a response for a fact which Eve cannot possess. We suggest that Eve has reason, but not a mature type of reasoning that is the result of long and painful experiences. Hence, Eve merely repeats what she was told, with a possible embellishment. The serpent makes a statement: “Ye shall not surely die.”, and as “ye” is the plural, the serpent is explicitly declaring that neither Adam nor Eve will die from eating of the tree. The veracity of this statement will be confirmed later [“Behold, the man is become as one of us.”]
Since Eve has the oral tradition of the prohibition from Adam, she can reason and conclude that Adam’s prohibition is not based on any objective fact, but is found only in Adam’s perceived authority or in Adam’s appeal to the authority of the Lord God. We can say that Adam’s presumed authority is due entirely to his formation occurring prior to Eve’ formation, that is, he is older and more venerable than Eve.
Eve can choose to submit to Adam’s authority or she can reject Adam’s authority. Alternatively, she can submit or reject the appeal to the authority of the Lord God. From the narrative in the Garden of Delights, it seems that voluntary consent is needed for the recognition of authority; without this voluntary consent, and in the absence of compelling force, there is no submission and, hence, no authority.
We must state that the fruit of the tree was the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, whatever Eve thought, reasoned, and did prior to eating the fruit was not neither good nor evil, and this pertinent fact applies to Adam also. As good and evil cannot be a motivating or contributing factor, we can only conclude that the behavior of the woman and the man was due entirely to their attempt to apply reason to what can only be described as a bizarre situation: a serpent with legs questioning a woman about the merits of a prohibition and the possible implications of eating a fruit.
The serpent’s question demands a response for a fact which Eve cannot possess. We suggest that Eve has reason, but not a mature type of reasoning that is the result of long and painful experiences. Hence, Eve merely repeats what she was told, with a possible embellishment. The serpent makes a statement: “Ye shall not surely die.”, and as “ye” is the plural, the serpent is explicitly declaring that neither Adam nor Eve will die from eating of the tree. The veracity of this statement will be confirmed later [“Behold, the man is become as one of us.”]
Since Eve has the oral tradition of the prohibition from Adam, she can reason and conclude that Adam’s prohibition is not based on any objective fact, but is found only in Adam’s perceived authority or in Adam’s appeal to the authority of the Lord God. We can say that Adam’s presumed authority is due entirely to his formation occurring prior to Eve’ formation, that is, he is older and more venerable than Eve.
Eve can choose to submit to Adam’s authority or she can reject Adam’s authority. Alternatively, she can submit or reject the appeal to the authority of the Lord God. From the narrative in the Garden of Delights, it seems that voluntary consent is needed for the recognition of authority; without this voluntary consent, and in the absence of compelling force, there is no submission and, hence, no authority.
We must state that the fruit of the tree was the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, whatever Eve thought, reasoned, and did prior to eating the fruit was not neither good nor evil, and this pertinent fact applies to Adam also. As good and evil cannot be a motivating or contributing factor, we can only conclude that the behavior of the woman and the man was due entirely to their attempt to apply reason to what can only be described as a bizarre situation: a serpent with legs questioning a woman about the merits of a prohibition and the possible implications of eating a fruit.
3
Yet, reason alone cannot guide us regarding our behavior, as a hierarchy of values is needed to guide our actions, to discern the important from the urgent. We conclude that Eve had a goal: to be as god and this goal is accomplished by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The serpent’s encounter Eve was an accident or “an incidence that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally”. Additionally, we can say that “the lack of incentive to guard against risk where” the Lord God “is protected from the consequences” of either Adam or Eve eating of the tree is the definition of a “moral hazard”.
Because of the serpent's question, Eve may have reasoned that Adam’ opinion concerning the fruit was in error. Since we cannot assign deception to Adam’s motivation (as deception may be good or bad, depending on the intent), we can only conclude that Eve reasoned that Adam’s opinion regarding the tree may be in error. Of course, Eve would not be able to consider the possibility that the serpent was deceitful, as this possibility would imply that she was aware of good and evil. After eating the fruit, Eve would know that the serpent was not deceitful, as Eve’s “eyes were opened”. Eve’s subsequent protestations that the serpent beguiled her are an attempt at misdirection that fools neither the Lord God nor the careful reader.
After Eve ate of the fruit and did not die, Adam may have reasoned that the prohibition was directed at him alone, and there was the possibility that he, but not Eve, would die after eating of the fruit. Of course, “death” is a condition that Adam was ignorant of, as there was no death or corruption in the idyllic garden. Only after eating of the fruit could Adam possibly be aware of the full meaning of “death” or no longer living. Additionally, to prohibit Adam from eating, but not the woman, seems arbitrary. Since we can reach this conclusion that the prohibition was arbitrary, it was likely that Adam could not comprehend or validate the reason he would be prohibited from eating, but Eve would be allowed to eat.
From the available evidence, we must conclude that Adam and Eve were disobedient, but we must offer clarifications regarding these two distinct types of disobedience. From the text, the reader knows that Adam experienced the presence of the Lord God, so Adam knew the prohibition, therefore, Adam was disobedient to the direct authority of the Lord God.
Eve was also disobedient, but not to the unseen and unknown authority of the Lord God. Eve was disobedient to the supposed authority of Adam. We state “supposed authority of Adam”, because there no explicit statement is found in the text that Adam has authority over the woman. Therefore, properly speaking, Eve was not disobedient to Adam's nonexistence authority, but disobedient to Adam’s story relating what the Lord God commanded and, of course, a second hand story could either be true or be false.
If there were an explicit statement in the text declaring that Adam had authority over Eve, then this authority cannot be absolute, at all times, in all places, in all circumstances, without exception.
It seems that Eve was obedient, not to an external authority, but to her own reasoned conclusions and these conclusions were predicated on facts that are available to all human beings, not the supposed privilege of a select individual. If Eve's reasoning was immature, then experience would correct her conclusions.
Eve, it seems, held little or no regard for an extraordinary story that could not be substantiated.
We can state that any claims to authority are to be met with reasonable skepticism. This is a valid course, whether in the Garden of Delights or in the modern era that seems to overflow with frauds and charlatans. If there is a valid reason for authority, then we duly accept this authority. Such examples include, but are not limited to, law enforcement personnel, medical doctors, teachers, and drill sergeants; we can say that these occupations have a recognizable end or a purpose. Yours Truly does not recognize soliciting donations as a valid purpose.
We have experienced many individuals who have consistently expressed wrongly considered opinions and maintained poorly reasoned conclusions, so we can not trust their supposed authority upon any topic or any important matter without valid reasons to do so. Most of these individuals have no goal other than seeking obedience. Unfortunately, Yours Truly cannot succumb.
The Gentle Reader may conclude that the purpose of a true teacher is incompatible with thoughtless obedience, hence, we seek out those who will engage us in conversation and challenging discussions and we regard those exceptional and exhilarating moments as notre raison d’etre.
The claim of being parents may be legal, but nature and reason are neither capricious nor subject to constant revision, as are statutory laws. Hence, we neither honor all claims of legal fiat nor do we succumb to the tactics of fear and guilt. Once again, we do not submit to an authority based entirely on certain claims when reason is absent or held in contempt. We can clearly state that by withdrawing our consent, their supposed authority is nothing more than the application of fear; fear of the past, the present, and the future. Otherwise said, falsehoods are rejected.
We neither accept the claims that certain people are authorities or spokesmen for God nor do we take this supposed authority for anything more than what it is: unsubstantiated. If certain individuals detrimentally intervene in our life, then they do so, not as vicars of God, but as private citizens who believe that they are more special than reality would suggest. We note the “moral hazard” of those who can fuck people over, yet, there is no consequence for their deplorable actions.
Should people accept certain claims from frauds and charlatans, then we do not object, provided their adherence and submissiveness to these claims do not break our legs or pick our pockets or attempt to inflict mental harm.
The highest calling, or the noblest ability, of man is not mindless obedience to any claimed authority, but the application of reason. Therefore, historically speaking, we have neither surrounded ourselves with people who lack skepticism nor those who are quick to believe any unsubstantiated story, whether written or oral.
Finally, we are grateful to Apprentice Denver who first brought this charge of my supposed issues with authority. Of course, Apprentice Denver was not completely correct in his opinion, nor was Yours Truly completely correct with the supposed acceptance of authority. The irony that two Libra risings would reach contradictory opinions regarding the same phenomenon will not be lost on the Gentle Astrologer.
Authority, Gentle Researcher, is not an absolute, it must both be qualified and be reasonable to be accepted by a mature mind.
The serpent’s encounter Eve was an accident or “an incidence that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally”. Additionally, we can say that “the lack of incentive to guard against risk where” the Lord God “is protected from the consequences” of either Adam or Eve eating of the tree is the definition of a “moral hazard”.
Because of the serpent's question, Eve may have reasoned that Adam’ opinion concerning the fruit was in error. Since we cannot assign deception to Adam’s motivation (as deception may be good or bad, depending on the intent), we can only conclude that Eve reasoned that Adam’s opinion regarding the tree may be in error. Of course, Eve would not be able to consider the possibility that the serpent was deceitful, as this possibility would imply that she was aware of good and evil. After eating the fruit, Eve would know that the serpent was not deceitful, as Eve’s “eyes were opened”. Eve’s subsequent protestations that the serpent beguiled her are an attempt at misdirection that fools neither the Lord God nor the careful reader.
After Eve ate of the fruit and did not die, Adam may have reasoned that the prohibition was directed at him alone, and there was the possibility that he, but not Eve, would die after eating of the fruit. Of course, “death” is a condition that Adam was ignorant of, as there was no death or corruption in the idyllic garden. Only after eating of the fruit could Adam possibly be aware of the full meaning of “death” or no longer living. Additionally, to prohibit Adam from eating, but not the woman, seems arbitrary. Since we can reach this conclusion that the prohibition was arbitrary, it was likely that Adam could not comprehend or validate the reason he would be prohibited from eating, but Eve would be allowed to eat.
From the available evidence, we must conclude that Adam and Eve were disobedient, but we must offer clarifications regarding these two distinct types of disobedience. From the text, the reader knows that Adam experienced the presence of the Lord God, so Adam knew the prohibition, therefore, Adam was disobedient to the direct authority of the Lord God.
Eve was also disobedient, but not to the unseen and unknown authority of the Lord God. Eve was disobedient to the supposed authority of Adam. We state “supposed authority of Adam”, because there no explicit statement is found in the text that Adam has authority over the woman. Therefore, properly speaking, Eve was not disobedient to Adam's nonexistence authority, but disobedient to Adam’s story relating what the Lord God commanded and, of course, a second hand story could either be true or be false.
If there were an explicit statement in the text declaring that Adam had authority over Eve, then this authority cannot be absolute, at all times, in all places, in all circumstances, without exception.
It seems that Eve was obedient, not to an external authority, but to her own reasoned conclusions and these conclusions were predicated on facts that are available to all human beings, not the supposed privilege of a select individual. If Eve's reasoning was immature, then experience would correct her conclusions.
Eve, it seems, held little or no regard for an extraordinary story that could not be substantiated.
We can state that any claims to authority are to be met with reasonable skepticism. This is a valid course, whether in the Garden of Delights or in the modern era that seems to overflow with frauds and charlatans. If there is a valid reason for authority, then we duly accept this authority. Such examples include, but are not limited to, law enforcement personnel, medical doctors, teachers, and drill sergeants; we can say that these occupations have a recognizable end or a purpose. Yours Truly does not recognize soliciting donations as a valid purpose.
We have experienced many individuals who have consistently expressed wrongly considered opinions and maintained poorly reasoned conclusions, so we can not trust their supposed authority upon any topic or any important matter without valid reasons to do so. Most of these individuals have no goal other than seeking obedience. Unfortunately, Yours Truly cannot succumb.
The Gentle Reader may conclude that the purpose of a true teacher is incompatible with thoughtless obedience, hence, we seek out those who will engage us in conversation and challenging discussions and we regard those exceptional and exhilarating moments as notre raison d’etre.
The claim of being parents may be legal, but nature and reason are neither capricious nor subject to constant revision, as are statutory laws. Hence, we neither honor all claims of legal fiat nor do we succumb to the tactics of fear and guilt. Once again, we do not submit to an authority based entirely on certain claims when reason is absent or held in contempt. We can clearly state that by withdrawing our consent, their supposed authority is nothing more than the application of fear; fear of the past, the present, and the future. Otherwise said, falsehoods are rejected.
We neither accept the claims that certain people are authorities or spokesmen for God nor do we take this supposed authority for anything more than what it is: unsubstantiated. If certain individuals detrimentally intervene in our life, then they do so, not as vicars of God, but as private citizens who believe that they are more special than reality would suggest. We note the “moral hazard” of those who can fuck people over, yet, there is no consequence for their deplorable actions.
Should people accept certain claims from frauds and charlatans, then we do not object, provided their adherence and submissiveness to these claims do not break our legs or pick our pockets or attempt to inflict mental harm.
The highest calling, or the noblest ability, of man is not mindless obedience to any claimed authority, but the application of reason. Therefore, historically speaking, we have neither surrounded ourselves with people who lack skepticism nor those who are quick to believe any unsubstantiated story, whether written or oral.
Finally, we are grateful to Apprentice Denver who first brought this charge of my supposed issues with authority. Of course, Apprentice Denver was not completely correct in his opinion, nor was Yours Truly completely correct with the supposed acceptance of authority. The irony that two Libra risings would reach contradictory opinions regarding the same phenomenon will not be lost on the Gentle Astrologer.
Authority, Gentle Researcher, is not an absolute, it must both be qualified and be reasonable to be accepted by a mature mind.