Category mistake made by authority...

There's a very subtle problem I notice this morning with the idea of "authority".

Traditionally those in authority are superior to those they rule - that is the reason that they rule, and the reason their subjects are ruled.

However in todays democractic equality what gives those the authority to rule? Today it is a career decision to become a manager or a politician and only those who are successful either in getting promoted or getting elected will rise to positions of authority. Those who are ruled do so by contract which they agree to - however they don't have a lot of choice either - you can't opt out of the democracy and you can't opt out of employment ... i.e. you have to accept someone as your leader and you have to accept someone as your boss!

What seemed odd to me however is that you have a career politician who makes his living doing politics passing laws to interfer with those for example who make a living through theft. (very Durkheim this...)

The career politician is likely to be well educated from a good background, likely to be quite intelligent, hard working, and respectful of the establishment. The criminal on the otherhand is likely to have been frustrated by his opportunities in life and exercised his abilities contrary to the law and the establishment. Yet there is no difference between them. They are both making a personal living the best they can!

But of course there is an enormous difference between them if you view it traditionally. The politician is not a "career politician" but I dutiful person who does what he does on behalf of his constituents (or subjects in the case of Kings & Queen) ... what he wants does not enter his public life. On the contrary the criminal has no sense of duty to the society as a whole or his fellow men in general. The thief may make exception for family and friends but this type of partiality is simply self-serving. There is no sense of the greater duty which puts others first and oneself second.

What drives a lot of UK debate at the moment is this issue of "duty" - altho it hasn't been identified as such. People in the commons and lords abusing their powers for personal gain. The financial sector of course is being criticised on moral grounds but uses the escape clause that it owes nothing to no-one - and we trust them with our money!

I'd like to roll into this mix the issue which I'm heading toward recently of the Rise of Atheism. I heard an episode of "The Moral Maze" on Radio 4 a few weeks ago in which they were discussing essentially the foundations of morality in a "post-religious" society. Despite the quality of the panel I was actually quite shocked at the ignorance of the discussion and especially how it was assumed that Atheism was the correct platform. And again on Question Time anyone who says that God does not exist gets a round of applause.

This is the root of the issue that I discuss here: how can any human justify authority over another if they do not in some way represent a "higher" order - and that "higher" needs be defined outside of humanity (again self-reference argument). Yet the atheists see no problem is saying that Man is all there is and Man is the source of all that is Man. Thus Man can do whatever Man decides by this equation and so people in authority can do whatever they can get away with. This is what is happening, this is what the same atheists are complaining about in the financial markets and in the common and Lords - atheists are truely ignorant and confused people, but they are slowly numbering the majority as are the people in negative equity! What an ironic unconnected trend :-)

If there is to be any Official society at all it can only be based upon people's understanding that it represents something real and greater than any of its parts. Now it has been shown in this blog that this is actually an "empty" entity, so until people can return to living their lives according to such transcendental entities as Nothing there can be no society and no authority (other than violence and fascism). If I am an anarchist it is in the sense that I believe "it is the People, stupid"... and only the People. The Atheists, by contrast, are Anarchists is an extreme way because they can't accept anything other than "it is Me, stupid".

The category mistake lies in the fact that someone cannot define themselves as in authority - so technically they can't even chose to be in authority - it is always Given and it can only be accepted with Duty. The authority that one accepts as part of their job is conferred to them by another authority... and so on until we ask where did the original authority arise? It is historical and it evolved. So we have the force of tradition which governs authorities from table manners, to English grammar, to living in houses, to the Queen. But, critically, we don't live in the Past and Life is lived in the Present and people are not automata executing instructions from the Past (well some are). Our very Life in the Present requires personal Judgement informed by the historical rules - like Mozart perfecting the musical forms of his time, and not writing house music. In this we adopt historical authority not as superior people, but as equal people who are performing an historical goal with "Duty". That is the critical word that comes with authority - sine qua non. What God represents and what the Atheists are hungry to ignore is that everything we have is Given by outside forces. Atheists would like to claim all achievements and all works for Man (which means ultimately themselves). This is simply factually wrong - each of us is 100% constructed and we own and have achieved nothing by ourselves: why? because ourselves is 100% constructed from things other than us. Where people claim authority for themselves there is no authority. Where people believe in society for themselves there is no society.