“The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him. What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows? Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink.”
The door opened and the curtains were drawn back as the king awoke to the admonition of a very concerned mother. Choosing her words cunningly, she spoke to him with regard to his standing in the eyes of the nation he led. Actions unbecoming a king would undermine his authority. If a king could not rule his own nature, how could he rule a kingdom positioned for world dominion? Jewish Rabbis recount a tale regarding an event with this king. On the day of his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter, the king assembled musicians from far and wide. As the festivities unfolded, a day of celebration progressed into a night of excessive drinking and revelry. By the forth hour of the following day (10am) the king was found passed out with the keys to the Temple under his pillow. It was then his mother went looking for him and the words at the beginning of this post were the start of what she had to say. Sometime later when King Solomon would narrate this proverb, it was said that scribes used a pseudonym to protect his character of wisdom.
While resolve declines in some quarters, there is a movement of those who desire to advance beyond the vices and shortcomings. Not everyone is born into greatness but everyone can position themselves for it. Though our feet are on the earth, our spirit is not subject to it. The confines of the natural can take precedence to the supernatural. There is a limitation placed by some on whatever is not quantifiable or qualifiable by scientific measures. I believe in systems of reason and logic, I believe in the sciences. But I also acknowledge that humanity is a work in progress and we do not know 100% of what there is to know about anything. Thus we should be growing and like King Solomon sometimes we need a voice of reason in our life to facilitate that growth.
Many choose to remain within the boundaries of their predisposition and knowledge base thus they never grow. These boundaries must be expanded and the territory must be extended otherwise progression becomes impossible. Ordinary sliced bread remained virtually unknown to the world for 15 years after the inventor first came up with how to do it. Otto Rohwedder limited his energies on the processes of mass produced sliced bread. It was Wonder Bread that took the concept to the next level through mass marketing the concept, thus generating the infrastructure for mass production.
Is there anything in your life that could undermine your position? Is there anything that stands in the way of your progression?
Whatever you wish to achieve in the future must be actively worked toward in the present. I was told that the farmers of the distant past set their eyes to a fixed object as they plowed their field. This would keep them plowing in a straight course. Sometimes we get off course by choices that evolve into things unplanned. When it happens, we need someone or something that can wake us and realign us with our purpose.
Copyright © 2013 J.M. Cortés
A few months ago in my post misINTERPRETation I refered to differing translation methods and how one may aim for literal translation while another seeks to identify the ‘intended’ message. Futhermore when addressing text translation within differing languages there are methods known as functional equivalency and literal equivalency. The functional equivalency draws out of the text a meaning and translates the essence of what was communicated. The literal equivalency inserts the text into the receptor language with, as much as possible, the intent of literal presentation.
These concepts are understood in light of how some approach the Constitution of the United States. There are those who feel the Constitution is a ‘living’ document subject to a contemporary interpretation of the people in which it governs. They declare the original fathers of the Constitution always intended for it to have ‘flexibility’ for timely application. This idea is driven by the notion an evolving people experience things such as cultural and social shifts therefore the Constitution should accommodate that shifting.
Countering this idea regarding the Constitution is Textualism which emphasizes the need for it to be accepted and applied through its original identity. An approach of Originalism, with even its divergent paths but common destination, leads the people to governance found in, defined by, and applied through the original text.
This Pandora’s Box of thought and discussion is akin to what fills my mind every time I hear someone argue against something with “Well that’s your interpretation”. To some that sounds like a great rebuttal but I have never seen its value. Facts and proof by empirical data aside some choose to refute a thing using a form of reasoning that does not add up. Disagree if you want, but do not veil your disagreement with logical fallacy.
With regard to ‘moral relativism’, I recently read an insightful critique by scholar Jason Dulle called Responding to the “change and diversity” argument against moral objectivism. I want to share it with you and with Mr. Dulle’s permission, I have included a link to it. I also encourage you to visit his blog Theo-Sophical Ruminations.
Copyright © 2012 J.M. Cortés