{"id":1283,"date":"2018-06-03T17:08:49","date_gmt":"2018-06-03T17:08:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1283"},"modified":"2018-06-04T06:23:00","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T06:23:00","slug":"%e2%91%a0burn-the-flag-%e2%91%a1disobey-the-law-%e2%91%a2criticize-your-group","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/morality\/%e2%91%a0burn-the-flag-%e2%91%a1disobey-the-law-%e2%91%a2criticize-your-group","title":{"rendered":"Burn the Flag. Disobey the Law. Criticize Your Group."},"content":{"rendered":"

Dear reader, please bear with me on this journey<\/h3>\n

Or don\u2019t.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But if you do, then it may be apparent to you that anything about these three is \u2018relative\u2019. And even that is relative.<\/p>\n

In reverse: not giving into them can be very profoundly a symbolic<\/em> action. For instance, the flag is just a piece of cloth\u2026 materially seen. But it\u2019s not about the cloth. It\u2019s about the symbolic meaning. So, to understand what it\u2019s about, some insight into symbolism is handy [see \u2018Symbolism lost. Symbolism regained.<\/a>\u2019]. One can say: the flag stands for the country. That\u2019s not a symbol but an analogy. If the flag stands only<\/em> for the country, than what is the country standing for? A stand-for starts getting symbolic in a social \u2013 and moral \u2013 way when it starts deeply touching<\/em> people, when it is really deeply, empathically meaningful<\/em> to them.<\/p>\n

And that is a sacred thing, always<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(which means: you should value it; not: you must follow suit.)<\/p>\n

So, burning or not burning the flag?<\/p>\n

Without<\/em> the symbolism, it\u2019s cloth: go ahead. With<\/em> the symbolism, it\u2019s nice to go into that. Symbolic-action doesn\u2019t come for free. It takes effort and openness, daring, guts.<\/p>\n

And there lies the big distinction.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And it\u2019s another one then: \u2018burn\u2019 versus \u2018not burn\u2019. The latter distinction is just very relative, without of course relativizing the symbolism away. Quite the contrary. Definitely<\/em> the contrary!<\/p>\n

Starkly put: someone who is against flag-burning without<\/em> giving importance to any of its symbolism is an imposter, a manipulator or \u2013 pardon me \u2013 a fool.<\/p>\n

Disobeying the law<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

is of the same nature. The \u2018law\u2019 is \u2013 apart from symbolism \u2013 just a convention. Individual laws are choices. \u2018The law\u2019 may have power-as-symbol, thus providing a means to keep citizens in check. This is an element in the lawful equation. If in some concrete case, another choice is \u2013 ALL<\/em> elements considered \u2013 clearly \u2018the better one\u2019, then it is in the deeper spirit of the law itself the better choice indeed. Except for its symbolism.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s a sacred thing, always.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However, a law-abider who doesn\u2019t \u2018symbolize\u2019 it properly is not on the right track, even hardly on any track. We\u2019ll come to that.<\/p>\n

Criticize your group.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Purely rational critique is\u2026 always welcome? I would say \u2018yes\u2019 if the intent is to better the group, oneself (getting feedback on one\u2019s criticism) and the whole world. But the group can also deeply \u2013 symbolically \u2013 be meaningful to its members.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s a sacred thing.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Always!<\/p>\n

You may have noticed a progression<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

in \u2460 \u2461 \u2462 (see image). The progression is one of getting nearer to people. This may make it less clear to see the symbolism, at the same time getting closer to what the symbolism is eventually about: people<\/em>. Shortly put: no people, no symbolism. And even closer: no depth-in-people, no symbolism.<\/p>\n

Depth, openness, respect, freedom, trustworthiness<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

May sound familiar: see ‘Five Aurelian Values’<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018Hardly any track\u2019<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Remember from above?<\/p>\n

Without the symbolic take, people may still \u2018value\u2019 the three do\u2019s (don\u2019ts) from the title. Why?<\/p>\n

No symbolism, no meaningfulness. What keeps floating at the surface may be the opposite: a gut-less striving for \u2018control\u2019 (see \u2018Control\u2019 Is Not the Answer<\/a>), an utter anxiety of being out of control \u2013 in oneself or in others. This is a very<\/em> different motivation for keeping to the \u2018sacred three\u2019, being in other words: \u2460 sacredness itself (that\u2019s why it\u2019s so close), \u2461 authority and \u2462 loyalty.<\/p>\n

You may now recognize in them three senses of morality apart from purely being \u2018empathy\u2019 (see ‘Landscape of Empathy<\/a>‘).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, what I have been doing in this text is showing that \u2460 \u2461 and \u2462 are \u2013 through their symbolism \u2013 also acts of empathy. Did you notice?<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where it all coincides.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dear reader, please bear with me on this journey Or don\u2019t. But if you do, then it may be apparent to you that anything about these three is \u2018relative\u2019. And even that is relative. In reverse: not giving into them can be very profoundly a symbolic action. For instance, the flag is just a piece Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1284,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/156.jpg?fit=960%2C580&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-kH","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1283"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1295,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1283\/revisions\/1295"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}