STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery

[Tenet Nosce]

Some additional possibly unconnected information:

http://www.thenileandegypt.com/deities.html

Ra was also closely connected to the Pharaoh, Egypt's king. While the king ruled earth, Ra was the master of the universe so they were of the same nature and were in effect a mirror image of each other. Interestingly, up until the 2nd Dynasty [ca. 2900 - 2700 BCE], there is an absence of references on Ra, but his development began in the late 2nd Dynasty and matured through the 5th Dynasty [ca. 2500 - 2350 BCE]. Ra became more and more associated with the king, who was both human and a god at once, embodied in the falcon named Horus and by the 4th Dynasty, referred to as the son of Ra. Hence, a relationship also developed between Horus and Ra as they were merged in the symbol of a winged sun disk, an icon that remained constant in Temples and religious monuments through the end of Egyptian history.

Ra's early worship really became very significant during the 5th Dynasty, when kings not only erected pyramids aligned to the rising and setting sun, but also built solar temples in honor of Ra. This sort of temple must have been a difficult conception for the Egyptians, because Ra never had a sanctuary with a cult statue. Instead, his image was the sun itself, so the sun temples were centered upon an Obelisk over which the sun rose, and before the obelisk would be an alter for his worship. However, the most significant early solar temple was probably erected at Heliopolis, where a pillar resembling an obelisk made up part of the hieroglyphs for the city's name, Iwn. Unfortunately, that structure is now completely destroyed.

These 5th Dynasty rulers were also responsible for the first Pyramid Texts during the Old Kingdom, a collection of spells describing the journey of the dead pharaoh through the underworld. These texts were some of the first decorations inscribed in Pyramids, and are an important source of information on the sun god.

---

Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will.

What if said protection was originally intended by the self toward the other, rather than the reverse? For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism.

Off-the-cuff examples:

Some off-the-cuff responses:

--An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain.

The inventor's free will is protected, the will of the entity intending infringement is stopped.

Why would said entity feel that it is an infringement to have their work duplicated by others? And why would said entity feel they have an exclusive right to gain from such a contribution?

--Entity A wishes to live. Entity B wishes that Entity A not live. A law, or codified set of rules on acceptable and non-acceptable actions, is created to protect Entity A against murder, making it a crime to kill Entity A.

Entity A's free will is protected, the will of the would-be murderer is limited.

Doesn't Entity A continue to live despite what actions Entity B may take toward their body?

It would seem however that this protection of one entity, or many entities - be it protection of their physical vehicles, their activities, the fruits of their labor, i.e., protection of some form of their free will - necessarily involves what Ra called "an equal distortion towards imprisonment", because to protect one entity is to put a limit on the free will of another.

I wonder: If there were no veil, would the whole notion of "protecting" the self from other-self make any sense?

I also wonder: Even if we allow for the defense of one's own body or intentions against the actions of another- by what principle does it make sense to assign the responsibility for self-protection to a third party?

I also wonder: By what standard do we discern whose intention takes precedence, with respect to the form and purpose of the law? Could we possibly dissociate the concept of "law" from "protection"? Is that desirable? If so, how might we accomplish this?

They naturally act in accord with the first distortion, honoring it fully because there is no possibility to do otherwise.

I also imagine such accordance to be the case.

With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement.

I wonder if- in a very literal sense- the law is a physical manifestation of the veil. I don't seem to be able to identify a legal concept which is not predicated upon the separation of self and other.