Hermetic jargon and the drift of understanding

I have read, with admiration, Tennekes letter on Hermetic Jargon, and it follows quite closely with some observations I had made, though states it far better than my own poor power to add or detract. It did, however, bring to this poor idiot's mind some febrile maunderings that wandered through unlit halls for a few moments, bouncing off dusty neural pathways, then tumbling to my feet, bruised and dusty from their long journey.

Tennekes, with his comparison of hermetic jargon to the tower of Babel, may have struck upon something curious, a meta-state of communication. As research grows more specialized, it also grows more separate. The mental act of 'reaching toward creation', or toward God,(to use the biblical term) requires that specialization, due to the sheer amount of knowledge that is required to understand the initial states of things from the present state. However, human nature throws up walls to communication, to protect their secrets, their research, and their understanding from others, to some extent, as well as to conceptualize and compartmentalize the ideas in ways that can be understood by others of the field. Specializations within the field do much the same, protecting their demesne with lines of language. Eventually the whole fractures under its own weight.

This was an interesting concept to me, and also lead into my fascination with history, language, and the nature of law. Contracts are designed in such a way that the terms of the contract are set 'in stone' without substantial alteration and renegotiation of the contract. The terms of the contract are written in such manner that all parties involved understand the nature of the terms, or are explained in ancillary documents that hold the common, or 'lay' explanation of the contract itself. In the case of the constitution, these would be the Federalist Papers.

Law, like science, has its own disciplines, its own trenched earthworks to try to keep the lay person at bay, its own language, its own concepts which, whilst easily understood, seem arcane to the layperson. The terms of replevin, fee-simple obligations, tortfeasance, lessors, and such seem like another world entirely. But each has concepts irrevocably imbued within them, and concepts that can usually be readily defined.

One of the curious studies my idiotic mind has wandered into is the drift of language within the legal profession itself. It's curious to me how the terms have evolved across the centuries, from the system under the Magna Carta and William and Mary of Orange, to the revolution, to today. We have evolved what is literally a monopoly over the law, with wandering priests (attorneys) trying to tell us what the law is, with unique terms and language to protect the higher orders, with its own internal hidden knowledge and a high fee for entry.

Was this always the way? I cannot say that it was. The founders intended that any person be able to both practice law, and to speak it, to interpret it, as it was written. The terms of the contract (for such the Constitution was, a contract between the people binding the states to a new federal government, setting down limits for that government, and establishing the powers thereof, and limits of the states under the government, the consideration involved being the preservation of rights preexisting the Constitution, in exchange for the powers to preserve those rights) were set down at the time in stone, with specific legal meanings, corresponding to the common knowledge of the meaning at the time, explained by those Federalist Papers and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Why does this tie in with Hermetic Jargon? What happens when one controls the learning of the terms at the time, and maintains a monopoly over not just the law, but the practice and interpretation of law? Can one not, at that moment, cause a drift in definition, deliberate or accidental according to the whims and biases of the interpreter, far, far away from the original intent, as well as the original definition?

The purpose of the Constitution was to set down a single rule of law for all to follow, no matter their situation, their placement in life, their classification or circumstances. The term attainder at the time referred to any law, or act, or ruling or regulation that removed specific properties, including the property of life... the property of liberty, the property of property itself, and the property interest within the ability to defend all of those. From those four touchstones all rights arise.

Attainder was the process by which these were stripped away, by judge or by legislative fiat. Those property rights were sacrosanct, to be only taken where necessity and the public good demanded it, and then only with fair, just compensation at current market value of the property if the Government had not been involved at all. The original attainder took something deceptive.. the right to have property at all, and this was extended to the children under the Corruption of Blood. Without the right to have property, the property in life and liberty no longer existed. The person ceased to be, and was considered blackened, tainted, or stained under the law, and outside of its protection.

The founders intended to end this, forever. Under the laws of England, if the powers had remained, their own lives would be forfeit for attacking the Sovereign. Their properties could be seized, their livestock and chattel seized, or destroyed, and their homes and families disposed of as the crown saw fit.

They proposed a system of just and equal laws, laws which affected everyone equally, without regard for color, for race, or any of the myriad other considerations which affect our law today... but the ideal drifted. The understanding changed, and the interpretation.

Read through the Federalist papers. This idiot did, and it took a great deal of time to begin to understand them. The concepts are simple, deceptively simple.

One law for all, all under the law, all bound equally thereby, all bound not to remove the rights of their neighbors, bound not to cause them harm. For the purpose of those rights, and the preservation thereof, they bound themselves, their neighbors, the people, their friends, and the government to the same iron rule. No targeted law, no legislation designed to harm or benefit any specific class, and forever made sacrosanct those rights.

Crime was about harm. If harm was done, the neighbor had the right to defend against it by the appropriate force. If there were no recourse, and life were in danger, or believed to be, there could be no time to recourse to the law, and so a state of war existed. Once the state of war was ended, and there was time and place for recourse, that state of war ended.

It did not end, however, if the only available means for recourse was through the body of the one making the harm, for there could be no recourse if he were the means of appeal. No man can sit in judgment in his own case, and not be biased toward his own causes.

It leaves this idiot to ask... what recourse may we have against a monopoly on the Law itself, and the means to recourse? What is our recourse when the most interested parties control the gateway to the recourse? How does one obtain recourse when one does not know whom to address it against, or to?

Has hermetic jargon sealed away the Rule of Law from the hands of those that created it?
This idiot... wonders.