ABSTRACT
Such is my argument for the primary LAH and the derivative model LCATH2, the ontological hypothesis o f ‘law’as artistically valuable action type, which I have presented as the best available explanation for ‘law’ and thus its true nature. As I said in my introduction to this work, that it is the ‘best’ or at least a ‘plausible’ explanation is for the reader to decide, not for me to prove, such a ‘proof being unavailable, given the SRH. But what are the implications of preferring this ontology of ‘law’ as LAW? They are to say the least, quite dramatic, yet the full significance of the artistic hypothesis must await further descriptive inquiry into the morphology and variation of the component elements of LAW - its elemental structure, value, architecture, performance practice and techniques, traditions and styles, modes of communication, and ethnic and cultural diversity. Even in the absence of such a comprehensive, multi cultural, and non-ethnocentric morphological analysis of LAW, (a study best described as The Art o f Law) important general implications o f the new ontology are discernible. In my judgement, the following are amongst the most significant.
