Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Flatbush

Pages: [1]

[...] They are often convinced that the celebrity is sending them cryptic messages intended only for them to understand. Erotomanic delusions last an average of 10 years.

I can just imagine what hell the chased person must have gone through during those 10 years!

Horrible indeed! The core of the syndrome is that the affected person has a delusional belief that another person, usually of higher social status, is secretly in love with them. The sufferer may also believe that the subject of their delusion secretly communicates their love by subtle methods such as body posture, arrangement of household objects and other seemingly innocuous acts (or, if the person is a public figure, through clues in the media). The object of the delusion usually has little or no contact with the delusional person, who often believes that the object initiated the fictional relationship. Erotomanic delusions are typically found as the primary symptom of delusional disorder, or in the context of schizophrenia.

Occasionally the subject of the delusion may not actually exist, although more commonly, the subjects are media figures such as popular singers, actors and politicians. Erotomania has been cited as one cause for stalking or harassment campaigns. The assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley, Jr. was reported to have been driven by an erotomanic delusion that the death of the president would cause actress Jodie Foster to publicly declare her love for Hinckley. Late night comedian David Letterman and retired astronaut Story Musgrave were the targets of delusional Margaret Mary Ray. Other reported celebrity targets of erotomania include Madonna, Steven Spielberg, Zachary Quinto, Britney Spears, Barbara Mandrell, and Linda Ronstadt.

There's a not-very-accurate belief that the delusional disorder (paranoia) is almost always linked with homosexuality. That's not really the case. Take a look at this post:

[...] The paranoid preoccupation with homosexuality has sometimes been explained as reflecting "unconscious homosexual impulses." This locution is misleading, in that it is not usually genital urges that stimulate homophobia; it is loneliness and the wish for a soulmate. Because as children we were comfortable with peers of the same sex before we became comfortable with opposite-sex peers, and because people of the same sex are more like us than people of the opposite sex, when we are withdrawn from everyone, we are attracted to someone of the same sex. Unfortunately, the patient becomes aware of this attraction, misinterprets it as homosexuality, and this sets off the defenses. In other words, at the core of the self-experience of paranoid people is a profound emotional isolation and need for a "consensual validation" from a "chum."

creme caramel, I'm not sure the poster was kinda joking, but I have to tell you this: Nagarjuna is famous among Buddhist thinkers and I think I saw a post drawing a parallel between his way of thinking and Greek philosophers (a tetralemma kind of thing, I believe)

Here it is:

Will you walk, I wouldn't be so divisive when it comes to Western philo and Buddhism. For example,

Nagarjuna was an important Buddhist teacher and philosopher. His tetralemma is famous with its logical propositions:

X (affirmation)
non-X (negation)
X and non-X (both)
neither X nor non-X (neither)

Now, the tetralemma is a figure that features prominently in the classical logic of the Greeks. It states that with reference to any a logical proposition X, there are four possibilities

X (affirmation)
¬ X (negation)
X Λ ¬ X both (eqiv.)
¬ (X ∨ ¬ X) (neither)


Derrida said, "What I understand under the name deconstruction, there is no end, no beginning, and no after." He also said, "Since it takes the singularity of every context into account, Deconstruction is different from one context to another." Now, if deconstruction is different in different fields, then how is it different in different cultures? If there is neither a beginning nor an end of deconstruction, and if deconstruction is different from one context to the next -- then deconstruction must also have taken place in other cultures -- long before Jacques Derrida was ever born! To name just three: China, India and Japan. China's great deconstructive mind belonged to an unconventional, anti-traditional Taoist named Chuang Tzu. In a manner similar to that of Jacques Derrida, he played with words, in order to undermine opposites. Both are aware of the problems that language and signification create, and both use a playful, unconventional style of writing to undermine and subvert conventional meanings -- to create works that blur the boundaries between philosophy and literature.

Chuang Tzu said, "Where there is birth, there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right." Therefore, the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a 'this', but a 'this' which is also a 'that', a 'that' which is also a 'this'. His 'that' has both a right and a wrong in it; his 'this' too has both a right and wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a 'this' and 'that'? Or does he in fact no longer have a 'this' and 'that'? A state in which 'this' and 'that' no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Tao.

And what did he do with the great philosophical notion of a pure origin, and of the binary opposition between Being and Non-Being? He said, "There is a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning to be a beginning. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-not-yet-beginning to be beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not-yet-beginning to be non being. There is a not-yet-beginning-to-be-a-not-yet-beginning to be non being. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing.

In India, that land of snow-capped Himalayas and spicy, softly blowing breezes -- from the very dawn of their religion, thousands of years ago, the Hindus have been logocentric, believing that every form in the world is but expression of a sound -- it's name. In fact, the name for a holy Word is Brahman -- the same as the word for the spiritual essence of the entire universe. And the three major Hindu gods -- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva -- each have other names, and plenty of them. Hinduism is also phallocentric and phallogocentric. Millions of Hindus worship Shiva's phallus -- or lingum -- and it is in fact the commonest object in Benares. In fact, in Benares the lingums outnumber the inhabitants. Lingums are on view everywhere, garlanded with flowers, smeared with butter and drowned in waves of milk, honey, Ganges water and the holy chanting of Ommmmmm. In fact, according to Hindu myth, the holy city of Benares was originally nothing but an erect Shiva phallus! At first it was no larger than a stovepipe, and stood in the midst of a shoreless, humming ocean. Later this phallus spread out, till it was 10 miles across. Then, it kept growing until it was as large as the whole globe. The phallus of Benares is thus almost as great as mine, which is the Center of the entire earth!

There was a time in Indian history, however, when groups of yogis became skeptical of all this. From among all the phallogocentric seekers of truth and meaning along the great brown river -- the ever-rolling and tranquil Ganges -- from among the waves and waves of turbaned priests and Hari Babas, and Ramjab Babas and Omkara Babas reciting unceasingly the eternal names of God, there emerged sects of naked, long-haired or semi-nude wandering ascetics. And as they walked along the sands of the holy Ganges they carried tridents or spears in their right hands and their limp penises would sway to and fro. They began to question everything Hindu. In fact, sometimes they would eat the flesh of dead men or would meditate atop a corpse. And instead of chanting Om, and instead of seeking for Brahman -- the essence of everything -- they began to question if anything has an essence -- if Brahmin even exists. They questioned everything -- using riddles. And from among this group of skeptics emerged a young prince, Siddartha Gotama, who was to become known as the Buddha. The Hindus had believed that the soul or Atma was identical with Brahman or God, and that is was eternal. But Buddha taught that all things are impermanent and that there is no soul.

Buddha paved the way for Asia's greatest Indian philosopher, who was to be called "The Second Buddha." His name was Nagarjuna, and many modern scholars have found that his philosophy has much in common with Derrida's "deconstruction." He wrote about Emptiness, saying that anything that is Empty is devoid of self-essence. Or in Sanskrit what is called svabhava. The cup seems to exist all by itself, and not to be dependent on, or related to, anything else. But is this a drawing of a cup or of two faces? Or is it a drawing of both, or of neither? Perhaps it is just a two-dimensional series of lines! The important point is that we cannot see both the cup and faces simultaneously. Each image appears to possess svabhava or self-essence. Each image appears to be a self-sufficient, self-existent, discrete image. But they don't possess self-essence! There is an intimate, subtle relationship between the faces and the cup. One cannot exist without the other. They depend on each other.

wtf man - what does this has to do with l egal reasoning - maybe I am a bit dense but i just don't see any conection

socall, I don't think the poster you're quoting is "that" serious when saying what he's saying in the first place - you can easily notice his attitude when talking about the whole thing ..

Current Law Students / Re: Presidential Hopeful ...
« on: February 27, 2012, 01:28:59 PM »

Natalia is so funny throughout the entire movie - here it is another one:

Sally: I saw a film the other day about syphilis. Ugh! It was too awful. I couldn't let a man touch me for a week. Is it true you can get it from kissing?
Fritz: Oh, yes. And your king, Henry VIII, got it from Cardinal Wolsey whispering in his ear.
Natalia: That is not, I believe, founded in fact. But from kissing, most decidedly; and from towels, and from cups.
Sally: And of course screwing.
Natalia: Screw-ing, please?
Sally: Oh, uh...
Sally: fornication.
Natalia: For-ni-ca-tion?
Sally: Oh, uh, Bri, darling, what is the German word?
Brian Roberts: I don't remember.
Sally: [thinking] Oh... um... oh yes!
Brian Roberts: Oh, no...
Sally: Bumsen!
Natalia: [appalled] Oh.
Brian Roberts: That would be the one German word you pronounce perfectly.
Sally: Well, I ought to. I spent the entire afternoon bumsening like mad with this ghastly old producer who promised to get me a contract.
Sally: Gin, Miss Landauer?

God Bless Sally!

I find it a bit unusual that major producers would go to a place like KitKat (but apparently they did), so that Sally could hope to get a big movie contract just like that, by means of just a @ # ! * - or "bumsening" as she calls it - I guess, it's more like "wishful thinking" on her part! Maybe just one more sex act for her?!

Current Law Students / Re: .....
« on: February 26, 2012, 02:07:13 PM »

Nothing surprising! The State Department actually CLOSED the US consulate in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico some years back for similar reasons. It investigated allegations that the consulate illegally sold visas to a number of people. It was the 6th busiest US consulate in the world, issuing 117,000 visas. According to Mexican police, they heard rumors that Mexican citizens were being approached by consulate employees with offers to sell visas. They passed the information on to the US government. The most of the documents sold were either tourist visas or border crossing cards. The names of those who bought visas were entered into lookout lists and distributed to law enforcement agencies.

Miguel Partida, a visa officer and a US citizen, was charged with conspiracy to commit visa fraud while working at the consulate. Three Mexicans were charged in the case as well. The defendants were Sergio Genaro Ochoa-Alarcon 31, Benjamin Antonio Ayala-Morales, 34 and Ramon Alberto Torres-Galvin, 34. The men worked as visa clerks at the US consulate. All in custody.

According to the indictment against Partida, agents of the Diplomatic Security Service initiated an investigation the previous year into allegations that Consulate employees were involved in a scheme to provide visas and border crossing cards in exchange for money. Visas were apparently bought for around $1,500 without the required interviews and without a determination that the person was qualified for a visa. The US consulate in Nuevo Laredo issued 100,000 visas, but federal authorities have refused to state how many visas were sold in the alleged scheme. Authorities did say, however, that they believed the scheme was directed by a woman in Mexico named Margarita Martinez Ramirez.

They say the Tijuana consulate is notorious when it comes to this stuff!

Some months ago a Russian couple (young professionals who could have had some kind of future in their own country) moved in the apartment building I live in with my family. They are very open people who do not hesitate to tell one some pretty fine details of their life - so there you have it: they told us they came from Russia on temporary tourist visas that they bought $10,000 a piece from the US Consulate people in their country. They sold their house for some $30,000 and used that money to buy two tourist visas and pay for their travel expenses to the US.

Now I understand that the US is considered to be by many people around the world as the place where their dreams will come true and where they will be able to better themselves (in all meanings of the term). But is that really the case? My question is, how do these people decide to go ahead and sell their house to buy a tourist visa to enter this country - and go underground for years working menial jobs, hoping they will be able to "make it"?! (I have heard it may well take some 5, or even 10 years, for illegal immigrants to get permanent residency (green card) - how much are they supposed to pay for it, I'd guess there is another fee to pay to get it, isn't it?) I mean, you have here a lot of American folks who are having a hard time keeping their houses, having to go thru foreclosures - are you trying to tell me these new immigrants are going to have a better life here, although it may take some 10-15 years?!

Even if they do, it's just not worth the trouble to go that route, taken into account the enormous amount of time to adjust to the new culture and establish themselves economically. To me, it's simply incomprehensible that one would pay $10,000 to buy a visa to enter the country, only to subject oneself to a calvary of pain and suffering to make ends meet for years and years on end!

I understand the visa may cost like $10K - thing is no one would go to the point of selling the house to buy visas - I mean, come on, people are not that stupid to believe they will have it good in America! They're able to distinguish between the inflated America we all see on TV and the real America they've heard from their co-nationals and the like!

Current Law Students / Re: How Much For Acropolis?
« on: February 26, 2012, 01:20:57 PM »

Ah Acropolis! Such a great place to visit! I've been only once in Greece (my brother used to live there) and I surely did take advantage to visit it! I can safely say that Athens is famous mostly because of Acropolis and its ancient history! When I immigrated to the US (my brother got me and several others to the US on special C visas :) all the people at my work was jealous I had been in Athens!

By now Greece is for sale. Including its famous Acropolis.

Finland wants collateral (the Acropolis?) to support a second bailout.

I don't think the Constitution of any European country would allow the actual sale of a part of its territories ...

Awesome, manual - and believe me, I'm not trying to steal the spotlight, I just wanna make a comment on the Greek debt thing.

Now, Question/Answer, are you kidding me with that Constitution thing?? Ex-Communist countries used to say to Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany, I believe it was called, before the Berlin wall fell) "We can not accept your investments, because it's against our principles!

When it comes to money, that Constitution you mention becomes a toilet paper to wipe the d i c k! Don't you see that Greece is becoming a b i t c h to European Union, to each and every @ # ! * i n g country in Western Europe! Not to mention that FMN female private part!

Current Law Students / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: February 26, 2012, 11:41:32 AM »

Here it is a related post on this TMT thing:

So if I get this right, this means killing others (murder) in order not to kill ourselves (suicide) in order to keep up with lack of life meaning and the conscious awareness of our deaths?

And that the deaths of the "other" serves to establish a symbolic immortality buffer for one of the parties? Kind of like the child that is forced to concede its physicality and "trade it in" for a symbolic sense of self (i.e., self-esteem)

I researched a bit where does all this TMT thing comes from - it looks like from existential philosophers like Sartre, Camus and the like. Now, I have not read Sartre/Camus - I simply came upon a piece quoted by one of your fellow posters on this board. Take a look at it and draw your own judgment, as to whether such a piece deserves being printed (in book form) or not - maybe it's just me, but I find it very odd to read about a guy who "feels his mouth full of his tongue" - I am sure he's missing something - and truth-be-told, in the "hood" where I live, he'd get that right advice off-prompt, if yanno what I mean!

Existence is undoubtedly problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, in Sartre's "Peanuts," Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one's own existence in the world:

Linus: I'm aware of my tongue ... It's an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up ... I can't help it ... I can't put it out of my mind ... I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren't thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth ...

Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel "Nausea" in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.

malachovsky, I understand your approach and sense of practicality you're bringing here - but if you stay alone and do not socialize with other people - as it is the case with lonely people like philosophers - it's not surprising that similar thoughts will come to your mind.

Now, it's never occured to me, but I am sure it has to other people - Sartre, being on the record, on this kind of thing.

After all, what other hope we have to distinguish ourselves from animals? It's because of our self-consciousness that we are can claim to be superior to other living creatures.

The "thinking about thinking" kind of thing - otherwise we'd be just like animals, creatures without any morals, shame, and the like - in other words, uncivilized.

I am not sure if you're getting me here, lemme know if you need further elaboration (Take note that the post by "malachovsky" appears on the ID (Institutional Denial) thread - in case you've been hanging in here for a while and still have not perused that thread!

Pages: [1]