Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: THE HOSTESS on July 27, 2005, 01:20:40 AM

Title: Legal Reasoning
Post by: THE HOSTESS on July 27, 2005, 01:20:40 AM
Anyone interested in legal reasoning method, its pecularities and the like, please post here.

I think the need to believe in the power of legal reason plays an important role in producing the extremely complex and interesting psychological phenomenon, the modern legal mind.

I hope you have heard of unicorns. One could believe that unicorns are actual biological phenomena -- that unicorns are real in the same way horses are real. Or one could believe that unicorns are creations of the human mind, imaginary creatures whose characteristics are therefore wholly a product of our assumptions about those same characteristics. Now imagine a social practice that requires persons to act as if they sincerely believe there actually are independent facts of the matter regarding unicorns -- facts not dependent on human beliefs -- and indeed routinely requires these people to assert the existence of such facts. Yet suppose this practice also requires that on certain occasions those who engage in the practice claim no such independent facts concerning the status of unicorns exist because, after all, "everyone knows" unicorns are merely products of the human mind. We could anticipate that many of the participants in this practice will develop a sort of double consciousness about unicorns, one in which they will both affirm and deny -- and in which they will in a sense both believe and not believe -- that unicorns are actual or imaginary creatures, depending on the context in which such affirmation or denial, and belief or absence of belief, is deemed appropriate.

On certain occasions, they would argue passionately about what colors unicorns really were, or about their actual population, whereabouts, and habits. On other occasions they would treat with derision anyone who could be foolish enough to take the naive view that unicorns were the sort of creatures that existed outside the minds of the men and women who imagined them into being. On yet other occasions they would seem to assert both views at once, claiming that while of course unicorns didn't really exist outside our imaginations, nevertheless by treating them as if  they were actual living animals we could eleminate any practical distinction between the characteristics of real and imaginary creatures.

Such is the ordinary mental condition of the modern American lawyer. The modern lawyer, and especially the modern judge and law professor, must continually practice a sort of "as if" jurisprudence, within the context of which the lawyer both knows and doesn't know that most important legal facts are facts only to the extent we believe them to be legal facts. Various strategies are then employed to deal with the intense cognitive dissonance that characterizes this condition. A common one among practicing lawyers is to simply ignore the dissonance -- to treat it as someone else's problem. That someone is, of course, whatever decision maker is precluded from employing the same cognitive strategy by virtue of the decision maker's decisional responsibilites.

Perhaps the proper function of a legal education is to produce persons who "think like lawyers": individuals, that is, who are trained to hold various unambivalent yet rationally unjustified beliefs, necessary for the vigorous deployment of social power, that nevertheless remain highly role specific, and are therefore subject to change at a moment's -- or a client's -- notice. Such beliefs help mold otherwise ordinary people into the sorts of state actors who will not hesitate to kill, cage, and impoverish their fellow citizens on what are deemed institutionally appropriate occasions, in much the same way that successful military training renders otherwise pacific young men capable of committing acts of politically sanctioned homicide.
Title: Sawada v. Endo
Post by: tit4tat on August 02, 2005, 03:30:17 AM
In November 1968, Masako Sawada and Helen Sawada were injured when struck by a car driven by Kokichi Endo. They sued him and won judgments slightly more than $25,000. During the 19-month period between the filing of the suits and the jury's verdicts Kokichi Endo and his wife, Ume Endo, transferred ownership of their house to their sons. The Endos continued to live in the house after the transfer, although Ume Endo died only ten days after the verdicts were returned against her husband.

The Sawadas were subsequently unable to collect their judicially decreed debt from the remaining assets of Kokichi Endo. They brought another suit, asking the court to declare the transfer of the Endo home a fraudulent conveyance, undertaken for the purpose of defrauding the property owner's creditors, and to therefore set the conveyance aside.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Hawaii was asked to answer the question of whether or not the manner in which the Endos had held their property precluded a finding that the transfer to their sons was fraudulent as a matter of law, no matter how "fraudulent", in ordinary lay terms, the transferors' intent may have been. The Endos had owned their house in a "tenancy by the entireties." In the English common law, property held in a tenancy by the entireties had the following relevant characteristics: it had to be owned jointly by a married couple; it could be conveyed or mortgaged by the husband, but not by the wife (at common law, a married woman was for most property-owning purposes not a judicially recognized person); it was subject to the husband's general debts; and at the death of one spouse , it was treated as if it simply remained the sole property of the surviving spouse. Thus if the husband sold or mortgaged the property and then died before his wife, the husband's interest in the estate was treated as if it had never existed, and hence the property would belong solely to his widow, unencumbered by her late husband's conveyances and debts.

With the passage of the Married Women's Property Acts in the 19th century, American jurisdictions removed most of the formal common law disabilities that precluded married women from controlling marital property. These statutes, however, failed to address the question of what effect they should be construed to have on the tenancy by the entireties. Various state courts subsequently answered this question in four different ways. A few states treated the tenancy as unchanged; the husband retained sole power to convey the estate, and it remained liable to his debts, subject only to the wife's right of survivorship. Other states placed the wife in what under the common law had been the husband's shoes, by making the estate liable to her separate debts as well as to his, and by allowing either spouse to sell the property. A third group placed the husband in the wife's former position, barring the separate debts of either party from affecting the estate, and not allowing either spouse to convey the estate without the consent of the other. Finally, two states allowed either spouse to subject his or her survivorship interest to creditors, but barred any separate debts from being attached to the property itself while both spouses still owned it.

By the 1970s, Hawaii remained the only state not to have addressed this particular question; and the inability of the Sawadas to collect on their debt gave the state's supreme court the opportunity to do so. For if Hawaii chose to retain the common law estate, or if it put the wife in the former position of the husband, then the Ebdos' transfer of their property to their sons would be treated as fraudulent as a matter of law, given that Mr. Endo's interest in the estate would still be liable to his general debts. On the other hand if Mr. Endo was placed in what under the common law was the wife's position, neither his or his wife's separate debts could then affect the solvency of the estate, and hence as a technical matter the transfer would not be considered fraudulent.

The modern tenancy by the entireties produces some difficult conceptual puzzles. Its common law predecessor was a product of what to us seems the metaphysically mysterious idea, derived from various elements of Christian doctrine, that a husband and wife were a single legal person. This idea led to little practical difficulty as long as only one of the subjects in this consubstantial union was a juridically recognized entity. But with the legal emancipation of women, Simone de Beauvoir's observation that for the equation 1 + 1 = 1 to work one of the integers had to, functionally speaking, become a zero could no longer adequately explain the conceptual structure of the tenancy by the entireties. As the opinion in Sawada v. Endo notes, "The tenancy was and still is predicated upon the legal unity of the husband and the wife, but the Acts converted it into a unity of equals and not unequals as at common law." The conceptual difficulty thus arises because under the modern view each spouse owns, in both theory and practice, the entire estate: each is deemed in the reifying jargon of property law to be "seized of the entirety" rather than "taking by respective moieties [parts]." But if each spouse owns all the estate, then strict logic would seem to dictate the paradox that while the property's owner cannot convey or indebt the land without the consent of the property's owner, neither can the property's owner stop the property's owner from selling or indebting that which, after all, belongs to the property's owner.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: tit4tat on August 02, 2005, 04:04:15 AM
In deciding the case, the court attempts to navigate this conceptual muddle through the straightforward use of circular reasoning. It first quotes another court to the effect that "each spouse owns the whole [estate] while both live" and that "at the death of either the other continues to own the whole, and does not acquire any new interest from the other." From its witnessing of this metaphysical marvel the court "deduces the indivisibility and unseverability of the estate into two interests, and hence that the creditors of either spouse cannot during their joint lives reach by execution any interest which the debtor had in land so held." Impressed by the force of its own deductive powers, the court then muses that while "one may have doubts as to whether the holding of land by entireties is advisable or in harmony with the spirit of the legislation in favor of married women," these doubts must give way before the insight that "when such an estate is created due effect must be given to its peculiar characteristics."

Here we see the more or less hypnotic power that formal -- or, more precisely, pseudo-formal -- modes of reasoning continue cast over the workings of the legal mind. Yet the Supreme Court of Hawaii gives no indication whatsoever that it has the faintest suspicion there might be anything fishy about this particular use of deductive reasoning. Indeed, the idea that they are simply begging the question seems quite beyond the judges' collective ken.

When the court turns from discussing legal concepts to instrumental considerations of policy, we receive even clearer confirmation that we are in the presence of a level of cognitive confusion akin to that accompanying some sort of mental illness. The argument that it is unfair to creditors to exempt the tenancy from the debts of either spouse is dismissed with the observation that "If the debt arose prior to the creation of the estate, the property was not a basis of credit, and if the debt arose subsequently the creditor presumably had notice of the characteristics of the estate which limited his right to reach the property." The court then criticizes by implication the choices supposedly made by the plaintiffs in the case before it, pointing out that "there is obviously nothing to prevent the creditor from insisting upon the subjection of property held in a tenancy by the entirety as a condition precedent to the extension of credit."

These kinds of statements should give teachers of law pause. Do we have the misfortune to be burdened with the task of subjecting some number of mentally impaired persons to the benefits of legal education, or is it perhaps the case that those "benefits" are in fact doing serious damage to the cognitive capacities of persons of otherwise normal intelligence? How is it possible for these judges to entirely overlook problems of fairness created by the existence of involuntary creditors, when the plaintiffs in the case before them are representatives of that very class? And how is it possible for this court to assume that even voluntary creditors "presumably had notice" of the relevant characteristics of the tenancy by the entireties in this particular legal context when, after all, the court is creating those same characteristics by means of this very decision?

After some further discussion of various public policy justifications for ruling as it has, the specious character of the court's reasoning achieves a sort of Platonic perfection when it concludes its analysis with the following remarkable announcement:

If we were to select between a public policy favoring the creditors of one of the spouses and one favoring the interests of the family unit, we would not hesitate to choose the latter. But we need not make this choice for, as we pointed out earlier, by the very nature of the tenacy by the entirety as we view it, "a ... broad immunity from claims of separate creditors remains among its vital interests."

The opinion in Sawada v. Endo can be reduced to the following propositions.

1. Legal concept X is conceptualized in a number of different ways in the context of situation Y, thus producing result A in Jurisdiction 1, result B in Jurisdiction 2, result C in Jurisdiction 3, and result D in Jurisdiction 4.

2. Legal concept X has never been conceptualized in the context of situation Y in Jurisdiction 5.

3. In Jurisdiction 5, legal concept X must be conceptualized in the context of situation Y to produce result C.

4. This conceptualization is impelled on the decision maker not because the result it produces is in some way desirable, but rather because this result is inherent in the proper conceptualization of legal concept X in the context of situation Y in Jurisdiction 5. Q.E.D.

This is the kind of thing that drove classic legal realists -- antiformalist legal scholars of the 1920s and 1930s -- into paroxysms of rage and disgust. 60 years later, despite routine legal academic claims that "we" are all realists now, anyone who practices law is well aware that such blatantly circular forms of pseudo-formal reasoning are still an integral part of actual legal decision making. Sawada is far from uncommon demonstration of what happens when a particularly clumsy magician struggles in full view of his audience to stuff a recalcitrant rabbit into a too-small hat, and then -- having at last succeeded -- proceeds with an air of absurdly triumphant pride to lift the enraged bunny high aloft, so that all may look on his handiwork with amazement and awe.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lockerforfree on August 08, 2005, 12:55:09 AM
tag
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: casusbelli on August 09, 2005, 04:17:58 AM
Well I guess one of the most curious aspects of socially constructed entities is that many of them are the sorts of artifacts that can perform the social work they are supposed to accomplish only if we ignore or forget their artificial nature. A classic example of this is the socially necessary assumption that value inheres in what we call "money." As a matter of practical psychology money can fucntion as a medium of exchange only to the extent that we manage to treat it as valuable in itself. We don't "believe" money is valuable: we know it is. Yet what is that knowledge other than our unconscious confidence that, in this case, knowledge and belief are not merely compatible, but actually identical? We believe we know money is valuable becuase we know we believe it is. In such cases, the psychology of appropriate social belief requires that we maintain an involuted state of mind in which we both know and don't know that various artifacts in whose existence we believe exist precisely because we believe they do.

Films, and to a lesser extent currencies, are examples of where our knowledge of the fictional, context-specific nature of our belief remains fairly close to the surface of conscious thought. But many other psychological artifacts of contemporary life are much more cognitively complicated. To what extent do we, or should we, recognize that a concept like "the government" or "the court" is also a pragmatic and mimetic fiction? One thing is certain: given the socially constructed nature of so much of our daily experience, the structure of modern life ensures that a great deal of what we think of as "reality" will be product of a kind of mass hypnosis, which requires that we maintain ourselves in delicately balanced, psychologically complex states of knowing ignorance and skeptical credulity. (To paraphrase Thomas Szasz: if you believe in the United States of America that's called "patriotism"; if you believe in the Republic of Texas that's called "schizophrenia.")

Which brings us to what is called "the law." In what sense does law exist? As a historical matter, it is fairly clear that at one time the lawyers and judges of the English common law thought of their law as rather more like a horse than a unicorn; that is, to the extent they considered the question at all, they believed "the law" was an objective, metaphysically robust entity. They also appeared to believe the law had existed from time immemorial and that therefore it certainly was not a product of, or dependent on, human beliefs and desires. This particular metaphysical vision -- what Oliver Wendell Holmes famously called "the brooding omnipresence of the law" -- cannot be maintained as a matter of self-conscious belief in a thoroughly secular, aggressively materialist public culture such as our own. In our legal culture, one can no longer assert openly the proposition that law is not an artifact of human will without running the risk of being told that anyone who could believe such a thing must be deeply confused, if not actually deluded.

Nevertheless contrary to the explicit claims of rationalizers, technocrats, and utiliatarians of every stipe the implicit belief in law as a brooding omnipresence is far from dead. Indeed, given what we require of law, it may be that some degree of belief that it is "really" there -- that the unicorn that you dear poster mention still inhabits some hidden hollow of the forest --  remains a necessary component of the legal form of thought.
Title: Legal Sophistry
Post by: *.* on August 10, 2005, 07:25:46 PM
Here are the common logical fallacies that are crucial for a good lawyer to condemn theoretically and apply practically:

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma
 
Definition: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:
Either you're for me or against me.
America: love it or leave it.
Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Slippery Slope

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

Examples:
If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.
You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

Complex Question

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

Examples:
You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: *.* on August 10, 2005, 07:28:21 PM
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force(argumentum ad baculum)

The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow if they do not agree with the author.

Examples:
You had better agree that the new company policy is the best bet if you expect to keep your job.

NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA then we will vote you out of office.

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misercordiam)

The reader is told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the author.

Examples:
How can you say that's out? It was so close, and besides, I'm down ten games to two.

We hope you'll accept our recommendations. We spent the last three months working extra time on it.

Appeal to Consequences

The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.

Example:
You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since life has no meaning that God does not exist.)

Prejudicial Language

Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Examples:
Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is false.)
The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)

Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Examples:
If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy Buty-EZ and become beautiful. (Here, the appeal is to the "beautiful people".)
Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority government, so you may as well vote for them.
Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: *.* on August 10, 2005, 07:30:32 PM
Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example,the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Examples:

Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this point.)
We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five minutes.(Of course, he said it as a joke during a microphone test.)
My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay;in fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9 percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not in a position to check the Citizen's sources.)

Anonymous Authorities

The authority in question is not named. This is a type of appeal to authority because when an authority is not named it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert. However the fallacy is so common it deserves special mention.
A variation on this fallacy is the appeal to rumour. Because the source of a rumour is typically not known, it is not possible to determine whether to believe the rumour. Very often false and harmful rumours are deliberately started in order to discredit an opponent.


Examples:
A government official said today that the new gun law will be proposed tomorrow.
Experts agree that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to prepare for it.
It is held that there are more than two million needless operations conducted every year.
Rumour has it that the Prime Minster will declare another holiday in October.

Style Over Substance

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

Examples:
Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on his forehead.
Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed young man?

(continues)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ü on August 13, 2005, 03:22:12 AM
On the issue of holding two contradictory beliefs in mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them (doublethink): well, I would suggest you study a bit Zen Buddhism. You know, Zen is a complete difference in perception to the dominant Western worldview. The Western world, dominated by science, has a logical and rational view of life. Contradiction and paradox are frowned upon in this worldview.

1 + 1 = 2 and cannot be 3.

The rational perspective is only one view of life, and not necessarily the most valid. This is not to say that rationality is wrong, but rather that is limited and only one perception that has been historically and geographically prescribed.

Enlightenment as the goal of Zen Buddhism. This again is a very difficult term to describe in a sentence or two. We can understand enlightenment as knowledge of the truth; but this knowledge is not the accumulative and rational knowledge of the West. The word enlightenment is understandable and frequently used in the religions of the West. A monk went to the Zen master wanting to know more about the truth of enlightenment. When he asked this question of the Zen master, the master replied, "Do you hear the sound of that running brook." "Yes, I hear it," answered the monk. "That is the entrance to the truth" the Master replied to him. From this example a number of things should be obvious. Enlightenment is not a form of perception that is mediated by logic or even cause and effect reasoning. It is an immediate and complete clear view and understanding of the nature of reality.

The misconception of self.
 
One of the obstacles that stand in the way of the initiate trying to enter into Zen understanding is the concept of the self. This is one of the central reasons why Zen is so difficult for the Westerner. Western perceptions of reality are built on the foundation of the Self and the idea of the centrality of the Ego. In terms of understanding Zen, the greatest obstacle to Enlightenment is the Self. The reason for this situation is that the Self is an illusion created by the society, and by the desires and needs of the individual Ego. It is only in moving beyond the Ego that an understanding of the enlightenment can begin. There is an important difference between the terms "Self" and "ego" that must be understood in this regard. For the Eastern Mind the Self is the true self that has been released from the false self of the ego. In other words, the ego is the illusionary element that traps man into a false perception of reality. The Enlightenment is the break-through from the region of the false self into a new consciousness and awareness that is not limited by the ego.

This distinction between the Self and the false ego is not too difficult to understand in ordinary terms. The self, it is widely acknowledged by psychologists and sociologists, is a construction. In other words, the human self is built from social conventions, personal feelings and history and is, in this temporal sense, an illusion. This illusion of the self stands as a barrier between the true Self and a perception of reality. One only has to think of the false ideals like materialism and envy etc, which absorb us in our daily lives, to understand the validity of the Zen perception of no-self. This is a realization that is skirted over by many Western practitioners of Zen, mainly because of its essential difficulty. But, this is also one of the most significant areas of investigation for the Western person wanting to understand Zen. After fully understanding the illusion of the self, the journey into Zen begins. From this point onwards, we enter into the knowledge of Zen without the encumbrance of the baggage of our daily lives or the illusions of our social selves, but rather concentrating on truth as it emerges beyond both objectivity and subjectivity.

Beyond illusion.

Once the journey into Zen begins the dualistic concepts that once imprisoned the mind, fall away. The ideas of birth and death, pain and joy, no longer have any relevance. For the Westerner this is almost a non-sensical world where there seems to be nothing at all. It is precisely this concept of nothingness that is the source, for the Zen Buddhist, of all reality. It is interesting to note that modern science tends to confirm these strange notions. For example, the "Big Bang Theory" of how the universe began is currently one of the contenders for the most legitimate explanation of the start of our Universe. But this theory proposes a moment before the Big Bang where, theoretically, there was nothing. One of the greatest problems in trying to understand Zen from a Western perspective is that Zen is an intensely personal experience. Enlightenment is achieved and recognized as a personal and individual knowledge that cannot be shared in an outward logical sense. In the West, religion is formal and concentrated in the institution of churches. There is a procedure and knowledge in these institutions that must be followed in a public sense. While individual enlightenment is obviously part of institutionalized religion, it must occur within the framework of the Church and its formal arrangements. This is not the case in Zen, where there are no formal elements and the individual initiate and the master find the path to enlightenment without these restrictions and without any external validation process.

In order for us to come to grips with Zen, we often have to use metaphors and seemingly strange examples to help us to understand this attitude towards life. It is a mode of thought that is essentially non-dualistic. This means that it tends to initiate a mode of thinking that collapses distinctions between opposites. This is very difficult for the Western world that has held opposites, in language and in logic, as the central pillars of civilized thought. In order to understand Zen one must be prepared to question the very foundations of one's life and of the societal influences that affect one. The purpose of Zen is nothing less than total freedom from these dualities of life. In this way, it suggests, we are able to move into a state of mind and reality that is not troubled by anger or fear or by envy and ambition.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: rapunzel on August 13, 2005, 04:33:02 PM
Sounds passionless.  No thanks.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cantdomath on August 16, 2005, 12:12:33 AM
After a verbose preamble, which among other things informs you helpfully that "behavior becomes unacceptable when it infringes on the rights of others," the  Code of Conduct of the Public Library of the city where I live provides thirty-one examples of unacceptable conduct. These examples can be sorted into five general categories:

1. Highly site-specific regulations (i.e., "Eating or Drinking," "Overcrowding at Study Tables or Carrels (limit of 4 per study table").
2. Behavior associated with street people ("Bathing/Washing Clothes," "Lack of Shoes or Shirt," "Loitering including refusal to leave at closing").
3. Behavior evincing failures of basic acculturation mechanisms ("Obscene Language," "Body Odor/Perfume/Cologne (Excessive) which Elicits General Complaint or Causes Discomfort to Other Library Users," "Excessive Public Displays of Affection").
4. General criminal behavior ("Theft," "Gambling" "Physical, Sexual or Verbal Abuse or Harassment of Library Users or Staff").
5. Criminalized behavior associated with mental illness or substance abuse ("Exhibitionism/Flashing," "Visible Drug or Alcohol Intoxication," "Voyeurism/Peeping").

After the list of specific examples the Code of Conduct concludes with the American's lawyer's equivalent of the old anti-Soviet slander provision in the USSR's criminal code: "Any unlawful behavior and any other behavior that unreasonably interferes with the safe or reasonable use of the library by the other persons."

This code, posted as it is in prominent places all around the building, is of course a very ordinary document of the kind found throughout the public spaces of America. Normally, neither you nor I would give it more than a glance; and we almost surely wouldn't spare it a second thought. Yet it is in its own quotidian way a remarkable text. Orthodox American rule of law ideology demands that those actions the state has prohibited be made public so that persons may have an opportunity to inform themselves as to what is and is not allowed. Once this condition has been met people may then be held to "know the law" -- ignorance of it being, famously, no excuse. It follows from this that when persons fail to conform their conduct to the law it can be assumed they are "choosing" to violate its publicly announced requirements.

Such at least is the theory. How well does this theory apply to a typical piece of modern bureaucratic regulation? Or the types of behavior the library code prohibits, you might note that only those listed in the first category can be thought to convey useful information to any minimally socialized member of the community. There could be a real reason as to whether you're allowed to bring a bag of pretzels into the library, but do you really require "notice" that you can't snatch purses, expose yourself to patrons, do your laundry in the bathroom, or play high-stakes poker in the reference area? Suppose you hadn't been given notice of any of these things; does it follow you're free to claim as a defense insufficient publicity on the part of the state?

Can there be any non-psychotic person of minimally functional intelligence who would suppose that any of the things on this list, other than those dealt with in the most site-specific regulations, were not prohibited? Of course all social rules include areas of vagueness (which public displays of affection are "excessive?"), but these borderline problems can hardly be cured by posting general proscriptions of the type found in public legal notices. So here we seem to be faced with a wholly superfluous invocation of legal rules: rules that merely reflect tacit social understandings that themselves have no apparent need to be cast into a public legal text.

Note that ultimately the supposed purpose of the library code is to give persons the knowledge they need to exercise a freely willed choice to follow the law. That is, the idea must be that people who would otherwise engage in acts of voyeeurism, or who would stumble into the Public Library under the influence of crack cocaine, will duly note they are prohibited from doing so, and will therefore choose to refrain from indulging in such legally proscribed behavior. These assumptions are -- to put it as charitably as possible -- unwarranted. There is no evidence whatsoever that people in the grip of sexual compulsions or substance addictions need to be informed their behavior is unacceptable; indeed, in the case of voyeurism and exhibitionism, the very unacceptability of the behavior is what sexualizes and thus enables it.

The library's code of conduct also illustrates the characteristic hypertrophy of modern legal reasoning. It's not that legal concepts such as "notice" and "choice" never make sense -- in fact, most of the time they do. It is rather that we tend to employ these sorts of concepts so promiscuously that we lose sight of the relative lack of salience they have to many social situations. For instance, in the context of anti-drug legislation, the common-sense insight that attaching bad consequences to certain actions often deters persons from undertaking those actions is exaggerated out of all reasonable proportion. In a similar vein, the modest idea that talking about their problems sometimes makes people feel better gets blown up into the grand scientific and cultural pretensions of psychotherapeutic ideology. The library code illustrates some of the ways in which otherwise useful modes of analysis can be pushed to a point where the hypertrophied character of what is called "reason" becomes indistinguishable from a form of magical thinking.

Posting a public notice of the unacceptability of theft, or of exhibitionism, or of physical and sexual abuse, is very much like passing yet another law providing still more penalties for the sale of already illegal drugs. Such actions represent our legal culture's equivalent to the practice of nailing garlic over doorways to repel vampires. In each case a psychological imperative born of a sense of lack of control, and of the fear and anxiety this sensation produces, demands of us that we "do something." Those same factors then lead us to do things that appear in the cold light of rational analysis to be almost wholly irrational.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cantdomath on August 16, 2005, 01:29:02 AM
In America today the juridical saturation of reality becomes more and more of a fact of daily life. And not merely in America: in Europe, for example, the particular political and social cultures of more than a dozen nations are being swallowed up by that monument to the pretensions of technocratic rationality, the European Union. All over the so-called developed world, law is manifesting itself as a kind of cultural madness, whereby hyperrational modes of decision making are employed in a vain attempt to resolve rationally what are rationally irresolvable moral and political conflicts.

The hypertrophied rationalism of American law is a product of trying too hard to be good: of failing to accept that law is always a somewhat crude and potentially destructive social steering mechanism, that works best when it remains a tacit presence in the social background. Instead Americans insist on subjecting themselves to a dictatorship of the bureaucratic: one in which the answer to every important social conflict inevitably involves more rules and procedures, more rights and obligations, more "reasons" and "principled justifications" given in the course of constructing ever-more complex analytic and rhetorical circles for choosing to do this rather than that -- in brief, more law.

Much of the baroque complexity of modern American law represents what is at best a wasteful multiplication of transaction costs, and at worst a symptom of a species of institutionalized mental illness. Much of the basic structure of American law is a pointless or even pathological outgrowth of various rationalist delusions.

The excesses of American rule of ideology are in large part enabled by our unwillingness to accept that reason, when properly employed, works to make its further employment superfluous. Reason, that is, works ironically toward its own effacement. When it works well, it takes the reasoner to a point in the decision process where the use of reason no longer helps. Hence, "legal reasoning" works well precisely to the extent that we are not conscious of its presence. Outside a legal equilibrium zone law tends to be both an invisible and a powerful factor in the maintenance of social cohesion. By contrast within such a zone the inevitable contradictions in the legal rules such situations produce are clearly visible, and as a consequence the rules themselves are rendered relatively useless. Faced with such legal and social contradictions, we can not decide efficiently processed legal diputes on the basis of "reason". We merely decide.

The essential fallacy of legal rationalism is thus to think that what works well in moderation will work even better in large doses. So deep is this belief that when the more extreme manifestations of legal reason fail altogether we tend to manifest a willful blindness to this failure, or we undertake what soon become perverse efforts to perfect systems of rules that, by the nature of the problems they address, can't be perfected. When neither of these strategies work we do what courts often do and simply indulge in magical thinking, assuming, of course, e.g., that because a court ends its opinion with the phrase "it is so ordered," "it" is both going to happen, and to produce a series of predictable social effects.

Because of such rationalist excesses of the American legal system is in some danger of being treated as roughly by the coming decades as the great American railroads were treated by the century that passed. American law, that is, may well find itself betrayed by its own overweening pride in having succeeded in its quest to bring so much of American life under its sway. As a consequence of the legal system's increasing tendency to deny the true nature of its crucial but relatively modest role as a social coordination and dispute processing mechanism, our law is becoming so elaborate, so hypertrophied, so pointlessly complex, and hence so unnecessarily expensive that alternate modes of getting from here to there on the social map are already springing up all around us. Accountants are taking over the tax business; insurance companies are eleminating real dispute processing; mediation and arbitration services of every kind are booming. And of course various militant ideologies of the far right serve as diconcerting reminders of how considerably more radical forms of dissent against what is called the rule of law are already simmering.

Like the donkey of the fable who starves to death because he is exactly equidistant from two stacks of hay and therefore can't decide rationally to which stack he should go, we demand dispositive reasons for choosing where there are none. Less principled than the ass, we than "discover" -- at great fiscal and psychological expense -- some answer that must be arrived at more or less arbitrarily, while still insisting that this particular outcome was impelled by the law, or legal principles, or reason itself. 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: C on August 17, 2005, 03:03:11 PM
Quote
Much of the baroque complexity of modern American law represents what is at best a wasteful multiplication of transaction costs, and at worst a symptom of a species of institutionalized mental illness. Much of the basic structure of American law is a pointless or even pathological outgrowth of various rationalist delusions.

Quote
Because of such rationalist excesses of the American legal system is in some danger of being treated as roughly by the coming decades as the great American railroads were treated by the century that passed.

There is a wonderful sketch by the Monty Python comedy troupe called "The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things." The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things meets annually to evaluate the performance of the group's membership in the carrying out of the Society's mission over the course of the previous year. At the beginning of the sketch the President of the Society calls the meeting to order and notes that he himself, on his way to this very meeting, noticed several things not on top of other things. This announcement is met by cries of "Shame, shame!" which the President calms by pointing out that "if there were not one thing that was not on top of some other thing, we would be nothing but a meaningless group of men who gathered together for no good purpose." Then follow the reports of several chapters ("our Australasian chapter, have in the last year placed no less than twenty-two things on top of other things") that continue until the representative of the Staffordshire chapter causes a sensation by admitting that his group has failed to place a single thing on top of some other thing. When asked by the President to explain this extraordinary behavior, the representative replies meekly, "Well sir, it's just that most of the members in Staffordshire feel the whole thing's a bit silly," to which the outraged President responds, "Silly? What do you mean, silly? Hm ... I suppose it is, a bit. What have we been doing wasting our lives with all this nonsense?" (General cries of "Hear, hear.") "Right then. Meeting adjourned forever."

It should be obvious the Legal Society for Giving Rationally Compelling Reasons isn't going to be adjourning any time soon. The most we can hope for is that some way might be found to make its meetings a little shorter, and the catering bill a little less.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: C on August 17, 2005, 03:45:20 PM
Why all this "reasoning" madness? In the end, overgeneralizations concerning the power of reason and intellectual pretensions born of lawyers' professional vanity are symptoms of fear.

America has never been a fatalistic culture, except to the extent we have always believed it our manifest destiny to be "progesssing" toward something or the other. Faced with the prospect of existential dread at our helplessness before the mysteries of life, we look for someone or something that can dispel that uncanny sensation. Hence, despite our vaunted pragmatism, we are prone to a certain child-like faith that some person or institution will with a single heroic gesture free us from the intolerable webs of uncertainty sorrounding our most difficult choices. In the American law school, the most striking evidence of this faith is the way in which an entire generation of legal academics almost literally worships the Warren Court. The continuing fascination that long-departed institution holds for law professors of a certain age resembles in some ways a collective case of arrested emotional development. The kindly image of Earl Warren himself, with his granfatherly shock of white hair, and his famed willingness to brush aside legal technicalities with the question "But is it right, is it fair?" helps satisfy the longing for some paternal figure in comforting ceremonial garb -- a sort of juridical Santa Claus -- who goes about dispensing justice in much the same way reformed misers in Dickens shower pounds and guineas on everyone they meet.

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, a man becomes a judge to forget the pain of being a man.

We believe in the transcendent, more-than-human authority of "the rule of law," and by extension of its various fetish objects and their official interpreters, because the alternative would be to accept the authority of ourselves over ourselves.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ($) on August 24, 2005, 11:42:25 AM
Pretty interesting thread!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: arioso on August 30, 2005, 09:55:14 PM
Even more interesting than your username! :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: eray01 on September 02, 2005, 11:52:52 AM
On the issue of holding two contradictory beliefs in mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them (doublethink): well, I would suggest you study a bit Zen Buddhism. You know, Zen is a complete difference in perception to the dominant Western worldview. The Western world, dominated by science, has a logical and rational view of life. Contradiction and paradox are frowned upon in this worldview.

1 + 1 = 2 and cannot be 3.

The rational perspective is only one view of life, and not necessarily the most valid. This is not to say that rationality is wrong, but rather that is limited and only one perception that has been historically and geographically prescribed.

Enlightenment as the goal of Zen Buddhism. This again is a very difficult term to describe in a sentence or two. We can understand enlightenment as knowledge of the truth; but this knowledge is not the accumulative and rational knowledge of the West. The word enlightenment is understandable and frequently used in the religions of the West. A monk went to the Zen master wanting to know more about the truth of enlightenment. When he asked this question of the Zen master, the master replied, "Do you hear the sound of that running brook." "Yes, I hear it," answered the monk. "That is the entrance to the truth" the Master replied to him. From this example a number of things should be obvious. Enlightenment is not a form of perception that is mediated by logic or even cause and effect reasoning. It is an immediate and complete clear view and understanding of the nature of reality.

The misconception of self.
 
One of the obstacles that stand in the way of the initiate trying to enter into Zen understanding is the concept of the self. This is one of the central reasons why Zen is so difficult for the Westerner. Western perceptions of reality are built on the foundation of the Self and the idea of the centrality of the Ego. In terms of understanding Zen, the greatest obstacle to Enlightenment is the Self. The reason for this situation is that the Self is an illusion created by the society, and by the desires and needs of the individual Ego. It is only in moving beyond the Ego that an understanding of the enlightenment can begin. There is an important difference between the terms "Self" and "ego" that must be understood in this regard. For the Eastern Mind the Self is the true self that has been released from the false self of the ego. In other words, the ego is the illusionary element that traps man into a false perception of reality. The Enlightenment is the break-through from the region of the false self into a new consciousness and awareness that is not limited by the ego.

This distinction between the Self and the false ego is not too difficult to understand in ordinary terms. The self, it is widely acknowledged by psychologists and sociologists, is a construction. In other words, the human self is built from social conventions, personal feelings and history and is, in this temporal sense, an illusion. This illusion of the self stands as a barrier between the true Self and a perception of reality. One only has to think of the false ideals like materialism and envy etc, which absorb us in our daily lives, to understand the validity of the Zen perception of no-self. This is a realization that is skirted over by many Western practitioners of Zen, mainly because of its essential difficulty. But, this is also one of the most significant areas of investigation for the Western person wanting to understand Zen. After fully understanding the illusion of the self, the journey into Zen begins. From this point onwards, we enter into the knowledge of Zen without the encumbrance of the baggage of our daily lives or the illusions of our social selves, but rather concentrating on truth as it emerges beyond both objectivity and subjectivity.

Beyond illusion.

Once the journey into Zen begins the dualistic concepts that once imprisoned the mind, fall away. The ideas of birth and death, pain and joy, no longer have any relevance. For the Westerner this is almost a non-sensical world where there seems to be nothing at all. It is precisely this concept of nothingness that is the source, for the Zen Buddhist, of all reality. It is interesting to note that modern science tends to confirm these strange notions. For example, the "Big Bang Theory" of how the universe began is currently one of the contenders for the most legitimate explanation of the start of our Universe. But this theory proposes a moment before the Big Bang where, theoretically, there was nothing. One of the greatest problems in trying to understand Zen from a Western perspective is that Zen is an intensely personal experience. Enlightenment is achieved and recognized as a personal and individual knowledge that cannot be shared in an outward logical sense. In the West, religion is formal and concentrated in the institution of churches. There is a procedure and knowledge in these institutions that must be followed in a public sense. While individual enlightenment is obviously part of institutionalized religion, it must occur within the framework of the Church and its formal arrangements. This is not the case in Zen, where there are no formal elements and the individual initiate and the master find the path to enlightenment without these restrictions and without any external validation process.

In order for us to come to grips with Zen, we often have to use metaphors and seemingly strange examples to help us to understand this attitude towards life. It is a mode of thought that is essentially non-dualistic. This means that it tends to initiate a mode of thinking that collapses distinctions between opposites. This is very difficult for the Western world that has held opposites, in language and in logic, as the central pillars of civilized thought. In order to understand Zen one must be prepared to question the very foundations of one's life and of the societal influences that affect one. The purpose of Zen is nothing less than total freedom from these dualities of life. In this way, it suggests, we are able to move into a state of mind and reality that is not troubled by anger or fear or by envy and ambition.

At least part of the post quoted here is plagiarized from an article by D.T. Suzuki called "Introduction to Zen Buddhism in America."

Here's the site link. See for yourself:

http://ks.essortment.com/introductionzen_riej.htm

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: katrina on September 02, 2005, 01:26:51 PM
Wow!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: onfut on September 11, 2005, 05:49:02 PM
tag
Title: Legal Reasoning :: Obsessional Neurosis and Paranoid DelusionTraits
Post by: namenames on September 16, 2005, 02:36:13 AM
In his book Eat Fat Richard Klein points to a "growing awareness that the whole American culture of dieting and rigid exercise is the root cause of the fat explosion." Klein believes that the diet system produces the disease that the system is charged with curing. Fat is decreed to be poison, but the antidote, diet and exercise, makes more fat....There is reason to think that if doctors stopped threatening people about their weight they would be thinner.

Klein's account of why Americans are fat taps into the deep psychology of obsessive behavior. His is a sort of "anti-diet" book, based on the insight that it is in the nature of obsessions to cause us to pursue something in such an excessive way that we not only fail in our quest, but end up producing the opposite of whatever it was we were pursuing in the first place.

The obsessive pursuit of law in contemporary American culture tends to produce a kind of bureaucratized anarchy. The pathological features of American law are themselves symptoms of an often irrational worship of rationality that characterizes much of our public culture. The mania for giving reasons is a kind of widespread cultural syndrome, a product of a neurotic goal. The goal is to rationally resolve social disputes that are not amenable to rational solution, but those suffering from the syndrome have been acculturated to believe both must and can be resolved throught the use of reason.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: namenames on September 16, 2005, 03:12:22 AM
An extreme case of obsessive behavior was processed throught the court system of a large American city. Frank Carroll met Dorothy Lewis at their mutual workplace in a neighboring state. For a time they socialized at work together -- eating lunch and so on -- until Lewis, who was involved in a romantic relationship with another man, tried to discontinue any association with Carroll, who had begun to display signs of becoming obsessed with her. Lewis then moved out of the state and enrolled in a graduate program in the city where her case would eventually be processed. She soon discovered that Carroll had followed her, and had in fact moved into the same apartment complex. At this point Carroll began to engage in a classic pattern of relentless stalking behavior: he left books on her doorstep, followed her to school, bicycled and drove past places where she worked, and tried to rent apartments near her workplaces. Lewis went to court and obtained a restraining order against Carroll, which he ignored. Finally, Carroll tunneled his way underneath the apartment complex and drilled a hole in Lewis' bathroom floor. When she dicovered the hole she fled the apartment in terror; an apartment complex employee then discovered the tunnel, with Carroll in it.

Carroll was convicted of two counts of harrassment, six counts of restraining order violations, and one count each of criminal trespass and attempted third-degree sexual assault. Amazingly, Carroll was not charged under the state's stalking statute. This statute requires that the stalking behavior pose "a credible risk" to the victim; apparently the prosecutor's office believed the fact Carroll had never made what the office considered a "verbal threat" to Lewis precluded Carroll from being charged with stalking. The judge gave Carroll the maximum possible sentence for the relatively minor set of offenses of which he was convicted: nearly six years in jail.

Sixteen months later, Carroll sought a sentence reduction. At the hearing, Carroll's lawyer told the same judge who originally sentenced his client that Carroll was "worth taking a chance on. Give him the benefit of doubt ... this obsessive behavior happened only once in 37 years." A psychologist then testified that he didn't believe Carroll presented a danger to Lewis or anyone else. "He's already understood the impact of his behavior and won't repeat his behavior," the psychologist testified. "He doesn't want contact with the victim." Another psychologist testified that Carroll wasn't safe in the county jail. Because of the nature of his crime Carroll had taken "a lot of abuse" there. After considering this testimony, the judge decided to place Davis on probation, on the condition that he leave the state, receive counseling, and live for a time under an officially monitored regimen.

First, it might be noted the absurdity of the claim that Carroll's behavior never posed a "credible risk" to Lewis. Here it can be seen certain atavistic features of legal reasoning at work, with this reasoning taking place in a context of remarkably primitive psychological interpretation (i.e., if a stalker doesn't actually strike or explicitly threaten his victim, the stalker isn't posing a risk to the victim). Second, notice how our culture's belief in the value of therapeutic intervention devalues the core ethical ideal that a wrongdoer should suffer not merely for his own good, or for the protection of others, but because he deserves to suffer (i.e., modern therapeutic ideology tells us that once a wrongdoer is "cured" there can be no valid reason for punishing him). Third, note the lawyer's highly dubious assertion that his behavior happened "only once in 37 years" (for obvious reasons, stalking is one of the most underreported crimes, it wasn't even recognized as a crime until recently, leading one to wonder how it would be possible to determine this behavior had not happened before.)

Most importantly, consider what in the context of this case the legal system treats as constituting "expert knowledge." The first  psychologist's statement that Carroll no longer poses a threat to the victim or anyone else can be nothing more than a sheer guess. Even more questionable are the psychologist's claims that Carroll has understood the impact of his behavior and therefore won't repeat it, and that Carroll doesn't want any contact with the victim. How does the therapist know these things? Because Carroll told him so? The long-term prognosis of obsessive maniacs is extremely poor: in time, they almost invariably relapse into some type of obsessional behavior. Add to this the fact that Carroll seems to have suffered considerable indignities while imprisoned -- indignities that have likely produced deep feelings of victimization and fantasies of eventual revenge -- and it becomes very difficult to give any credence at all to this "expert" testimony. Nevetheless the law in all its solemn idiocy must rely on something; and thus, on the basis of such therapeutic entrail-reading, it lets the wrongdoer go free.

Again, this sort of case illustrates how in contemporary public life legal and therapeutic modes of decision making can come to resemble frankly superstitious practices, whose invocation gives us a spurious sense of control over what remain insoluble mysteries of human behavior. Beacuse in the context of a relentlessly rationalist culture the prospect of confronting the actual extent of our ignorance of the world terrifies us, we simply assume the rituals we perform to forestall that confrontation actually work.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: namenames on September 16, 2005, 03:43:14 AM
Within the legal culture, the assumed efficacy of social practices such as criminal law and psychological counseling reflects this broader cultural faith in what is thought of as science. Indeed, the breakdown of the formalist conception of law as an autonomous discipline has given birth to the idea that, at least in "hard" cases, legal thinkers must extend the jurisdiction of law into the realm of what is thought of as "policy." Thus the modern law student is taught, either directly or by implication, that when the formal materials are indeterminate the outcome of a legal matter should be determined by the best policy; yet the student is also trained to believe that the content of this policy can and should be determined through the proper use of legal reasoning. Ideally, this instrumental use of reason is supposed to achieve a level of scientific rigor; hence the contemporary conception of law as a kind of "scientific policy making."

This gradual transformation of legal thought from a formal to a self-consciously instrumental practice has itself been enabled by the circumstance that, in the contemporary world, science has become the opium of the intellectuals. The reconceptualization of law as policy science is just one example of a more general trend. It is merely a prominent instance of how the cultural prestige of what is called the "scientific" -- that is, the materialist -- worldview has come to play a crucial role in producing a kind of rationalist addiction: an addiction to an intellectual narcotic that soothes the metaphysical anxieties of many a modern thinker. The weak magic of law draws what strength it has from the effects of a much stronger ideological intoxicant. And, if we are to fully understand our culture's abiding faith in its legal elixirs, we must turn our attention to this more powerful drug: the secular materialist rationalism.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: faku on September 22, 2005, 11:42:19 PM
*BAFF*
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: desnick on September 25, 2005, 07:03:55 PM
.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: nesty on September 30, 2005, 12:24:30 PM
Very interesting thread, tagging it.
Title: here it is what they say
Post by: F7 on October 01, 2005, 12:36:22 PM
Lawyers, judges, and legal scholars have traditionally presumed that humans are rational beings, at least insofar as the law is concerned, and that judicial decision-making is a determinate process characterized by the application of precedent to existing facts in a deductive and logical manner. The presupposition of law's inherent rationality has led to the eclipse of another dimension of law -- the mysterious emotive forces lying beneath conscious awareness that often influence the life of the law without manifesting themselves explicitly. Is it possible that humans are primarily governed by irrational instinctual impulses, and that the law is a necessary external element that must regulate their behavior in order for civilization to persist?

Could it be that the law is inherently illogical, although it exists under the pretense of rationality? What of the proposition that judicial decision-making is the fulfillment of personal prejudices of judges rather than the product of "legal reasoning based on precedent"?

The idea that law serves the social purpose of regulating the resolution of disputes among members of society in a peaceful and orderly manner is rather obvious. One can imagine the chaos that would ensue in a state where citizens did not have access to an institutional mechanism for resolving their disputes with one another. The parties would have to resort to private vengeance; the stronger party would likely humiliate, extort, and/or physically harm the other. Soon society would revert back to the Hobbesian "state of nature," characterized by utter lawlessness, absence of justice or ethics, and such a war as is of every man against every man" wherein "the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Perhaps less obvious is the psychological function served by choosing law as the social mechanism for adjudication. The adversarial legal process serves a very important psychological function insofar as it results in the sublimation of the aggressive instinct, thereby curbing the path for the expression of the litigants' hostility towards each other. Before commencing litigation, parties have often reached a point where no other means of resolution seem to exist. They are frustrated, enraged, and filled with "combat feelings" that seek some form of expression. The adversarial legal process allows litigants to express their aggression without resorting to physical violence. That clients ... try to use litigation as a channel for ... hostile and aggressive impulses ... is, of course, hardly surprising, since lawsuits are historically, and even presently, substitutes for private brawls, blood-feuds and the like. Furthermore, litigation allows the parties' lawyers to "fight" for their clients—assuming they empathize with their client's cause — and in this way, the lawyers themselves release aggressive impulses, albeit in sublimated form.

In return for the apparent peaceful solution that the law brings to dispute resolution, there is a corresponding disadvantage bestowed upon citizens by the rule of law: namely, neurosis and unhappiness. From a psychoanalytic view, the renunciation of instincts (in the sense of suppressing innate sexual and aggressive urges) is a necessary prerequisite for joining civilization and upholding lawful society. This repression of instinctual urges increases the unpleasant experience of guilt when one fails to repress fully such unacceptable unconscious tendencies. The renunciation of instincts leads to some degree of neurosis, which in turn results in unhappiness for civilized humanity. Indeed, by becoming members of lawful society, citizens exchange a portion of their happiness—formerly fulfilled through direct instinctual gratification — for the degree of security brought about by the law.
 
However, this subordinated form of instinctual gratification is not adequate to the Id, whose impulses must be continuously repressed by the Ego in order to obey the internal and external rules of law. The Ego finds itself in a very difficult position, since it must mediate between the Id's demand for instinctual gratification, and the Super-Ego's opposing demand for the renunciation of morally questionable and unacceptable unconscious desires emanating from the Id. In order to protect itself, the Ego employs various defense mechanisms, and simultaneously uses the law as an external instrument for regulating irrational tendencies. The outcome of creating such a complex psycho-legal regulatory network is that judicial processes are inevitably influenced by irrational emotive factors. Indeed, one may speak of the "psychodynamic judicial process," where chaos is disguised as order, and irrationality disguised as reason.
Title: Legal Reasoning
Post by: F7 on October 01, 2005, 12:42:06 PM
Trial provides various opportunities for all participants to express unconscious parent-oriented emotions that have been repressed since childhood. These emotions are repressed in childhood primarily due to the fact that they are extremely ambivalent, eliciting punishment from the Super-Ego. From a psychoanalytic view, the trial judge can be viewed as a symbolic father figure, who may arouse in the litigants parent-oriented feelings. If the judge is perceived as an unconscious symbolic father-substitute, the litigants may unconsciously displace their parent-oriented feelings onto him. This may take the form of an unconscious wish to physically harm the judge, manifesting itself in conscious hostility toward the judge, particularly if he is ruling against one's case. A trial judge who uses his discretion to limit a litigant's chances of winning the case may be perceived as a father who sought to limit the child's desire for having intimate relations with the mother, thereby evoking the child's Oedipal feelings of hatred.

In a sense, a child's parents are his first judges, constructing the family "tribunal" wherein the father's "law" adjudicates whether the child's actions are right or wrong, and mandates appropriate rewards and punishments. If someone had experienced frequent "injustice" in the parental tribunal, then it is not inconceivable that he would later view all courts and laws as instruments of oppression designed to perpetuate injustice. Such a litigant would tend to displace feelings of hostility — originating from childhood — onto the judge and the court. Likewise, someone who has experienced violent abuse during childhood may later perceive all instruments of the law — the police, the judge, and the criminal law — as extensions of the unjust father figure who will forever pursue him to inflict further harm. From this point of view, it is not surprising to observe an uncooperative attitude in criminal defendants toward the criminal justice system. These ideas may shed light on the proposition that an abusive family environment in childhood may be a significant cause of adult criminality.
 
Furthermore, trial provides an atmosphere where not only litigants but also their lawyers can displace family-oriented feelings onto the judge and opposing counsel. A lawyer who identifies with his client, or at least empathizes with his client's cause, will often perceive the other side's counsel as a threat. This rivalry is not simply limited to the purpose of winning the case, for it may have its origins beyond the immediate court action. The lawyer's rivalry may be motivated by subconscious tendencies that have been repressed in childhood, turning his case into a personal matter. Specifically, the opposition between each side's counsel may have its underlying origin in a childhood experience of sibling rivalry that significantly influenced the development of the lawyer's personality. In such a situation, the trial judge may be a symbolic parental figure for lawyers who subconsciously perceive each other as rival siblings reliving a childhood experience. The lawyers could project parental feelings onto the judge, and depending on which side he favored in the litigation, the projections could range from severe hostility to intense liking. Accordingly, sibling rivalry may be a valid explanation for why opposing counsel at times scream at each other and express hostility toward one another in the courtroom.

The judge may also subconsciously displace family-oriented emotions onto the trial participants. A trial judge who subconsciously perceives a litigant or lawyer as a symbolic daughter or son would likely displace parental emotions onto the symbolic child-figure. Depending on how the judge views his or her own child and what sort of emotions he or she feels toward the child, the litigant or lawyer who symbolically represents the judge's child would be subject to familial emotional reactions — ranging from intense like to dislike — from the judge. These ideas could explain a situation where a judge seems to favor one of the litigants over the other, even though the disfavored party has a better argument. Thus, none of the trial participants is immune to the everlasting recreation of the Oedipal triangle, and the resulting emotional reactions generated therefrom.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: F7 on October 01, 2005, 12:47:50 PM
The legal profession has traditionally held dear the notion that judicial decision-making is a rational and objective process in which the judge applies precedent to existing facts. Indeed, the immense focus on "precedent" and "legal reasoning" within the legal profession has rendered these concepts irrefutable and unquestionable. One may even speak of the propaganda of the American legal culture, which holds all legal processes to be driven by logic, order, and reason. Why has this culture so seldom questioned the presupposition of rational decision-making which all of law seems to be based upon? Could there be another explanation for the process of judicial decision-making?

Lawyers and judges purport to make large use of precedents .... But since what was actually decided in the earlier cases is seldom revealed, it is impossible, in a real sense, to rely on these precedents. What the courts in fact do is to manipulate the language of former decisions. They could approximate a system of real precedents only if the judges, in rendering those former decisions, had reported with fidelity the precise steps by which they arrived at their decisions .... Of the many things which have been said of the mystery of the judicial process ... the most salient is that decision is reached after an emotive experience in which principles and logic play a secondary part.

Judges make their decisions primarily based upon emotional reactions to the facts presented to them in a case, and then use precedent to rationalize their decision. Law's indeterminacy and contingency lie in the fact that precedent can be interpreted in numerous ways, and that it is often used as justification for a position held by the judge long before he even considers precedent. Accordingly, from a psychoanalytic point of view, judicial decisions are often made based on the personal prejudices and emotional reactions of judges with respect to a set of facts, and the process of "legal reasoning" is merely a mechanism employed by the Ego to rationalize the Id's irrational prejudices. But why is there such a need for rationalization? Two possibilities present themselves. First, the legal profession and society as a whole idealize the law as the perfect father-figure, and in their search for stability, demand that the law be a coherent and logical set of rules derived from reason. In other words, the Ego seeks to use the law as a further means of bringing order to the chaotic and passionate world of the Id. Second, the legal profession engages in endless rationalization as a means for alleviating the threat of punishment imposed on the Ego for its failure to incorporate the commands of the Super-Ego's "inward court of law" in laws governing members of society. In other words, if the Ego were to acknowledge explicitly that judicial decision-making is primarily an Id-driven process, then it would be subject to severe punishment from the Super-Ego for allowing instinctual impulses to reach conscious awareness, and worst of all, be the basis for law.
 
If judicial opinion-writing is merely a linguistic practice of rationalizing pre-existing attitudes, then a judge engaged in such activity may plausibly be called a sophist (an intellectual jolly). Just as the sophist can make the worse cause appear the better through the use of oratorical skills, a judge engaged in sophistry can make the worse argument appear the better by arguing that it "more accurately conforms to precedent," and by presenting it as "the law." Opinion writing is not a mechanism by which decisions are generated, but the complex of rhetorical gestures to which one has recourse when a decision, already made, must be put into presentable form. This would lead one to say that judicial opinions codify the perpetuation of a tradition that disguises prejudice as "precedent," forever passing down arbitrary rules from one judicial generation to the next. In this light, the history of law may be viewed as the history of evolving subjective and socio-cultural prejudices that find verbal expression in legal opinions, "rules of law," and social reactions thereto formulated in new legislation.

If law is merely an arbitrary set of rules based on judicial prejudices and emotional reactions, presented under the guise of "legal reasoning based on precedent," where does that leave us? Should we acknowledge such a subversive discovery, at the expense of disturbing the normal functioning of the Ego and diminishing our sense of stability in the world? Should we simply disobey whatever law is contrary to our liking? Should we set sail in search for truth upon the tumultuous ocean of uncertainty? Or should we rather immure ourselves forever in self-deceit, so that we may live under the shadow of illusory images depicting "law," "order," and "justice"?

You decide for yourself, dear fellow reader.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: J D on October 01, 2005, 07:49:45 PM
Could you at least credit the work you're so shamelessly paigiarizing?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Yom Kippur on October 06, 2005, 07:28:30 PM
This time seen from a slightly different perspective, F7! Very interesting!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Mon Ami Gabi on October 07, 2005, 01:23:45 PM
Ha, funny name Yom Kippur! What does it mean?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: tresbuchon on October 09, 2005, 04:29:52 PM
Ha, funny name Yom Kippur! What does it mean?

You don't know what "Yom Kippur" is?! It's the Jewish holiday of the Day of Atonement. The Bible calls the day Yom Hakippurim. It is one of the Yamim Noraim (Hebrew, "Days of Awe"). The Yamim Noraim consist of Rosh Hashanah, which is the first two days of the Ten Days of Repentance, and Yom Kippur, which is the last of the ten days.

In the Hebrew calendar Yom Kippur begins at nightfall starting the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (which falls in September/October), and continues until the next nightfall.

Yom Kippur will occur on the following dates in the next few years:

2005: October 13
2006: October 2
2007: September 22
2008: October 9
2009: September 28
2010: September 18

Yom Kippur is the Jewish day of repentance, considered to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year. Its central theme is atonement and reconciliation. Eating, drinking, bathing, cosmetics, wearing leather (including shoes), and conjugal relations are prohibited. Fasting begins a bit before sundown (called 'tosephet' Yom Kippur, the 'addition' of fasting a bit of the previous day is required by Jewish law), and ends after nightfall the following day.

In recognition of Yom Kippur, law schools will cancel all evening classes on Wednesday, October 12th, and both day and evening classes on Thursday, October 13th.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: der on October 11, 2005, 08:59:07 AM
Ha, funny name Yom Kippur! What does it mean?

You don't know what "Yom Kippur" is?! It's the Jewish holiday of the Day of Atonement. The Bible calls the day Yom Hakippurim. It is one of the Yamim Noraim (Hebrew, "Days of Awe"). The Yamim Noraim consist of Rosh Hashanah, which is the first two days of the Ten Days of Repentance, and Yom Kippur, which is the last of the ten days.

In the Hebrew calendar Yom Kippur begins at nightfall starting the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (which falls in September/October), and continues until the next nightfall.

Yom Kippur will occur on the following dates in the next few years:

2005: October 13
2006: October 2
2007: September 22
2008: October 9
2009: September 28
2010: September 18

Yom Kippur is the Jewish day of repentance, considered to be the holiest and most solemn day of the year. Its central theme is atonement and reconciliation. Eating, drinking, bathing, cosmetics, wearing leather (including shoes), and conjugal relations are prohibited. Fasting begins a bit before sundown (called 'tosephet' Yom Kippur, the 'addition' of fasting a bit of the previous day is required by Jewish law), and ends after nightfall the following day.

In recognition of Yom Kippur, law schools will cancel all evening classes on Wednesday, October 12th, and both day and evening classes on Thursday, October 13th.

So, Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel first policy and not the USA? :)

Well, I guess Nietzsche was not angry in vain with Jews ... Nietzsche described Jews as the truly great haters in world history.

Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent Jew priests have introduced into it — let us take at once the most notable example. All that has been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful," "the masters," "the rulers," fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed [Zurückgetretensten] priestly vengefulness.

It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying "the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone — and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and damned!" ... One knows who inherited this Jewish revaluation ... In connection with the tremendous and immeasurably fateful initiative provided by the Jews through this most fundamental of all declarations of war - with the Jews there began the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of 2000 (two thousand) years behind it and which we no longer see because it — has been victorious.

You do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required 2000 years to achieve victory? — There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred — the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before — there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love —and from what other trunk could it have grown?

This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners — was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and by-path to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the by-path of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

What is certain, at least, is that 'sub hoc signo' [under this sign] Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.
Title: Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals"
Post by: der on October 11, 2005, 09:00:11 AM
Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome." Rome felt that the Jews were something contrary to nature itself, something like its monstrous polar opposite. In Rome the Jew was considered "guilty of hatred again the entire human race." And that view may be correct, to the extent we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values. The Romans were the strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who'd lived on earth up until then—or even than any people who'd ever been dreamed up. By contrast, the Jews were 'par excellence' that priestly people of resentment who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality.

Well, people have become merely tame or want to become tame — in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (before Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet worker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary). Now, this is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It's true that in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classical ideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someone who'd woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called "the church." But immediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German and English) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation, together with what had to follow as a consequence, the re-establishment of the church, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome.

In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in 17th and 18th century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentment — never on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity — and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind — in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman . . .
Title: Since Day 1
Post by: der on October 11, 2005, 09:01:15 AM
I would be delighted to make a connection at this point :) The end of the 18th century was a time of great change -- specifically the United States was born and the French aristocracy was overthrown and destroyed. Both of these events occured as a result of revolution. Both the American and French revolution were quite similiar in their ideology and mission. Just how similiar and intertwined is for you to find out! They shared many of the same ideologies. Each was a revolt based upon more personal freedom and representation within the Government...

On the other hand, we sure have heard of Zionism. You know, those conspirational theories that supposedly the Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel-first policy and not the USA. These hypothesis aside, I would throw at large the idea that the Zionists didn't have to hijack at all the U.S. goverment, since it may have been "hijacked" from the very beginning... :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: dolofine on October 11, 2005, 09:12:22 AM
Strange, der, does not US set Old Rome as an example to follow (although not openly)? Are you suggesting that US is the antithesis of Old Rome? Then, which one is/was the very embodiment of it, the short-sighted, short-lived Nazi Germany?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: pervitine on October 11, 2005, 09:20:58 AM
Strange, der, does not US set Old Rome as an example to follow (although not openly)? Are you suggesting that US is the antithesis of Old Rome? Then, which one is/was the very embodiment of it, the short-sighted, short-lived Nazi Germany?

If you reading into the OP's post quoting Nietzsche as saying that to adopt the Roman attitude and lifestyle one had to engage in prosecution of Jews as Nazi Germany did, I think you are wrong.

In fact, some people tend to dislike Friedrich Nietzsche on the grounds that his thought is dangerous, that it lends itself to totalitarianism and, more specifically, to fascism. The history of Nietzsche's adoption by the forces of National Socialism in Germany has been well documented. Adolf Hitler personally approved of Nietzsche's writings, and upon coming to power he promoted one of Nietzsche's first Nazi disciples, Alfred Baumler, to professor of philosophy in Berlin. During the Nazi period Nietzsche was both widely read and celebrated in Germany. He was considered to be one of the master-thinkers of the Aryan race. After Germany lost the war, Nietzsche's thought fell into disrepute. Martin Heidegger even blamed his involvement in Nazi politics on the influence of Nietzsche. Since that time, however, Nietzsche's work has enjoyed a modest revival. Nevertheless, Nietzsche is still viewed with suspicion in many circles because of a circumstance of history that was beyond his control. Many critics continue to argue that Nietzsche's thinking is at best dangerous or, at worst, downright evil because it leads directly to fascism.

This argument, though, is simply untenable given a careful reading of Nietzsche's work. From an examination of his texts, skipping the "approved" Nazi interpretations, one can easily argue that Nietzsche would have certainly opposed his appropriation by National Socialism, particularly its hideous manifestation in Nazi Germany.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: upsidedown on October 13, 2005, 05:17:04 PM
Well, it's not that I would not like to continue to lead this thread astray -- as I can't see how Jews' mentality and evil ways can be linked to the legal reasoning method and the like -- but I'd like to add for the sake of argument that America does not really adhere to the principles its Founding Father believed in: in fact, American mentality and political ideology can more aptly be described as a vague belief in science resting atop an uneasy and heterogeneous combination of Enlightenment, materialist/Protestant and pagan values.

Here are some posts on all four on the issue,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,3549.msg679273.html#msg679273


Title: Have you not heard it?!
Post by: json on October 14, 2005, 02:37:14 PM
Quote
Well, it's not that I would like to continue to lead this thread astray -- as I can't see how Jews' mentality and evil ways can be linked to the legal reasoning method and the like {...}

The Jewish mentality is very much in line with that of a typical lawyer ... They say, e.g.,

'The Jewish Lawyer
Has no feeling for Justice.
He only goes to Court
Because of the prospect of money.

Whether brave and good people
Wear themselves out and bleed,
Leaves the Jew completely cold.
Never go to a Jewish lawyer.'"

Here's what happened in Germany to Jewish lawyers,

http://www.brak.de/anwalt-ohne-recht/Panels_neu_1_12.pdf
Title: Re: Have you not heard it?!
Post by: dft on October 14, 2005, 03:53:02 PM
Does posting that poem make you feel better about yourself?

Quote
Well, it's not that I would like to continue to lead this thread astray -- as I can't see how Jews' mentality and evil ways can be linked to the legal reasoning method and the like {...}

The Jewish mentality is very much in line with that of a typical lawyer ... They say, e.g.,

'The Jewish Lawyer
Has no feeling for Justice.
He only goes to Court
Because of the prospect of money.

Whether brave and good people
Wear themselves out and bleed,
Leaves the Jew completely cold.
Never go to a Jewish lawyer.'"

Here's what happened in Germany to Jewish lawyers,

http://www.brak.de/anwalt-ohne-recht/Panels_neu_1_12.pdf

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: sentinel on October 14, 2005, 04:04:38 PM
r u suggesting the OP is Jew? ???
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: dft on October 14, 2005, 05:26:44 PM
no. im suggesting that json is an anti-semitic, bigoted pig.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: tjking82 on October 14, 2005, 10:10:29 PM
Anyone interested in legal reasoning method, its pecularities and the like, please post here.

I think the need to believe in the power of legal reason plays an important role in producing the extremely complex and interesting psychological phenomenon, the modern legal mind.

I hope you have heard of unicorns. One could believe that unicorns are actual biological phenomena -- that unicorns are real in the same way horses are real. Or one could believe that unicorns are creations of the human mind, imaginary creatures whose characteristics are therefore wholly a product of our assumptions about those same characteristics. Now imagine a social practice that requires persons to act as if they sincerely believe there actually are independent facts of the matter regarding unicorns -- facts not dependent on human beliefs -- and indeed routinely requires these people to assert the existence of such facts. Yet suppose this practice also requires that on certain occasions those who engage in the practice claim no such independent facts concerning the status of unicorns exist because, after all, "everyone knows" unicorns are merely products of the human mind. We could anticipate that many of the participants in this practice will develop a sort of double consciousness about unicorns, one in which they will both affirm and deny -- and in which they will in a sense both believe and not believe -- that unicorns are actual or imaginary creatures, depending on the context in which such affirmation or denial, and belief or absence of belief, is deemed appropriate.

On certain occasions, they would argue passionately about what colors unicorns really were, or about their actual population, whereabouts, and habits. On other occasions they would treat with derision anyone who could be foolish enough to take the naive view that unicorns were the sort of creatures that existed outside the minds of the men and women who imagined them into being. On yet other occasions they would seem to assert both views at once, claiming that while of course unicorns didn't really exist outside our imaginations, nevertheless by treating them as if  they were actual living animals we could eleminate any practical distinction between the characteristics of real and imaginary creatures.

Such is the ordinary mental condition of the modern American lawyer. The modern lawyer, and especially the modern judge and law professor, must continually practice a sort of "as if" jurisprudence, within the context of which the lawyer both knows and doesn't know that most important legal facts are facts only to the extent we believe them to be legal facts. Various strategies are then employed to deal with the intense cognitive dissonance that characterizes this condition. A common one among practicing lawyers is to simply ignore the dissonance -- to treat it as someone else's problem. That someone is, of course, whatever decision maker is precluded from employing the same cognitive strategy by virtue of the decision maker's decisional responsibilites.

Perhaps the proper function of a legal education is to produce persons who "think like lawyers": individuals, that is, who are trained to hold various unambivalent yet rationally unjustified beliefs, necessary for the vigorous deployment of social power, that nevertheless remain highly role specific, and are therefore subject to change at a moment's -- or a client's -- notice. Such beliefs help mold otherwise ordinary people into the sorts of state actors who will not hesitate to kill, cage, and impoverish their fellow citizens on what are deemed institutionally appropriate occasions, in much the same way that successful military training renders otherwise pacific young men capable of committing acts of politically sanctioned homicide.

This is a farce.  "Thinking like a lawyer" does not necessarily entail "hold[ing] various unambivalent yet rationally unjustified beliefs [which can] change at a moment's -- or a client's -- notice."

It is the very essence of lawyerly thinking to be able to approach a situation from all different perspectives.  When arguing from position A, you must first assess the strongest arguments from position B.  You do this to determine the strength of your position relative to that of your opponent, and also to determine which points you will need to rebut.

However, there is no legal obligation to take a case - EVER.  If a potential client walks through the door and their situation is at odds with your morals or beliefs, you have EVERY RIGHT TO TELL THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR OFFICE.  While many laywers are all about the benjamins, and will take any case which has potential, such behavior is certainly not inherant within the training of a lawyer.

Hence, the statement that thinking like a lawyer leads to rationally unjustified beliefs and positions which can change on a moment's notice is absurd.  Please stop perpetuating the stereotype of the greedy lying lawyer.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jimmyjohn on October 15, 2005, 07:00:20 AM
Anyone interested in legal reasoning method, its pecularities and the like, please post here.

I think the need to believe in the power of legal reason plays an important role in producing the extremely complex and interesting psychological phenomenon, the modern legal mind.

I hope you have heard of unicorns. One could believe that unicorns are actual biological phenomena -- that unicorns are real in the same way horses are real. Or one could believe that unicorns are creations of the human mind, imaginary creatures whose characteristics are therefore wholly a product of our assumptions about those same characteristics. Now imagine a social practice that requires persons to act as if they sincerely believe there actually are independent facts of the matter regarding unicorns -- facts not dependent on human beliefs -- and indeed routinely requires these people to assert the existence of such facts. Yet suppose this practice also requires that on certain occasions those who engage in the practice claim no such independent facts concerning the status of unicorns exist because, after all, "everyone knows" unicorns are merely products of the human mind. We could anticipate that many of the participants in this practice will develop a sort of double consciousness about unicorns, one in which they will both affirm and deny -- and in which they will in a sense both believe and not believe -- that unicorns are actual or imaginary creatures, depending on the context in which such affirmation or denial, and belief or absence of belief, is deemed appropriate.

On certain occasions, they would argue passionately about what colors unicorns really were, or about their actual population, whereabouts, and habits. On other occasions they would treat with derision anyone who could be foolish enough to take the naive view that unicorns were the sort of creatures that existed outside the minds of the men and women who imagined them into being. On yet other occasions they would seem to assert both views at once, claiming that while of course unicorns didn't really exist outside our imaginations, nevertheless by treating them as if  they were actual living animals we could eleminate any practical distinction between the characteristics of real and imaginary creatures.

Such is the ordinary mental condition of the modern American lawyer. The modern lawyer, and especially the modern judge and law professor, must continually practice a sort of "as if" jurisprudence, within the context of which the lawyer both knows and doesn't know that most important legal facts are facts only to the extent we believe them to be legal facts. Various strategies are then employed to deal with the intense cognitive dissonance that characterizes this condition. A common one among practicing lawyers is to simply ignore the dissonance -- to treat it as someone else's problem. That someone is, of course, whatever decision maker is precluded from employing the same cognitive strategy by virtue of the decision maker's decisional responsibilites.

Perhaps the proper function of a legal education is to produce persons who "think like lawyers": individuals, that is, who are trained to hold various unambivalent yet rationally unjustified beliefs, necessary for the vigorous deployment of social power, that nevertheless remain highly role specific, and are therefore subject to change at a moment's -- or a client's -- notice. Such beliefs help mold otherwise ordinary people into the sorts of state actors who will not hesitate to kill, cage, and impoverish their fellow citizens on what are deemed institutionally appropriate occasions, in much the same way that successful military training renders otherwise pacific young men capable of committing acts of politically sanctioned homicide.

This is a farce.  "Thinking like a lawyer" does not necessarily entail "hold[ing] various unambivalent yet rationally unjustified beliefs [which can] change at a moment's -- or a client's -- notice."

It is the very essence of lawyerly thinking to be able to approach a situation from all different perspectives.  When arguing from position A, you must first assess the strongest arguments from position B.  You do this to determine the strength of your position relative to that of your opponent, and also to determine which points you will need to rebut.

However, there is no legal obligation to take a case - EVER.  If a potential client walks through the door and their situation is at odds with your morals or beliefs, you have EVERY RIGHT TO TELL THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT OF YOUR OFFICE.  While many laywers are all about the benjamins, and will take any case which has potential, such behavior is certainly not inherant within the training of a lawyer.

Hence, the statement that thinking like a lawyer leads to rationally unjustified beliefs and positions which can change on a moment's notice is absurd.  Please stop perpetuating the stereotype of the greedy lying lawyer.

Exactly right.

Funny how this thread has brought out mostly the types of people referred to in the original post.  f-ing weirdos.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: VirtualJD on October 15, 2005, 07:25:32 AM
Not to mention all the vilifying lawyer jokes.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gh@yahoo.com on October 16, 2005, 05:21:45 AM
You guys are changing the subject :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: __insomnia on October 19, 2005, 03:11:22 PM
You guys are changing the subject :)

Seriously, stick to the topic cus I'll like to read more.  ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: andjustice4all on October 20, 2005, 02:33:57 AM
BUMP
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: theothertwin on October 23, 2005, 04:25:59 PM
andjustice4all, did you fashion your moniker after the movie ...And Justice For All? I am asking because I absolutely love that movie! For those of you who may have not seen it, it has been considered the most vicious cinematic attack on the legal profession.

It occurred in 1979, when director Norman Jewison, writer Barry Levinson, and actor Al Pacino combined their talents to rake law and order across the coals in ...And Justice for All. Strictly speaking, the film in neither a satire nor a black comedy, but there are heavy shadings of each woven into the narrative. ...And Justice for All's bleak, absurd look at lawyers would be hilarious if it wasn't so true-to-life.

The movie is more about morality and ethics than courtroom shenanigans. ...And Justice for All has no part in the stock trade of shock witnesses and surprising revelations. This is about how too many guilty people walk while the innocent take their places in overcrowded jails. The more you consider ...And Justice for All's message, and the means by which it is delivered, the more aware you become of how uncompromising Jewison's attack is on the legal system. Insane and corrupt judges dole out life-and-death sentences with as much thought as a butcher would give to carving a side of beef. Attorneys view the courtroom as an arena where they can grapple with an opponent without concern for the cost in human pain and tears. And those who genuinely care about their clients are foiled at every turn by the deeply-rooted hypocrisy and cynicism that defines American law.

Pacino plays Arthur Kirkland, a defense attorney who has been in practice for 12 years. He has a good reputation, so his caseload is heavy. However, Kirkland isn't in the game for money, prestige, or power. He's one of those rare lawyers who believes in the judicial system and wants to help people. He'll spend a night in jail for contempt of court rather than let a judge ignore a crucial piece of evidence. Yet all of Kirkland's principles are about to be called into question when he is asked to defend a hard-line justice, Judge Fleming (John Forsythe), who is accused of rape. Kirkland's dislike of Fleming runs deep, but circumstances force the lawyer to take this case, which he should stay far away from.

Pacino earned an Academy Award nomination for his work in ...And Justice for All. However, of all his Oscar nominations, this is probably the least-deserved. Pacino's intensity is undeniable, but the actor -- who always works on the seam between restraint and overacting -- crosses the line a few times too often. In a scene where Kirkland learns that a client has hanged himself, Pacino's histrionics strike a false chord. Certainly, there are times when Pacino is excellent, but he is not consistently so.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: x.sq on October 24, 2005, 10:56:41 PM
* tag *
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: x.sq on October 24, 2005, 10:57:11 PM
* tag *
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: dvdvdvdvd on October 25, 2005, 03:09:59 PM
Two times tagging?! I suspect smth ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: in limine on October 29, 2005, 02:12:27 PM
Wow, LSD is on the top of the list you get when googling this thread's topic!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=legal+reasoning+madness
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: {}{} on October 30, 2005, 04:43:18 PM
TAG

;)
Title: META
Post by: hiddenjewel on November 07, 2005, 01:17:02 PM
Wow, LSD is on the top of the list you get when googling this thread's topic!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=legal+reasoning+madness

Not anymore! Looks like someone modified the search keywords ... lol ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: chlorineblitch on November 08, 2005, 10:21:32 AM
Another *madness* jacked up in the Google list, thou ;)
Title: Paganism
Post by: cllr on November 11, 2005, 09:11:03 AM
[...] but I'd like to add for the sake of argument that America does not really adhere to the principles its Founding Father believed in: in fact, American mentality and political ideology can more aptly be described as a vague belief in science resting atop an uneasy and heterogeneous combination of Enlightenment, materialist/Protestant and pagan values.

Here are some posts on all four on the issue,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,3549.msg679273.html#msg679273

You might think that, apart from marginal tribal peoples paganism has been dead for centuries and revived only since the 1970's, say, with the women's spirituality movement. But this is not the first revival of paganism in modern times. Paganism was deliberately revived in the German-speaking world during the late 19th and early twentieth century. It was claimed that Christianity is a repressive religion, that paganism was inherently freer and more joyous. Paganism found its way into literature and art, for example, into Wagner's operas, and there was a significant non-Christian element to the turn of the century counter-cultural movement. There was even an environmental movement whose views in many ways anticipate the today's environmentalism. But there were unique features too.

A century ago many people worried about hereditary degeneration. Whereas nowadays we are told to get in touch with old Christian family values that have fallen into disuse, the German movement said we must get in touch with suppressed pagan values to regenerate our souls. Germanic pagan cults were established to try to revive the German spirit, which had supposedly languished since forced conversion of the Germans to Christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that when Europe became Christian, European humanity became decadent. According to Nietzsche, Christianity so totally suppressed the body's vital impulses that humanity lost its creativity. Nietzsche taught what Jung was later essentially to repeat, that the irrational factor must neither be eliminated nor thoroughly tamed by order-seeking reason, but somehow integrated into our lives. Nietzsche's followers in the German counter-culture rejected conformity to social norms as so much bourgeois-Christian repression.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cllr on November 11, 2005, 09:33:15 AM
Speaking of Jung ... From recent history of charismatic religious cults we are familiar with the tendency of charismatic male religious leaders to act out personal power in unorthodox sexual behavior with parishioners (or even non-parishioners) other than their wives. Jung may fit this mold. But in 1907-1908 Jung was a doctor and a respectable bourgeois, already married, and, in spite of his Freudianism, at least a nominal Christian. How was he to accommodate this Dionysian tendency he recognized within himself, to justify transgression of Christian monogamy? The catalyst came in the charismatic person of Otto Gross, a psychoanalyst active in the pagan and free love movements of the period. Gross believed that "the true healthy state for the neurotic was sexual immorality." Gross tried to practice what he preached. Not only did he throw off sexual restraints but he began using morphine, cocaine, and opium. And he got addicted. At his wife's urging, Gross agreed to commit himself for treatment at an institution under Jung's care. Gross eventually escaped from the institution, uncured of his drug habit. But while there he analyzed Jung as much as Jung analyzed him, and Jung was more affected than Gross.

Gross captivated Jung with his theories of sexual liberation, his Nietzscheanism, and his utopian dreams of transforming the world through psychoanalysis ...  During these long hours he learned of Gross's sexual escapades in Heidelberg. He heard of the seductions of the von Richtofen sisters, of illegitimate children, of vegetarianism and opium and orgies. He learned of the Schwabing to Zurich to Anscona countercultural circuit and listened, amazed, as Gross informed him of neopagans, Theosophists, and sun worshipers who had formed their own colonies in Jung's Switzerland. Gross had become convinced by a theory that our ancestors had lived freely, instinctively, and polygamously in small nomadic bands that tended to be matriarchal. According to this theory, the early matriarchal stage was followed by patriarchy. Once patriarchy was established, all signs of the matriarchy were abolished. Gross concluded that polygamy was rooted in human nature. If our ancestors lived polygamously before patriarchy, then our natural tendencies towards polygamy were probably there, just under the surface. Polygamy is an ancestral impulse. Civilization injures humans by creating social conventions that require them to repress their true savage nature. The shackles of family, society, and (patriarchal) Deity must be broken. Live polygamously. This will release the ancient creative energies of the body and the unconscious and bring humans to a new level.

Jung opposed this view in 1908 when Gross arrived for treatment but by the time Gross escaped, Jung was convinced. Jung tried to practice and promote what Bachofen and Gross preached "by founding a spiritualist mystery cult of renewal and rebirth -- and by advocating polygamy for the rest of his life". Thus by 1912 Jung had rejected Christianity with its repressive orthodoxies. He found another model, pagan antiquity, that held sex sacred. Jung himself practiced his new religion in trysts with his mistress and disciple Toni Wolff in a special tower Jung had built. The walls of this tower were decorated with drawings portraying the mystical figures encountered in Jung's visionary journeys into the unconscious.
Title: Jungian Paganism and the Jews
Post by: cllr on November 11, 2005, 09:36:53 AM
Jung believed that just as the human race all started out pagan and only later, having lost touch with its pagan roots, became rootless, "civilized" and Christian, so Germans start out, in infancy, as spontaneous pagans, but this spontaneous religion is overlaid with the artificial ideas of monotheism. Our loss of wholeness is a loss of contact with these roots. But we can reach these roots, not by the difficult work of historical research but by going inward, digging below the personal unconscious and uncovering the collective unconscious that had only been covered over. When Jung discovered Freud's method of psychoanalysis, he quickly saw it as a tool to uncover hidden resources buried within. But while Freud welcomed Jung into the psychoanalytic movement, he soon noted that Jung was uncritical of myth. He began to fear Jung would compromise the attempt to assert scientific standing for psychoanalysis. This led eventually to the Freud-Jung split. Jung retained from Freud the cult atmosphere of the analytic movement and the lack of rigorous testing of hypotheses. Unlike Freud, Jung claimed that his analytic methods could investigate a inner realm with essentially religious meaning.

Jung explained the resistance of Freud and his close followers to Jung's version of analysis in an essentially racist way. The Freudians were mostly Jews, as was Freud himself. Freudians are uninterested in pagan myths, Jung decided, because they are mostly Jews. The Jews came from the Middle East, which was urbanized and thus depaganized at an early date. Jews had allegedly lost their pagan roots so long ago that they no longer had access to the collective unconscious. By contrast, Germanic peoples had lost their paganism at a relatively late date, roughly 500 to 1100 AD. Thus the pagan collective unconscious lay close enough to the psychological surface that it could still be dug up if only one were persistent enough. Since for Jung being in touch with the collective unconscious is a precondition for psychological health, Germanic types like himself are potentially healthier than Jews.

This idea is scientifically unsound, as it confuses what can be learned with what can be biologically inherited. It also links psychological health more to one ethnic group than another and could easily provide a rationale for anti- Semitism. Jung tended to think of the collective unconscious in racial terms until late in his life. About 1936, when he was already 60, he realized that a stress on this aspect of his thought would not go over well in the English speaking world where Jung thought he could find the greatest number of disciples. In fact, his views about an essentially Aryan collective unconscious put him close to the kinds of things that Hitler was saying.

Jung thought that Germans, English, and Anglo-Americans were all part of the Germanic family tree. The Jews, in his view, had been civilized too long--uprooted from the soil. The Russians were polluted by too much Asian/Mongolian blood. Jung thought his kind of analysis will get (Aryan) people in touch with their roots, still latent inside them, and restore their wholeness. Jung shared these ideas with a number of individuals who became Nazis. This is not to say that Jung was a Nazi. But he made one of the same basic errors that Nazism made: he failed to distinguish acquired cultural characteristics from inherited biological ones. It is understandable that Jung, like many intelligent Germans, could be confused on this question early in the 20th century when the science of genetics was barely getting started. But he continued to believe in it into the 1950's, according to Noll; and this is strong evidence of the fundamentally problematic nature of his key concepts.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: pivotable on November 12, 2005, 01:59:07 PM
Quote
According to Nietzsche, Christianity so totally suppressed the body's vital impulses that humanity lost its creativity. Nietzsche taught what Jung was later essentially to repeat, that the irrational factor must neither be eliminated nor thoroughly tamed by order-seeking reason, but somehow integrated into our lives.

Well, it seems someone is connecting the dots in this thread; reason, too much of it as exemplified in the legal reasoning method, and Nietzsche with the irrational factor to be stressed upon, on the other hand ...

Quote
Polygamy is an ancestral impulse. Civilization injures humans by creating social conventions that require them to repress their true savage nature. The shackles of family, society, and (patriarchal) Deity must be broken. Live polygamously. This will release the ancient creative energies of the body and the unconscious and bring humans to a new level.

Now, this is quite a statement and surely in line with the things this despises! :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: bazar on November 12, 2005, 02:08:32 PM
Quote
The Jews came from the Middle East, which was urbanized and thus depaganized at an early date. Jews had allegedly lost their pagan roots so long ago that they no longer had access to the collective unconscious. By contrast, Germanic peoples had lost their paganism at a relatively late date, roughly 500 to 1100 AD.

The Jews connection with morality and reason, however, as opposed to the victorious, free-spirit character of the Germanic race, appears a bit artificial, at least a bit speculative.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: 175 on November 13, 2005, 08:36:16 PM
You think so, bazar?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: voir dire on November 20, 2005, 07:03:56 PM
Quote
It was claimed that Christianity is a repressive religion, that paganism was inherently freer and more joyous. Paganism found its way into literature and art, for example, into Wagner's operas, and there was a significant non-Christian element to the turn of the century counter-cultural movement.

(http://www.wisegorilla.com/images/pagan/symbols1.jpg)

Pagan Symbols



(http://www.theosophyforum.org.uk/Tslogo.gif)

Theosophical Seal
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: mybelle on November 24, 2005, 02:56:41 PM

(http://www.theosophyforum.org.uk/Tslogo.gif)

Theosophical Seal

Wow, in this seal I recognized this symbol,

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantra1b.jpg)

It's a design created based on a four-triangle Rosecrucian symbol. It is composed of two figures - a central triangle and a seven-pointed figure. If one travels along the path described by this 7-pointed figure, one goes through a movement similar to the one described by the 6-pointed figure in the Enneagram. The Enneagram could have been drawn in such a way as to avoid using a 6-pointed figure. In other words, it was not because of the absence of adequate seven-pointed figures on which to map the 7-tone scale that Enneagram was chosen, with its 6-pointed figure.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: missinu on November 24, 2005, 03:24:43 PM
More or less the same "methodology" to be used to understand Shri Yantra, mybelle.

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantra.gif)

There is a puzzle that is subtly presented in a completely visual form, without words.

A long-time zen practitioner described the initial EFFECT that the diagram had on him when presented with it and asked to visually meditate on it -

The visual effect of looking at the array of triangles is of a shifting field of larger and smaller triangles, giving almost a perception of depth, as one triangle shifts to one either larger and seemingly closer, or smaller and seemingly farther away. The triangles forming the array (i.e., not the smaller triangles the main triangles form) are either equal sided, or their bottom side is shorter than the two vertical sides. The smaller triangles are generally not uniform, although they are mostly nearly (or exactly) equalsided.

This is a precise and accurate phenomenological description of what may happen when one looks at the diagram, but not yet an insight into its most essential nature. Here's a hint that might be helpful in taking one further into the diagram - What is 'wrong' with the picture? Can you find the visual anomaly that is embedded in it?

Not yet? Try SKETCHING the figure.

Its not easy to draw the figure. But why not? Put your finger horizontally across the center of the figure. What can you say about the remaining portion of the figure? Now remove your finger. What do you see in the horizontal center strip, recently covered by your finger?

Still puzzled? Take a look at the following two diagrams. Which figure is the central figure in the Shri Yantra? How do they differ?

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantrasymmetric.gif)
Diagram 1

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantrab.gif)
Diagram 2

The figure to the right is the central figure in the Shri Yantra. The figure to the left was constructed by removing the horizontal strip from the middle ....

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantrab.gif)=
(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantraa.gif)+
(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantra3a.gif)

.... and replacing it with the SYMMETRICAL center that the remainder of the design visually IMPLIES and therefore causes one to expect.

The illusion that is deliberately built into the Shri Yantra makes it very difficult to draw it freehand, as you no doubt came to realize if, in fact, you did try to sketch it. In order to achieve the intended effect one must keep in mind two goals that pull in different directions, you would have to keep in mind that every line you make is a line in two completely different portraits!

But the Shri Yantra is no MERE illusion, meant simply to delight or entertain. Nor is it just an object lesson in the psychology of perception. It has a profound meaning, one which reveals itself only when the effects of the diagram are studied in relationship to how consciousness becomes capable of 'moving' in certain states that one can enter into in meditation. In their (1975) analysis of the figure, Evans and Fudjack remark,

".... how can we conceive of the [Shri Yantra] as an object for meditation? How is one to fixate attention on the diagram? Well, at first glance the diagram appears to be a symmetrical geometrical design and we know how to fixate attention on such a design by staring at the point of symmetry at its center. However, the Shri Yantra does not have a point around which the design is symmetrically fixed. Zimmer alludes to this by mentioning its 'elusive' center. So in focusing attention inward toward the center we wind up at a point, line, or configuration none of which is a satisfactory center of symmetry. We find ourselves compensating the small center triangle, for instance, by widening our scope of attention to it and some counterpart that promises symmetry. But we pass to this wider symmetry-suggestive area by a quantum leap, so to speak - we lose ourselves and find ourselves staring again at the entire configuration which suggests that the diagram is, after all, symmetrically composed. So we focus in toward the center again in search of that elusive point. We either become dissatisfied or distracted by some other activity or we discover the joke, the trick. The diagram is designed to appear symmetrical when we take it, in its entirety, as an object of attention, but is also cleverly designed to have no point of symmetry. It is an illustration of paradox. Not so much the paradox of time and eternity as the paradox of a symmetrical object without a point of symmetry - a logical contradiction. (C.O. Evans and J. Fudjack, CONSCIOUSNESS, 1976.)
Title: You're taking law all too seriously
Post by: attire on November 27, 2005, 06:12:53 PM
On the issue of holding two contradictory beliefs in mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them (doublethink): well, I would suggest you study a bit Zen Buddhism. You know, Zen is a complete difference in perception to the dominant Western worldview. The Western world, dominated by science, has a logical and rational view of life. Contradiction and paradox are frowned upon in this worldview.

1 + 1 = 2 and cannot be 3.

The rational perspective is only one view of life, and not necessarily the most valid. This is not to say that rationality is wrong, but rather that is limited and only one perception that has been historically and geographically prescribed.

Enlightenment as the goal of Zen Buddhism. This again is a very difficult term to describe in a sentence or two. We can understand enlightenment as knowledge of the truth; but this knowledge is not the accumulative and rational knowledge of the West. The word enlightenment is understandable and frequently used in the religions of the West. A monk went to the Zen master wanting to know more about the truth of enlightenment. When he asked this question of the Zen master, the master replied, "Do you hear the sound of that running brook." "Yes, I hear it," answered the monk. "That is the entrance to the truth" the Master replied to him. From this example a number of things should be obvious. Enlightenment is not a form of perception that is mediated by logic or even cause and effect reasoning. It is an immediate and complete clear view and understanding of the nature of reality.

The misconception of self.
 
One of the obstacles that stand in the way of the initiate trying to enter into Zen understanding is the concept of the self. This is one of the central reasons why Zen is so difficult for the Westerner. Western perceptions of reality are built on the foundation of the Self and the idea of the centrality of the Ego. In terms of understanding Zen, the greatest obstacle to Enlightenment is the Self. The reason for this situation is that the Self is an illusion created by the society, and by the desires and needs of the individual Ego. It is only in moving beyond the Ego that an understanding of the enlightenment can begin. There is an important difference between the terms "Self" and "ego" that must be understood in this regard. For the Eastern Mind the Self is the true self that has been released from the false self of the ego. In other words, the ego is the illusionary element that traps man into a false perception of reality. The Enlightenment is the break-through from the region of the false self into a new consciousness and awareness that is not limited by the ego.

This distinction between the Self and the false ego is not too difficult to understand in ordinary terms. The self, it is widely acknowledged by psychologists and sociologists, is a construction. In other words, the human self is built from social conventions, personal feelings and history and is, in this temporal sense, an illusion. This illusion of the self stands as a barrier between the true Self and a perception of reality. One only has to think of the false ideals like materialism and envy etc, which absorb us in our daily lives, to understand the validity of the Zen perception of no-self. This is a realization that is skirted over by many Western practitioners of Zen, mainly because of its essential difficulty. But, this is also one of the most significant areas of investigation for the Western person wanting to understand Zen. After fully understanding the illusion of the self, the journey into Zen begins. From this point onwards, we enter into the knowledge of Zen without the encumbrance of the baggage of our daily lives or the illusions of our social selves, but rather concentrating on truth as it emerges beyond both objectivity and subjectivity.

Beyond illusion.

Once the journey into Zen begins the dualistic concepts that once imprisoned the mind, fall away. The ideas of birth and death, pain and joy, no longer have any relevance. For the Westerner this is almost a non-sensical world where there seems to be nothing at all. It is precisely this concept of nothingness that is the source, for the Zen Buddhist, of all reality. It is interesting to note that modern science tends to confirm these strange notions. For example, the "Big Bang Theory" of how the universe began is currently one of the contenders for the most legitimate explanation of the start of our Universe. But this theory proposes a moment before the Big Bang where, theoretically, there was nothing. One of the greatest problems in trying to understand Zen from a Western perspective is that Zen is an intensely personal experience. Enlightenment is achieved and recognized as a personal and individual knowledge that cannot be shared in an outward logical sense. In the West, religion is formal and concentrated in the institution of churches. There is a procedure and knowledge in these institutions that must be followed in a public sense. While individual enlightenment is obviously part of institutionalized religion, it must occur within the framework of the Church and its formal arrangements. This is not the case in Zen, where there are no formal elements and the individual initiate and the master find the path to enlightenment without these restrictions and without any external validation process.

In order for us to come to grips with Zen, we often have to use metaphors and seemingly strange examples to help us to understand this attitude towards life. It is a mode of thought that is essentially non-dualistic. This means that it tends to initiate a mode of thinking that collapses distinctions between opposites. This is very difficult for the Western world that has held opposites, in language and in logic, as the central pillars of civilized thought. In order to understand Zen one must be prepared to question the very foundations of one's life and of the societal influences that affect one. The purpose of Zen is nothing less than total freedom from these dualities of life. In this way, it suggests, we are able to move into a state of mind and reality that is not troubled by anger or fear or by envy and ambition.

At least part of the post quoted here is plagiarized from an article by D.T. Suzuki called "Introduction to Zen Buddhism in America."

Here's the site link. See for yourself:

http://ks.essortment.com/introductionzen_riej.htm


Le visage en feu
 
J'arrive à un carrefour,
le feu était au rouge.
Il n'y avait pas de voitures,
je passe!
Seulement, il y avait
un agent qui faisait le guet
Il me siffle.
Il me dit
- Vous êtes passé au rouge!
- Oui ! Il n'y avait pas de voitures!
- Ce n'est pas une raison!
Je dis:
- Ah si! Quelquefois, le feu est au vert . . .
Il y a des voitures et . .
je ne peux pas passer!
Stupeur de l'agent!
Il est devenu tout rouge.
Je lui dis:
- Vous avez le visage en feu!
Il est devenu tout vert!
Alors, je suis passé!

Raymond Devos
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: obviously on November 30, 2005, 06:25:30 AM
please post it in english, we love poetry but it has to be in english for us to appreciate its magnitude of greatness
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: racheles05 on November 30, 2005, 07:06:47 AM
I don't see how you people can pretend to have an intellectual debate over the "hateful" Jews and what not. That's prejudice and prejudice is ignorant, no matter how you dress it up. Remember The Bell Curve? Yeah, that guy was an idiot, too.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: primadonna greta garbo on December 08, 2005, 10:27:40 PM
tag
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: doesnotallowgreekcharacte on December 08, 2005, 11:17:14 PM
Well, for now I'll just be understanding and I will not refer people reading this thread trying to figure out the why all this "reasoning" stuff to the other, more relevant thread  here,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php?topic=2012.0

Title: ;)
Post by: denna on December 10, 2005, 05:52:13 PM
tag

(http://www.stanford.edu/~brooksie/Garbo/Garbo2.JPG)

Mata Hari 1932
Title: mysticism offers the only real freedom
Post by: raspberry reich on December 10, 2005, 07:35:22 PM
Quote
Quote
According to Nietzsche, Christianity so totally suppressed the body's vital impulses that humanity lost its creativity. Nietzsche taught what Jung was later essentially to repeat, that the irrational factor must neither be eliminated nor thoroughly tamed by order-seeking reason, but somehow integrated into our lives.

Well, it seems someone is connecting the dots in this thread; reason, too much of it as exemplified in the legal reasoning method, and Nietzsche with the irrational factor to be stressed upon, on the other hand ...

As Fromm notes,

Mystics are the really free people. They nourish their freedom. They are in no way afraid of being free. They learn to trust their self. For in their eyes the self is nothing but a gateway to the higher Self. Behind and beyond our self can we  learn to know that Divine Self that is the basis of everything. If we come into contact with that deepest Self, our freedom will no more intimidate us. That very freedom will establish a basis for real self-confidence. Only then are we really free. Only in God can we be really free, as the wisdom traditions teach us.

After writing Escape from Freedom in 1941, the developments have speeded up in rapid pace. Especially since the sixties and seventies man and society have become even more individualized. Fromm's book certainly made a contribution to that development. In the sixties the book was on the shelf of each self respecting intellectual.  It has been a major factor in shaping our culture. In the book he described the psychological and cultural pathologies that were caused by a constantly growing freedom for the individual in our modern society. Even now we are still haunted by these pathologies. But in the future these pathologies can become healed. Then man will dare to be really free. Recent developments, as well in science as in society, make us hopeful. In psychology more attention nowadays is being paid to investigation into religious experiences and their effects on our psyche. One strives to combine the experiences of many cultures and traditions in an integral embrace. Humans of today are more conscious of their selves than a number of decades ago. This is an ongoing development that can make us hopeful about more future evolutionary growth of our consciousness.

Title: "Loose Lips Sink Ships"
Post by: ratrace on December 18, 2005, 06:45:42 AM
tag

(http://www.stanford.edu/~brooksie/Garbo/Garbo2.JPG)

Mata Hari 1932

I don't get all this passion for this woman ... I mean, here it is the truth about this "superstar":

The lady on top of you is the infamous Mata Hari. Lips don't come much looser than hers. The name means, "Child of the Dawn" in Hindi, or "Eye of the Dawn" in Malay. She was, they said, the daughter of a Brahmin and an initiate into the rituals of sacred Kandiswami dance. The Follies Bergere nearly had drool ditches cut into the floors for the Frenchmen gathered in mobs to admire her... cultural diversity. They apparently thought she was pretty OK, even though she shaved her armpits. Who says the French are intolerant? She arrived in Paris with nothing but her clothes. And, hearing once that 'Less is More', shed those, along with her previous identity. After that, she wanted for absolutely nothing in life (except a good source of contraception, a steady supply of "Indian Teak" body stain, and a strong dose of Penicillin now and then). Eventually, WWI started, and Mata found out that she had a uniform fetish; and the more stars, bars, ribbon and doodads on it the better. Her boudoir became the hospitality suite of French High Command. The German army showed Mata how her hunger could be turned from fun to profit, and soon her vast range of pillow talk became military intelligence for the Kaiser.

Dutch spy Mata Hari wasn't as important as everyone seems to believe. Accused of being a double agent for both the French and German army during the Great War, Mata Hari was executed in 1917 by a French firing squad.

She was born in the northern Dutch town of Leeuwarden as Margaretha Geertruida Zelle. She moved to France where she started a career as a nude dancer where she became famous and moved in the highest circles of Europe. So, the French Secret Service asked Mata Hari to mingle with the Germans. However, during her first mission something went wrong and she was arrested by the British intelligence service. For a long time, historians have thought her arrest was mere coincidence. But the British kept Mata Hari under close surveillance from 1915 on. In the meantime, the French too got suspicious. Mata Hari had lovers on both sides of the border.

It also became clear that German army officers were paying her. Officially, it was to keep them company but the French intelligence office wasn't so sure about that. What if she was paid for passing on sensitive information? When she tried to cross into France to visit one of her lovers, Mata Hari was arrested by the French Secret Service and interrogated. During one of these long sessions, she succumbed and confessed to being a German spy, known under the pseudonym of H21.

The trial that followed was nothing more than a showcase trial. The French were convinced she was "one of the greatest spies of the century, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers". Mata Hari was deemed guilty and condemned to death. In 1917, she died in front of a firing squad despite her desperate claims that she was innocent. The Dutch Mata Hari Foundation however, still sees possibilities to rehabilitate her with the help of several newly released MI-5 documents. They still think there may be chance that Mata Hari was indeed innocent.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: mh on December 23, 2005, 01:29:15 AM
Well, I read this thread very attentively and I just don't get why all the "surprise" by the whole law school experience ... I mean, law school is  not  a mere continuation of one's undergraduate (or even graduate) studies -- I think it more akin to "boot camp" where, in addition to certain substantive subjects and professional skills, one becomes "re-socialized," learns to "think like a lawyer," learns to cope with stress and many other things collateral to learning law, but not collateral to "lawyering." Like boot camp (or virginity's loss!), when you enter law school, your life turns a corner past which it can never again pass. Don't get me wrong, I do not regret the trip ... but it brings a permanent change. So, those of you who still have the chance, enjoy the virginity -- law school will bring a permanent change!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Sweeny03 on January 05, 2006, 01:39:58 PM
weird thread, will have to finish reading later
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: emc on January 12, 2006, 02:59:40 AM
please post it in english, we love poetry but it has to be in english for us to appreciate its magnitude of greatness

Exactly!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: terapist on January 16, 2006, 04:17:41 AM
I think it has to do with a man at an intersection that disregards a red traffic light. A traffic policeman says him he's not supposed to do it. The man says that he can as there were no cars and that sometimes the traffic light is green but there are cars going thru and he can't cross the road. The traffic policeman becomes confused and the man crosses the road seeing that the policeman can't even say a word. That's what it says in essence.


Le visage en feu
 
J'arrive à un carrefour,
le feu était au rouge.
Il n'y avait pas de voitures,
je passe!
Seulement, il y avait
un agent qui faisait le guet
Il me siffle.
Il me dit
- Vous êtes passé au rouge!
- Oui ! Il n'y avait pas de voitures!
- Ce n'est pas une raison!
Je dis:
- Ah si! Quelquefois, le feu est au vert . . .
Il y a des voitures et . .
je ne peux pas passer!
Stupeur de l'agent!
Il est devenu tout rouge.
Je lui dis:
- Vous avez le visage en feu!
Il est devenu tout vert!
Alors, je suis passé!

Raymond Devos
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ae on January 18, 2006, 10:38:13 PM
Thanks terapist for the interpretation. A fairly simple story, but with such a great message!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: qui tam on January 20, 2006, 03:13:49 AM
Indeed, ae!!!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: arrogantbastardofahunk on January 24, 2006, 10:08:55 PM
Awesome thread overall!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: thisfriday on January 26, 2006, 10:16:04 PM
Well, I read this thread very attentively and I just don't get why all the "surprise" by the whole law school experience ... I mean, law school is  not  a mere continuation of one's undergraduate (or even graduate) studies -- I think it more akin to "boot camp" where, in addition to certain substantive subjects and professional skills, one becomes "re-socialized," learns to "think like a lawyer," learns to cope with stress and many other things collateral to learning law, but not collateral to "lawyering." Like boot camp (or virginity's loss!), when you enter law school, your life turns a corner past which it can never again pass. Don't get me wrong, I do not regret the trip ... but it brings a permanent change. So, those of you who still have the chance, enjoy the virginity -- law school will bring a permanent change!

RU shure?!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: rmrd on January 30, 2006, 09:31:50 AM
LOL thisfriday! ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: newmommie on February 05, 2006, 08:16:11 PM
Please keep posting more stuff here, this thread is simply beautiful!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: erstes on February 18, 2006, 10:59:41 AM
Number 1 thread, hands down!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: P450 on February 20, 2006, 06:05:02 PM

In Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four there is a particularly chilling scene in which, after the director of the Ministry of Love has subjected Winston Smith to intense physical tortures, he employs another strategy in the process of Smith's gradual re-education.

"This time it will not hurt," [O'Brien] said. "Keep your eyes fixed on mine."
   At this moment there was a devastating explosion, or what seemed like an explosion.... A terrific, painless blow had flattened [Smith] out. Also something had happened inside his head ... somewhere or other there was a large patch of emptiness, as though a piece had been taken out of his brain.
   "It will not last," said O'Brien. "Look at me in the eyes.... Just now I held up the fingers of my hand to you. You saw five fingers. Do you remember that?"
   "Yes."
   O'Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed.
   "There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?"
   "Yes."
   And he did see them, for a fleeting instant ... there had been a moment -- he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps -- of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O'Brien's had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed ...
   "You see now," said O'Brien, "that it is at any rate possible."


Compare this passage to Karl Llewellyn's famous description of the student's first year of law school: "The hardest job of the first year is to lop off your commonsense, to knock your ethics into temporary anesthesia. Your view of social policy, your sense of justice -- to knock these out of you along with woozy thinking, along with ideas all fuzzed along their edges."

Bot of course when we undertake the resolution of hard issues it will always be the case that the relevant legal concepts, the demands of social policy, and the ideal of justice will by necessity appear to sensitive interpreters to be "fuzzed along their edges." That very same formal, empirical, and ethical fuzziness is, after all, what makes hard issues hard. A successful legal education therefore both sharpens and desensitizes the adept's sense of analytical complexity, sharpening it so that the advocate can identify various plausible arguments, and then deadening it for the purpose of making and (especially) deciding between such arguments. This  characteristic doubleness of the legal mind produces the doubleness of the literal sophomore -- of the brilliant simpleton who understands and exploits and at appropriate times forgets -- the evidentiary problems, conceptual incommensurabilities, and ethical dilemmas that always characterize legal issues. To be trained to think like a lawyer is to be taught how to evoke all the chaotic complexity of law, and then how to repress the intolerable doubt that same evocation can produce by going on to achieve the "luminous certainty" required of the advocate or judge.   


Well, in the cold calculus of the utilitarian the American law school is a classic barrier to entry, designed to maintain a professional cartel. From a democratic viewpoint it is a seminary for the production of a mystifying priestcraft, whose obscurantist incantations help legitimate the power of the social and cultural elite. In academic terms it is a mostly fraudulent operation that teaches neither theory nor practice, but instead functions as the equivalent of a foreign service academy that would show its charges Goldfinger several hundred times before sending them forth to conduct trade talks with Austria.

Shouldn't then law school be abolished altogether? After all, no other legal system in the world requires 3 years of postgraduate schooling before one can undertake the most routine matter of client representation or courtroom advocacy. Indeed, the maverick presidential candidate Morry Taylor made a pledge to close down American law schools for 10 years, a major proposal of his quixotic campaign. Why not make the study of law an undergraduate program, or a college major followed by some sort of postgraduate apprenticeship -- this would surely be a quintessentially rationalist response to an institution that survives, and even thrives, because it fills a deep cultural need for the maintenance of some atavistic set of rituals that will obscure the inescapably troublesome and often tragic relationship between moral belief, political science and social power.

Given the rhetorical requirements of legal argument, and the practical exigencies of legal decision making, it isn't an exaggeration to say that the tasks of preparing persons to undertake zealous legal representation and render legal judgment are to some extent incompatible with maintaining strict standards of intellectual honesty. Such is the fate of, e.g., those who must prepare others to wield social power arbitrarily, and yet who must at the same time legitimate that use of power by claiming legal arguments and the decisions that flow from them are impelled by "the law," or "legal principles," or "reason" itself.

But there is no reason why that fate needs to be replicated in all other areas of social life.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: madam on February 22, 2006, 03:50:43 PM

Shouldn't then law school be abolished altogether? After all, no other legal system in the world requires 3 years of postgraduate schooling before one can undertake the most routine matter of client representation or courtroom advocacy. Indeed, the maverick presidential candidate Morry Taylor made a pledge to close down American law schools for 10 years, a major proposal of his quixotic campaign. Why not make the study of law an undergraduate program, or a college major followed by some sort of postgraduate apprenticeship -- this would surely be a quintessentially rationalist response to an institution that survives, and even thrives, because it fills a deep cultural need for the maintenance of some atavistic set of rituals that will obscure the inescapably troublesome and often tragic relationship between moral belief, political science and social power.


Indeed, in UK to study law you go to college, that is not after earning a bachelor's degree.

The undergraduate law degree is the most common form of entry into the legal profession, followed by a 1-year professional course and examination (the professional stage). The academic stage usually consists of an undergraduate degree which is offered in any of the 89 UK universities. Entry is decided by reference to "A-Level" points -- "A-Levels" are examinations students take in the 2 years prior to entering university and each grade is worth a different level of points. Only a few law schools interview candidates before admission and some Oxford and Cambridge Colleges also set entrance exams. There is not an LSAT or similar. The majority of programs, commonly leading to a Bachelor of Laws or a Bachelor of Arts, joint honors degree, last 3 years. The study of law at undergraduate level is, as you can see, significantly different from the US where law is a postgraduate discipline. At the end of three years students are awarded a bachelor's degree in law and they must then decide what to do next. A large proportion -- possibly around one-third -- will decide not to enter a career as a lawyer. The others must choose between becoming a barrister (essentially, a courtroom litigator) or a solicitor. Students who do not have a qualifying law degree (either because they have not studied one of the subjects listed above, or because they have read for another degree) but who nonetheless wish to enter the professions must do a one-year course called the Common Professional Examination and then they too have to choose which profession to enter.

- Solicitors

The Law Society, the professional body representing solicitors, requires those who wish to qualify to join a Legal Practice Course (LPC). If they successfully pass this they will have to obtain a Training Contract from a solicitors' firm which will provide another 2 years training, before a successful law student is finally 'admitted as a solicitor' or entered on the Roll of Solicitors. The Law Society has franchised about 10 university institutions and two private education institutions to provide the course which it supervises closely. The Legal Practice Course lasts 1 academic year. Upon successfully completing the LPC a Trainee Solicitor enters a firm and continues on-the-job-training for 2 years. This period includes formal training in advocacy.

- Barristers

The General Council of the Bar has franchised a 1-year program and examination for those wishing to become barristers. Called the Bar Vocational Course (BVC) it was introduced in 1989 to emphasise the practising skills required for court work. The course utilises practical exercises for the DRAIN competencies (Drafting, Research, Advocacy, Interviewing and Negotiation), and its early development owed much to North American experiences, especially Canada. Substantive courses in crime, common law, and taxation are taught as well as civil and criminal procedure. Upon successfully passing the Bar exams, a student can be called to the Bar by her/his Inn of Court. All those wishing to become barristers have to join one of the four Inns of Court (Gray's Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple or Lincoln's Inn), which basically involves paying a membership fee and eating a number of compulsory dinners. Call to the Bar however does not entitle a barrister to practice and s/he must then complete a further 12 months "pupillage" in a group of barristers' offices or "set of chambers". A pupil in the first 6 months of pupillage will be assigned to an experienced barrister. The system is intended to introduce the novice to the forms and procedures that constitute a barrister's work. During the 'second 6 months' a barrister can appear in court, but is technically still under the supervision of a more experienced barrister.

Thereafter a barrister wishing to practice on her own account must find a 'set of chambers' to join as a 'tenant'. The biggest hurdles for trainee barristers are obtaining a pupillage and finding a 'tenancy'.  There is a restricted number of vacancies each year for pupils and far more students pass the exams than there are pupillages. There are still fewer tenancies available and as a consequence each year many more barristers qualify than are needed to practice in the courts. Many find employment in corporations, government, or court administration.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: count on February 23, 2006, 12:49:39 AM
Awesome posts, madam!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: tabs on February 28, 2006, 12:59:11 AM
The person who started this thread and the others who supported what s/he said are obviously sidetracked people who are trying to sound interesting by trying to attack the system, being full aware that the system will never accept them for who they are and what they represent - the negation of the basic tenets of that system.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ats on March 02, 2006, 02:43:42 AM
The person who started this thread and the others who supported what s/he said are obviously sidetracked people who are trying to sound interesting by trying to attack the system, being full aware that the system will never accept them for who they are and what they represent - the negation of the basic tenets of that system.

baby, it looks like people posting here are using their common sense when concluding that the legal "reasoning" method sucks greatly -- I mean, try to talk your mommy into buying the crap you study in law school -- you'd be surprised to see she'll pity you.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lemaldetoi on March 04, 2006, 06:24:54 AM
The person who started this thread and the others who supported what s/he said are obviously sidetracked people who are trying to sound interesting by trying to attack the system, being full aware that the system will never accept them for who they are and what they represent - the negation of the basic tenets of that system.

Perhaps by meeting people like the ones who started and contributed to this thread, others less confident will find the strength to reclaim self again. It is never too late. Time has neither beginning nor end and does not expire, as mortality with last breath. Time and change have a chicken-and-egg relationship. They chase each other so closely it's hard to tell which is behind and which is ahead. Sometimes change thinks it's ahead only to find itself spitting out the dust kicked up by time's passing.

I know what many of you are thinking: these people are loose cannons on the mankind ship. Different and often labeled delinquent, they are dismissed or overlooked, after all, unless they earn recognition by working inside rather than outside the system. But what these people encourage all, I think, is to "Think for Yourself, Question Authority." Yet, be aware of the immoral outrage and mortal consequence when institutions feel threatened by individuality. Think for yourself. Proceed with caution, as proper use of brain is not endorsed by federal governments nor huge corporations involved in serious financial profit from a brainwashed ans enslaved population. Mild discomfort may occur, as confusing independent thought challenges popular views of the world.

When humans are devalued is when such people change roles, from participant to leader. There are no coincidences, no isolated incidents. Everything personal and professional ripples planet consequences. As each is a self-scripted star in their own life story, each also has the power and freedom to pen their own demise. Living according to individual truth considerably reduces the possibility to self-defeat becoming a pattern moment-to-moment, year-to-year, and life-to-life. The age of responsibility is the age of maturity. Until then, evolution of self is like the stage in metamorphosis known as larvae. More than egg, less than butterfly, looks like a worm, feeds off anything within touch, taste, or sight, and leaves dung heaps behind for others to clean-up. For some, self is directly tied to opinions of others, as larvae is tied to twig and leaf. For some, self is hidden by self-induced, self-stunning fears, thus remaining at the safe larvae stage rather than risking imago.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: majorporcupine on March 04, 2006, 07:10:48 PM
Well, I for one really like my law school.  My professors challenge me and my classmates are the best.  I'm looking forward to a lucrative and successful career as a lawyer.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: fedhex on March 17, 2006, 06:45:46 AM
Okay.
Title: Actors
Post by: Bravo on March 18, 2006, 04:43:23 AM
After my first year of law school I've come to the conclusion that our legal system is fundamentally sick. In essence, though, I believe that is because the legal system is a product of our sick culture, a culture whose metaphysical axioms -- if they were taken seriously -- would require people to believe that choosing between the morality of Socrates and that of Hitler is no different from choosing between Coke and Pepsi.

In its more manifestations, what Americans call the "rule of law" can come to resemble a form of mental illness. Can anyone who followed the O.J. Simpson affair dismiss such an idea out of hand? I believe what (usually) keeps the madness of law from becoming the madness of lawyers is a necessary -- and indeed a therapeutic -- inauthenticity. In fact, inauthenticity is essential to authentic legal thought. After all, lawyers make claims not because they believe them to be true, but becuase they believe them to be legally efficacious. If they happen to be true, then all the better; but the lawyer who is concerned primarily with the truth value of the statements he makes on behalf of clients is soon going to find himself unable to fulfill his professional obligation to represent those clients.

Not only intellectual inauthenticity, but also emotionally ..

Lawyers are often impelled by their professional obligations to become something akin to emotional prostitutes; that is, to be persons whose public personae require the simulation of inauthentic affective states as a condition of their compensation. In the context of ongoing litigation the most common of these simulated emotions is outrage: a lawyer trying a case must always be ready to express what seems like genuine outrage at the drop of the proverbial hat.

Perhaps because so many politicians are lawyers, or perhaps simply because everyone has seen facets of the lawyerly persona exhibited in so many different contexts of social conflict, various dramaturgical requirements of the adversary system are now being assimilated gradually into all forms of public conversation. In particular, the simulation of outrage has become a seemingly permanent part of the broader political culture. National television programs featuring supposedly sophisticated political commentary, such as "Crossfire," "The McLaughlin Group," and "The Capital Gang," provide examples of how lawyerly rhetoric and its accompanying emotional simulation have become key elements in the dramatic logic of public political discourse.
Title: How law students find themselves trapped in a corporate cartel.
Post by: JC on March 20, 2006, 06:22:51 PM
By Avi Klein
-
 
Alger Hiss once remarked to his son that "three years at Lewisburg penitentiary is a good corrective to three years at Harvard [Law School]." It is hard to know exactly what he meant by this — Hiss (codename: Advokat) was, after all, a communist spy — but he was neither the first nor the last lawyer to suspect there was something fundamentally wrong with legal education. As Hiss's behavior suggests, law school has the ability — some might say the intention — to engender greed and intellectual myopia, sometimes from the very first day. Young, creative, ambitious men and women, fresh from four years of liberal arts education, enter law school eager to make a change in the world. They leave as dedicated corporate functionaries, consumed with money and prestige, and fearful of upsetting the legal establishment. Law school breaks people. It is experienced as a trauma, an assault. If law school changes people, it is rarely for the better.

What neither of these two styles of book manages to do, however, is seriously discuss what it is exactly that makes law school so unpleasant. To understand law school — and therefore the grassroots of the legal profession — one has to first grasp the economics supporting it. Litowitz, a professor at Ohio Northern University with a short career in corporate law, stakes out space few practicing attorneys are willing even to survey: The system, Litowitz observes, is designed and sustained by corporate law firms in order to create just the right number of lawyers to fulfill corporate demand, but not so many that the fees of established lawyers are at risk of competition. At the same time, by failing to adequately teach these same lawyers how to actually practice law, and by saddling them with huge debts in the process, the legal establishment scares young lawyers into cowering submissively before the awesome power of the organized bar and the licensing authorities.

Law students leave the real world behind sometime around orientation, learning instead to construct their lives around their grades and careers, often to a point of absurdity.

Public opinion of lawyers is shared by lawyers themselves. "Attorney self-loathing," Litowitz reports, "is a specific response both to the conditions under which lawyers are educated, licensed and regulated and to the economic cauldron into which they are thrown." Students worry that they aren't smart enough, that they aren't competent enough, that they won't earn the grades they need to pay off the average $80,000 of debt the average law student accrues. They begin to hate what they are becoming, yet fear alternative paths. Although only ten percent of incoming law students report mental health problems, forty percent of graduates do.

The self-hatred begins in law school classrooms, where the Socratic method — "a ritual of subjugation that purposely disables a student" — is still used, even if it has softened a touch since Turow's experience in the 1970s. Each answer solicits a further question, until the student is forced either into a mistake or into admitting in front of his peers that he is ignorant. "There is a strong element of sadism in the Socratic interchange," Litowitz writes. "It uses fear and shame as a motivating force, which is easier than motivating people with ideas and worthy goals." Instead of learning out of intellectual interest, students study as an insurance policy against being called upon.

If the Socratic method was actually an effective pedagogical device, the costs might be worth the benefits. But, as Litowitz explains, it has absolutely no merit other than as a way to establish a power differential between the would-be lawyer and the already established one. Socrates himself didn't use it to teach — it was just a conversational tool he used on his friends. After all, the teacher is the one who is supposed to explain things to the students, not the other way around. This is especially true with the law, which is intrinsically complicated to such an extent that students need a professor who makes the subject less complicated, not more. Is it really necessary to raise the anxiety levels of ninety students just to teach the parol evidence rule?

By using the Socratic method and emphasizing the case study approach — law school textbooks are mainly compilations of appellate decisions, not original teaching material — law professors fail their students both intellectually and professionally. At graduation, the student knows much about appellate court opinions on various complex matters, but to the exclusion of any practical knowledge of how to actually practice. Students know the difference between a 'fee simple absolute' and a 'fee simple subject to condition subsequent,' but they don't know the first thing about how to write a will that takes these concepts into account. Contracts classes rarely involve looking at one. One can even graduate law school without learning how to format a word processor to include line numbers on the margins. Compare this to medical school, where graduates have spent two years in hospital rotations assisting in surgery and delivering babies, and it is easy to call the typical recent law graduate a licensed fraud.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: JC on March 20, 2006, 06:23:06 PM
If there was a conspiracy to commit such a fraud, it would begin with law school and end with the bar exam. Developed in the 1910s in the same fervor of WASP anti-Semitism that motivated the Ivy League to overhaul its admissions procedures, the bar exam has served ever since to boost lawyer salaries while reducing the numbers of skilled lawyers available. Although there is absolutely no evidence that the ability to pass the bar is related to how well someone practices law, there is an aggressive psychological element not unlike fraternity hazing that helps perpetuate the system. The bar exam is a rite of passage by which the hopeful lawyer-to-be shows his willingness to do anything to please the state bar authorities in exchange for a license. This humiliation is complete with a bar disclosure form that rivals the CIA's in its comprehensive invasiveness. In Maryland, applicants must present themselves at a character interview — a smilingly impolite episode that permits a senior attorney to inquire after a new lawyer's finances and mental health. The message is that the bar made your career on arbitrary grounds, and it can break it the same way.

Each state has its own exam, though most supplement a day of essay writing with the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), a two hundred question multiple-choice exam testing common law disciplines including torts, contracts and property. To pass the bar it is necessary to have at your fingertips an overwhelming stockpile of one-sentence rules about miscellaneous legal subjects. If lawyers practiced like doctors, instant recall would be worth examining. But they don't. When you hire a lawyer, most of what you pay for is his research ability, not his immediate knowledge, and very few corporate lawyers handle any of the issues being tested. Even so, students are placed through a wringer in which they must dedicate 2 months of study, paying thousands of dollars for preparation courses, all under the absurd presumption that their "competence" is being tested.

Of course, what makes a competent lawyer one year may make an incompetent lawyer the next. When scores on the MBE started to rise in the 1990s bar examiners were not delighted: instead they raised the passing cutoff point to ensure that an even greater number of students would fail. As a rule, the more popular a state is, the more difficult the exam. Although there was no evidence lawyer quality was suffering, the Florida bar now fails twice as many first time takers as it did ten years ago, all in order to avoid putting the people of Florida at risk. The Sunshine State, not coincidentally, is also a popular retirement home for East Coast attorneys who might be tempted to set up small practices for extra income.

This is all particularly absurd when one considers that most jurisdictions require out-of-staters to retake the MBE to be admitted. If John Roberts decided to leave the Supreme Court and retire to Virginia, keeping a small office for occasional appellate work, he would still have to go for two days next July and sit in a hot auditorium filling in multiple-choice bubbles about constitutional law. (That would be the least of his indignities: Test-takers in Virginia are required to wear both business suits and sneakers or other quiet shoes—Adidas poking out beneath their Brooks Brothers trousers in a Paul Bremer-inspired look.)

One additional distasteful characteristic of the bar exam is that it artificially deflates the number of minority attorneys. First-time bar passage rates for African-Americans are only 61%, compared to 90% for whites. While law schools have aggressively developed affirmative action programs for both students and faculty, the bar associations have not succeeded in meeting the needs of minority communities. The effect is especially pernicious because, according to a University of Michigan study, minority lawyers are far more likely than their white classmates to pursue public interest jobs.

For many young corporate attorneys, the firm is a sweatshop, and their own labor is merely legal-ruled piecework. The law is crowded — interesting — and full of despair, wrote Archibald MacLeish to his parents after a few disappointing years as a lawyer. It offers its own rewards, but none other. To his friend Dean Acheson he wrote, "If I correctly analyze my emotions, I am attracted to the law by considerations the most superficial imaginable." Lawyers suffer high rates of mental illness, job dissatisfaction, alcoholism and drug abuse, and divorce. Sandra Day O'Connor calls them "a profoundly unhappy lot." Mitigating all this personal unhappiness, of course, are the fat paychecks lawyers receive each month — it is hard to feel too sorry for them. The real losers here are the millions of Americans who can't afford the legal representation they need. The incarcerated may receive a court-appointed attorney, but a person in a dispute with a landlord, or on the wrong end of a collections agent, will be lucky to find a law school clinic to assist him. In the end, such a person will always fall victim to rapacious interests that can afford a legion of intimidating legal shock-troopers. We are used to thinking that America has too many lawyers. The truth is, the lawyers we have are just the wrong kind.



Avi Klein, an intern at The Washington Monthly, is licensed to practice law in Maryland. He never has.
Title: Corporate culture
Post by: arcanismajor on March 27, 2006, 06:42:51 PM

In Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four there is a particularly chilling scene in which, after the director of the Ministry of Love has subjected Winston Smith to intense physical tortures, he employs another strategy in the process of Smith's gradual re-education.

"This time it will not hurt," [O'Brien] said. "Keep your eyes fixed on mine."
   At this moment there was a devastating explosion, or what seemed like an explosion.... A terrific, painless blow had flattened [Smith] out. Also something had happened inside his head ... somewhere or other there was a large patch of emptiness, as though a piece had been taken out of his brain.
   "It will not last," said O'Brien. "Look at me in the eyes.... Just now I held up the fingers of my hand to you. You saw five fingers. Do you remember that?"
   "Yes."
   O'Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed.
   "There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?"
   "Yes."
   And he did see them, for a fleeting instant ... there had been a moment -- he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps -- of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O'Brien's had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed ...
   "You see now," said O'Brien, "that it is at any rate possible."


Compare this passage to Karl Llewellyn's famous description of the student's first year of law school: "The hardest job of the first year is to lop off your commonsense, to knock your ethics into temporary anesthesia. Your view of social policy, your sense of justice -- to knock these out of you along with woozy thinking, along with ideas all fuzzed along their edges."

Bot of course when we undertake the resolution of hard issues it will always be the case that the relevant legal concepts, the demands of social policy, and the ideal of justice will by necessity appear to sensitive interpreters to be "fuzzed along their edges." That very same formal, empirical, and ethical fuzziness is, after all, what makes hard issues hard. A successful legal education therefore both sharpens and desensitizes the adept's sense of analytical complexity, sharpening it so that the advocate can identify various plausible arguments, and then deadening it for the purpose of making and (especially) deciding between such arguments. This  characteristic doubleness of the legal mind produces the doubleness of the literal sophomore -- of the brilliant simpleton who understands and exploits and at appropriate times forgets -- the evidentiary problems, conceptual incommensurabilities, and ethical dilemmas that always characterize legal issues. To be trained to think like a lawyer is to be taught how to evoke all the chaotic complexity of law, and then how to repress the intolerable doubt that same evocation can produce by going on to achieve the "luminous certainty" required of the advocate or judge.   


Well, in the cold calculus of the utilitarian the American law school is a classic barrier to entry, designed to maintain a professional cartel. From a democratic viewpoint it is a seminary for the production of a mystifying priestcraft, whose obscurantist incantations help legitimate the power of the social and cultural elite. In academic terms it is a mostly fraudulent operation that teaches neither theory nor practice, but instead functions as the equivalent of a foreign service academy that would show its charges Goldfinger several hundred times before sending them forth to conduct trade talks with Austria.

Shouldn't then law school be abolished altogether? After all, no other legal system in the world requires 3 years of postgraduate schooling before one can undertake the most routine matter of client representation or courtroom advocacy. Indeed, the maverick presidential candidate Morry Taylor made a pledge to close down American law schools for 10 years, a major proposal of his quixotic campaign. Why not make the study of law an undergraduate program, or a college major followed by some sort of postgraduate apprenticeship -- this would surely be a quintessentially rationalist response to an institution that survives, and even thrives, because it fills a deep cultural need for the maintenance of some atavistic set of rituals that will obscure the inescapably troublesome and often tragic relationship between moral belief, political science and social power.

Given the rhetorical requirements of legal argument, and the practical exigencies of legal decision making, it isn't an exaggeration to say that the tasks of preparing persons to undertake zealous legal representation and render legal judgment are to some extent incompatible with maintaining strict standards of intellectual honesty. Such is the fate of, e.g., those who must prepare others to wield social power arbitrarily, and yet who must at the same time legitimate that use of power by claiming legal arguments and the decisions that flow from them are impelled by "the law," or "legal principles," or "reason" itself.

But there is no reason why that fate needs to be replicated in all other areas of social life.


Corporate culture in modern times has demonstrated a general preference for 'pragmatism', and this is an occasional source of hostility toward learning. The idea here is that education is a costly and useless distraction from the more important business of making money. Reading and writing are solitary ventures, and according to this viewpoint these activities do little to make a person more affable or conventional and do not foster an aptitude for marketing or acumen for investment in profitable ventures. It is feared that intellectuals may acquire ethical and political ideas that may impede business or make its practices distasteful. Scientific and technological learning may be given a grudging respect; but the arts, literature, philosophy, and similar cultural pursuits are all considered a waste of time at best and subversive at worst. Those who pursue them are supposed to inhabit an 'ivory tower' of academia, full of grand plans whose practice is seen as impossibly flawed.

According to this view, education should be a sort of apprenticeship, rather than being done on the model of classical education based on Greek and Latin grammar and literature. The educational philosophy of John Dewey, founded on these assumptions, has had some influence on education in the USA, although it must be said that Dewey was also a philosopher and an atheist - two qualities guaranteed to raise suspicions among anti-intellectuals.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: andthensome on March 27, 2006, 08:37:51 PM
tag
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: mejosis on April 02, 2006, 05:16:19 AM
tag
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gondola on April 19, 2006, 05:32:24 AM
The post by Avi is simply marvellous! Thanks jc for posting it here!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: www on April 22, 2006, 06:02:36 AM
Indeed, gondola!
Title: The Puritan Mind
Post by: squashing turtles on May 05, 2006, 07:01:08 PM
Quote
According to Nietzsche, Christianity so totally suppressed the body's vital impulses that humanity lost its creativity. Nietzsche taught what Jung was later essentially to repeat, that the irrational factor must neither be eliminated nor thoroughly tamed by order-seeking reason, but somehow integrated into our lives.

Well, it seems someone is connecting the dots in this thread; reason, too much of it as exemplified in the legal reasoning method, and Nietzsche with the irrational factor to be stressed upon, on the other hand ...

Quote
Polygamy is an ancestral impulse. Civilization injures humans by creating social conventions that require them to repress their true savage nature. The shackles of family, society, and (patriarchal) Deity must be broken. Live polygamously. This will release the ancient creative energies of the body and the unconscious and bring humans to a new level.

Now, this is quite a statement and surely in line with the things this despises! :)

Puritans don't work things out with enemies like these because there is no negotiating with the irrational. The Puritan mind reasons: "Well of course the witch doesn't want to be saved from her own evil. That's why we must save her from herself by burning her at the stake."  Sounds absurd, but that American major said after the destruction of the village of Ben Tre in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." A true Puritan there. And now look what we're doing in Iraq. Think Fallujah. We're burning the country at the stake. It's a form of mental illness, but it's a sickness we all accept as normal.

Terrorism is the latest encounter of the Puritan mind with the irrational, and the   traditional Islamic culture that promotes it will just have to be destroyed to save it. World politics will be so much more hygienic once we exterminate the vermin. I wasn't all that surprized to learn that Tom Delay had been an exterminator before he entered politics. He's the poster child for this tragic illness. Would that Jerry Lewis have a telethon to raise money for its cure.

A key element in understanding the Calvinist mentality is its need for control and its willingness to use whatever level of violence necessary to repress the "irrational" elements in human experience, and the premodern in the Puritan demonology is full of irrational images triggering fears in need of suppression—magic, witches, Catholic ritual, shifty Jews, hot-tempered Italians, voodoo practicing Africans, the savage Indian. J.K. Rowling's "muggles" and  their fear of magic is a kind of sendup of this mentality. Theirs is a tight, priggish, white-bread, control-obsessed world, sterilized of anything that suggests mystery, transcendence, or the non-rational in general. The Puritans and their Calvinist cousins the Scotch Irish, of course, didn't  invent priggishness, nor are they, obviously, the only ones in the history of humanity who have justified the violent repression of their enemies for religious reasons. But theirs is the peculiarly modern form for the religious persecution of the enemy, and it lingers in Anglo-American culture, and is so much in the cultural air we breathe that we cannot see it clearly. At the very heart of modern "religiosity," whether in its Calvinist or its more secular versions, is fear of the uncontrollable non-rational.

The American right's fear of communism/socialism is more akin to the Islamic fear of modernity, which is the fear of an uncontrollable future. If fascism derives its mystique from a mythological past, communism derives it from a mytholgized future. Progressives look to the future.  Conservatives look to the past. Progressives distrust the past and its premodern irrationality; Conservatives distrust those who look to the future with an irrational utopianism. Progressivism is experiencing hard times these days because during a culturally decadent period like the one we're currently suffering through, we don't know what to hope for.  We have only the weakest sense of plausible future possibility.  We are capable of seeing the future only as a variation on 'more of the same', and that is not a vision that inspires concerted action. That will change someday, but for now it's the conservatives' time because when our imagination of the future is weak, we fall back on the past for want of something better. And we find ourselves voting for mediocrities like George Bush rather than mediocrities like John Kerry for the same reason.  The first represents the solidity of the past; the second a fuzzy future for which we can muster little hope.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: veravolli on May 08, 2006, 07:11:56 PM
Very interesting!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: algol on May 29, 2006, 04:58:56 PM

Wow, in this seal I recognized this symbol,

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantra1b.jpg)

It's a design created based on a four-triangle Rosecrucian symbol. It is composed of two figures - a central triangle and a seven-pointed figure. If one travels along the path described by this 7-pointed figure, one goes through a movement similar to the one described by the 6-pointed figure in the Enneagram. The Enneagram could have been drawn in such a way as to avoid using a 6-pointed figure. In other words, it was not because of the absence of adequate seven-pointed figures on which to map the 7-tone scale that Enneagram was chosen, with its 6-pointed figure.


In her 1972 book "The Gnostic Circle", Vedic Cosmologist Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet superimposes the Zodiac on the Enneagram and uses both the 12 and 9 divisions of the circle as an Integral Yoga which she presents an approach to understanding the evolution of consciousness.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2e/Gnostic_circle.gif/592px-Gnostic_circle.gif)

Norelli-Bachelet suggests that there is more to the Enneagram than personality typing. She teaches an understanding of the Enneagram that includes the indivual's journey in various cycles of time. In her work, the Zero figures into the Enneagram, holding the same place as the 9 point at the top of the circle, and she sets the numbers flowing in a counter-clockwise direction, following the direction of the planets around the sun and the astrological signs around the Zodiac. Each Integer or point on the Enneagram of the Gnostic Circle corresponds to one of the planets, with the Sun as the Zero, Mercury as the One and finally Pluto as the Nine.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: watchtell on May 29, 2006, 06:16:56 PM
What a thread! Now I understand why LSD posters become hooked! This site has some great threads!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Budlaw on May 29, 2006, 08:17:11 PM
What a thread! Now I understand why LSD posters become hooked! This site has some great threads!

Yeah too bad most of the posts are by people plagarizing other people's work and passing it off as their own.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: germane on May 29, 2006, 09:20:03 PM
What's wrong with that? The important thing is that we learn, regardless of who's saing what's being said.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jason1114 on May 30, 2006, 10:10:29 AM
I think the point is that its not quite kosher to pretend to be the source of information, when you can just say, "Hey, I read/saw this kick-ass article by blah-blah that said..."

I dunno, we are going to be lawyers after all...
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: channel on May 30, 2006, 03:57:29 PM
Lawyers are the least original people of all, don't ya think?!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jason1114 on May 30, 2006, 05:25:32 PM
Absolutely...

Since we all know that none of us has anything original to say, it goes without saying that we should be giving credit to the person responsible...

At least amongst each other... We all know we're bull-*&^% artists... Let's save self-aggrandizing diarrhea-of-the-mouth for christmas dinner with the redneck relatives (what no one else?) who think that anthing shiny is "perty" amd anything not on Jerry Springer or Doctor Phil is liberal California rhetoric...

meh...
Title: Re: The Puritan Mind
Post by: antoin on May 31, 2006, 03:53:23 AM

Puritans don't work things out with enemies like these because there is no negotiating with the irrational. The Puritan mind reasons: "Well of course the witch doesn't want to be saved from her own evil. That's why we must save her from herself by burning her at the stake."  Sounds absurd, but that American major said after the destruction of the village of Ben Tre in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." A true Puritan there. And now look what we're doing in Iraq. Think Fallujah. We're burning the country at the stake. It's a form of mental illness, but it's a sickness we all accept as normal.

Terrorism is the latest encounter of the Puritan mind with the irrational, and the traditional Islamic culture that promotes it will just have to be destroyed to save it. World politics will be so much more hygienic once we exterminate the vermin. I wasn't all that surprized to learn that Tom Delay had been an exterminator before he entered politics. He's the poster child for this tragic illness. Would that Jerry Lewis have a telethon to raise money for its cure.

A key element in understanding the Calvinist mentality is its need for control and its willingness to use whatever level of violence necessary to repress the "irrational" elements in human experience, and the premodern in the Puritan demonology is full of irrational images triggering fears in need of suppression—magic, witches, Catholic ritual, shifty Jews, hot-tempered Italians, voodoo practicing Africans, the savage Indian. J.K. Rowling's "muggles" and  their fear of magic is a kind of sendup of this mentality. Theirs is a tight, priggish, white-bread, control-obsessed world, sterilized of anything that suggests mystery, transcendence, or the non-rational in general. The Puritans and their Calvinist cousins the Scotch Irish, of course, didn't  invent priggishness, nor are they, obviously, the only ones in the history of humanity who have justified the violent repression of their enemies for religious reasons. But theirs is the peculiarly modern form for the religious persecution of the enemy, and it lingers in Anglo-American culture, and is so much in the cultural air we breathe that we cannot see it clearly. At the very heart of modern "religiosity," whether in its Calvinist or its more secular versions, is fear of the uncontrollable non-rational.

The American right's fear of communism/socialism is more akin to the Islamic fear of modernity, which is the fear of an uncontrollable future. If fascism derives its mystique from a mythological past, communism derives it from a mytholgized future. Progressives look to the future.  Conservatives look to the past. Progressives distrust the past and its premodern irrationality; Conservatives distrust those who look to the future with an irrational utopianism. Progressivism is experiencing hard times these days because during a culturally decadent period like the one we're currently suffering through, we don't know what to hope for.  We have only the weakest sense of plausible future possibility.  We are capable of seeing the future only as a variation on 'more of the same', and that is not a vision that inspires concerted action. That will change someday, but for now it's the conservatives' time because when our imagination of the future is weak, we fall back on the past for want of something better. And we find ourselves voting for mediocrities like George Bush rather than mediocrities like John Kerry for the same reason.  The first represents the solidity of the past; the second a fuzzy future for which we can muster little hope.

The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jjason on June 01, 2006, 01:22:47 PM
What a thread! Now I understand why LSD posters become hooked! This site has some great threads!

Yeah too bad most of the posts are by people plagarizing other people's work and passing it off as their own.

Agreed. True, this isn't the "real world of an attorney," but IN the real world, we have a duty and an obligation to give credit to our sources. (ethically too, ya think?) I certainly would love to know where a lot of this comes from so I can consult the source for accuracy and any additional information that may be missing. But, whatever. This is lawschooldiscussion.org. And as someone reminded me before, I tend to be too serious. So, carry on.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: K9 on June 01, 2006, 07:09:12 PM

Wow, in this seal I recognized this symbol,

(http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/yantra1b.jpg)

It's a design created based on a four-triangle Rosecrucian symbol. It is composed of two figures - a central triangle and a seven-pointed figure. If one travels along the path described by this 7-pointed figure, one goes through a movement similar to the one described by the 6-pointed figure in the Enneagram. The Enneagram could have been drawn in such a way as to avoid using a 6-pointed figure. In other words, it was not because of the absence of adequate seven-pointed figures on which to map the 7-tone scale that Enneagram was chosen, with its 6-pointed figure.


In her 1972 book "The Gnostic Circle", Vedic Cosmologist Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet superimposes the Zodiac on the Enneagram and uses both the 12 and 9 divisions of the circle as an Integral Yoga which she presents an approach to understanding the evolution of consciousness.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2e/Gnostic_circle.gif/592px-Gnostic_circle.gif)

Norelli-Bachelet suggests that there is more to the Enneagram than personality typing. She teaches an understanding of the Enneagram that includes the indivual's journey in various cycles of time. In her work, the Zero figures into the Enneagram, holding the same place as the 9 point at the top of the circle, and she sets the numbers flowing in a counter-clockwise direction, following the direction of the planets around the sun and the astrological signs around the Zodiac. Each Integer or point on the Enneagram of the Gnostic Circle corresponds to one of the planets, with the Sun as the Zero, Mercury as the One and finally Pluto as the Nine.

Very interesting!
Title: As to one of the mediocrities ..
Post by: bushy on June 04, 2006, 04:18:05 AM

[...] That will change someday, but for now it's the conservatives' time because when our imagination of the future is weak, we fall back on the past for want of something better. And we find ourselves voting for mediocrities like George Bush rather than mediocrities like John Kerry for the same reason.[...]


Dubya went to Harvard B-school. "Harvard gave me the tools and the vocabulary of the business world," George W. Bush wrote in his 1999 book "A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House". A lot has been made of the fact that this President holds a Master's of Business Administration, rather than the law sheepskin that most national politicians claim. Curiously, though, in his 243-page book, Bush dedicates only five paragraphs to the time in his life when he "was fascinated by the case study method that Harvard used to teach." Dubya fascinated by the Harvard case-study method? Come on, let's have a little more detail. What about burning the midnight oil? What about the toga parties? Did he kiss up to professors to get better grades? He'd go on to own the Texas Rangers baseball team, but could he find the time to play intramural softball?

So how did Dubya end up in Harvard, anyway? In 1973 he was discharged from the National Guard in order to enter Harvard Business School. By that time, Bush had already been rejected in his home state by the University of Texas' law school because of his lackluster performance at Yale. In 1973, "making the bar at Harvard was 98% meritocracy," says Michael Porter, now one of the B-school's most well-known professors and an expert in international competitive strategy. Bush's application landed at Harvard while his dad, George H. W. Bush, was chairman of the Republican National Committee. One year later, Poppy would become the top U.S. diplomat to China. Surely junior's application stood out. George W. Bush was a picture of honor once he got past his party days at Yale with the Delta Kappa Epsilon brothers and members of Skull & Bones, a secret society that enrolled him during his senior year -- so hush-hush, in fact, it barely gets a mention in his book. Bush earned an undergraduate degree in history from Yale in 1968.

Bush's Yale transcript shows that he was a C student. He got particularly poor grades in political science and economics. In his freshman year Bush was in the 21st percentile of his class. In other words, 79% of the students had better grades than he did. Indeed, when he gave a speech at Yale's 2001 commencement ceremony, he joked, "To the C students I say, you, too, can be president of the United States." Nobody can seem to locate his GMAT scores. But by 1973, he had completed a five-year stint in the Texas National Guard, worked on his father's failed 1970 Texas campaign for U.S. senator, and worked full-time for ProjectPULL, an organization that worked with inner-city youth.

Bush was no Baker Scholar, one of the top honors for a Harvard Business School grad. But he wasn't a bad student either, professors say. Harvard breaks its 800-student MBA classes into sections, and Bush was placed in Section C -- a generic classification with no relation to his grades. "He was an unpretentious, good middle-of-the-road student," a professor remembers. George W. was humble, a sloppy pad, even then. One professor says Bush "didn't emphasize his background at Yale or his father. But books aside, he was a happening guy. He was a referee for intramural sports. He also played intramural basketball and baseball. When it was time to put work aside, classmates say you could usually find him at parties thrown by his B-school buddies or at Charlie's Kitchen, a local hangout for burgers and beer. Legal Sea Foods restaurant was a favorite destination, too. Bush lived the bachelor's life in a single apartment in Central Square in Cambridge, Mass. "I studied, and ran and rode my bike a lot," Bush writes. "I was there to learn, and that's exactly what I did." That must be true, because he apparently had little time to clean up. His apartment was notoriously untidy and sparse, friends say. If you were lucky, he had a bottle of orange juice in the fridge, but that's about it.

For all the happy memories, few would have placed their bets on Bush becoming U.S. President. "Based upon our collective perception in 1973 to 1975, you could have won a lot of money with significant odds if you had bet upon George W. for President in 2001," says Eric Vogt, who attended Bush's January Inauguration and also sat in Section C with the future Prez. But Harvard Business School never lost track of Bush, and now it is updating the alumni rolodex. The class of 1975 secretary, J. Hans Stumm, just changed Bush's address from the Texas capitol to Pennsylvania Avenue. He recalls a tale he can't place as fact or fiction, but which suits the George W. Bush he remembers to a tee: "The story was that a professor started class saying, "Some of you will grow up to be President." Bush made a V-for-victory sign with his arms, and got a laugh out of everyone." Of course, in this crowd, being U.S. President wasn't as esteemed as "being head of IBM or General Motors," Stumm adds.
Title: Re: As to one of the mediocrities ..
Post by: cube on June 04, 2006, 06:44:07 PM

He recalls a tale he can't place as fact or fiction, but which suits the George W. Bush he remembers to a tee: "The story was that a professor started class saying, "Some of you will grow up to be President." Bush made a V-for-victory sign with his arms, and got a laugh out of everyone."


Hahaha, this is so funny! 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: in-law on June 04, 2006, 07:03:35 PM

So, Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel first policy and not the USA? :)

Well, I guess Nietzsche was not angry in vain with Jews ... Nietzsche described Jews as the truly great haters in world history.



Terrorists, serial killers, and mass murderers can be phenomenologically described as narcissists in a constant state of deficient narcissistic supply. The "grandiosity gap" - the painful and narcissistically injurious gap between their grandiose fantasies and their dreary and humiliating reality - becomes emotionally insupportable. They decompensate and act out. They bring "down to their level" (by destroying it) the object of their pathological envy, the cause of their seething frustration, the symbol of their dull achievements, always incommensurate with their inflated self-image. They seek omnipotence through murder, control (not least self control) through violence, prestige, fame and celebrity by defying figures of authorities, challenging them, and humbling them. Unbeknownst to them, they seek self punishment. They are at heart suicidal. They aim to cast themselves as victims by forcing others to punish them. This is called "projective identification". They attribute evil and corruption to their enemies and foes. These forms of paranoia are called projection and splitting. These are all primitive, infantile, and often persecutory, defence mechanisms.

When coupled with narcissism - the inability to empathize, the exploitativeness, the sense of entitlement, the rages, the dehumanization and devaluation of others - this mindset yields abysmal contempt for the narcissist's victims. The overriding emotion of terrorists and serial killers, the amalgam and culmination of their tortured psyche - is deep seated disdain for everything human, the flip side of envy. It is cognitive dissonance gone amok. On the one hand the terrorist, or serial killer derides as "false", "meaningless", "dangerous", and "corrupt" common values, institutions, human intercourse, and society. On the other hand, he devotes his entire life (and often risks it) to the elimination and pulverization of these "insignificant" entities. To justify this apparent contradiction, the mass murderer casts himself as an altruistic savior of a group of people "endangered" by his foes. He is always self-appointed and self-proclaimed, rarely elected. The serial killer and the mass murderer rationalize and intellectualize their murders by purporting to "liberate" or "deliver" the victims from a fate worse than death.

The global reach, the secrecy, the impotence, and growing panic of his victims, of the public, and of his pursuers, the damage he wreaks - all serve as external ego functions. The terrorist cut pasted and serial killer regulate their sense of self esteem and self worth by feeding slavishly on the reactions to their heinous deeds. Their cosmic significance is daily sustained by newspaper headlines, ever increasing bounties, admiring copycats, successful acts of blackmail, the strength and size of their opponents, and the devastation of human life and property. Appeasement works only to aggravate their drives and strengthen their appetites by emboldening them and by raising the threshold of excitation and "narcissistic supply". Terrorists and killers are addicted to this drug of being acknowledged and reflected. They derive their sense of existence, parasitically, from the reactions of their (often captive) audience.

Erich Fromm suggested that both Hitler and Stalin were narcissistic mass murderers. Hitler and Nazism are often portrayed as an apocalyptic and seismic break with European history. Yet the truth is that they were the culmination and reification of European history in the 19th century. Europe's annals of colonialism have prepared it for the range of phenomena associated with the Nazi regime - from industrial murder to racial theories, from slave labour to the forcible annexation of territory.

Germany was a colonial power no different to murderous Belgium or Britain. What set it apart is that it directed its colonial attentions at the heartland of Europe - rather than at Africa or Asia. Both World Wars were colonial wars fought on European soil. Moreover, Nazi Germany innovated by applying prevailing racial theories (usually reserved to non-whites) to the white race itself. It started with the Jews - a non-controversial proposition - but then expanded them to include "east European" whites, such as the Poles and the Russians. Germany was not alone in its malignant nationalism. The far right in France was as pernicious. Nazism - and Fascism - were world ideologies, adopted enthusiastically in places as diverse as Iraq, Egypt, Norway, Latin America, and Britain. At the end of the 1930's, liberal capitalism, communism, and fascism (and its mutations) were locked in mortal battle of ideologies. Hitler's mistake was to delusionally believe in the affinity between capitalism and Nazism - an affinity enhanced, to his mind, by Germany's corporatism and by the existence of a common enemy: global communism.

Colonialism always had discernible religious overtones and often collaborated with missionary religion. "The White Man's burden" of civilizing the "savages" was widely perceived as ordained by God. The church was the extension of the colonial power's army and trading companies. It is no wonder that Hitler's lebensraum colonial movement - Nazism - possessed all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, mythology. Hitler was this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denied himself earthly pleasures (or so he claimed) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling. Hitler was a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that (Aryan) humanity should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Hitler became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman".

But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral. In this restricted sense, Hitler was a post-modernist and a moral relativist. He projected to the masses an androgynous figure and enhanced it by fostering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural". But what Nazism referred to as "nature" was not natural at all. It was an aesthetic of decadence and evil (though it was not perceived this way by the Nazis), carefully orchestrated, and artificial. Nazism was about reproduced copies, not about originals. It was about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism.

In short: Nazism was about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), Nazism demanded the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis was tantamount, in Nazi dramaturgy, to self-annulment. Nazism was nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives were nihilistic. Nazism was conspicuous nihilism - and Hitler served as a role model, annihilating Hitler the Man, only to re-appear as Hitler the stychia.

What was the role of the Jews in all this? Nazism posed as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the European order. The Nazis borrowed the Leninist vocabulary and assimilated it effectively. Hitler and the Nazis were an adolescent movement, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state. Hitler himself was a malignant narcissist, as Fromm correctly noted. The Jews constituted a perfect, easily identifiable, reification of all that was "wrong" with Europe. They were an old nation, they were eerily disembodied (without a territory), they were cosmopolitan, they were part of the establishment, they were "decadent", they were hated on religious and socio-economic grounds (see Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners"), they were different, they were narcissistic (felt and acted as morally superior), they were everywhere, they were defenseless, they were credulous, they were adaptable (and thus could be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They were the perfect hated father figure and parricide was in fashion.

This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: kapllan on June 07, 2006, 04:54:49 AM

George W. Bush was a picture of honor once he got past his party days at Yale with the Delta Kappa Epsilon brothers and members of Skull & Bones, a secret society that enrolled him during his senior year -- so hush-hush, in fact, it barely gets a mention in his book. Bush earned an undergraduate degree in history from Yale in 1968.


President George W. Bush sent Victor Ashe, the US Ambassador to Poland and a "special" friend since their cheerleader and cohabitation days at Yale University, "candy and flowers" via US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In another matter, Armitage surprised observers in Warsaw by an apparent criticism of his boss, the president. The real reason Armitage was in Poland is to check up on the US Ambassador to Poland, Victor Ashe. Mr. Ashe and president Bush have had a "special relationship" since their college days at Yale, where they were roommates and male cheerleaders together.

Just how "fabulous" is Mr. Ashe, Georgie?

"It's known by many sources that George W. Bush in 1968 [when he was tapped into the Skulls and Bones] was performing homosexual acts with his male sex-mate and Yale roommate Mayor Ashe of Knoxville, TN. While mayor, Ashe made several unscheduled visits to the White House and, according to US Secret Service sources, Bush made at least 8 unscheduled and unannounced trips to Knoxville while he has been President. Ashe is suspected of two arrests. One was in Washington DC and the other was in Atlanta, while he was a Tennessee state legislator. They allegedly involved arrests while he was picking up male tranvestite prostitutes in public restrooms. Ashe was allegedly introduced on live TV, by Peter Jennings, as "The gay mayor from Knoxville" at a national mayor's conference in San Francisco."

The mainline Australian newspaper, The Age, reported last week, prior to the release of Kitty Kelley's book "The Family" (Bush's) some charges Kelley could make, including:

Quote
"She may also raise a nasty rumour that circulates in Washington DC from time to time, that President Bush had a 'special relationship' with a former mayor of Tennessee, Victor Ashe, who is now the US ambassador to Poland."


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/10/1094789692938.html?oneclick=true

A newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee, noted the president's lack of manliness in the 9/11 catastrophe. Bush was to stunned to react for about 9 minutes. Then he spent the rest of the day boring holes in the sky with Air Force One and hiding like a rabbit in a hole in the ground near Omaha, Nebraska. "W" STANDS FOR "WIMP."

There are even suspicions in the US that the anthrax mailings right after 9/11 -- a matter that like Bin Laden, is still unsolved -- was used to shut down the National Enquirer newspaper in Florida, which had photos of George W. Bush from his Skull and Bones secret society days at Yale in compromising sexual positions. Ambassador Ashe was a member of Skull and Bones at the same time. The only casualty of the Florida attack was the photo editor, Bob Stevens, whose widow sued the US Government for not keeping the anthrax under control. The building was bought for a ridiculously low price by none other than the New York mayor, George Bush's pal, Rudy Guiliani, who has cleaned it up.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: neighbor on June 07, 2006, 08:54:49 AM

This humiliation is complete with a bar disclosure form that rivals the CIA's in its comprehensive invasiveness.


Well, I guess the bar disclosure is indispensable ... I mean, even a lousy CIA agent undergoes this comprehensive check, shouldn't someone as important as an attorney be scrutinized the same way?! 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: statest on June 08, 2006, 03:01:16 PM
Quote
The bar exam is a rite of passage by which the hopeful lawyer-to-be shows his willingness to do anything to please the state bar authorities in exchange for a license.

Be careful when filling out the forms, include every detail, even though you may consider it minor! You can't afford to take this one lightly!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cathexis on June 08, 2006, 03:51:21 PM

He recalls a tale he can't place as fact or fiction, but which suits the George W. Bush he remembers to a tee: "The story was that a professor started class saying, "Some of you will grow up to be President." Bush made a V-for-victory sign with his arms, and got a laugh out of everyone."


Hahaha, this is so funny! 

Dubya is a big f**ckin' mess! A professor of mine put it like this one day in class: "I can't believe people are still listening to a mentally retarded!"
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: hbo on June 09, 2006, 02:38:56 PM

Just how "fabulous" is Mr. Ashe, Georgie?

"It's known by many sources that George W. Bush in 1968 [when he was tapped into the Skulls and Bones] was performing homosexual acts with his male sex-mate and Yale roommate Mayor Ashe of Knoxville, TN. While mayor, Ashe made several unscheduled visits to the White House and, according to US Secret Service sources, Bush made at least 8 unscheduled and unannounced trips to Knoxville while he has been President. Ashe is suspected of two arrests. One was in Washington DC and the other was in Atlanta, while he was a Tennessee state legislator. They allegedly involved arrests while he was picking up male tranvestite prostitutes in public restrooms. Ashe was allegedly introduced on live TV, by Peter Jennings, as "The gay mayor from Knoxville" at a national mayor's conference in San Francisco."

The mainline Australian newspaper, The Age, reported last week, prior to the release of Kitty Kelley's book "The Family" (Bush's) some charges Kelley could make, including:

Quote
"She may also raise a nasty rumour that circulates in Washington DC from time to time, that President Bush had a 'special relationship' with a former mayor of Tennessee, Victor Ashe, who is now the US ambassador to Poland."


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/10/1094789692938.html?oneclick=true


LOL ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cornucopia on June 14, 2006, 03:47:51 AM
(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_internets.jpg)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: grande on June 14, 2006, 04:26:42 PM

Corporate culture in modern times has demonstrated a general preference for 'pragmatism', and this is an occasional source of hostility toward learning. The idea here is that education is a costly and useless distraction from the more important business of making money. Reading and writing are solitary ventures, and according to this viewpoint these activities do little to make a person more affable or conventional and do not foster an aptitude for marketing or acumen for investment in profitable ventures. It is feared that intellectuals may acquire ethical and political ideas that may impede business or make its practices distasteful. Scientific and technological learning may be given a grudging respect; but the arts, literature, philosophy, and similar cultural pursuits are all considered a waste of time at best and subversive at worst. Those who pursue them are supposed to inhabit an 'ivory tower' of academia, full of grand plans whose practice is seen as impossibly flawed.


America is undoubtedly anti-intellectual. In fact, even when talent is discovered it gets misguided and watered down. In America whenever one poppy lifts its showy head above the others, it is cut down. People will deliberately 'dumb down' to avoid being seen as clever. They will pretend not to know things they quite clearly do know because it makes them look like regular guys. Bright children will try hard to do badly in school to avoid less bright children picking on them. Have you ever noticed how even well-educated announcers on radio and TV will try hard to mispronounce foreign words because to get it right would be bad for their image?

Anti-intellectualism is very much an Anglo-American preserve (though there are plenty of other countries that have their own versions: try being an independent thinker in Japan and see how far you get!). There are countries such as France, Germany, and Israel, where intellect is recognized and highly valued. In America people tend to think there's no point in ... thinking! They say it allows them to ignore their mortality and comfort themselves with the reassuringly trivial. "I've too much to do to worry about all that," or, if you are a British, "Let's have a nice cup of tea." But if you consider life carefully you have to consider the question: What is it for? If you do not accept any of the pre-packaged religious answers, then you have a philosophical problem on your hands.

Well, in America anyone outside the Church and universities who shows signs of excessive thoughts looks like is really playing a dangerous game. Writers, for example, are frequently ignored if they are say anything that challenges the established order or, if they push it too far, they may be silenced. And while in some countries this will happen by the crude methods of persecution, in others it'll be accomplished by the less obvious application of commercial pressure or social disapproval. Take the case of Salman Rushdie. Leaving aside arguments about the literary merit of "The Satanic Verses," it is significant that he was persecuted simply for thinking dangerous thoughts. It is also interesting that the profoundly anti-intellectual public has little difficulty in recognizing dangerous thoughts even when it doesn't fully understand them. It is well known that many of the people who burnt Rushdie's book had never read it. How could they? It was far too dangerous for that!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Atossa on June 22, 2006, 12:57:10 PM
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,
gorgeous, talented, fabulous?
Actually, who are you not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small does not serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking
so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine, as children do.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone.
And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously
give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear,
our presence automatically liberates others.
 
a return to love - marianne williamson
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: menlo park on June 23, 2006, 04:26:14 PM

America is undoubtedly anti-intellectual. In fact, even when talent is discovered it gets misguided and watered down. In America whenever one poppy lifts its showy head above the others, it is cut down. People will deliberately 'dumb down' to avoid being seen as clever. They will pretend not to know things they quite clearly do know because it makes them look like regular guys. Bright children will try hard to do badly in school to avoid less bright children picking on them. Have you ever noticed how even well-educated announcers on radio and TV will try hard to mispronounce foreign words because to get it right would be bad for their image?

Anti-intellectualism is very much an Anglo-American preserve (though there are plenty of other countries that have their own versions: try being an independent thinker in Japan and see how far you get!). There are countries such as France, Germany, and Israel, where intellect is recognized and highly valued. In America people tend to think there's no point in ... thinking! They say it allows them to ignore their mortality and comfort themselves with the reassuringly trivial. "I've too much to do to worry about all that," or, if you are a British, "Let's have a nice cup of tea." But if you consider life carefully you have to consider the question: What is it for? If you do not accept any of the pre-packaged religious answers, then you have a philosophical problem on your hands.

Well, in America anyone outside the Church and universities who shows signs of excessive thoughts looks like is really playing a dangerous game. Writers, for example, are frequently ignored if they are say anything that challenges the established order or, if they push it too far, they may be silenced. And while in some countries this will happen by the crude methods of persecution, in others it'll be accomplished by the less obvious application of commercial pressure or social disapproval. Take the case of Salman Rushdie. Leaving aside arguments about the literary merit of "The Satanic Verses," it is significant that he was persecuted simply for thinking dangerous thoughts. It is also interesting that the profoundly anti-intellectual public has little difficulty in recognizing dangerous thoughts even when it doesn't fully understand them. It is well known that many of the people who burnt Rushdie's book had never read it. How could they? It was far too dangerous for that!


Remember Nixon who called Adlai Stevenson an "egghead" during the 1952 presidential race?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cokevpepsi on June 25, 2006, 01:11:44 PM
*  *  *
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: homolaw on July 02, 2006, 09:15:35 PM

President George W. Bush sent Victor Ashe, the US Ambassador to Poland and a "special" friend since their cheerleader and cohabitation days at Yale University, "candy and flowers" via US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In another matter, Armitage surprised observers in Warsaw by an apparent criticism of his boss, the president. The real reason Armitage was in Poland is to check up on the US Ambassador to Poland, Victor Ashe. Mr. Ashe and president Bush have had a "special relationship" since their college days at Yale, where they were roommates and male cheerleaders together.

Just how "fabulous" is Mr. Ashe, Georgie?

"It's known by many sources that George W. Bush in 1968 [when he was tapped into the Skulls and Bones] was performing homosexual acts with his male sex-mate and Yale roommate Mayor Ashe of Knoxville, TN. While mayor, Ashe made several unscheduled visits to the White House and, according to US Secret Service sources, Bush made at least 8 unscheduled and unannounced trips to Knoxville while he has been President. Ashe is suspected of two arrests. One was in Washington DC and the other was in Atlanta, while he was a Tennessee state legislator. They allegedly involved arrests while he was picking up male tranvestite prostitutes in public restrooms. Ashe was allegedly introduced on live TV, by Peter Jennings, as "The gay mayor from Knoxville" at a national mayor's conference in San Francisco."

The mainline Australian newspaper, The Age, reported last week, prior to the release of Kitty Kelley's book "The Family" (Bush's) some charges Kelley could make, including:

Quote
"She may also raise a nasty rumour that circulates in Washington DC from time to time, that President Bush had a 'special relationship' with a former mayor of Tennessee, Victor Ashe, who is now the US ambassador to Poland."


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/10/1094789692938.html?oneclick=true

A newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee, noted the president's lack of manliness in the 9/11 catastrophe. Bush was to stunned to react for about 9 minutes. Then he spent the rest of the day boring holes in the sky with Air Force One and hiding like a rabbit in a hole in the ground near Omaha, Nebraska. "W" STANDS FOR "WIMP."

There are even suspicions in the US that the anthrax mailings right after 9/11 -- a matter that like Bin Laden, is still unsolved -- was used to shut down the National Enquirer newspaper in Florida, which had photos of George W. Bush from his Skull and Bones secret society days at Yale in compromising sexual positions. Ambassador Ashe was a member of Skull and Bones at the same time. The only casualty of the Florida attack was the photo editor, Bob Stevens, whose widow sued the US Government for not keeping the anthrax under control. The building was bought for a ridiculously low price by none other than the New York mayor, George Bush's pal, Rudy Guiliani, who has cleaned it up.


(http://mindprod.com/images/bushandover.jpg)

(http://mindprod.com/images/bushindrag.jpg)
Yes, that's W. in drag in the white dress

(http://mindprod.com/images/bushhorn.jpg)
George W. Bush at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts was the head cheerleader.
Title: Re: Corporate culture
Post by: Gina on July 06, 2006, 07:09:23 PM

[...] It is feared that intellectuals may acquire ethical and political ideas that may impede business or make its practices distasteful [...]


Welcome to the 21st century America!!!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: niki on July 07, 2006, 11:09:46 AM
tag
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: erase on July 07, 2006, 05:03:23 PM

Well I guess one of the most curious aspects of socially constructed entities is that many of them are the sorts of artifacts that can perform the social work they are supposed to accomplish only if we ignore or forget their artificial nature. A classic example of this is the socially necessary assumption that value inheres in what we call "money." As a matter of practical psychology money can fucntion as a medium of exchange only to the extent that we manage to treat it as valuable in itself. We don't "believe" money is valuable: we know it is. Yet what is that knowledge other than our unconscious confidence that, in this case, knowledge and belief are not merely compatible, but actually identical? We believe we know money is valuable becuase we know we believe it is. In such cases, the psychology of appropriate social belief requires that we maintain an involuted state of mind in which we both know and don't know that various artifacts in whose existence we believe exist precisely because we believe they do.


Indeed, while money does not succeed in representing, much less replacing, the Thing, it does nevertheless give the illusion of doing so. We might then say that, beyond money's symbolic equivalencies and permutations in the unconscious, there is what we would call 'seeming-money', in thinking here of Lacan's definition of 'seeming' or 'semblance' (le semblant). According to this definition, as outlined by Martin, seeming is effectively:

Quote
to be and not to be what it is, to be and not to be where it is, which is precisely what excludes any possible confusion with the object insofar as the latter offers itself to human industry and, thereby, to both exchange and use. (1984, p. 21)

We are now in a better position to understand Lacan's statement that the unconscious, as a discourse centred around the impossibility of the object small 'a', object of jouissance, may be likened to the emergence of a certain function of the signifier within a register governed by the principle of semblance. Yet while falling within the register of seeming, this function that the subject is capable of assuming is qualified by Lacan as a primary function of truth, in the sense of the truth of an illusion. The example of money thus helps to make us aware that the universe of the symbolic is also that of semblance and that one should not be duped by this (as forged money, that seeming of a seeming, so exemplarily illustrates). In short, the representation of money with what we have just seen of its 'seeming' aspect, leads us to reflect upon the Symbolic and upon the fact that, however immensely powerful this is, it shows itself, at the same time, to be no less fallible. We might then say, by way of conclusion, that a psychoanalytic reflection on money does not so much consist in applying the psychoanalytic conception of the Symbolic to money, as in grasping, thanks to money, the function of the Symbolic from a psychoanalytic point of view. This is the case even in the day to day existence of organizations, where a consideration of money's place, circulation and use confirms above all the 'Symbolic's hold over the real'.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: John Marshmallow on July 18, 2006, 02:40:25 AM

The example of money thus helps to make us aware that the universe of the symbolic is also that of semblance and that one should not be duped by this (as forged money, that seeming of a seeming, so exemplarily illustrates). In short, the representation of money with what we have just seen of its 'seeming' aspect, leads us to reflect upon the Symbolic and upon the fact that, however immensely powerful this is, it shows itself, at the same time, to be no less fallible.


No wonder, then, why the production and traffic of forged bills is so actively repressed and so heavily punished -- to a far greater extent, for instance, than are theft or embezzlement.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: orso on August 02, 2006, 01:32:46 AM

On certain occasions, they would argue passionately about what colors unicorns really were, or about their actual population, whereabouts, and habits. On other occasions they would treat with derision anyone who could be foolish enough to take the naive view that unicorns were the sort of creatures that existed outside the minds of the men and women who imagined them into being. On yet other occasions they would seem to assert both views at once, claiming that while of course unicorns didn't really exist outside our imaginations, nevertheless by treating them as if  they were actual living animals we could eleminate any practical distinction between the characteristics of real and imaginary creatures.

Such is the ordinary mental condition of the modern American lawyer. The modern lawyer, and especially the modern judge and law professor, must continually practice a sort of "as if" jurisprudence, within the context of which the lawyer both knows and doesn't know that most important legal facts are facts only to the extent we believe them to be legal facts. Various strategies are then employed to deal with the intense cognitive dissonance that characterizes this condition. A common one among practicing lawyers is to simply ignore the dissonance -- to treat it as someone else's problem. That someone is, of course, whatever decision maker is precluded from employing the same cognitive strategy by virtue of the decision maker's decisional responsibilites.

Perhaps the proper function of a legal education is to produce persons who "think like lawyers": individuals, that is, who are trained to hold various unambivalent yet rationally unjustified beliefs, necessary for the vigorous deployment of social power, that nevertheless remain highly role specific, and are therefore subject to change at a moment's -- or a client's -- notice.


If you want a very good description of the cult phenomenon that isn't just a religious indictment, see Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman's book Snapping: "America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change." Siegelman and Conway are communications theorists, and it's not even clear what religious affiliation they have, if any. They merely do a very thorough breakdown of what serious cults look like, as opposed to how everyday religions are organized and behave. Signs of cults include:

1) Forbidding you from having friends or even spending much time with relatives who are not members of the cult.

2) A living figure, or figures, to whom absolute obedience is expected.

3) Classic hypnotherapy-style brainwashing techniques, to change your personality and encourage absolute obedience.

4) Use of malnutrition to weaken a person's mind (serious long-term malnutrition, not the occasional fast), also to aid in encouraging absolute obedience to the cult leadership and to alter your personality.

5) Gradually taking more and more and more of a member's income until ultimately they are giving most of their livelihood, or all of it, to the cult.

6) Threatening the life of those who leave the cult.

7) Kidnapping escapees to bring them back in for reconditioning.

Note that all of these are typical behavior for cults. A typical cult will have most or all of these features, not just one or two of them.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: smnry on August 02, 2006, 01:59:30 AM
Law school definitely is a cult.

Quote
Forbidding you from having friends or even spending much time with relatives who are not members of the cult.

It's not forbidden, precisely, but many relatives and friends no longer want to spend much time with you ... and it's not that you have time for them anyway with the studying ... Or that you'd want to, anyway. Who wants to hang out with somebody who's not interested in the permutations of alterations to the face of a negotiable instrument versus changes assayed through the endorsement?

Quote
A living figure, or figures, to whom absolute obedience is expected.

That would be "the partner."

Quote
Classic hypnotherapy-style brainwashing techniques, to change your personality and encourage absolute obedience.

Professors call it "the socratic method." We call it "pleaseohpleaseohpleasedon'tcallonme!!"

Quote
Use of malnutrition to weaken a person's mind (serious long-term malnutrition, not the occasional fast), also to aid in encouraging absolute obedience to the cult leadership and to alter your personality.

For most of the year, you subsist on a highly irregular diet of law-school vending machine junk food and cheese platters left over from receptions.

Quote
Gradually taking more and more and more of a member's income until ultimately they are giving most of their livelihood, or all of it, to the cult.


Student loans.

Quote
Threatening the life of those who leave the cult.

It's not a threat, precisely. Just the knowledge that if you leave, you will be absolutely lonely because nobody will ever laugh at your jokes again ...

Quote
Kidnapping escapees to bring them back in for reconditioning.


Hmmm ... graduation is an "escape," certainly. And just when you think you're safe ... there's Bar Prep class.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: truthurts on August 03, 2006, 01:50:53 AM

President George W. Bush sent Victor Ashe, the US Ambassador to Poland and a "special" friend since their cheerleader and cohabitation days at Yale University, "candy and flowers" via US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In another matter, Armitage surprised observers in Warsaw by an apparent criticism of his boss, the president. The real reason Armitage was in Poland is to check up on the US Ambassador to Poland, Victor Ashe. Mr. Ashe and president Bush have had a "special relationship" since their college days at Yale, where they were roommates and male cheerleaders together.

Just how "fabulous" is Mr. Ashe, Georgie?

"It's known by many sources that George W. Bush in 1968 [when he was tapped into the Skulls and Bones] was performing homosexual acts with his male sex-mate and Yale roommate Mayor Ashe of Knoxville, TN. While mayor, Ashe made several unscheduled visits to the White House and, according to US Secret Service sources, Bush made at least 8 unscheduled and unannounced trips to Knoxville while he has been President. Ashe is suspected of two arrests. One was in Washington DC and the other was in Atlanta, while he was a Tennessee state legislator. They allegedly involved arrests while he was picking up male tranvestite prostitutes in public restrooms. Ashe was allegedly introduced on live TV, by Peter Jennings, as "The gay mayor from Knoxville" at a national mayor's conference in San Francisco."

The mainline Australian newspaper, The Age, reported last week, prior to the release of Kitty Kelley's book "The Family" (Bush's) some charges Kelley could make, including:

Quote
"She may also raise a nasty rumour that circulates in Washington DC from time to time, that President Bush had a 'special relationship' with a former mayor of Tennessee, Victor Ashe, who is now the US ambassador to Poland."


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/10/1094789692938.html?oneclick=true

A newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee, noted the president's lack of manliness in the 9/11 catastrophe. Bush was to stunned to react for about 9 minutes. Then he spent the rest of the day boring holes in the sky with Air Force One and hiding like a rabbit in a hole in the ground near Omaha, Nebraska. "W" STANDS FOR "WIMP."

There are even suspicions in the US that the anthrax mailings right after 9/11 -- a matter that like Bin Laden, is still unsolved -- was used to shut down the National Enquirer newspaper in Florida, which had photos of George W. Bush from his Skull and Bones secret society days at Yale in compromising sexual positions. Ambassador Ashe was a member of Skull and Bones at the same time. The only casualty of the Florida attack was the photo editor, Bob Stevens, whose widow sued the US Government for not keeping the anthrax under control. The building was bought for a ridiculously low price by none other than the New York mayor, George Bush's pal, Rudy Guiliani, who has cleaned it up.


;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: derailit on August 03, 2006, 04:18:46 PM

Law school definitely is a cult.


This other post is even more relevant!



Here are some of the signs:

1. People who avoid answering the issues you raise with them;
2. A group that uses psychologically coercive techniques to recruit and indoctrinate members;
3. An organization that uses falsehood in their indoctrination and recruiting methods;
4. A group that maintains that "the end justifies the means";
5. An organization that forms a totalitarian society;
6. A group that has a charismatic, dogmatic leader who plays "Messiah" and demands total devotion: he or she can seem like the most wonderful person you have ever heard of;
7. A group that obtains funds through deception for the personal gain and/or power of the leader;
8. A group that performs no real service to society, although they claim to do so (remember, deceit is one of their tickets);
9. A group that destroys existing relationships with family and friends -- if your family is aware that something is happening to you, the group tells you that your family is evil, or doesn't want you to progress, or that your family is the only reason you have ever been sick or unhappy in your life. (This is another major tool destructive cults use: they tell you your family members or close friends, if they are critical of the organization, are "negative" or "suppressive", or whatever buzzword the group uses for its enemies, and that your family and friends are actually making you sick, and trying to hold you back);
10. An organization that teaches fear, hatred, and rejection of society, while claiming to promote the cause of world peace and universal love. (A good example of a group that teaches hate, fear and rejection is the Ku Klux Klan -- under the definition of most religions, political parties, the Mafia, any terrorist group, the KKK -- all of these could claim they are a religion, since they follow the same definition used by most of the pseudo-religious cults and mind control groups);
11. A group that practices intimidation of critics by threats (which they sometimes carry out) or lawsuits, allow no development of the individual. (If a person in the group questions or wants to be an individual, he or she is told that the way to be an individual is to become more and more involved with the organization);
12. An organization that isolates their members, either mentally or physically, polarizing the group and society into opposing camps, creating an "us/them" mentality, making the members identify exclusively with the group;
13. A group that demands full-time or lifetime commitment: if you are allowed to work in the outside world, it is to get money for the cult, or for further programming or training within the cult for yourself;
14. An organization that has secret practices and docrines and/or objectives that the average new recruit has absolutely no idea about;
15. A group that has simple black-and-white solutions for the world's problems: if everyone becomes a member of this particular cult, then there won't be any war, hunger, or oppression;
16. An organization that makes its members afraid to dare to speak up, even afraid to think about how the cult is oppressing them;
17. A group that suppresses critical thought, blocking out questions and doubts by various methods, such as: chanting; rules of silence; long hours of meditation, study, processing, or counselling; speaking in tongues; various forms of repetitive action; inadequate diet or sleep;
18. An organization whose methods rob their members of free will, destroying family relationships;
19. A group that creates an attitude of willing slavery in its members: people in the group become willing to work long, long hours for the benefit of the organization -- not for their own individual benefit;
20. An organization that creates neuroses and psychoses in its members, so that some members become very angry if anyone points out that their organization may not be what it says, and may even be a destructive cult, and other members can even become violent towards anyone who disagrees with them;
21. A group that creates physical deterioration in its members, often caused by malnutrition, sleep deprivation, overwork, or emotional stress;
22. An organization that destroys its members' judgment, reducing their ability to evaluate for themselves what is most important to them individually, so each member thinks only of the group, losing sight of his or her own self.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3169.msg39724.html#msg39724
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: himan on August 05, 2006, 07:36:26 AM

[...] Like boot camp (or virginity's loss!), when you enter law school, your life turns a corner past which it can never again pass. Don't get me wrong, I do not regret the trip ... but it brings a permanent change. So, those of you who still have the chance, enjoy the virginity -- law school will bring a permanent change!


No change is "permanent"! Even when you lose virginity you can always repair and tighten the hymen to a more intact, virgin-like state using different surgical techniques. In most cases, the surgery is virtually undetectable after healing.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: $mustb on August 05, 2006, 07:40:28 AM

No change is "permanent"! Even when you lose virginity you can always repair and tighten the hymen to a more intact, virgin-like state using different surgical techniques. In most cases, the surgery is virtually undetectable after healing.


Please note that while rupture of the hymen normally occurs during first intercourse or rape, many girls tear, or otherwise dilate, their hymen for instance:


A girl may not even be aware that a hymen tear has occurred, since there may be little or no blood loss, nor pain. Not to mention that, some women are born without even a trace of a hymen
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lawrenc on August 05, 2006, 05:40:21 PM
It appears those girls you talk about will have an easier time getting used to law school, $mustb! ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lovee on August 08, 2006, 04:12:46 AM

So, Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel first policy and not the USA? :)

Well, I guess Nietzsche was not angry in vain with Jews ... Nietzsche described Jews as the truly great haters in world history.

Human history would be altogether too stupid a thing without the spirit that the impotent Jew priests have introduced into it — let us take at once the most notable example. All that has been done on earth against "the noble," "the powerful," "the masters," "the rulers," fades into nothing compared with what the Jews have done against them; the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies' values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed [Zurückgetretensten] priestly vengefulness.

It was the Jews who, with awe-inspiring consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value-equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = beloved of God) and to hang on to this inversion with their teeth, the teeth of the most abysmal hatred (the hatred of impotence), saying "the wretched alone are the good; the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good; the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly alone are pious, alone are blessed by God, blessedness is for them alone — and you, the powerful and noble, are on the contrary the evil, the cruel, the lustful, the insatiable, the godless to all eternity; and you shall be in all eternity the unblessed, accursed, and d**mned!" ... One knows who inherited this Jewish revaluation ... In connection with the tremendous and immeasurably fateful initiative provided by the Jews through this most fundamental of all declarations of war - with the Jews there began the slave revolt in morality: that revolt which has a history of 2000 (two thousand) years behind it and which we no longer see because it — has been victorious.

You do not comprehend this? You are incapable of seeing something that required 2000 years to achieve victory? — There is nothing to wonder at in that: all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole. That, however, is what has happened: from the trunk of that tree of vengefulness and hatred, Jewish hatred — the profoundest and sublimest kind of hatred, capable of creating ideals and reversing values, the like of which has never existed on earth before — there grew something equally incomparable, a new love, the profoundest and sublimest kind of love —and from what other trunk could it have grown?

This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" who brought blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, and the sinners — was he not this seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, a seduction and by-path to precisely those Jewish values and new ideals? Did Israel not attain the ultimate goal of its sublime vengefulness precisely through the by-path of this "Redeemer," this ostensible opponent and disintegrator of Israel? Was it not part of the secret black art of truly grand politics of revenge, of a farseeing, subterranean, slowly advancing, and premeditated revenge, that Israel must itself deny the real instrument of its revenge before all the world as a mortal enemy and nail it to the cross, so that "all the world," namely all the opponents of Israel, could unhesitatingly swallow just this bait? And could spiritual subtlety imagine any more dangerous bait than this? Anything to equal the enticing, intoxicating, overwhelming, and undermining power of that symbol of the "holy cross," that ghastly paradox of a "God on the cross," that mystery of an unimaginable ultimate cruelty and self-crucifixion of God for the salvation of man?

What is certain, at least, is that 'sub hoc signo' [under this sign] Israel, with its vengefulness and revaluation of all values, has hitherto triumphed again and again over all other ideals, over all nobler ideals.


Wow, I had never thought Jews were *really* guilty of what they're hated for ..
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: professional demeanor on August 18, 2006, 10:14:09 PM

Please note that while rupture of the hymen normally occurs during first intercourse or rape, many girls tear, or otherwise dilate, their hymen for instance:

  • During sports like bicycling, horseback riding, gymnastics etc.
  • Inserting tampons.

A girl may not even be aware that a hymen tear has occurred, since there may be little or no blood loss, nor pain. Not to mention that, some women are born without even a trace of a hymen


LOL ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: accumbens on August 25, 2006, 05:44:09 PM

It appears those girls you talk about will have an easier time getting used to law school, $mustb! ;)


Funny, yet so true!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: bottleneck on August 25, 2006, 08:17:34 PM

No wonder, then, why the production and traffic of forged bills is so actively repressed and so heavily punished -- to a far greater extent, for instance, than are theft or embezzlement.


Well, the answer can only lie in this -- that is, the Symbolic, of which money is precisely a representative -- ought to circulate. The very durability of the social cultural system is at stake here, for this system could be overturned or even destroyed by the proliferation of false references that are necessarily excluded from any form of legal and symbolic guarantee.

Forged currency is a parody: it apes, as it were, real currency, and renders this ridiculous in much the same way as an ape imitating a man makes fun of the latter. And as one cannot make fun of symbolic guarantees with impunity, the proliferation of forged currency is anything but neutral: not only economic values but equally ethical and juridical values, etc., soon appear as suspicious since currency is the expression of a global sovereignty.

Such considerations give support to the idea that it is impossible to completely trust the Symbolic, however absolutely indispensable this may otherwise be to Man. It may well be the case that the true bears the false within itself, but, more generally, money is never able to pay for or replace those minute fetishes (trivia, memories, etc.) that are so dear to us and which testify, over the course of our lives, to the absence of the fundamental object of desire (the proof that one cannot buy everything).
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: washthesoap on September 01, 2006, 02:52:18 AM

Here are some of the signs:

1. People who avoid answering the issues you raise with them;
2. A group that uses psychologically coercive techniques to recruit and indoctrinate members;
3. An organization that uses falsehood in their indoctrination and recruiting methods;
4. A group that maintains that "the end justifies the means";
5. An organization that forms a totalitarian society;
6. A group that has a charismatic, dogmatic leader who plays "Messiah" and demands total devotion: he or she can seem like the most wonderful person you have ever heard of;
7. A group that obtains funds through deception for the personal gain and/or power of the leader;
8. A group that performs no real service to society, although they claim to do so (remember, deceit is one of their tickets);
9. A group that destroys existing relationships with family and friends -- if your family is aware that something is happening to you, the group tells you that your family is evil, or doesn't want you to progress, or that your family is the only reason you have ever been sick or unhappy in your life. (This is another major tool destructive cults use: they tell you your family members or close friends, if they are critical of the organization, are "negative" or "suppressive", or whatever buzzword the group uses for its enemies, and that your family and friends are actually making you sick, and trying to hold you back);
10. An organization that teaches fear, hatred, and rejection of society, while claiming to promote the cause of world peace and universal love. (A good example of a group that teaches hate, fear and rejection is the Ku Klux Klan -- under the definition of most religions, political parties, the Mafia, any terrorist group, the KKK -- all of these could claim they are a religion, since they follow the same definition used by most of the pseudo-religious cults and mind control groups);
11. A group that practices intimidation of critics by threats (which they sometimes carry out) or lawsuits, allow no development of the individual. (If a person in the group questions or wants to be an individual, he or she is told that the way to be an individual is to become more and more involved with the organization);
12. An organization that isolates their members, either mentally or physically, polarizing the group and society into opposing camps, creating an "us/them" mentality, making the members identify exclusively with the group;
13. A group that demands full-time or lifetime commitment: if you are allowed to work in the outside world, it is to get money for the cult, or for further programming or training within the cult for yourself;
14. An organization that has secret practices and docrines and/or objectives that the average new recruit has absolutely no idea about;
15. A group that has simple black-and-white solutions for the world's problems: if everyone becomes a member of this particular cult, then there won't be any war, hunger, or oppression;
16. An organization that makes its members afraid to dare to speak up, even afraid to think about how the cult is oppressing them;
17. A group that suppresses critical thought, blocking out questions and doubts by various methods, such as: chanting; rules of silence; long hours of meditation, study, processing, or counselling; speaking in tongues; various forms of repetitive action; inadequate diet or sleep;
18. An organization whose methods rob their members of free will, destroying family relationships;
19. A group that creates an attitude of willing slavery in its members: people in the group become willing to work long, long hours for the benefit of the organization -- not for their own individual benefit;
20. An organization that creates neuroses and psychoses in its members, so that some members become very angry if anyone points out that their organization may not be what it says, and may even be a destructive cult, and other members can even become violent towards anyone who disagrees with them;
21. A group that creates physical deterioration in its members, often caused by malnutrition, sleep deprivation, overwork, or emotional stress;
22. An organization that destroys its members' judgment, reducing their ability to evaluate for themselves what is most important to them individually, so each member thinks only of the group, losing sight of his or her own self.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3169.msg39724.html#msg39724


In 1921, upon publishing "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," Freud was among the first to study the powerful influence that group leaders can have over group members. In his paper, Freud referred to the contagious and regressive nature of groups described by LeBon and McDougall, but he added the dimension of intrapsychic cathectic shifts that could occur in groups. Freud described the similarity of such groups as the Catholic Church and the army with the hypnotic situation. In all of these situations, there is a leader and one or more followers. The follower obeys the leader and gives up his own superego and ego ideal as he identifies with the leader's superego. Freud also compared the psychological changes occurring in group members to changes that occur to those who fall in love. In both cases, the ego can disregard the previous standards of the superego, because it gains a sufficient amount of narcissistic support and gratification of instinctual wishes elsewhere.

After the Korean War, under assignment by the U.S. Army, Lifton Singer, West, and others studied the effects of mind control techniques on the returning POWs. They described how these soldiers had been influenced to accept communist ideology while captive. They explained how these techniques of coercive persuasion went beyond normal group influences described by Freud through the use of deliberate manipulation processes that increased guilt, shame, and anxiety in the POW's. These mental health professionals were the first to describe the fact that some of the same mind control dynamic are used in modern day cults. Today there is a recognized body of literature by mental health professionals about mind control techniques used in cults. Of course, in addition to examining the coercive techniques, the clinician must examine the vulnerability of the cult recruit. Individuals become vulnerable to cults at times of stress, particularly during periods of transition (e.g., when dealing with loss of a relationship or employment).

The large majority of people who join cults do so in late adolescence or early adulthood. With puberty, there is an increase in the sexual and aggressive drives. Along with this, there is a revival of oedipal feelings and, therefore, there is a need for distancing from the oedipal objects of childhood. Parents are de-idealized and healthy young adults attempt to develop a vision of the world that is different from their parent's view. Also, during this time, there often is physical distance from the family. This distance and the concomitant feelings of separateness is engenders may trigger pre-oedipal anxiety and/or depression. Additionally, there are specific personality dynamics of late adolescence which were first described by Anna Freud -- intellectualization, asceticism and idealism -- which make adolescents vulnerable to cults. Furthermore, the adolescent superego is highly susceptible to environmental influences as a result of parental de-identification. Therefore, this is a time of life that the group or group leader can have a powerful influence.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: washthesoap on September 01, 2006, 02:52:54 AM
Adolescents and young adults also are in a period of transition and may desire a sense of community and acceptance at a time in their live, when they are experiencing uncertainty and/or anxiety about their identities and their futures.  Therefore, this is  a stage of development wherein group membership and the new identifications made with group members can be a progressive step of separation from the object, of childhood. As mentioned previously, an adolescent becomes particularly vulnerable to cult recruitment at a time when he or she is dealing with external and/or internal losses. Those who are particularly susceptible to groups that turn out to be cults are typically those who an in order to attack the recruits' identity and belief system; and pressuring recruits to meet a new standard of perfection. These influence techniques attack the recruit's identity structure, formed from identifications made with important figures in the recruit's life. That is, without conscious awareness of this process, individuals are induced to let go of their original identity and take on a new cultic identity; and, by doing so, enter into a dissociative state. This cultic identity enables the recruit to better cope with this recruitment process.

In viewing this situation psychodynamically, it could be said that with the absence of an anchor in the past, recruits defend against feeling anxious, overwhelmed, exhausted, and confused by forming an identification with the cult leader -- identification with the aggressor. Anna Freud coined "identification with the aggressor" in "The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense," to describe how a child "introjects some characteristic of an anxiety object and so assimilates an anxiety experience which he has just undergone." This defense was not only used to describe a process of childhood, but was seen as a defensive maneuver used at later periods of life when the individual was undergoing high levels of stress. For example, the defense of identification with the aggressor was later used to understand how Jews imprisoned in concentration camps sought out discarded insignias and torn shreds of SS uniforms with which to adorn their rags.

If this process is prolonged, the new cultic personality, initially formed as a role played in response to stressful circumstances, will be superimposed upon the original personality which, while not completely forgotten, will be enveloped within the shell of the new cultic personality. This new cultic identification encapsulates the general regression that occurs in recruits to cults. The pre-oedipal cult world is seen as black and white and objects as good and evil. This view, which defines the cult world as the only true path and the outside world (often including family and friends) as satanic, further binds the recruit to the cult. This also has implications for memory of past relationships and events. Typically, over time, life prior to the cult begins to be seen in a more negative light. Furthermore, there is a sense of omnipotence gained by sharing with the all-powerful cult leader (mother). This sense of omnipotence is experienced as euphoria by the recruit. The boundaries have blurred and the recruit's sense of individuality is weakened.

Cult members become aware of the positive effect of belonging to a single-minded community. Whitsett describes how this sense of belonging can be used as a powerful tool to keep recruits in cults. However, the pressure for uniformity has a regressive influence on the ego, precluding any type of critical assessment of this coercive and highly suggestive experience. Recruits are actively discouraged from differentiating their own thoughts and feelings from those of the group. This single-mindedness is reinforced through a strict system ol reward and punishment. There is constant pressure to be obedient to the cult leader. If recruits have doubts or go against the cult leader's wishes, they are humiliated or, worse, threatened with excommunication -- which cult members come to believe is being d**mned to Hell. Furthermore, their doubt is defined as a reflection of their personal problems, not as reflection of deficiencies within the leader or the ideology, Therefore, by punishing any expression of doubt, the leader induces cult members to become more and more dependent on receiving his approval through obedient behavior. In this way, ego functions that interfere with group functions are attacked and diminished. The cult member becomes child-like and suggestible. Therefore, in order to continue to feel good the recruit must continually be locked into an idealizing transference the cult leader, which never ends and never is interpreted.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: robmelone on September 03, 2006, 06:50:56 AM
I hope you have heard of unicorns.

Who hasn't heard of unicorns?  ;)

Rob
http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug (http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ranaok on September 06, 2006, 06:08:34 PM
Looks like you're one of us, "notre petite bande" ;)
Title: KISSING LAW'S, OOPS, HANK'S ASS!
Post by: melissa on September 13, 2006, 03:05:47 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: USv$124,700inUSCurr on September 13, 2006, 03:18:34 PM
Praise Hank. Nice illustration of the stupidity of organized religion.

Awesome!
Title: Re: KISSING LAW'S, OOPS, HANK'S ASS!
Post by: LewisMedia on September 14, 2006, 02:43:35 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ


They left out the part where the protagonist asks John and Mary to prove that Hank exists, and they reply by saying, "you can't prove he doesn't exist." I believe that is followed by a discussion of 2 apples not equaling 1 because if holeycamels ate 2 apples he would be more full than if he ate 1. Therefore, you can prove a negative (the negative existential is that no human being exists who is more idiotic than HC). Therefore, Hank exists.

Wow, Christian logic is easy.
Title: The script
Post by: adobe on September 15, 2006, 03:12:37 AM
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the *&^% out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the *&^% out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the *&^% out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the *&^% out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the *&^% out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the *&^% out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the *&^% out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jalouxamoureux on September 15, 2006, 03:48:01 AM
Their nicks are also quite interesting ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: bu on September 17, 2006, 06:18:58 PM

In his paper, Freud referred to the contagious and regressive nature of groups described by LeBon and McDougall, but he added the dimension of intrapsychic cathectic shifts that could occur in groups. Freud described the similarity of such groups as the Catholic Church and the army with the hypnotic situation. In all of these situations, there is a leader and one or more followers. The follower obeys the leader and gives up his own superego and ego ideal as he identifies with the leader's superego.


So basically, priests, soldiers, lawyers are brainwashed, cult-duped dicks?
Title: Re: KISSING LAW'S, OOPS, HANK'S ASS!
Post by: sesi on September 18, 2006, 05:51:22 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ


Truly a great video!
Title: Culture of Humiliation
Post by: français on October 04, 2006, 02:26:42 AM

Puritans don't work things out with enemies like these because there is no negotiating with the irrational. The Puritan mind reasons: "Well of course the witch doesn't want to be saved from her own evil. That's why we must save her from herself by burning her at the stake."  Sounds absurd, but that American major said after the destruction of the village of Ben Tre in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." A true Puritan there. And now look what we're doing in Iraq. Think Fallujah. We're burning the country at the stake. It's a form of mental illness, but it's a sickness we all accept as normal.

Terrorism is the latest encounter of the Puritan mind with the irrational, and the traditional Islamic culture that promotes it will just have to be destroyed to save it. World politics will be so much more hygienic once we exterminate the vermin. I wasn't all that surprized to learn that Tom Delay had been an exterminator before he entered politics. He's the poster child for this tragic illness. Would that Jerry Lewis have a telethon to raise money for its cure.

A key element in understanding the Calvinist mentality is its need for control and its willingness to use whatever level of violence necessary to repress the "irrational" elements in human experience, and the premodern in the Puritan demonology is full of irrational images triggering fears in need of suppression—magic, witches, Catholic ritual, shifty Jews, hot-tempered Italians, voodoo practicing Africans, the savage Indian. J.K. Rowling's "muggles" and  their fear of magic is a kind of sendup of this mentality. Theirs is a tight, priggish, white-bread, control-obsessed world, sterilized of anything that suggests mystery, transcendence, or the non-rational in general. The Puritans and their Calvinist cousins the Scotch Irish, of course, didn't  invent priggishness, nor are they, obviously, the only ones in the history of humanity who have justified the violent repression of their enemies for religious reasons. But theirs is the peculiarly modern form for the religious persecution of the enemy, and it lingers in Anglo-American culture, and is so much in the cultural air we breathe that we cannot see it clearly. At the very heart of modern "religiosity," whether in its Calvinist or its more secular versions, is fear of the uncontrollable non-rational.

The American right's fear of communism/socialism is more akin to the Islamic fear of modernity, which is the fear of an uncontrollable future. If fascism derives its mystique from a mythological past, communism derives it from a mytholgized future. Progressives look to the future.  Conservatives look to the past. Progressives distrust the past and its premodern irrationality; Conservatives distrust those who look to the future with an irrational utopianism. Progressivism is experiencing hard times these days because during a culturally decadent period like the one we're currently suffering through, we don't know what to hope for.  We have only the weakest sense of plausible future possibility.  We are capable of seeing the future only as a variation on 'more of the same', and that is not a vision that inspires concerted action. That will change someday, but for now it's the conservatives' time because when our imagination of the future is weak, we fall back on the past for want of something better. And we find ourselves voting for mediocrities like George Bush rather than mediocrities like John Kerry for the same reason.  The first represents the solidity of the past; the second a fuzzy future for which we can muster little hope.


In America the ideal of humiliating mental torture is much more entranched and frequent and revered. In summer camp, in high schools (read law schools as well), in Boot Camp, in the Skulls and Bones Club at Yale, in the Miss America contest, the spelling bee, Death Row or Oscar Night, in every Hollywood roast or any meeting of AA or any parade ground or football victory lap, ritualized humiliation is the American way.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ironmaiden on October 05, 2006, 07:41:43 PM
This is all nice being able to vent our collective rage at these scumbags. Believe me I struggle against just exploding with disgust at humanity seeing these captains of industry act like satans minions and most people just lamely sucking it up as lazy, weak, lobotomized consumer clowns all caring about no one and no thing except their own ease and convenience. So what I want to know is what are we all going to do about these parasites?

All these fascist pieces of *&^% deserve whatever we can do to them and then some! I fantasize a global revolution somewhat like the French revolution with mobs storming the office towers and mansions of the ruthlessly rich and dragging these shitballs from their obscene cucoons of comfort and burning them or cutting their f**cking evil heads off. You can bet that then unbridled greed and rapacious business practices would not be idolized and worshipped with the same vigor that it is today by our propaganda spewing masters. I can just see people like Dickhead Cheney trying to fit in with the street people dressed in rags.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ellaine on October 06, 2006, 02:19:45 AM

In America the ideal of humiliating mental torture is much more entranched and frequent and revered. In summer camp, in high schools (read law schools as well), in Boot Camp, in the Skulls and Bones Club at Yale, in the Miss America contest, the spelling bee, Death Row or Oscar Night, in every Hollywood roast or any meeting of AA or any parade ground or football victory lap, ritualized humiliation is the American way.


You bet! Here are some military training pics:

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6541/navysealus07zg6.jpg)

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9834/joey2fo8.jpg)

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4162/bond1uy9.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9913/frnk1aq0.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7180/pantera2rk1.gif)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: naom on October 06, 2006, 03:13:06 AM

No wonder, then, why the production and traffic of forged bills is so actively repressed and so heavily punished -- to a far greater extent, for instance, than are theft or embezzlement.


Well, the answer can only lie in this -- that is, the Symbolic, of which money is precisely a representative -- ought to circulate. The very durability of the social cultural system is at stake here, for this system could be overturned or even destroyed by the proliferation of false references that are necessarily excluded from any form of legal and symbolic guarantee.

Forged currency is a parody: it apes, as it were, real currency, and renders this ridiculous in much the same way as an ape imitating a man makes fun of the latter. And as one cannot make fun of symbolic guarantees with impunity, the proliferation of forged currency is anything but neutral: not only economic values but equally ethical and juridical values, etc., soon appear as suspicious since currency is the expression of a global sovereignty.

Such considerations give support to the idea that it is impossible to completely trust the Symbolic, however absolutely indispensable this may otherwise be to Man. It may well be the case that the true bears the false within itself, but, more generally, money is never able to pay for or replace those minute fetishes (trivia, memories, etc.) that are so dear to us and which testify, over the course of our lives, to the absence of the fundamental object of desire (the proof that one cannot buy everything).


Digital cash presents an additional problem. Although payment with forged electronic currency could be construed as an act of theft or fraud, the very act of forging the electronic cash -- for example cracking the computer protections and copying the bits in the wallet on the hard disk -- is prima facie not prohibited by criminal law. A revision of the law is therefore necessary in order to make it clear that forging digital currency is just the same as forging bank notes.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ophelia on October 07, 2006, 07:46:03 PM

In America the ideal of humiliating mental torture is much more entranched and frequent and revered. In summer camp, in high schools (read law schools as well), in Boot Camp, in the Skulls and Bones Club at Yale, in the Miss America contest, the spelling bee, Death Row or Oscar Night, in every Hollywood roast or any meeting of AA or any parade ground or football victory lap, ritualized humiliation is the American way.


You bet! Here are some military training pics:

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6541/navysealus07zg6.jpg)

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9834/joey2fo8.jpg)

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4162/bond1uy9.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9913/frnk1aq0.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7180/pantera2rk1.gif)


I was standing in one of those shops that carry trendy clothes and miscellaneous fad trinkets. Several yards away from me two women were having fun trying on hats. Judging from their clothes and the prominent political buttons each one sported, I reckoned them to be progressive, probably feminists. The amazing part of the picture was the hats they were trying on. Some company had taken surplus military caps and dyed them various earth tone purples and pastel pink. I stood there watching the irony of these women modeling for each other the cap that any man who has been in the military knows as the "female private part Cap."

There must be an unwritten rule that GIs or veterans not use the term "female private part Cap" in the presence of women. Probably 98% of all men who are or were in the U.S. Army know the "female private part Cap" by that name. Probably 98% of the women in America have never even heard of it. The root of this difference is male bonding. This universal camaraderie-among-men starts with "No Girls Allowed" which is nothing more than Woman Hatred 101. The U.S. military concentrates this exclusion of women and uses it as the lowest common demoninator among GIs: "At least we're not girls!" Military authorities need to create a cohesive fighting unit which is completely controllable. To off-set the danger of GIs sticking together against the Brass, they foment divisions like racism within the ranks. On the other hand, male bonding is the distraction used to patch the splits between the troops arising from racial, regional, and cultural differences. By dividing the troops in some ways, and simultaneously uniting them against women, the Brass hope to create reliable fighters completely under their control. Male bonding also keeps the troops in line, for fear of being labeled a "sissy" or "female private part." The label becomes more than a sexist insult, but constitutes exclusion from the group. Much more than momma and apple pie, male bonding and fear of exclusion keeps the troops marching along in lockstep.

Military authorities have an additional motive in promoting woman-hating. Probably 90% of the contact the troops have with the people they are sent to subjugate is with women and children. If soldiers see "enemy" women as sub-human, there's far more likelihood that they will be willing to carry out orders to commit atrocities against them. Not that American GIs have to stray far from the community standards they were raised with to commit atrocities. Authorities on rape often point out that 1 in 4 women in the U.S. will be sexually assaulted during her lifetime. That horrible statistic comes from relatively stable, "normal times" in Amerikkka. Nobody has ever compiled the statistics for the fate of women in other countries when American troops land, but given how the military fosters and gives permission to the worst view of women, the thought boggles the mind.

"At least he'll get some training"

A mother whose son was joining the army was saying "At least he'll be off the streets and will get some training." He'll be trained, all right. He'll learn the name for the "female private part cap" in the first few days. That, of course, is merely a small example of the way that the military takes the sexism every young boy in America gets as part of his "manhood training" and concentrates it and raises it to all-new levels of woman-hating.

Break the code of silence

Veterans can play an important role in going up against all this. We must break the code of silence and expose just how sick military "service" really is. We must break with complicity by refusing to tolerate the rampant sexism that surrounds all of us. The saying "the dust doesn't vanish where the broom doesn't reach" is certainly true here. The popular image of veterans as individuals who have successfully passed all the "manhood" tests makes it absolutely important that we, of all people, take a clear and public stand on the oppression of women. The "female private part Cap" must go! Vets have to decide what legacy we are going to pass along to the next and future generations-to continue marching to the beat of sexism and sexual violence towards women, to uphold those moments in our lives we feel the worst about, or to determinedly fight to bring about a new day. But be forewarned: sexism is one of the big foundation blocks of the empire -- if we bring down the one the other falls too!

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: el on October 08, 2006, 09:37:38 PM

In America the ideal of humiliating mental torture is much more entranched and frequent and revered. In summer camp, in high schools (read law schools as well), in Boot Camp, in the Skulls and Bones Club at Yale, in the Miss America contest, the spelling bee, Death Row or Oscar Night, in every Hollywood roast or any meeting of AA or any parade ground or football victory lap, ritualized humiliation is the American way.


You bet! Here are some military training pics:

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6541/navysealus07zg6.jpg)

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9834/joey2fo8.jpg)

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4162/bond1uy9.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9913/frnk1aq0.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7180/pantera2rk1.gif)


Sadomasochism in action!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: capsaicin on October 08, 2006, 10:03:34 PM

No wonder, then, why the production and traffic of forged bills is so actively repressed and so heavily punished -- to a far greater extent, for instance, than are theft or embezzlement.


Well, the answer can only lie in this -- that is, the Symbolic, of which money is precisely a representative -- ought to circulate. The very durability of the social cultural system is at stake here, for this system could be overturned or even destroyed by the proliferation of false references that are necessarily excluded from any form of legal and symbolic guarantee.

Forged currency is a parody: it apes, as it were, real currency, and renders this ridiculous in much the same way as an ape imitating a man makes fun of the latter. And as one cannot make fun of symbolic guarantees with impunity, the proliferation of forged currency is anything but neutral: not only economic values but equally ethical and juridical values, etc., soon appear as suspicious since currency is the expression of a global sovereignty.

Such considerations give support to the idea that it is impossible to completely trust the Symbolic, however absolutely indispensable this may otherwise be to Man. It may well be the case that the true bears the false within itself, but, more generally, money is never able to pay for or replace those minute fetishes (trivia, memories, etc.) that are so dear to us and which testify, over the course of our lives, to the absence of the fundamental object of desire (the proof that one cannot buy everything).


Digital cash presents an additional problem. Although payment with forged electronic currency could be construed as an act of theft or fraud, the very act of forging the electronic cash -- for example cracking the computer protections and copying the bits in the wallet on the hard disk -- is prima facie not prohibited by criminal law. A revision of the law is therefore necessary in order to make it clear that forging digital currency is just the same as forging bank notes.


Don't forget thou that money is speech! :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: aisha on October 09, 2006, 09:08:49 PM

In America the ideal of humiliating mental torture is much more entranched and frequent and revered. In summer camp, in high schools (read law schools as well), in Boot Camp, in the Skulls and Bones Club at Yale, in the Miss America contest, the spelling bee, Death Row or Oscar Night, in every Hollywood roast or any meeting of AA or any parade ground or football victory lap, ritualized humiliation is the American way.


You bet! Here are some military training pics:

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6541/navysealus07zg6.jpg)

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9834/joey2fo8.jpg)

(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4162/bond1uy9.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9913/frnk1aq0.jpg)

(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7180/pantera2rk1.gif)


Sadomasochism in action!


Here are some more:

(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2725/bedtiedns5.jpg)

(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8421/markyno20shirtjq0.jpg)

(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2429/cgd2ap9.jpg)

(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5955/bond0512ez4.jpg)

(http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5139/ar4bu3.jpg)

(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/6905/615zk3.jpg)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: marcello on October 10, 2006, 02:08:25 AM

Digital cash presents an additional problem. Although payment with forged electronic currency could be construed as an act of theft or fraud, the very act of forging the electronic cash -- for example cracking the computer protections and copying the bits in the wallet on the hard disk -- is prima facie not prohibited by criminal law. A revision of the law is therefore necessary in order to make it clear that forging digital currency is just the same as forging bank notes.


Extortion, kidnapping, and even murder contracts become easier to set up. Extortion, for example, becomes almost unstoppable at the usual place: the collection of a payoff and/or the spending of the payoff money. The extortionist makes his threat from the safety of his home PC, using networks of remailers and message pools, and demands payment in untraceable digital cash. What if U.S. banks are forbidden to issue digital cash? Even if most nations and most banks decline to participate in a digital cash scheme, all it really takes is one such bank or mint. The extortionist can demand that blinded digital cash be bought from the one of the few banks that do offer digital cash: the victim is incentivized to cooperate (he can refuse, but...) and will make other arrangements, possibly including travelling to the country in which the bank is located. (Forbidding communication outside national borders, and/or forbidding travel, would of course be problematic to enforce. Not even totalitarian regimes of late have been able to stop such communications, and the U.S. and Western nations have vastly more channels of communication. Messages can easily be made indistinguishable from noise, as in packing 160 MB of data (!) in just the least sign)ficant bits of a 2-hour digital audio tape recording. If bales of mari.juana cannot be stopped, how can bits be stopped? Bits are ever so much smaller...

Similar to extortion are markets for kidnappings (riskier, due to the physical act), and even untraceable markets for murders. For murder contracts, the usual risk is in setting up the hit--asking around is almost a guaranteed way of getting the FBI involved, and advertising in traceable ways is a similar invitation. This risk is largely removed when anonymous contact and payment methods are used. To ensure the job is completed, third party escrow services -- anonymous, of course, but with an established cyberspatial reputation -- hold the digital cash until completion. Much more has been written on this in various places.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: mensman on October 11, 2006, 02:41:29 AM
marcello, what are you talking about? Your giving me the creeps!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: buffomet on October 15, 2006, 11:39:17 PM

I would be delighted to make a connection at this point :) The end of the 18th century was a time of great change -- specifically the United States was born and the French aristocracy was overthrown and destroyed. Both of these events occured as a result of revolution. Both the American and French revolution were quite similiar in their ideology and mission. Just how similiar and intertwined is for you to find out! They shared many of the same ideologies. Each was a revolt based upon more personal freedom and representation within the Government...

On the other hand, we sure have heard of Zionism. You know, those conspirational theories that supposedly the Zionists have basically hijacked the US government and are working in the interest of Zionist-extremism with an Israel-first policy and not the USA. These hypothesis aside, I would throw at large the idea that the Zionists didn't have to hijack at all the U.S. goverment, since it may have been "hijacked" from the very beginning... :)


What was the role of the Jews in all this? Nazism posed as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the European order. The Nazis borrowed the Leninist vocabulary and assimilated it effectively. Hitler and the Nazis were an adolescent movement, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state. Hitler himself was a malignant narcissist, as Fromm correctly noted. The Jews constituted a perfect, easily identifiable, reification of all that was "wrong" with Europe. They were an old nation, they were eerily disembodied (without a territory), they were cosmopolitan, they were part of the establishment, they were "decadent", they were hated on religious and socio-economic grounds (see Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners"), they were different, they were narcissistic (felt and acted as morally superior), they were everywhere, they were defenseless, they were credulous, they were adaptable (and thus could be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They were the perfect hated father figure and parricide was in fashion.


Not really! Nazis reacted against the Judeo-Christian tradition (see Nietzsche) that had reacted against the Graeco-Roman pagan ways. In short, they tried to revive the the latter, without having the courage to actually "call a spade a spade" in many areas because of the deely-rooted Christian customs.

(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2388/bcg9lj4.jpg)

Pagan societies regarded violence as sacred. Pagan peoples were all barbarian and lived in a permanent atmosphere of war. To kill and spill blood was seen as a sacred duty. Savagery and violence of almost all kinds could find a justification in the pagan world. There was no ethical source to forbid violence or say that it was wrong. Even Rome, thought of as the most 'civilized' state in the pagan world, was a place where people were made to fight to the death or were torn to pieces by wild animals. The Emperor Nero came to power by having countless numbers of people killed, including his own mother, wife, and stepbrother. He had Christians torn apart by wild animals in the arena, and tortured thousands of people just because of their beliefs. While this culture of violence ruled in Rome, the barbarian pagan peoples of the north, such as the Vandals, Goths, and Visigoths were even more savage. These peoples tried to wreak devastation on each other, and also to plunder Rome. The pagan world was one where only violence ruled, where the use of violence of all kinds was counted as quite ethical, and even where there was no serious concept of ethics at all. The most concrete example in the pagan world of a 'fascist' system in the modern sense was the Greek city-state of Sparta.

Sparta was a military state, dedicated to war and violence, and alleged to have been founded by Lycurgos in the 8th century BC. An absolute education system was set up. Under this the state was very much more important than the individual. Peoples' lives were evaluated by whether they would be of use to the state or not. The lives of strong, healthy male children were dedicated to the state, unhealthy babies were left on mountains to die. (This Spartan practice was taken as an example by Nazi Germany, and it was claimed, under the influence of Darwinism, that the sickly had to be eliminated for a 'healthy and superior race.') Parents in Sparta were responsible for taking care of their sons until the age of 7. From then until the age of 12, children were placed in teams of 15, and those who succeeded in conforming to the rules were selected as leaders. Children strengthened their bodies and prepared for war by spending their time doing sports. Literacy was unimportant, and there was little interest in music or literature. The only songs the children were allowed to sing and learn were about war and violence. (The fascist education given to children from the age of four by Mussolini and Hitler was very much the same). It was a Spartan custom to raise people with a warrior spirit by disregarding art, literature, and education.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: buffomet on October 15, 2006, 11:40:13 PM
The most important of the thinkers who made detailed statements about Sparta was the famous Greek philosopher Plato. Although he lived in Athens, which was governed democratically, he was in awe of the fascist system in Sparta, and portrayed Sparta as a model state in his books. Because of Plato's fascist tendencies, Karl Popper describes him as the first source of inspiration for oppressive regimes and an enemy of open society in his famous book "The Open Society and Its Enemies." Popper explains how Plato calmly defended the killing of babies in Sparta, and describes him as the first theoretical proponent of 'eugenics:'

Quote
To this end, it is important that the master class should feel as one superior master race. "The race of the guardians must be kept pure," says Plato (in defence of infanticide), when developing the racial argument that we breed animals with great care while neglecting our own race, an argument which has been repeated ever since. (Infanticide was not an Athenian institution; Plato, seeing that is was practised at Sparta for eugenic reasons, concluded that it must be ancient and therefore good.)

These views of Plato, who regarded human beings as a species of animal, and proposed that they would evolve by forced mating, came to the fore once again with Darwinism in the 19th century and were implemented by the Nazis in the 20th. While defending the Spartan model, Plato also defended another aspect of fascism, the state use of pressure to administer society. In Plato's view, this pressure should be so comprehensive in daily life that people should be unable to think of anything apart from the orders of the state and behave in a totally brainwashed manner, leaving their own intelligence and free will aside. The following words by Plato, which Popper quoted in his book as a complete statement of the fascist mentality, describe the dimensions of pagan fascism:

Quote
"The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all of his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully. But in war and in the midst of peace -- to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals .. only if he has been told to do so, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it."

According to Nazi logic, the Germans had first been a warrior, pagan society, then they had abandoned that culture with the spread of Christianity, and Christianity was a continuation of Judaism. Therefore, the Nazis' hatred of Christianity stemmed from the fact they saw it as a "Jewish conspiracy." That Jesus, himself of Jewish origins, should be loved and respected by the Germans, whom they considered the 'master race,' was an idea the Nazis found unacceptable. In the Nazis' opinion, it was not prophets of Jewish origin who should light the way for the German people, but the cruel and barbaric warriors of pagan German culture. Nazi ideology saw world history as a conflict between the 'Aryan race' and the 'Semites.' According to the Nazis, the Aryan race was the leader of Indo-European culture, and the Semites (the Jews) the leaders of Middle Eastern culture. The fundamental feature of Indo-European culture was its pagan beliefs. It was for this reason that the Nazis saw themselves as the inheritors of a pagan culture. They looked on the Jews as a hostile race who had abandoned paganism and spread monotheistic belief over the world.

Nazism particularly reacted against the French revolution principles and teachings. Nietzsche specifically stated that,

Quote
"In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in 17th and 18th century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentment — never on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity -- and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind -- in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman ...
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: page on October 15, 2006, 11:58:20 PM
So, buffomet, is America, as it were when conceived and/or is today, the incarnation of the French Revolution principles or those ones of Nazi Germany?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ñ on October 16, 2006, 04:55:27 AM
If Nazism would truly stick to the reversal of the values that the French Revolution was based upon, that would bring to power aristocratic people knowing better than Judeo-Christian values. Unfortunately Nazism was nothing else but than a way to power, without taking too much care to stick to ideologies and political principles.

In America, it appears some stupid white people believe they have a right from God to rule America and the world the way God tells them to ... to achieve that they'll do whatever it takes ... kill and kill and kill ... soon after Jews, blacks, homosexuals are exterminated it'll come time for women, overweight people, and after a while white men will begin to eat each-other ...
Title: First They Came
Post by: frisky on October 30, 2006, 01:18:29 AM

In America, it appears some stupid white people believe they have a right from God to rule America and the world the way God tells them to ... to achieve that they'll do whatever it takes ... kill and kill and kill ... soon after Jews, blacks, homosexuals are exterminated it'll come time for women, overweight people, and after a while white men will begin to eat each-other ...


I can agree with this, ñ,

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.


This is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

An early supporter of Hitler, by 1934 Niemöller had come to oppose the Nazis, and it was largely his high connections to influential and wealthy businessmen that saved him until 1937, after which he was imprisoned, eventually at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. He survived to be a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: pixelaw on November 03, 2006, 08:41:45 PM
America has learned a lot, though, don't you think frisky ?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gejco on November 06, 2006, 04:23:40 AM
Of course, it has, pixel. She's not learned enough, though.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: kipeet on November 14, 2006, 02:18:52 AM
??
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: vicsecret on November 18, 2006, 09:07:14 PM

In 1921, upon publishing "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," Freud was among the first to study the powerful influence that group leaders can have over group members. In his paper, Freud referred to the contagious and regressive nature of groups described by LeBon and McDougall, but he added the dimension of intrapsychic cathectic shifts that could occur in groups. Freud described the similarity of such groups as the Catholic Church and the army with the hypnotic situation. In all of these situations, there is a leader and one or more followers. The follower obeys the leader and gives up his own superego and ego ideal as he identifies with the leader's superego. Freud also compared the psychological changes occurring in group members to changes that occur to those who fall in love. In both cases, the ego can disregard the previous standards of the superego, because it gains a sufficient amount of narcissistic support and gratification of instinctual wishes elsewhere.


If the individuals in a group are combined into a unity, there must be something to unite them, and this bond might be precisely the thing that is characteristic of a group. Le Bon thinks that the particular acquirements of individuals become obliterated in a group, and that in this way their distinctiveness vanishes. The racial unconscious emerges; what is heterogenous is submerged in what is homogeneous. The mental superstructure, the development of which in individuals shows such dissimilarities, is removed, and the unconscious foundations, which are similar in everyone, stand exposed to view. In a group, the individual is brought under conditions which allow him to throw off the repressions of his unconscious instinctual impulses. The apparently new characteristics which he then displays are in fact the manifestations of this unconscious. Le Bon believes that the individuals in a group display new characteristics which they have not previously possessed. Three factors are put forth as reasons for this: 1) the individual forming part of a group acquires a sentiment of invincible power which allows him to yield to instincts which, had he been alone, he would perforce have kept under restraint; 2) contagion; and 3) suggestibility. A group is impulsive, changeable, and irritable. It is led almost exclusively by the unconscious. A group is credulous and open to influence, it has no critical faculty, and the improbable does not exist for it. A group is subject to the magical power of words. Groups have never thirsted after truth.

Shielded by the anonymity of a crowd, people abandon personal responsibility and surrender to the contagious emotions of the crowd. A crowd thus assumes a life of its own, stirring up emotions and driving people toward irrational, perhaps violent, action. However, it must be noted that if Le Bon often referred to the cliché of the irrational crowd, which was current in the 19th century and before (in particular in the fields of criminology, which tended to describe crowds as irrational and criminal groups), he considered himself the founder of "crowd psychology". Thus, he didn't consider crowds as totally irrational, but simply thought that ordinary individualist psychology wasn't relevant to this phenomenon. Le Bon was a pioneer in propaganda, which he considered a suitable and rational technique for managing groups, using for example communal reinforcement of beliefs, etc. Le Bon's 1895 "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" influenced many 20th century figures, including Adolf Hitler, whose "Mein Kampf" insisted on Le Bon's work.

Le Bon made abundant use of the concept of "collective soul". Sigmund Freud would criticize this notion of collective unconscious, asserting that crowds do not have a soul of their own, nor do specific ethnic groups have a Volkgeist. Rather, individuals identify themselves to their leaders through their own "ideal ego" (that is, their subjective representation of their leader). The Freudian concept of an "ideal ego" later became the super-ego. Ultimately, leaders themselves identify themselves to an idea.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: bangbang on November 23, 2006, 06:52:59 PM

Sigmund Freud would criticize this notion of collective unconscious, asserting that crowds do not have a soul of their own, nor do specific ethnic groups have a Volkgeist. Rather, individuals identify themselves to their leaders through their own "ideal ego" (that is, their subjective representation of their leader). The Freudian concept of an "ideal ego" later became the super-ego. Ultimately, leaders themselves identify themselves to an idea.


That's because Freud tends to think in purely psychological terms.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: twoways on December 07, 2006, 01:22:01 AM

In 1921, upon publishing "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," Freud was among the first to study the powerful influence that group leaders can have over group members. In his paper, Freud referred to the contagious and regressive nature of groups described by LeBon and McDougall, but he added the dimension of intrapsychic cathectic shifts that could occur in groups. Freud described the similarity of such groups as the Catholic Church and the army with the hypnotic situation. In all of these situations, there is a leader and one or more followers. The follower obeys the leader and gives up his own superego and ego ideal as he identifies with the leader's superego. Freud also compared the psychological changes occurring in group members to changes that occur to those who fall in love. In both cases, the ego can disregard the previous standards of the superego, because it gains a sufficient amount of narcissistic support and gratification of instinctual wishes elsewhere.

After the Korean War, under assignment by the U.S. Army, Lifton Singer, West, and others studied the effects of mind control techniques on the returning POWs. They described how these soldiers had been influenced to accept communist ideology while captive. They explained how these techniques of coercive persuasion went beyond normal group influences described by Freud through the use of deliberate manipulation processes that increased guilt, shame, and anxiety in the POW's. These mental health professionals were the first to describe the fact that some of the same mind control dynamic are used in modern day cults. Today there is a recognized body of literature by mental health professionals about mind control techniques used in cults. Of course, in addition to examining the coercive techniques, the clinician must examine the vulnerability of the cult recruit. Individuals become vulnerable to cults at times of stress, particularly during periods of transition (e.g., when dealing with loss of a relationship or employment).

The large majority of people who join cults do so in late adolescence or early adulthood. With puberty, there is an increase in the sexual and aggressive drives. Along with this, there is a revival of oedipal feelings and, therefore, there is a need for distancing from the oedipal objects of childhood. Parents are de-idealized and healthy young adults attempt to develop a vision of the world that is different from their parent's view. Also, during this time, there often is physical distance from the family. This distance and the concomitant feelings of separateness is engenders may trigger pre-oedipal anxiety and/or depression. Additionally, there are specific personality dynamics of late adolescence which were first described by Anna Freud -- intellectualization, asceticism and idealism -- which make adolescents vulnerable to cults. Furthermore, the adolescent superego is highly susceptible to environmental influences as a result of parental de-identification. Therefore, this is a time of life that the group or group leader can have a powerful influence.


There are 1.3 million lawyers. A population and economy of our size needs about 500,000 fewer. The overgrowth of the profession is toxic to the nation. It also generates low wages, total disrespect, and public animus for the pestilence lawyers bring. America does not need you, lawyer 1.3 million and one. Why don't law students leave law school and try something productive instead?!

The faculty of all law schools are beyond the pale, with no known exception. Its brightest members, geniuses, have been made into oblivious dumbasses and mental cripples by cult indoctrination. If you find law school unpleasant, you are correct. It is a painful, harsh cult indoctrination process. They are trying to break your connection to the outside world, to the outside express purposes of the law, you thought you were going to learn to serve. They want to crush you with humiliation, 80 hrs/week of pointless work, incomprehensible gibberish, worthless garbage from 1250 AD, pointless competition, and shunning of the dissident. They have a Lincolnesque officer of the court ethos to point to when you object to their methods. It is all a lie. The faculty are harsh cult enforcers.

All goals of all subjects of the law are in utter failure. The sole success of the law is to generate wealth for the lawyer. The biggest victims of the law are minorities. Beyond the process of stress indoctrination, is the criminal cult enterprise content. On every page of every Hornbook, you will find, the supernatural, mind reading, future forecasting, a belief that 12 strangers can detect truth or lies by using their gut feelings, and the best of all, the word, "reasonable." That means in accordance with the New Testament, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Today, it has drifted to mean any feeling the little caesar on the bench decides to impose on the public, using Army Airborne if needed. These tyrants are in out of control insurrection against Article I Section 1 of the Constitution.

The legal profession is a waking nightmare for the nation. Everyone will grow to hate lawyers as they set about to destroy America. The legal profession will be openly bashed and derided to lawyers faces, at social occasions. No one will feel it necessary to show them manners, as if they were convicted felons. They will hate themselves, for good reason.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: robmelone on December 08, 2006, 04:06:09 PM
Law School Final Tips:
http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug/2227077 (http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug/2227077) ;D
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: robmelone on December 09, 2006, 11:41:13 AM
NEW WWSD!
http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug/2232421 (http://www.cafepress.com/lawthug/2232421)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: eppur on December 12, 2006, 02:54:38 AM
There are 1.3 million lawyers. A population and economy of our size needs about 500,000 fewer. The overgrowth of the profession is toxic to the nation. It also generates low wages, total disrespect, and public animus for the pestilence lawyers bring. America does not need you, lawyer 1.3 million and one. Why don't law students leave law school and try something productive instead?!

The faculty of all law schools are beyond the pale, with no known exception. Its brightest members, geniuses, have been made into oblivious dumbasses and mental cripples by cult indoctrination. If you find law school unpleasant, you are correct. It is a painful, harsh cult indoctrination process. They are trying to break your connection to the outside world, to the outside express purposes of the law, you thought you were going to learn to serve. They want to crush you with humiliation, 80 hrs/week of pointless work, incomprehensible gibberish, worthless garbage from 1250 AD, pointless competition, and shunning of the dissident. They have a Lincolnesque officer of the court ethos to point to when you object to their methods. It is all a lie. The faculty are harsh cult enforcers.

All goals of all subjects of the law are in utter failure. The sole success of the law is to generate wealth for the lawyer. The biggest victims of the law are minorities. Beyond the process of stress indoctrination, is the criminal cult enterprise content. On every page of every Hornbook, you will find, the supernatural, mind reading, future forecasting, a belief that 12 strangers can detect truth or lies by using their gut feelings, and the best of all, the word, "reasonable." That means in accordance with the New Testament, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Today, it has drifted to mean any feeling the little caesar on the bench decides to impose on the public, using Army Airborne if needed. These tyrants are in out of control insurrection against Article I Section 1 of the Constitution.

The legal profession is a waking nightmare for the nation. Everyone will grow to hate lawyers as they set about to destroy America. The legal profession will be openly bashed and derided to lawyers faces, at social occasions. No one will feel it necessary to show them manners, as if they were convicted felons. They will hate themselves, for good reason.
Title: SIF
Post by: review on December 12, 2006, 11:07:43 PM

Here are some more:

(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2725/bedtiedns5.jpg)

(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8421/markyno20shirtjq0.jpg)

(http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2429/cgd2ap9.jpg)

(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5955/bond0512ez4.jpg)

(http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5139/ar4bu3.jpg)

(http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/6905/615zk3.jpg)


The Special Infiltration Force is established for infiltrating into all kinds of prisons, native and oversea, in order to collect information on the actual situation behind walls. Sometimes a SIF has to infiltrate as an agent into a private prison, a Juvenile Correctional Facility within the USA or an obscure prison overseas. In many cases this is initiated in cooperation between Amnesty International, other charity institutions, the UN, or a government of a particular individual country. In all cases the aim is to verify information  and to report on abuse of power, harrasment of prisoners and to check on the general conditions behind hermetic walls.

They are well paid, always after completion of their mission. Each SIF has to sign a contract that he is aware of the importance of the organization policy. To be able to keep this Force secret a SIF may not ever speak about the existence of the SIF Project or reveal he is a SIF, let alone betray his identity while on a mission. As you can imagine a  SIF is expected to endure hardships. Only a few tough men who have mostly already been trained as a marine, a navy seal, another Special Force and in matial arts come in the picture for this. Rumors have it these men are also secretly genetically and biochemically modified.
 
The training program of a SIF includes:

- How to secretely test the regime
- How to provoke any special punishments
- How to deal with indoor aggression both from other prisoner and from guards
- How to survive extreme circumstances, aggression and abuse, physical, emotional and sexual.

Mission Guidelines:

1. The SIF project and any mission by SIF's always are and always stay top secret.
2. This means that you are not allowed to reveal you are  on an  inspection mission EVER.
4. The USA, Amnesty International or any contract party will never recognize the existence of a SIF mission, let alone an individual SIF.

If you violate these rules you will loose your status as an agent and any further connection to the SIF Organization will be impossible. To avoid any suspicion a SIF will only get inside the subjected facility by regular procedure. The organization assist him to commit a felony, mostly the possession of hard drugs, for which he will be arrested, convicted and jailed for a period from a few months to a year. Of course from the moment a mission has started  there will be no contact between the organizaion and the SIF. For example a SIF may be arrested for cocaine possession. Regular procedures take place and the SIF has to serve jail time, without the officials knowing he is a SIF. The Special Infiltration Project is always recruiting men (from age 16, as the latter are also able to infiltrate within a juvenile correctional facility)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: dean on December 12, 2006, 11:19:13 PM
So is SIF recruiting law students?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: deming on December 21, 2006, 05:57:29 PM

There are 1.3 million lawyers. A population and economy of our size needs about 500,000 fewer. The overgrowth of the profession is toxic to the nation. It also generates low wages, total disrespect, and public animus for the pestilence lawyers bring. America does not need you, lawyer 1.3 million and one. Why don't law students leave law school and try something productive instead?!

The faculty of all law schools are beyond the pale, with no known exception. Its brightest members, geniuses, have been made into oblivious dumbasses and mental cripples by cult indoctrination. If you find law school unpleasant, you are correct. It is a painful, harsh cult indoctrination process. They are trying to break your connection to the outside world, to the outside express purposes of the law, you thought you were going to learn to serve. They want to crush you with humiliation, 80 hrs/week of pointless work, incomprehensible gibberish, worthless garbage from 1250 AD, pointless competition, and shunning of the dissident. They have a Lincolnesque officer of the court ethos to point to when you object to their methods. It is all a lie. The faculty are harsh cult enforcers.

All goals of all subjects of the law are in utter failure. The sole success of the law is to generate wealth for the lawyer. The biggest victims of the law are minorities. Beyond the process of stress indoctrination, is the criminal cult enterprise content. On every page of every Hornbook, you will find, the supernatural, mind reading, future forecasting, a belief that 12 strangers can detect truth or lies by using their gut feelings, and the best of all, the word, "reasonable." That means in accordance with the New Testament, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Today, it has drifted to mean any feeling the little caesar on the bench decides to impose on the public, using Army Airborne if needed. These tyrants are in out of control insurrection against Article I Section 1 of the Constitution.

The legal profession is a waking nightmare for the nation. Everyone will grow to hate lawyers as they set about to destroy America. The legal profession will be openly bashed and derided to lawyers faces, at social occasions. No one will feel it necessary to show them manners, as if they were convicted felons. They will hate themselves, for good reason.


Very interesting!
Title: Logical Reasoning
Post by: hiller on February 20, 2007, 05:29:00 AM
The three methods for logical reasoning, deduction, induction and abduction can be explained in the following way:

Given preconditions α, postconditions β and the rule R1: α ∴ β (α therefore β).

Deduction means determining β. It is using the rule and its preconditions to make a conclusion (α ∧ R1 ⇒ β).

Induction means determining R1. It is learning R1 after numerous examples of β and α.

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

- Deduction allows deriving b as a consequence of a. In other words, deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

- Induction allows inferring some b from multiple instantiations of a when b entails a. Induction is the process of inferring probable antecedents as a result of observing multiple consequents.

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: rhombot on February 20, 2007, 07:00:50 PM
in this system, are there any kinds of reasoning that are not forms of legal reasoning?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Nicky on April 13, 2007, 02:27:13 AM

Well I guess one of the most curious aspects of socially constructed entities is that many of them are the sorts of artifacts that can perform the social work they are supposed to accomplish only if we ignore or forget their artificial nature. A classic example of this is the socially necessary assumption that value inheres in what we call "money." As a matter of practical psychology money can fucntion as a medium of exchange only to the extent that we manage to treat it as valuable in itself. We don't "believe" money is valuable: we know it is. Yet what is that knowledge other than our unconscious confidence that, in this case, knowledge and belief are not merely compatible, but actually identical? We believe we know money is valuable becuase we know we believe it is. In such cases, the psychology of appropriate social belief requires that we maintain an involuted state of mind in which we both know and don't know that various artifacts in whose existence we believe exist precisely because we believe they do.

Films, and to a lesser extent currencies, are examples of where our knowledge of the fictional, context-specific nature of our belief remains fairly close to the surface of conscious thought. But many other psychological artifacts of contemporary life are much more cognitively complicated. To what extent do we, or should we, recognize that a concept like "the government" or "the court" is also a pragmatic and mimetic fiction? One thing is certain: given the socially constructed nature of so much of our daily experience, the structure of modern life ensures that a great deal of what we think of as "reality" will be product of a kind of mass hypnosis, which requires that we maintain ourselves in delicately balanced, psychologically complex states of knowing ignorance and skeptical credulity. (To paraphrase Thomas Szasz: if you believe in the United States of America that's called "patriotism"; if you believe in the Republic of Texas that's called "schizophrenia.")

Which brings us to what is called "the law." In what sense does law exist? As a historical matter, it is fairly clear that at one time the lawyers and judges of the English common law thought of their law as rather more like a horse than a unicorn; that is, to the extent they considered the question at all, they believed "the law" was an objective, metaphysically robust entity. They also appeared to believe the law had existed from time immemorial and that therefore it certainly was not a product of, or dependent on, human beliefs and desires. This particular metaphysical vision -- what Oliver Wendell Holmes famously called "the brooding omnipresence of the law" -- cannot be maintained as a matter of self-conscious belief in a thoroughly secular, aggressively materialist public culture such as our own. In our legal culture, one can no longer assert openly the proposition that law is not an artifact of human will without running the risk of being told that anyone who could believe such a thing must be deeply confused, if not actually deluded.

Nevertheless contrary to the explicit claims of rationalizers, technocrats, and utiliatarians of every stipe the implicit belief in law as a brooding omnipresence is far from dead. Indeed, given what we require of law, it may be that some degree of belief that it is "really" there -- that the unicorn that you dear poster mention still inhabits some hidden hollow of the forest --  remains a necessary component of the legal form of thought.


Law, like the number zero, is simply a construct of the human mind. There is nothing in the universe that constitutes a physical representation of zero.

Zero has simple job, zero. All it needs to do is connect the positive and negative integers into one, straight line of numbers. But while the integers stretch out into infinity, zero itself has properties which no other number can match.

Zero is a troublemaker in the world of mathematics. But it has not always existed -- the concept of zero was not born until only a few millennia ago.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gram on April 19, 2007, 12:40:15 AM
In November 1968, Masako Sawada and Helen Sawada were injured when struck by a car driven by Kokichi Endo. They sued him and won judgments slightly more than $25,000. During the 19-month period between the filing of the suits and the jury's verdicts Kokichi Endo and his wife, Ume Endo, transferred ownership of their house to their sons. The Endos continued to live in the house after the transfer, although Ume Endo died only ten days after the verdicts were returned against her husband.

The Sawadas were subsequently unable to collect their judicially decreed debt from the remaining assets of Kokichi Endo. They brought another suit, asking the court to declare the transfer of the Endo home a fraudulent conveyance, undertaken for the purpose of defrauding the property owner's creditors, and to therefore set the conveyance aside.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Hawaii was asked to answer the question of whether or not the manner in which the Endos had held their property precluded a finding that the transfer to their sons was fraudulent as a matter of law, no matter how "fraudulent", in ordinary lay terms, the transferors' intent may have been. The Endos had owned their house in a "tenancy by the entireties." In the English common law, property held in a tenancy by the entireties had the following relevant characteristics: it had to be owned jointly by a married couple; it could be conveyed or mortgaged by the husband, but not by the wife (at common law, a married woman was for most property-owning purposes not a judicially recognized person); it was subject to the husband's general debts; and at the death of one spouse , it was treated as if it simply remained the sole property of the surviving spouse. Thus if the husband sold or mortgaged the property and then died before his wife, the husband's interest in the estate was treated as if it had never existed, and hence the property would belong solely to his widow, unencumbered by her late husband's conveyances and debts.

With the passage of the Married Women's Property Acts in the 19th century, American jurisdictions removed most of the formal common law disabilities that precluded married women from controlling marital property. These statutes, however, failed to address the question of what effect they should be construed to have on the tenancy by the entireties. Various state courts subsequently answered this question in four different ways. A few states treated the tenancy as unchanged; the husband retained sole power to convey the estate, and it remained liable to his debts, subject only to the wife's right of survivorship. Other states placed the wife in what under the common law had been the husband's shoes, by making the estate liable to her separate debts as well as to his, and by allowing either spouse to sell the property. A third group placed the husband in the wife's former position, barring the separate debts of either party from affecting the estate, and not allowing either spouse to convey the estate without the consent of the other. Finally, two states allowed either spouse to subject his or her survivorship interest to creditors, but barred any separate debts from being attached to the property itself while both spouses still owned it.

By the 1970s, Hawaii remained the only state not to have addressed this particular question; and the inability of the Sawadas to collect on their debt gave the state's supreme court the opportunity to do so. For if Hawaii chose to retain the common law estate, or if it put the wife in the former position of the husband, then the Ebdos' transfer of their property to their sons would be treated as fraudulent as a matter of law, given that Mr. Endo's interest in the estate would still be liable to his general debts. On the other hand if Mr. Endo was placed in what under the common law was the wife's position, neither his or his wife's separate debts could then affect the solvency of the estate, and hence as a technical matter the transfer would not be considered fraudulent.

The modern tenancy by the entireties produces some difficult conceptual puzzles. Its common law predecessor was a product of what to us seems the metaphysically mysterious idea, derived from various elements of Christian doctrine, that a husband and wife were a single legal person. This idea led to little practical difficulty as long as only one of the subjects in this consubstantial union was a juridically recognized entity. But with the legal emancipation of women, Simone de Beauvoir's observation that for the equation 1 + 1 = 1 to work one of the integers had to, functionally speaking, become a zero could no longer adequately explain the conceptual structure of the tenancy by the entireties. As the opinion in Sawada v. Endo notes, "The tenancy was and still is predicated upon the legal unity of the husband and the wife, but the Acts converted it into a unity of equals and not unequals as at common law." The conceptual difficulty thus arises because under the modern view each spouse owns, in both theory and practice, the entire estate: each is deemed in the reifying jargon of property law to be "seized of the entirety" rather than "taking by respective moieties [parts]." But if each spouse owns all the estate, then strict logic would seem to dictate the paradox that while the property's owner cannot convey or indebt the land without the consent of the property's owner, neither can the property's owner stop the property's owner from selling or indebting that which, after all, belongs to the property's owner.


The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy. The whole modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe.

The ordinary religion of the law school classroom is a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry.
Title: American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition
Post by: license plate on April 19, 2007, 01:00:15 AM

The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy. The whole modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe.

The ordinary religion of the law school classroom is a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry.


Indeed -- today the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. I saw the movie "Chicago" with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers.

The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law.

An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence. When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?

We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge. Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court. What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: themanwithnoname on April 19, 2007, 07:33:11 PM
there are all these posts by different usernames who have no other posts anywhere, all saying the same thing. Is this just one person with too much spare time?
Title: Re: American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition
Post by: control on April 19, 2007, 07:41:53 PM

Indeed -- today the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. I saw the movie "Chicago" with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers.


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Chicagopostercast.jpg)

I love this f-ing movie!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cast on April 24, 2007, 04:50:38 PM

The ordinary religion of the law school classroom is a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry.


Well, gangsters and cops alike are neither black nor white; they represent the color of gray. A hidden identity between good and evil. The symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted, embodied by men with guns pointed, arms at full extension, winding around each other in a distinctly homoerotic pas de deux.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gluklich zu sehen on May 19, 2007, 05:44:12 AM

A newspaper in Memphis, Tennessee, noted the president's lack of manliness in the 9/11 catastrophe. Bush was to stunned to react for about 9 minutes. Then he spent the rest of the day boring holes in the sky with Air Force One and hiding like a rabbit in a hole in the ground near Omaha, Nebraska. "W" STANDS FOR "WIMP."


Contrast that to Harrison Ford's actions in "Air Force One" -- a honest, heroic, take-no-crap President who dearly loves his wife and daughter. A kick-ass action hero who, when push comes to shove, is capable of acting violently enough.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: tipsy on May 19, 2007, 08:39:03 AM

Contrast that to Harrison Ford's actions in "Air Force One" -- a honest, heroic, take-no-crap President who dearly loves his wife and daughter. A kick-ass action hero who, when push comes to shove, is capable of acting violently enough.


"Air Force One" proved to be a hit in that it tapped right into America's most deeply held fantasies about its leaders. Liberals got to see a reinvigorated president stand against tyranny, prove the militarists wrong and save his family. Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. It was common ground for dingbats.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jillibean on May 21, 2007, 05:56:24 AM
tag
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: solicitor on May 26, 2007, 02:39:26 AM

Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. [...]


;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: interestoninterest on May 26, 2007, 08:29:25 PM

Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. [...]


In fact Harrison Ford (Prez Marshall) gets @ # ! * e d real bad in the movie to let the viewer understand that what he did in Moscow was fundamentally wrong and that America would not hesitate to send such a son of a female dog to his premature, calculated death. The "beauty" of movies, however, is that they lie -- for a reason -- so we see Prez Marshall being actually loved by his administration back in Washington, despite what he did.

Only a fool would not understand what a slick, m o t h er @ # ! * i n g movie Air Force One is.
Title: Re: First They Came
Post by: mamy blue on June 18, 2007, 01:03:01 AM

In America, it appears some stupid white people believe they have a right from God to rule America and the world the way God tells them to ... to achieve that they'll do whatever it takes ... kill and kill and kill ... soon after Jews, blacks, homosexuals are exterminated it'll come time for women, overweight people, and after a while white men will begin to eat each-other ...


I can agree with this, ñ,

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.


This is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

An early supporter of Hitler, by 1934 Niemöller had come to oppose the Nazis, and it was largely his high connections to influential and wealthy businessmen that saved him until 1937, after which he was imprisoned, eventually at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. He survived to be a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.


Today 50% of Americans are either too ignorant, too badly educated or too apathetic to recognise or resist the tide of fascism overwhelming them. 25% think its a good idea. The other 25% are too divided to do anything about it.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: so leb dein leben on June 20, 2007, 12:05:11 AM

In fact Harrison Ford (Prez Marshall) gets @ # ! * e d real bad in the movie to let the viewer understand that what he did in Moscow was fundamentally wrong and that America would not hesitate to send such a son of a female dog to his premature, calculated death. The "beauty" of movies, however, is that they lie -- for a reason -- so we see Prez Marshall being actually loved by his administration back in Washington, despite what he did.

Only a fool would not understand what a slick, m o t h er @ # ! * i n g movie Air Force One is.


Succinct and effective, interest on interest! :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: usbprint on June 26, 2007, 05:20:05 PM
Indeed very interesting!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Non Je Ne Regrette Rien on June 26, 2007, 05:40:03 PM

I can agree with this, ñ,

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn't speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.


This is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

An early supporter of Hitler, by 1934 Niemöller had come to oppose the Nazis, and it was largely his high connections to influential and wealthy businessmen that saved him until 1937, after which he was imprisoned, eventually at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. He survived to be a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His poem is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.


Today 50% of Americans are either too ignorant, too badly educated or too apathetic to recognise or resist the tide of fascism overwhelming them. 25% think its a good idea. The other 25% are too divided to do anything about it.


After years in the public indoctrination system (school), followed by the many forms of social conditioning that adapt people to accepting government's various administrative regimes, most Americans can't even imagine what true freedom would be like. In America today it's a crime to leave your house without your "papers" on you. You can be pulled over for as little as a dirty license plate. If you don't do just as you're told, the infraction can jump to a felony for "resisting an officer." Bristle-headed, hog-jeweled policemen in dark glasses are on alert everywhere with a steroid attitude. With their K-9 friends, they're ready to sniff you out for any non-compliant activities. Forget everything you ever thought the Bill of Rights meant. There are terrorists out there.

Privacy? Forget it. Between bank records, "voluntary" tax filing and your "paper or plastic" purchasing methods, your every financial move is an open book. Carrying enough cash in your pocket to buy a used car is also a crime. A police state isn't just about police. Bureaucrats of every persuasion form a lawless horde to "police" your every move by administrating their self-written rules and regulations. Crime creation no longer requires a Congress.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: BKA on July 03, 2007, 06:59:41 PM

Indeed very interesting!


usbprint, when you say "indeed interesting," you are talking about interestoninterest's post on Air Force One just like so leb does, or you are saying this thread in general is interesting? Just curious, you know :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: height on July 09, 2007, 05:07:57 PM

Indeed very interesting!


usbprint, when you say "indeed interesting," you are talking about interestoninterest's post on Air Force One just like so leb does, or you are saying this thread in general is interesting? Just curious, you know :)


What do you think, BKA? :)
Title: Bad Bedfellows
Post by: aon on July 12, 2007, 01:52:44 AM

The ordinary religion of the law school classroom is a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry.


Well, gangsters and cops alike are neither black nor white; they represent the color of gray. A hidden identity between good and evil. The symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted, embodied by men with guns pointed, arms at full extension, winding around each other in a distinctly homoerotic pas de deux.


It's called "relativity of evil." I mean, take for example the Mafia and the FBI duo. Documents show that officials at FBI headquarters, apparently including Hoover, knew as long ago as 1965 that Boston agents were employing killers and gang leaders as informers and were protecting them from prosecution. "J. Edgar Hoover crossed over the line and became a criminal himself," has said Vincent Garo, Joseph Salvati's lawyer, whose client spent 30 years in prison. "He allowed a witness to lie to put an innocent man in prison so he could protect one of his informants."

Not to mention the hitman-turned-informator who helped the FBI jail John Gotti. Salvatore "Sammy The Bull," a New York mafioso responsible for 19 murders, was controversially offered a new life by the Feds after he agreed to testify against his boss John Gotti. Gravano was given a light jail sentence of 5 years, put on the federal witness protection programme and given a new life in Arizona.

Rosanne Massa, whose brother was killed by Gravano, said: "If evil had to take on human form, Sammy is it." All of his victims were incredibly hurt that the government made a deal with him, freeing him from prison after he had committed 19 murders. They were utterly betrayed. The FBI said the original deal with Gravano was a price worth paying to jail its number one target - his boss, the Gambino godfather John Gotti. He had earned the nickname The Teflon Don because law enforcement agencies had been unable to make charges stick. But when Gravano gave evidence, Gotti's fate, and that of 36 other mafiosi was sealed. In 1992, Gotti was jailed for life for murder and racketeering - a conviction which not only boosted the FBI but also the profile of District Attorney Rudolph Giuliani, who later became Mayor of New York. Gravano was allowed out of prison early in April 1995 and went to live in Phoenix, Arizona, under the witness protection programme. He was given a new identity and settled down to live anonymously as Jimmy Moran, building contractor. Under his "sweetheart" deal with the FBI he had been allowed to keep millions of dollars of ill-gotten cash.

In 1996 he chose to leave the programme and by the end of 1998 he had resumed his life of crime. Isolated from his mafia cohorts, Gravano found a new crew - a gang of young white supremacist drug dealers known as The Devil Dogs. The alliance was formed after Gravano's 23-year-old son, Gerard, became friendly with the Devil Dogs' leader, Michael Papa. Papa, 23, was a promising medical student who spent his spare time pumping iron and using steroids. He became Gravano's protegé. Within months Gravano and The Devil Dogs had sewn up the booming market in ecstasy on the Arizona nightclub circuit.

Gravano's gang was selling about 25,000 tablets a week, making a a-million-a-month profit. In September 1999 Gravano spoke at a conference of FBI supervisors about the use of informers. At the same time as he was speaking to these elite crimefighters, he was flooding Arizona with millions of dollars' worth of ecstasy. His supplier, it is alleged, was the Israeli mafia. But the Devil Dogs were amateurs compared with the New York mob, and their bragging and excessive violence soon drew the attention of the police, the FBI and the DEA. On 24 February 2000 DEA agents swooped on addresses all over the Phoenix area and arrested 45 people, including Papa, Gravano, his son and wife Debbie. Gravano is an unrepentant sociopath who wrapped himself up in an American flag and cosied up to the Feds. Ironically the case against Gravano, the king of mafia rats, depends largely on the evidence of Papa. "It is a delicious irony that the king rat has been betrayed by a baby rat," says Ron Kuby, a lawyer who represents Gravano's New York victims.

Now Gravano knows a lot of sensitive information and it is possible that the FBI will let "their man" go down. There may be another plea bargain in Arizona. A lot went on behind the scenes which the government does not want people to know. The FBI used to be revered as an agency beyond reproach but several incidents in recent years have tarnished its reputation. You saw it with McVeigh. They thought they could keep 3,000 documents from his lawyers. It's one thing after another. They keep getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: kaligula on July 13, 2007, 03:21:10 AM
Mafia will launch intense campaigns to find and kill anyone who turns government witness and disappears into the program, or even try to harm those who protect them. Despite Marshalls Service helping these witnesses obtain new Social Security numbers, open bank accounts, etc, they are still tracked down and often executed. Plus, there is an additional risk: a person whose past is erased could easily travel or make transactions undetected and engage in criminal activity with potentially catastrophic consequences. 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: razorlife on July 13, 2007, 07:43:04 PM

Mafia will launch intense campaigns to find and kill anyone who turns government witness and disappears into the program, or even try to harm those who protect them. Despite Marshals Service helping these witnesses obtain new Social Security numbers, open bank accounts, etc, they are still tracked down and often executed. Plus, there is an additional risk: a person whose past is erased could easily travel or make transactions undetected and engage in criminal activity with potentially catastrophic consequences. 
 

;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lex parsimoniae on July 20, 2007, 06:48:26 PM

No wonder, then, why the production and traffic of forged bills is so actively repressed and so heavily punished -- to a far greater extent, for instance, than are theft or embezzlement.


Well, the answer can only lie in this -- that is, the Symbolic, of which money is precisely a representative -- ought to circulate. The very durability of the social cultural system is at stake here, for this system could be overturned or even destroyed by the proliferation of false references that are necessarily excluded from any form of legal and symbolic guarantee.

Forged currency is a parody: it apes, as it were, real currency, and renders this ridiculous in much the same way as an ape imitating a man makes fun of the latter. And as one cannot make fun of symbolic guarantees with impunity, the proliferation of forged currency is anything but neutral: not only economic values but equally ethical and juridical values, etc., soon appear as suspicious since currency is the expression of a global sovereignty.

Such considerations give support to the idea that it is impossible to completely trust the Symbolic, however absolutely indispensable this may otherwise be to Man. It may well be the case that the true bears the false within itself, but, more generally, money is never able to pay for or replace those minute fetishes (trivia, memories, etc.) that are so dear to us and which testify, over the course of our lives, to the absence of the fundamental object of desire (the proof that one cannot buy everything).


Digital cash presents an additional problem. Although payment with forged electronic currency could be construed as an act of theft or fraud, the very act of forging the electronic cash -- for example cracking the computer protections and copying the bits in the wallet on the hard disk -- is prima facie not prohibited by criminal law. A revision of the law is therefore necessary in order to make it clear that forging digital currency is just the same as forging bank notes.


Very interesting!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: christianity on July 21, 2007, 03:55:55 AM

Not to mention the hitman-turned-informator who helped the FBI jail John Gotti. Salvatore "Sammy The Bull," a New York mafioso responsible for 19 murders, was controversially offered a new life by the Feds after he agreed to testify against his boss John Gotti. Gravano was given a light jail sentence of 5 years, put on the federal witness protection programme and given a new life in Arizona.

Rosanne Massa, whose brother was killed by Gravano, said: "If evil had to take on human form, Sammy is it." All of his victims were incredibly hurt that the government made a deal with him, freeing him from prison after he had committed 19 murders. They were utterly betrayed. The FBI said the original deal with Gravano was a price worth paying to jail its number one target - his boss, the Gambino godfather John Gotti. He had earned the nickname The Teflon Don because law enforcement agencies had been unable to make charges stick. But when Gravano gave evidence, Gotti's fate, and that of 36 other mafiosi was sealed. In 1992, Gotti was jailed for life for murder and racketeering - a conviction which not only boosted the FBI but also the profile of District Attorney Rudolph Giuliani, who later became Mayor of New York. Gravano was allowed out of prison early in April 1995 and went to live in Phoenix, Arizona, under the witness protection programme. He was given a new identity and settled down to live anonymously as Jimmy Moran, building contractor. Under his "sweetheart" deal with the FBI he had been allowed to keep millions of dollars of ill-gotten cash.

In 1996 he chose to leave the programme and by the end of 1998 he had resumed his life of crime. Isolated from his mafia cohorts, Gravano found a new crew - a gang of young white supremacist drug dealers known as The Devil Dogs. The alliance was formed after Gravano's 23-year-old son, Gerard, became friendly with the Devil Dogs' leader, Michael Papa. Papa, 23, was a promising medical student who spent his spare time pumping iron and using steroids. He became Gravano's protegé. Within months Gravano and The Devil Dogs had sewn up the booming market in ecstasy on the Arizona nightclub circuit.

Gravano's gang was selling about 25,000 tablets a week, making a a-million-a-month profit. In September 1999 Gravano spoke at a conference of FBI supervisors about the use of informers. At the same time as he was speaking to these elite crimefighters, he was flooding Arizona with millions of dollars' worth of ecstasy. His supplier, it is alleged, was the Israeli mafia. But the Devil Dogs were amateurs compared with the New York mob, and their bragging and excessive violence soon drew the attention of the police, the FBI and the DEA. On 24 February 2000 DEA agents swooped on addresses all over the Phoenix area and arrested 45 people, including Papa, Gravano, his son and wife Debbie. Gravano is an unrepentant sociopath who wrapped himself up in an American flag and cosied up to the Feds. Ironically the case against Gravano, the king of mafia rats, depends largely on the evidence of Papa. "It is a delicious irony that the king rat has been betrayed by a baby rat," says Ron Kuby, a lawyer who represents Gravano's New York victims.

Now Gravano knows a lot of sensitive information and it is possible that the FBI will let "their man" go down. There may be another plea bargain in Arizona. A lot went on behind the scenes which the government does not want people to know. The FBI used to be revered as an agency beyond reproach but several incidents in recent years have tarnished its reputation. You saw it with McVeigh. They thought they could keep 3,000 documents from his lawyers. It's one thing after another. They keep getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


Just like the Calabrese Jr. of the Chicago Outfit. He has defined terms like "work cars" (untraceable cars for use in crimes), "juice loans" ("high interest loans," he said, from "the Outfit") and "underbosses" (akin, he explained, to "vice presidents of companies"). On trial here are five men, including Calabrese's father, Frank Sr., who federal prosecutors said were powerful leaders in the city's organized-crime operations in decades gone by. The men are accused of taking part in a racketeering conspiracy that included gambling, loan sharking and 18 killings that, until now, had never led to charges.

Fourteen men, including some in their 70s, were indicted in the case when it began in 2005, but time and age, among other things, has thinned the numbers. Two of the initial defendants died. One is too sick to stand trial. Six others have pleaded guilty. Five men -- some balding and one, Joey Lombardo, known as the Clown, who was rolled into court in a wheelchair -- listened intently as the younger Calabrese, 47, repeatedly broke another of what he described as the Outfit's dos and don'ts: "A lot of things you weren't supposed to talk about." He said his father and uncle, Nicholas, had once planned out a shooting by setting up two chairs in their office like the front seat of a car and practicing how it would come down. He said the same uncle had once asked him to fish a murder weapon out of a Chicago sewer; he was working for the city's sewer department at the time, Calabrese said, and retrieved the gun while on the job.

Frank Calabrese Sr. testified that he loves his father but is working to keep him in prison because of "his Outfit ways." "I love him but not some of his ways," Frank Calabrese Jr. said. "I decided to turn him in for his Outfit ways." Calabrese Jr. made his comments as he was cross-examined in his last day of testimony in the Family Secrets trial. Calabrese Jr. is one of two star witnesses in the historic case. The other is Frank Calabrese Sr.'s brother, Nick Calabrese, who has admitted to killing at least 14 people for the mob and said he and his brother went out on hits together. Calabrese Jr. decided in 1998 to cooperate against his father. He and his father were in prison together on another case. Calabrese Jr. wrote the FBI that he wanted to "keep this sick man locked up forever."

The FBI equipped him with a set of headphones that concealed a microphone. Calabrese Jr. secretly used the device on his father several years ago while both men were in prison in Milan, Mich., on racketeering charges. The son got out of prison in February 2000. Calabrese Jr. recorded his father for hours as they walked the prison yards while Calabrese Sr. allegedly groomed him to take over his street crew and schooled him in the ways of the Outfit. Calabrese Sr.'s attorney, Joseph R. Lopez -- wearing a gray suit with a subtle pink pinstripe, a pink shirt, light pink socks and an electric pink tie with matching pocket handkerchief -- hammered home during his questioning that Calabrese Jr. had a cocaine problem and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from his father. Lopez suggested through his questioning that Calabrese Jr., who had bit roles in two films that landed on the cutting room floor, was nothing more than an actor, coached by the FBI to draw out his father into empty boasts and record them. The son also acknowledged he was willing to record his uncle, Nick, whom he had no problems with, if it meant building a better case against his father.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: quantum on July 21, 2007, 09:26:26 PM

Digital cash presents an additional problem. Although payment with forged electronic currency could be construed as an act of theft or fraud, the very act of forging the electronic cash -- for example cracking the computer protections and copying the bits in the wallet on the hard disk -- is prima facie not prohibited by criminal law. A revision of the law is therefore necessary in order to make it clear that forging digital currency is just the same as forging bank notes.


Don't forget thou that money is speech! :)


??
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Madame Desiree on July 21, 2007, 10:45:28 PM


Here are some more:



aisha, what's the point of posting "some more" of them on your part? Just curious, you know...
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: one shoe on July 23, 2007, 12:20:49 AM

marcello, what are you talking about? Your giving me the creeps!


Funny signature line, mens! :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: under review on July 23, 2007, 01:55:09 AM

Digital cash presents an additional problem. Although payment with forged electronic currency could be construed as an act of theft or fraud, the very act of forging the electronic cash -- for example cracking the computer protections and copying the bits in the wallet on the hard disk -- is prima facie not prohibited by criminal law. A revision of the law is therefore necessary in order to make it clear that forging digital currency is just the same as forging bank notes.


Don't forget thou that money is speech! :)


??


I guess it refers to a Supreme Court doctrine maintaining that money equals speech.
Title: Re: Bad Bedfellows
Post by: Thomas Dunn on July 23, 2007, 03:32:00 AM

Well, gangsters and cops alike are neither black nor white; they represent the color of gray. A hidden identity between good and evil. The symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted, embodied by men with guns pointed, arms at full extension, winding around each other in a distinctly homoerotic pas de deux.


[...] Gravano is an unrepentant sociopath who wrapped himself up in an American flag and cosied up to the Feds. Ironically the case against Gravano, the king of mafia rats, depends largely on the evidence of Papa. "It is a delicious irony that the king rat has been betrayed by a baby rat," says Ron Kuby, a lawyer who represents Gravano's New York victims.

Now Gravano knows a lot of sensitive information and it is possible that the FBI will let "their man" go down. There may be another plea bargain in Arizona. A lot went on behind the scenes which the government does not want people to know. [...]


This is pretty standard in cases of Mafia kingpins and the like, I just don't get what the big deal is!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: c a u s u a l on July 24, 2007, 05:40:51 AM

Don't forget thou that money is speech! :)


??


I guess it refers to a Supreme Court doctrine maintaining that money equals speech.


Which case specifically?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: theblackemma on July 24, 2007, 03:52:53 PM
Buckley v. Valeo (1975).
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: horwitz on July 26, 2007, 02:46:30 AM

The faculty of all law schools are beyond the pale, with no known exception. Its brightest members, geniuses, have been made into oblivious dumbasses and mental cripples by cult indoctrination. If you find law school unpleasant, you are correct. It is a painful, harsh cult indoctrination process. They are trying to break your connection to the outside world, to the outside express purposes of the law, you thought you were going to learn to serve. They want to crush you with humiliation, 80 hrs/week of pointless work, incomprehensible gibberish, worthless garbage from 1250 AD, pointless competition, and shunning of the dissident. They have a Lincolnesque officer of the court ethos to point to when you object to their methods. It is all a lie. The faculty are harsh cult enforcers.

All goals of all subjects of the law are in utter failure. The sole success of the law is to generate wealth for the lawyer. The biggest victims of the law are minorities. Beyond the process of stress indoctrination, is the criminal cult enterprise content. On every page of every Hornbook, you will find, the supernatural, mind reading, future forecasting, a belief that 12 strangers can detect truth or lies by using their gut feelings, and the best of all, the word, "reasonable."

The legal profession is a waking nightmare for the nation. Everyone will grow to hate lawyers as they set about to destroy America. The legal profession will be openly bashed and derided to lawyers' faces, at social occasions. No one will feel it necessary to show them manners, as if they were convicted felons. They will hate themselves, for good reason.


Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: agape on July 30, 2007, 02:17:09 PM

Judges make their decisions primarily based upon emotional reactions to the facts presented to them in a case, and then use precedent to rationalize their decision. Law's indeterminacy and contingency lie in the fact that precedent can be interpreted in numerous ways, and that it is often used as justification for a position held by the judge long before he even considers precedent. Accordingly, from a psychoanalytic point of view, judicial decisions are often made based on the personal prejudices and emotional reactions of judges with respect to a set of facts, and the process of "legal reasoning" is merely a mechanism employed by the Ego to rationalize the Id's irrational prejudices. But why is there such a need for rationalization? Two possibilities present themselves. First, the legal profession and society as a whole idealize the law as the perfect father-figure, and in their search for stability, demand that the law be a coherent and logical set of rules derived from reason. In other words, the Ego seeks to use the law as a further means of bringing order to the chaotic and passionate world of the Id. Second, the legal profession engages in endless rationalization as a means for alleviating the threat of punishment imposed on the Ego for its failure to incorporate the commands of the Super-Ego's "inward court of law" in laws governing members of society. In other words, if the Ego were to acknowledge explicitly that judicial decision-making is primarily an Id-driven process, then it would be subject to severe punishment from the Super-Ego for allowing instinctual impulses to reach conscious awareness, and worst of all, be the basis for law.


So basically, Strong Id, Strong Superego, Suffering Ego ?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: flouride on July 30, 2007, 05:39:33 PM
Quote
[...] Of the defense mechanisms, psychoanalysts have put forward displacement as their number one choice for explaining crime. A few criminologists have explored the others, most notably, reaction formation, but the list remains largely unexhausted because, essentially, the ideas are untestable. In Displacement, both Id and Superego are so strong and Ego is so weak that person settles for second best or any available substitute (something better than nothing). In Reaction-Formation both Id and Superego are so strong that person does the opposite of both, sometimes identifying with aggressors.



Judges make their decisions primarily based upon emotional reactions to the facts presented to them in a case, and then use precedent to rationalize their decision. Law's indeterminacy and contingency lie in the fact that precedent can be interpreted in numerous ways, and that it is often used as justification for a position held by the judge long before he even considers precedent. Accordingly, from a psychoanalytic point of view, judicial decisions are often made based on the personal prejudices and emotional reactions of judges with respect to a set of facts, and the process of "legal reasoning" is merely a mechanism employed by the Ego to rationalize the Id's irrational prejudices. But why is there such a need for rationalization? Two possibilities present themselves. First, the legal profession and society as a whole idealize the law as the perfect father-figure, and in their search for stability, demand that the law be a coherent and logical set of rules derived from reason. In other words, the Ego seeks to use the law as a further means of bringing order to the chaotic and passionate world of the Id. Second, the legal profession engages in endless rationalization as a means for alleviating the threat of punishment imposed on the Ego for its failure to incorporate the commands of the Super-Ego's "inward court of law" in laws governing members of society. In other words, if the Ego were to acknowledge explicitly that judicial decision-making is primarily an Id-driven process, then it would be subject to severe punishment from the Super-Ego for allowing instinctual impulses to reach conscious awareness, and worst of all, be the basis for law.


So basically, Strong Id, Strong Superego, Suffering Ego ?


Does this mean that lawyers are criminals who don't have the balls to do what their unconscious urges them to do, and want instead the "power of the law" on their side to justify/rationalize/hide their actions? 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: sinus on August 01, 2007, 05:56:59 PM
That's been said about cops, not lawyers, flouride; after all, lawyers don't kill people.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Shall We Dance on August 03, 2007, 05:47:16 PM

Hypocrite reader -- my likeness -- my brother!


;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Elaine Cho on August 07, 2007, 06:55:21 PM
From Charles Baudelaire's "Les fleurs du mal," sinus?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: alexa on August 09, 2007, 01:56:15 AM
US law protects the rich under a fascist, police-state regime. The US has violated knowingly every single trade agreement it has made with other countries. In other words, its "law" applies and is enforced to others but not to itself. So, the rest of the world is beginning to care less and less about American legal decisions..., (or should I say 'dictates'?)

You corrupt American judges, you idiotic Christian fundamentalist Creationist President, with your so-called "War against Evil"... Don't be surprised if most countries of the world start ignoring all your dictatorial spewings..

Screw US law, US jingoism, US court corruption, maintained by senile judges, and your whole corrupt dictatorial, fascist system hiding under a guise of democracy, sugared by propagandist euphemisms spewed by a red-neck, right-winged government to protect big businesses. Make your own legal hell and live in it. You deserve it after laying down and rolling over when the Patr-Idiot Act was forced upon your wussified wills. The rest of us couldn't care less. So whatever YOUR courts decide about YOUR conceptions of YOUR patents, they do not necessarily apply to us, unless of course we become just as wussified. All we have to do is say no.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: sourcelaw on August 10, 2007, 12:44:48 AM

Insane and corrupt judges dole out life-and-death sentences with as much thought as a butcher would give to carving a side of beef. Attorneys view the courtroom as an arena where they can grapple with an opponent without concern for the cost in human pain and tears. And those who genuinely care about their clients are foiled at every turn by the deeply-rooted hypocrisy and cynicism that defines American law.


No doubt about it -- the typical criminal courtroom is populated by fat cat lawyers, inept prosecutors, senile judges, and corrupt cops.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: K a r i on August 10, 2007, 02:26:25 AM

From Charles Baudelaire's "Les fleurs du mal," sinus?


Exactly!

... If rape or arson, poison, or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life —
It is because we are not bold enough!

(Roy Campbell's translation)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: aver on August 10, 2007, 09:32:54 PM

That's been said about cops, not lawyers, flouride; after all, lawyers don't kill people.


I don't think flouride was referring to killing when talking about "doing what their unconcious urges them to do"
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gainsay on August 12, 2007, 12:31:15 AM

If you reading into the OP's post quoting Nietzsche as saying that to adopt the Roman attitude and lifestyle one had to engage in prosecution of Jews as Nazi Germany did, I think you are wrong.

In fact, some people tend to dislike Friedrich Nietzsche on the grounds that his thought is dangerous, that it lends itself to totalitarianism and, more specifically, to fascism. The history of Nietzsche's adoption by the forces of National Socialism in Germany has been well documented. Adolf Hitler personally approved of Nietzsche's writings, and upon coming to power he promoted one of Nietzsche's first Nazi disciples, Alfred Baumler, to professor of philosophy in Berlin. During the Nazi period Nietzsche was both widely read and celebrated in Germany. He was considered to be one of the master-thinkers of the Aryan race. After Germany lost the war, Nietzsche's thought fell into disrepute. Martin Heidegger even blamed his involvement in Nazi politics on the influence of Nietzsche. Since that time, however, Nietzsche's work has enjoyed a modest revival. Nevertheless, Nietzsche is still viewed with suspicion in many circles because of a circumstance of history that was beyond his control. Many critics continue to argue that Nietzsche's thinking is at best dangerous or, at worst, downright evil because it leads directly to fascism.

This argument, though, is simply untenable given a careful reading of Nietzsche's work. From an examination of his texts, skipping the "approved" Nazi interpretations, one can easily argue that Nietzsche would have certainly opposed his appropriation by National Socialism, particularly its hideous manifestation in Nazi Germany.


In 1886 Nietzsche broke with his editor, Ernst Schmeitzner, disgusted over his anti-Semitic opinions. Nietzsche saw his writings as "completely buried and unexhumeable in this anti-Semitic dump" of Schmeitzner — associating the editor with a movement that should be "utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind".

It is his sister Elisabeth, who in 1886, married the anti-Semite Bernhard Förster and traveled to Paraguay to found Nueva Germania, a "Germanic" colony, a plan to which Nietzsche responded with laughter. Elisabeth, for instance, compiled "The Will to Power," from notes he had written, and published it posthumously. The general consensus holds that it does not reflect Nietzsche's intent. Indeed, Mazzino Montinari, the editor of Nietzsche's Nachlass, called it a forgery. Among other forgeries and suppressions of passages, Elisabeth removed aphorism 35 of "The Antichrist," where Nietzsche rewrote a passage of the Bible.

Although Nietzsche had in 1886 announced (at the end of "Beyond Good and Evil") a new work with the title, "The Will to Power: Essay of a Transvaluation of all Values," this project was finally abandoned and its draft materials used to compose "The Twilight of the Idols" and "The Antichrist" (both written in 1888). "The Will to Power," which Elisabeth Förster called Nietzsche's unedited magnum opus (which very concept is alien to Nietzsche's philosophy and style of writing), was in fact abandoned as a book by Nietzsche himself. Förster-Nietzsche cut up, mixed and pasted together fragments, according to her own antisemitic views (which were a bone of contention between her and Nietzsche himself). Nevertheless, the concept remains, and has, since the reading of Karl Löwith, been identified as a key component of Nietzsche's philosophy. So The Will to Power was not written by Nietzsche. But the concept of "will to power" is certainly in itself a major motif of Nietzsche's philosophy, so much so that Heidegger, under Löwith's influence, considered it to form, with the thought of the eternal recurrence, the basis of his thought.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: truant on August 12, 2007, 03:25:07 AM

[...] Nevertheless, the concept remains, and has, since the reading of Karl Löwith, been identified as a key component of Nietzsche's philosophy. So The Will to Power was not written by Nietzsche. But the concept of "will to power" is certainly in itself a major motif of Nietzsche's philosophy, so much so that Heidegger, under Löwith's influence, considered it to form, with the thought of the eternal recurrence, the basis of his thought.


The concept of the "will to power" in Nietzsche's thought has had many interpretations, most notoriously its misappropriation by the Nazis, which amounts to its characterization as a "desire for and of power" ("power" here specifically denoting the more limited concept of "dominance"). Some Nazis (Alfred Bäumler, etc.) also upheld a biological interpretation of the Wille zur Macht, making it equivalent with some kind of social Darwinism, although Nietzsche explicitly criticized the latter in his works. By Wille zur Macht, Nietzsche did not have raw physical or political power in mind. He didn't mean "Will to power", but rather "will-to-power": one particular and inedit concept, rather than the union of two different concepts, "will" and "power". Opposed to a biological and voluntary conception of the Wille zur Macht, Heidegger and Deleuze both argued that the will to power and eternal recurrence are to be considered together. The concept must first be contrasted with Arthur Schopenhauer's "will to live": one must first of all take into account Nietzsche's background and criticism of Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social Darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live".

Another particular standpoint of the will to power is that it is a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that Nietzsche argued was the underlying -- the "most fundamental fact" -- "inner" force of nature.

Quote

I do not speak to the weak: they want to obey and generally lapse into slavery quickly. In the face of merciless nature, let us still feel ourselves as merciless nature! But I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!


This supplements his assertion that the fundamental causal power in the world ("cause" not in the sense of a kind of "initial cause", but rather as the interplay of forces within the process of becoming itself, which does not lend itself to the "cause and effect" theory, for Nietzsche denied its ontological status as only useful for "describing events"), the driving force of all natural phenomena and the dynamic to which all other causal powers could be reduced. Indeed, the will to power can be understood anthropologically (as relates to others' drives), but this view is also a part of a more all-inclusive perspective. That is, Nietzsche in part argued for the will to power as a merited idea providing the most elemental foundations for explanations of everything from whole societies, to individual organisms, down to mere lumps of matter. Nietzsche perhaps developed the will to power concept furthest with regard to living organisms, and it is there that the concept is perhaps more inviting to understand by way of analogy. There the will to power is taken as an animal's most fundamental instinct or drive, even more fundamental than the act of self-preservation; the latter is but an epiphenomenon of the former. According to Nietzsche, the will to power is the basic means through which "interpretation" or interaction with the world becomes, and, in this sense, the "world is the will to power -- and nothing besides!"

Quote

Physiologists should think before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being. A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength — life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results.


The "will to power" is thus a "cosmic" inner force acting in and through both animate and inanimate objects, but it may also take on many forms that could perhaps involve such mastery but in a "life-denying" modality. Not just instincts but also higher level behaviors (even in humans) were to be reduced to the will to power. In fact, Nietzsche considered consciousness itself to be a form of instinct. This includes both such apparently harmful acts as physical violence, lying, and domination, on one hand, and such apparently non-harmful acts as gift-giving, love, and praise on the other – though its manifestations can be altered significantly, such as through art and aesthetic experience. In "Beyond Good and Evil," he claims that philosophers' "will to truth" (i.e., their apparent desire to dispassionately seek objective, absolute truth) is actually nothing more than a manifestation of their will to power; this will can be life-affirming or a manifestation of nihilism, but it is the will to power all the same. As indicated above, the will to power is meant to explain more than just the behavior of an individual person or animal. It is not psychological, nor intentional or subjective. The will to power lends itself more to the view, though it be homogeneous in expression, its transformations are heterogeneous, based on the altering organizations of "quanta of power".


Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: rend on August 12, 2007, 12:21:04 PM

Sounds passionless. No thanks.


Exactly! Comparisons between Buddhism and the various schools of existentialism have revealed a number of parallels. Such studies have frequently centered on each tradition's metaphysical approach and the fact that they all appear to share some form of phenomenological methodology. In the area of ethics, however, existentialism and Buddhism generally seem to differ radically. This difference is the most marked in the case of Nietzsche. 

Buddha responds as follows to an enquiry on competing metaphysical theories. 'Apart from consciousness', he says, 'no divers truths exist. Mere sophistry declares this 'true' and that view 'false'.' A similar notion appears in Nietzsche's Will to Power: 

Quote
"Judging is our oldest faith; it is our habit of believing this to be true or false, of asserting or denying, our certainty that something is thus and not otherwise, our belief that we really 'know' what is believed to be true in all judgments?"

The products of this "habit of believing," for both Buddha and Nietzsche, include substance, self, universals, and duration. Both philosophers radically deny the reality of these things in favor of a dynamic, interdependent stream of phenomenon that lacks any objective basis whatsoever. Instead, underneath our perceptions there is only what the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna called sunyata, and what Nietzsche referred to as the "abyss," a void beyond the categories of being and nothing, true and false. This "emptiness" is the human condition to which both Buddhism and Nietzsche respond. Nietzsche refers to what he interprets as the Buddha's reaction in Thus Spake Zarathustra: 

Quote
"There are those with consumption of the soul: hardly are they born when they begin to die and to long for doctrines of weariness and renunciation. They would like to be dead, and we should welcome their wish. Let us beware of waking the dead and disturbing these living coffins! They encounter a sick man or an old man or a corpse and immediately they say, "Life is refuted." But only they themselves are refuted, and their eyes, which see only this one face of existence."
 
Yet, Nietzsche criticized Buddhism for many of the same faults he attributed to Christianity, though he showed more respect for the former as being more realistic and opposed to revenge (he believed Christianity was a manifestation of latent resentment). He praised Buddhism for setting out to treat "suffering" as opposed to "sin," but believed the treatment itself represented a surrender of life, and ultimately a weak response to the human condition. In the following passage from "Beyond Good and Evil," he contrasts his interpretation of Buddhism (along with Schopenhauer, a major contributor to this interpretation) with a general sketch of his own ideal response: 

Quote
"Whoever has endeavored with some enigmatic longing, as I have, to think pessimism through to its depths and liberate it from the half-Christian, half-German narrowness and simplicity in which it has finally presented itself to our century, namely, in the form of Schopenhauer's philosophy; whoever has really, with an Asiatic and supra-Asiatic eye, looked into, down into the most world-denying of all possible ways of thinking -- beyond good and evil and no longer, like the Buddha and Schopenhauer, under the spell and delusion of morality -- may just thereby, without really meaning to do so, have opened his eyes to the opposite ideal: the ideal of the most high-spirited, alive, and world-affirming human being who has not only come to terms and learned to get along with whatever was and is, but who wants to have what was and is repeated into all eternity..."

These passages illustrate Nietzsche's interpretation of Buddhism as a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering. In "The Gay Science" and "Will to Power," Nietzsche comments on Buddhism further, characterising it as an effort to withdraw from pain into an 'Oriental Nothing - called Nirvana," by way of following the maxim "One must not act." In "The Genealogy of Morals," he categorizes Buddhism as one among a group of ideologies that promote "...nihilistic turning away from life, a longing for nothingness, or for life's 'opposite', for a different sort of 'being'" According to Nietzsche, Buddhism can be described as an effort, through restraint from action, to escape suffering and pass into absolute non-existence.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: tytyty on August 14, 2007, 05:33:13 AM

[...] The concept must first be contrasted with Arthur Schopenhauer's "will to live": one must first of all take into account Nietzsche's background and criticism of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social Darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live".


Very, very, very similar to Schopenhauer's concept.


The force he calls "Wille zum Leben" or Will (literally will-to-life) is the forces driving man to remain alive and to reproduce, a drive intertwined with desire. This Will is the inner content and the driving force of the world. For Schopenhauer, Will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempting to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was a rare philosopher who considered philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain charitable practices ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline. Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire — i.e., Will. He proposed that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: accolade on August 16, 2007, 04:13:55 AM

Exactly! Comparisons between Buddhism and the various schools of existentialism have revealed a number of parallels. Such studies have frequently centered on each tradition's metaphysical approach and the fact that they all appear to share some form of phenomenological methodology. In the area of ethics, however, existentialism and Buddhism generally seem to differ radically. This difference is the most marked in the case of Nietzsche. 

Buddha responds as follows to an enquiry on competing metaphysical theories. 'Apart from consciousness', he says, 'no divers truths exist. Mere sophistry declares this 'true' and that view 'false'.' A similar notion appears in Nietzsche's Will to Power: 

Quote
"Judging is our oldest faith; it is our habit of believing this to be true or false, of asserting or denying, our certainty that something is thus and not otherwise, our belief that we really 'know' what is believed to be true in all judgments?"

The products of this "habit of believing," for both Buddha and Nietzsche, include substance, self, universals, and duration. Both philosophers radically deny the reality of these things in favor of a dynamic, interdependent stream of phenomenon that lacks any objective basis whatsoever. Instead, underneath our perceptions there is only what the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna called sunyata, and what Nietzsche referred to as the "abyss," a void beyond the categories of being and nothing, true and false. This "emptiness" is the human condition to which both Buddhism and Nietzsche respond. Nietzsche refers to what he interprets as the Buddha's reaction in Thus Spake Zarathustra: 

Quote
"There are those with consumption of the soul: hardly are they born when they begin to die and to long for doctrines of weariness and renunciation. They would like to be dead, and we should welcome their wish. Let us beware of waking the dead and disturbing these living coffins! They encounter a sick man or an old man or a corpse and immediately they say, "Life is refuted." But only they themselves are refuted, and their eyes, which see only this one face of existence."
 
Yet, Nietzsche criticized Buddhism for many of the same faults he attributed to Christianity, though he showed more respect for the former as being more realistic and opposed to revenge (he believed Christianity was a manifestation of latent resentment). He praised Buddhism for setting out to treat "suffering" as opposed to "sin," but believed the treatment itself represented a surrender of life, and ultimately a weak response to the human condition. In the following passage from "Beyond Good and Evil," he contrasts his interpretation of Buddhism (along with Schopenhauer, a major contributor to this interpretation) with a general sketch of his own ideal response: 

Quote
"Whoever has endeavored with some enigmatic longing, as I have, to think pessimism through to its depths and liberate it from the half-Christian, half-German narrowness and simplicity in which it has finally presented itself to our century, namely, in the form of Schopenhauer's philosophy; whoever has really, with an Asiatic and supra-Asiatic eye, looked into, down into the most world-denying of all possible ways of thinking -- beyond good and evil and no longer, like the Buddha and Schopenhauer, under the spell and delusion of morality -- may just thereby, without really meaning to do so, have opened his eyes to the opposite ideal: the ideal of the most high-spirited, alive, and world-affirming human being who has not only come to terms and learned to get along with whatever was and is, but who wants to have what was and is repeated into all eternity..."

These passages illustrate Nietzsche's interpretation of Buddhism as a life-negating philosophy that seeks to escape an existence dominated by suffering. In "The Gay Science" and "Will to Power," Nietzsche comments on Buddhism further, characterising it as an effort to withdraw from pain into an 'Oriental Nothing - called Nirvana," by way of following the maxim "One must not act." In "The Genealogy of Morals," he categorizes Buddhism as one among a group of ideologies that promote "...nihilistic turning away from life, a longing for nothingness, or for life's 'opposite', for a different sort of 'being'" According to Nietzsche, Buddhism can be described as an effort, through restraint from action, to escape suffering and pass into absolute non-existence.


Tagging the post so that the jerk of a "scientist" can take a look at!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: accretion on August 17, 2007, 05:40:10 AM

[...] The concept must first be contrasted with Arthur Schopenhauer's "will to live": one must first of all take into account Nietzsche's background and criticism of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social Darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live".


Very, very, very similar to Schopenhauer's concept.


The force he calls "Wille zum Leben" or Will (literally will-to-life) is the forces driving man to remain alive and to reproduce, a drive intertwined with desire. This Will is the inner content and the driving force of the world. For Schopenhauer, Will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempting to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was a rare philosopher who considered philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain charitable practices ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline. Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire — i.e., Will. He proposed that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire.



So basically Nietzsche was bull, he copied Will To Power from Schopenhauer, Eternal Recurrence from Buddhism, and Superman is just some crap built upon the other two ?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: abut on August 18, 2007, 01:55:07 PM

[...] Comparisons between Buddhism and the various schools of existentialism have revealed a number of parallels. Such studies have frequently centered on each tradition's metaphysical approach and the fact that they all appear to share some form of phenomenological methodology. In the area of ethics, however, existentialism and Buddhism generally seem to differ radically. This difference is the most marked in the case of Nietzsche. 

[...]


Nietzsche is often classified and taught along with existentialists, mainly because he is (like Kierkegaard) so adamantly an "individual" and an early advocate of "self-making." But Nietzsche also subscribes to a number of harsh doctrines that might be described as "fatalism" and a kind of "biological determinism," to name but two. Fatalism, strictly understood, means that nothing could be other than it is, and Nietzsche's sharp sarcastic comments about "the improvers of mankind" make it quite clear that he does not think that people can change their (collective) nature. Moreover, his persistent emphasis on "instincts," "drives," and "physiology" suggests a form of determinism based on our biology. Each of us individually has a particular "nature" that (whether actualized or not) cannot be altered. Like such existentialists as Kierkegaard and Sartre, Nietzsche is a powerful defender of what one might call "the existential self," the individual who "makes himself" by exploring and disciplining his particular talents and distinguishes himself from "the herd" and the conformist influences of other people. But Nietzsche also attacks the very concept of freedom and with it the existentialist idea that we are free and responsible to make of ourselves what we will. Furthermore, Nietzsche celebrates precisely those ancient concepts of "fate" and "destiny" that Sartre, in particular, rejects as exemplary of "bad faith."
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: chide on August 18, 2007, 03:02:23 PM

Nietzsche is often classified and taught along with existentialists, mainly because he is (like Kierkegaard) so adamantly an "individual" and an early advocate of "self-making." But Nietzsche also subscribes to a number of harsh doctrines that might be described as "fatalism" and a kind of "biological determinism," to name but two. Fatalism, strictly understood, means that nothing could be other than it is, and Nietzsche's sharp sarcastic comments about "the improvers of mankind" make it quite clear that he does not think that people can change their (collective) nature. Moreover, his persistent emphasis on "instincts," "drives," and "physiology" suggests a form of determinism based on our biology. Each of us individually has a particular "nature" that (whether actualized or not) cannot be altered. Like such existentialists as Kierkegaard and Sartre, Nietzsche is a powerful defender of what one might call "the existential self," the individual who "makes himself" by exploring and disciplining his particular talents and distinguishes himself from "the herd" and the conformist influences of other people. But Nietzsche also attacks the very concept of freedom and with it the existentialist idea that we are free and responsible to make of ourselves what we will. Furthermore, Nietzsche celebrates precisely those ancient concepts of "fate" and "destiny" that Sartre, in particular, rejects as exemplary of "bad faith."


Exactly, fatalism is not determinism, although they're sometimes confused with each other. As such, it asserts neither that human affairs have been prearranged by a being outside the causal order nor that a person has an unavoidable fate. Determinism simply says that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will, based on the metaphysical principle that an uncaused event is impossible. The success of scientists in discovering causes of certain behavior and in some cases effecting its control tends to support this principle.

Disagreement exists about the proper formulation of determinism. Physical determinism, which has its origin in the Atomism of Democritus and Lucretius, is the theory that human interaction can be reduced to relationships between biological, chemical, or physical entities; this formulation is fundamental to modern Sociobiology and neuropsychology. The historical determinism of Karl Marx, on the other hand, is transpersonal and primarily economic. In contrast to these two formulations, psychological determinism -- the philosophical basis of psychoanalysis -- is the theory that the purposes, needs, and desires of individuals are central to an explanation of human behavior. The behavioral determinism of B.F. Skinner is a modification of this view, in that Skinner reduces all internal psychological states to publicly observable behavior. His stimulus -- response account also uses modern statistical and probabilistic analyses of causation.

Sartre and other contemporary philosophers have argued that determinism is controverted by introspection, which reveals actions to be the result of our own choices and not necessitated by previous events or external factors. Determinists respond that such experiences of freedom are illusions and that introspection is an unreliable and unscientific method for understanding human behavior.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cleft on August 18, 2007, 03:43:58 PM

So basically Nietzsche was bull, he copied Will To Power from Schopenhauer, [...]


Here it is explained:


[...] Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social Darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live". Another particular standpoint of the will to power is that it is a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that Nietzsche argued was the underlying -- the "most fundamental fact" -- "inner" force of nature.

[...]

The "will to power" is thus a "cosmic" inner force acting in and through both animate and inanimate objects, but it may also take on many forms that could perhaps involve such mastery but in a "life-denying" modality. Not just instincts but also higher level behaviors (even in humans) were to be reduced to the will to power. In fact, Nietzsche considered consciousness itself to be a form of instinct. This includes both such apparently harmful acts as physical violence, lying, and domination, on one hand, and such apparently non-harmful acts as gift-giving, love, and praise on the other – though its manifestations can be altered significantly, such as through art and aesthetic experience. In "Beyond Good and Evil," he claims that philosophers' "will to truth" (i.e., their apparent desire to dispassionately seek objective, absolute truth) is actually nothing more than a manifestation of their will to power; this will can be life-affirming or a manifestation of nihilism, but it is the will to power all the same. As indicated above, the will to power is meant to explain more than just the behavior of an individual person or animal. It is not psychological, nor intentional or subjective. The will to power lends itself more to the view, though it be homogeneous in expression, its transformations are heterogeneous, based on the altering organizations of "quanta of power".

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Santa Baby on August 18, 2007, 08:50:07 PM

If you reading into the OP's post quoting Nietzsche as saying that to adopt the Roman attitude and lifestyle one had to engage in prosecution of Jews as Nazi Germany did, I think you are wrong.

In fact, some people tend to dislike Friedrich Nietzsche on the grounds that his thought is dangerous, that it lends itself to totalitarianism and, more specifically, to fascism. The history of Nietzsche's adoption by the forces of National Socialism in Germany has been well documented. Adolf Hitler personally approved of Nietzsche's writings, and upon coming to power he promoted one of Nietzsche's first Nazi disciples, Alfred Baumler, to professor of philosophy in Berlin. During the Nazi period Nietzsche was both widely read and celebrated in Germany. He was considered to be one of the master-thinkers of the Aryan race. After Germany lost the war, Nietzsche's thought fell into disrepute. Martin Heidegger even blamed his involvement in Nazi politics on the influence of Nietzsche. Since that time, however, Nietzsche's work has enjoyed a modest revival. Nevertheless, Nietzsche is still viewed with suspicion in many circles because of a circumstance of history that was beyond his control. Many critics continue to argue that Nietzsche's thinking is at best dangerous or, at worst, downright evil because it leads directly to fascism.

This argument, though, is simply untenable given a careful reading of Nietzsche's work. From an examination of his texts, skipping the "approved" Nazi interpretations, one can easily argue that Nietzsche would have certainly opposed his appropriation by National Socialism, particularly its hideous manifestation in Nazi Germany.


In 1886 Nietzsche broke with his editor, Ernst Schmeitzner, disgusted over his anti-Semitic opinions. Nietzsche saw his writings as "completely buried and unexhumeable in this anti-Semitic dump" of Schmeitzner — associating the editor with a movement that should be "utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind".

It is his sister Elisabeth, who in 1886, married the anti-Semite Bernhard Förster and traveled to Paraguay to found Nueva Germania, a "Germanic" colony, a plan to which Nietzsche responded with laughter. Elisabeth, for instance, compiled "The Will to Power," from notes he had written, and published it posthumously. The general consensus holds that it does not reflect Nietzsche's intent. Indeed, Mazzino Montinari, the editor of Nietzsche's Nachlass, called it a forgery. Among other forgeries and suppressions of passages, Elisabeth removed aphorism 35 of "The Antichrist," where Nietzsche rewrote a passage of the Bible.

Although Nietzsche had in 1886 announced (at the end of "Beyond Good and Evil") a new work with the title, "The Will to Power: Essay of a Transvaluation of all Values," this project was finally abandoned and its draft materials used to compose "The Twilight of the Idols" and "The Antichrist" (both written in 1888). "The Will to Power," which Elisabeth Förster called Nietzsche's unedited magnum opus (which very concept is alien to Nietzsche's philosophy and style of writing), was in fact abandoned as a book by Nietzsche himself. Förster-Nietzsche cut up, mixed and pasted together fragments, according to her own antisemitic views (which were a bone of contention between her and Nietzsche himself). Nevertheless, the concept remains, and has, since the reading of Karl Löwith, been identified as a key component of Nietzsche's philosophy. So The Will to Power was not written by Nietzsche. But the concept of "will to power" is certainly in itself a major motif of Nietzsche's philosophy, so much so that Heidegger, under Löwith's influence, considered it to form, with the thought of the eternal recurrence, the basis of his thought.


Not to mention that after he stopped teaching at Basel University in 1879, on a visit to Rome in 1882 at 37 met Lou Salomé, a 21-old Russian-Jewish woman who was studying philosophy and theology in Zurich. He soon fell in love with her, and twice proposed to her. Although his both offers were rejected, the relationship was spoilt by Elisabeth who was absolutely anti-Semitic, and hated the Jewish blood in Lou. Thus Nietzsche has lost his love, and remained alone.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: cynosure on August 18, 2007, 11:12:49 PM

Not to mention that after he stopped teaching at Basel University in 1879, on a visit to Rome in 1882 at 37 met Lou Salomé, a 21-old Russian-Jewish woman who was studying philosophy and theology in Zurich. He soon fell in love with her, and twice proposed to her. Although his both offers were rejected, the relationship was spoilt by Elisabeth who was absolutely anti-Semitic, and hated the Jewish blood in Lou. Thus Nietzsche has lost his love, and remained alone.


Well, Nietzsche was raised in a household with 5 women and no men. He had enormous difficulty throughout his life relating to women; he had no romantic relationships of any significance, though he twice proposed marriage. Possibly the only time he had sex was with a prostitute while in the army. Much of his thought can only be fully understood in view of his extreme difficulties with women and his physical frailty. Behind his written outpouring of joy in living was a life of constant suffering; behind his glorification of self-assertion, passion, and confidence was a life of withdrawal and timidity. Behind his frequent denigration of women was a lifetime of rejection and isolation. Yet from this feeble and miserable source sprang the most important currents of modern philosophical thought.

The cause of his insanity is not certainly known, but it may have had a hereditary component -- his father, a minister, had become insane and died of a nervous problem when Nietzsche was 5 years old. It is also likely that Nietzsche had syphilis (at the University of Bonn where he entered in 1864 as a theology and philology student he enjoyed the free, college students' privileged life more than anything else with beer, wine, sex and tobacco -- it is said that it was at this time he contracted syphilis) and he is also known to have used a variety of drugs (Nietzsche's use and abuse of both opium and chloral hydrate is well-documented, as is his mother's disdain of his drug habit; indeed, she once complained that her son bought chloral hydrate "by the bucketful," and she also claimed that his dementia was brought on by seizures from an overdose of chloral hydrate. As for his hashish read E.F. Podach). After two very brief periods of military service in his twenties (in an artillery regiment, and later as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian War), during which he sustained a serious chest injury and contracted dysentery, diptheria, and possibly syphilis, his health deteriorated for the rest of his life; he suffered from migraines, insomnia, indigestion, vision problems, and the effects of the chloral hydrate he used to obtain sleep.

It surprises me that no one wants to connect the horse-beating as the significant trauma which was repeated, in Freudian terms, or symbolically in Jungian terms. Was Nietzsche beaten as a boy? Did he tend to become agitated around horses after his accident in the military? Nietzsche entered his required military service in 1867 and was assigned to an equestrian field artillery regiment close to Naumburg. There he had the first accident connected with the horse. While attempting to leap-mount into the saddle upon a particularly unruly horse, he suffered a serious chest injury and was dismissed after his chest wound was too slow to heal. The second horse accident 22 years later would be the last event in his sane life. He was walking down the street when he saw a man savagely beating his horse. In reaction to this barbarous act, he flung his arms around the horses neck and the story goes that he was never quite the same again. The first dream-sequence from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment (Part 1, Chapter 5) has just such a scene in which Raskolnikov witnesses the whipping of a horse around the eyes. Incidentally, Nietzsche called Dostoyevsky "[t]he only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn."
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: largess on August 24, 2007, 04:20:53 AM
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2083/adjs8.gif)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: moelaw on August 26, 2007, 07:52:50 PM

Jung believed that just as the human race all started out pagan and only later, having lost touch with its pagan roots, became rootless, "civilized" and Christian, so Germans start out, in infancy, as spontaneous pagans, but this spontaneous religion is overlaid with the artificial ideas of monotheism. Our loss of wholeness is a loss of contact with these roots. But we can reach these roots, not by the difficult work of historical research but by going inward, digging below the personal unconscious and uncovering the collective unconscious that had only been covered over. When Jung discovered Freud's method of psychoanalysis, he quickly saw it as a tool to uncover hidden resources buried within. But while Freud welcomed Jung into the psychoanalytic movement, he soon noted that Jung was uncritical of myth. He began to fear Jung would compromise the attempt to assert scientific standing for psychoanalysis. This led eventually to the Freud-Jung split. Jung retained from Freud the cult atmosphere of the analytic movement and the lack of rigorous testing of hypotheses. Unlike Freud, Jung claimed that his analytic methods could investigate a inner realm with essentially religious meaning.

Jung explained the resistance of Freud and his close followers to Jung's version of analysis in an essentially racist way. The Freudians were mostly Jews, as was Freud himself. Freudians are uninterested in pagan myths, Jung decided, because they are mostly Jews. The Jews came from the Middle East, which was urbanized and thus depaganized at an early date. Jews had allegedly lost their pagan roots so long ago that they no longer had access to the collective unconscious. By contrast, Germanic peoples had lost their paganism at a relatively late date, roughly 500 to 1100 AD. Thus the pagan collective unconscious lay close enough to the psychological surface that it could still be dug up if only one were persistent enough. Since for Jung being in touch with the collective unconscious is a precondition for psychological health, Germanic types like himself are potentially healthier than Jews.

This idea is scientifically unsound, as it confuses what can be learned with what can be biologically inherited. It also links psychological health more to one ethnic group than another and could easily provide a rationale for anti- Semitism. Jung tended to think of the collective unconscious in racial terms until late in his life. About 1936, when he was already 60, he realized that a stress on this aspect of his thought would not go over well in the English speaking world where Jung thought he could find the greatest number of disciples. In fact, his views about an essentially Aryan collective unconscious put him close to the kinds of things that Hitler was saying.

Jung thought that Germans, English, and Anglo-Americans were all part of the Germanic family tree. The Jews, in his view, had been civilized too long--uprooted from the soil. The Russians were polluted by too much Asian/Mongolian blood. Jung thought his kind of analysis will get (Aryan) people in touch with their roots, still latent inside them, and restore their wholeness. Jung shared these ideas with a number of individuals who became Nazis. This is not to say that Jung was a Nazi. But he made one of the same basic errors that Nazism made: he failed to distinguish acquired cultural characteristics from inherited biological ones. It is understandable that Jung, like many intelligent Germans, could be confused on this question early in the 20th century when the science of genetics was barely getting started. But he continued to believe in it into the 1950's, according to Noll; and this is strong evidence of the fundamentally problematic nature of his key concepts.


Jung emphasized the importance of balance and harmony. He cautioned that modern humans rely too heavily on science and logic and would benefit from integrating spirituality and appreciation of the unconscious realm. Jungian psychology is typically missing from the curriculum of most major universities' psychology departments. Jung's ideas are occasionally explored in humanities departments, particularly in the study of mythography.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: sislaw on August 27, 2007, 03:43:56 AM
Archetypal psychology was developed by James Hillman in the second half of the 20th century. It is in the Jungian tradition and most directly related to Analytical psychology, yet departs radically. Archetypal psychology relativizes and deliteralizes the ego and focuses on the psyche, or soul, itself and the archai, the deepest patterns of psychic functioning, "the fundamental fantasies that animate all life." Archetypal psychology is a polytheistic psychology, in that it attempts to recognize the myriad fantasies and myths -- gods, goddesses, demigods, mortals and animals -- that shape and are shaped by our psychological lives. The ego is but one psychological fantasy within an assemblage of fantasies.

Hillman was trained at the Jung Institute and was its Director after graduation. The main influence on the development of archetypal psychology is Carl Jung's analytical psychology. It is strongly influenced by Classical Greek, Renaissance, and Romantic ideas and thought. Influential artists, poets, philosophers, alchemists, and psychologists include: Nietzsche, Henry Corbin, Keats, Shelley, Petrarch, and Paracelsus. Though all different in their theories and psychologies, they appear to be unified by their common concern for the psyche -- the soul. Hillman sketches a brief lineage of archetypal psychology.

Quote
By calling upon Jung to begin with, I am partly acknowledging the fundamental debt that archetypal psychology owes him. He is the immediate ancestor in a long line that stretches back through Freud, Dilthey, Coleridge, Schelling, Vico, Ficino, Plotinus, and Plato to Heraclitus - and with even more branches yet to be traced (p. xvii).


Hillman has been critical of the 20th century’s psychologies (e.g. biological psychology, behaviorism, cognitive psychology) that have adopted a natural scientific philosophy and praxis. Main criticisms include that they are reductive, materialistic, and literal; they are psychologies without psyche, without soul. Accordingly, Hillman's oeuvre has been an attempt to restore psyche to its proper place in psychology. Hillman sees the soul at work in imagination, in fantasy, in myth and in metaphor. He also sees soul revealed in psychopathology, in the symptoms of psychological disorders. Psyche-pathos-logos is the "speech of the suffering soul" or the soul's suffering of meaning. A great portion of Hillman's thought attempts to attend to the speech of the soul as it is revealed via images and fantasies. Hillman has a complex "definition" of soul. Primarily, he notes that soul is not a "thing," not an entity. Nor is it something that is located "inside" a person. Rather, soul is "a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint towards things... (it is) reflective; it mediates events and makes differences... " Soul is not to be located in the brain or in the head, for example (where most modern psychologies place it), but human beings are in psyche. The world, in turn, is the anima mundi, or the world ensouled. Hillman often quotes a phrase coined by the Romantic poet John Keats: "call the world the vale of soul-making."

Additionally, Hillman observes that soul:

Quote
refers to the deepening of events into experiences; second the significance of soul makes possible, whether in love or religious concern, derives from its special relationship with death. And third, by soul I mean the imaginative possibility in our natures the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, fantasy -- that mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or metaphorical.

The notion of soul as imaginative possibility, in relation to the archai or root metaphors, is what Hillman has termed the "poetic basis of mind."
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: palimpsest on August 28, 2007, 01:40:12 AM

After my first year of law school I've come to the conclusion that our legal system is fundamentally sick. In essence, though, I believe that is because the legal system is a product of our sick culture, a culture whose metaphysical axioms -- if they were taken seriously -- would require people to believe that choosing between the morality of Socrates and that of Hitler is no different from choosing between Coke and Pepsi. In its more manifestations, what Americans call the "rule of law" can come to resemble a form of mental illness. Can anyone who followed the O.J. Simpson affair dismiss such an idea out of hand?

I believe what (usually) keeps the madness of law from becoming the madness of lawyers is a necessary -- and indeed a therapeutic -- inauthenticity. In fact, inauthenticity is essential to authentic legal thought. After all, lawyers make claims not because they believe them to be true, but becuase they believe them to be legally efficacious. If they happen to be true, then all the better; but the lawyer who is concerned primarily with the truth value of the statements he makes on behalf of clients is soon going to find himself unable to fulfill his professional obligation to represent those clients. Lawyers are often impelled by their professional obligations to become something akin to emotional prostitutes; that is, to be persons whose public personae require the simulation of inauthentic affective states as a condition of their compensation. In the context of ongoing litigation the most common of these simulated emotions is outrage: a lawyer trying a case must always be ready to express what seems like genuine outrage at the drop of the proverbial hat.


Indeed, Simpson's acquittal and subsequent stiffing of the victim's families confirmed that the rich, famous and powerful have the deep pockets to hire a "dream team" of lawyers, a small army of high priced, high-profile attorneys, expert witnesses, experts and investigators that routinely mangle the legal system to stall, delay, and drag out their cases and eventually allow their well-heeled clients to weasel out of punishment and payment. Since most Americans can't afford anything resembling the type of legal star treatment Simpson got, it affirmed their belief that justice is for sale and that the rich, famous and powerful will always escape punishment. Even when prosecutors manage to win convictions against celebrities such as Winona Ryder and Martha Stewart, their money, fame, power and legal twisting often guarantee that they will do minimal jail time in a cushy country club prison, or none at all.

If a poll were taken today, a majority of whites would still rage that Simpson is a murderer who skipped away scot-free and scream that the trial and his acquittal were a farce and a blatant travesty of justice. In the same poll, a majority of blacks would rage that Simpson was victimized by a white racist criminal justice system and the verdict was a just one. The periodic news clips of Simpson in the years since the trial have shown a cheerful and relaxed Simpson golfing, vacationing, signing autographs and football collectors cards and taking an ill-fated stab at a reality show. Simpson comes off as a devil-may-care guy that laughs at and thumbs his nose at the public. This hasn't done much to endear him to anyone, let alone make the case go away.

And don't get me started about that @ # ! * i n g piece of *&^% Johnny Cochran who brought racism and prejudice up again and again. The scientific evidence against the n i g g a was overwhelming, yet Cochran successfully used race to give credibility to his defense. While it was undisputable that Simpson was an abusive master of Nicole Simpson, he described Nicole as a "very strong independent woman" and Simpson as a "member of a mutual relationship that was not master/servant in nature." In introducing the American "tradition" of slavery, Cochran insidiously reminded jurors that oppression, in the form of racism and white-on-black crime, still exists today. While Simpson was in effect a jealous chauvinist pig, he said that Simpson never stalked Nicole and even let other friends of hers get married at his house.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: winnow on September 02, 2007, 09:21:59 PM

[...] He was a charming, black celebrity, accused of murdering his white former wife and her white lover. [...]


What this basically means is that money rules America. Once you're part of a higher class, race does not really matter.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Anna Ogordova on September 05, 2007, 12:13:12 AM

[...] He was a charming, black celebrity, accused of murdering his white former wife and her white lover. [...]


What this basically means is that money rules America. Once you're part of a higher class, race does not really matter.


Have you taken a look at this thread

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,5420.msg44488.html#msg44488
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: PITH on September 10, 2007, 11:24:30 PM

Why all this "reasoning" madness? In the end, overgeneralizations concerning the power of reason and intellectual pretensions born of lawyers' professional vanity are symptoms of fear.

America has never been a fatalistic culture, except to the extent we have always believed it our manifest destiny to be "progesssing" toward something or the other. Faced with the prospect of existential dread at our helplessness before the mysteries of life, we look for someone or something that can dispel that uncanny sensation. Hence, despite our vaunted pragmatism, we are prone to a certain child-like faith that some person or institution will with a single heroic gesture free us from the intolerable webs of uncertainty sorrounding our most difficult choices. In the American law school, the most striking evidence of this faith is the way in which an entire generation of legal academics almost literally worships the Warren Court. The continuing fascination that long-departed institution holds for law professors of a certain age resembles in some ways a collective case of arrested emotional development. The kindly image of Earl Warren himself, with his granfatherly shock of white hair, and his famed willingness to brush aside legal technicalities with the question "But is it right, is it fair?" helps satisfy the longing for some paternal figure in comforting ceremonial garb -- a sort of juridical Santa Claus -- who goes about dispensing justice in much the same way reformed misers in Dickens shower pounds and guineas on everyone they meet.

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, a man becomes a judge to forget the pain of being a man.

We believe in the transcendent, more-than-human authority of "the rule of law," and by extension of its various fetish objects and their official interpreters, because the alternative would be to accept the authority of ourselves over ourselves.


Awesome C!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: singleton on September 17, 2007, 07:59:41 AM

Exactly, fatalism is not determinism, although they're sometimes confused with each other. As such, it asserts neither that human affairs have been prearranged by a being outside the causal order nor that a person has an unavoidable fate. Determinism simply says that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the Will, based on the metaphysical principle that an uncaused event is impossible. The success of scientists in discovering causes of certain behavior and in some cases effecting its control tends to support this principle.

Disagreement exists about the proper formulation of determinism. Physical determinism, which has its origin in the Atomism of Democritus and Lucretius, is the theory that human interaction can be reduced to relationships between biological, chemical, or physical entities; this formulation is fundamental to modern Sociobiology and neuropsychology. The historical determinism of Karl Marx, on the other hand, is transpersonal and primarily economic. In contrast to these two formulations, psychological determinism -- the philosophical basis of psychoanalysis -- is the theory that the purposes, needs, and desires of individuals are central to an explanation of human behavior. The behavioral determinism of B.F. Skinner is a modification of this view, in that Skinner reduces all internal psychological states to publicly observable behavior. His stimulus -- response account also uses modern statistical and probabilistic analyses of causation.

Sartre and other contemporary philosophers have argued that determinism is controverted by introspection, which reveals actions to be the result of our own choices and not necessitated by previous events or external factors. Determinists respond that such experiences of freedom are illusions and that introspection is an unreliable and unscientific method for understanding human behavior.


As a reinvented libertarian, I, like the hard determinist, accept the incompatibility of freedom and determinism. People are free agents, at least with respect to some of our actions. Please note, though, that we are not free with respect to absolutely all actions, we are not omnipotent.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: unexceptionable on September 17, 2007, 08:42:41 AM

After years in the public indoctrination system (school), followed by the many forms of social conditioning that adapt people to accepting government's various administrative regimes, most Americans can't even imagine what true freedom would be like. In America today it's a crime to leave your house without your "papers" on you. You can be pulled over for as little as a dirty license plate. If you don't do just as you're told, the infraction can jump to a felony for "resisting an officer." Bristle-headed, hog-jeweled policemen in dark glasses are on alert everywhere with a steroid attitude. With their K-9 friends, they're ready to sniff you out for any non-compliant activities. Forget everything you ever thought the Bill of Rights meant. There are terrorists out there.

Privacy? Forget it. Between bank records, "voluntary" tax filing and your "paper or plastic" purchasing methods, your every financial move is an open book. Carrying enough cash in your pocket to buy a used car is also a crime. A police state isn't just about police. Bureaucrats of every persuasion form a lawless horde to "police" your every move by administrating their self-written rules and regulations. Crime creation no longer requires a Congress.


I wonder whether you've ever been abroad, otherwise you'd not speak the way you do!
Title: All horses are the same color
Post by: sanctimonious on September 18, 2007, 04:25:16 PM

The three methods for logical reasoning, deduction, induction and abduction can be explained in the following way:

Given preconditions α, postconditions β and the rule R1: α ∴ β (α therefore β).

Deduction means determining β. It is using the rule and its preconditions to make a conclusion (α ∧ R1 ⇒ β).

Induction means determining R1. It is learning R1 after numerous examples of β and α.

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

- Deduction allows deriving b as a consequence of a. In other words, deduction is the process of deriving the consequences of what is assumed. Given the truth of the assumptions, a valid deduction guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

- Induction allows inferring some b from multiple instantiations of a when b entails a. Induction is the process of inferring probable antecedents as a result of observing multiple consequents.

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.


Arising from the following supposed demonstration, using mathematical induction, of the statement All horses are the same color a paradox results. As the basis case, note that in a set containing a single horse, all horses are clearly the same color. Now assume the truth of the statement for all sets of at most n horses.

Let there be n + 1 horses in a set. Remove the first horse to get a set of n horses. By the induction hypothesis, all horses in this set are the same color. It remains to show that this color is the same as that of the horse we removed. But this is easy: put back the first horse, take out a different horse and apply the induction principle to this set of n horses. Thus all horses in any set of n + 1 horses are the same color. By the principle of induction, we have established that all horses are the same color.
Title: All horses are the same color
Post by: cinderellalaw on September 18, 2007, 04:59:25 PM
sanctimonious, you're so @ # ! * i n g funny! Here's one for you ;)

(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/792/0999ay0.jpg)
Title: Re: All horses are the same color
Post by: s u n d a y on September 22, 2007, 09:57:20 PM
Well, I guess it's fun time, so here's another puzzle for ya!

On an island, there are k people who have blue eyes, and the rest of the people have green eyes. There is at least one blue-eyed person on the island (k equals or is more than 1). If a person ever knows herself to have blue eyes, she must leave the island at dawn the next day. Each person can see every other persons' eye color, there are no mirrors, and there is no discussion of eye color. At some point, an outsider comes to the island and makes the following public announcement, heard and understood by all people there: "At least one of you has blue eyes". What is the eventual outcome?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: PI on September 24, 2007, 01:02:40 AM
Eventually all blue-eyed persons leave the island.
Title: Re: Jungian Paganism and the Jews
Post by: lochies on November 03, 2007, 11:00:51 AM

Jung explained the resistance of Freud and his close followers to Jung's version of analysis in an essentially racist way. The Freudians were mostly Jews, as was Freud himself. Freudians are uninterested in pagan myths, Jung decided, because they are mostly Jews. The Jews came from the Middle East, which was urbanized and thus depaganized at an early date. Jews had allegedly lost their pagan roots so long ago that they no longer had access to the collective unconscious. By contrast, Germanic peoples had lost their paganism at a relatively late date, roughly 500 to 1100 AD. Thus the pagan collective unconscious lay close enough to the psychological surface that it could still be dug up if only one were persistent enough. Since for Jung being in touch with the collective unconscious is a precondition for psychological health, Germanic types like himself are potentially healthier than Jews.

This idea is scientifically unsound, as it confuses what can be learned with what can be biologically inherited. It also links psychological health more to one ethnic group than another and could easily provide a rationale for anti- Semitism. Jung tended to think of the collective unconscious in racial terms until late in his life. About 1936, when he was already 60, he realized that a stress on this aspect of his thought would not go over well in the English speaking world where Jung thought he could find the greatest number of disciples. In fact, his views about an essentially Aryan collective unconscious put him close to the kinds of things that Hitler was saying.

Jung thought that Germans, English, and Anglo-Americans were all part of the Germanic family tree. The Jews, in his view, had been civilized too long--uprooted from the soil. The Russians were polluted by too much Asian/Mongolian blood. Jung thought his kind of analysis will get (Aryan) people in touch with their roots, still latent inside them, and restore their wholeness. Jung shared these ideas with a number of individuals who became Nazis. This is not to say that Jung was a Nazi. But he made one of the same basic errors that Nazism made: he failed to distinguish acquired cultural characteristics from inherited biological ones. It is understandable that Jung, like many intelligent Germans, could be confused on this question early in the 20th century when the science of genetics was barely getting started. But he continued to believe in it into the 1950's, according to Noll; and this is strong evidence of the fundamentally problematic nature of his key concepts.


All Women, all Virgins, all Serpents, all Wise: Wisdom is a woman, is a serpent, it is virginity = it is the female genital. The snake represent her phallus which, as long as she remains virgin, is unconsciously perceived as untouched, inviolated by genital penetration. The spare, which Athena holds in her hand is another phallic symbol, meant to defend her virginity. Artemis, the other virgin goddess of Olympic Greece, holds a bow and arrows, instead of a spare, but the significance is the same: to defend herself from male lust. They condense the virginal penis and the apotropaic (means of defense) device. As in dreams, mythological representations work by the way of condensation. As Freud and Abraham have shown, the little child makes an interpretation of sexual intercourse as an aggressive act of castration inflicted on the female by the male. Furthermore, by extension, the female genital becomes the symbol of the woman herself, Pars pro Toto (a part for the whole). As Freud has shown, the child perceives females to have had a penis like his own. When, looking at the genital of the mother or the sisters, he cannot find it, he is struck with awe. His libido fixates into the fantasy of a penis which is not there, because he knows that it should be there. The missing female penis emerges from the inconscious as women -- serpents or women holding snakes.

The missing female member is perceived not only as extremely erotic, because of the libido fixated on it in such an early stage, but also as scaring and threatening, because it triggers the child's own fears of castration. As Freud writes dealing with Medusa:

Quote
The terror of the Medusa is thus a terror of castration that is linked to the sight of something. The hair upon the Medusa's head is frequently represented in works of art in the form of snakes, and these once again are derived from the castration complex. It is a remarkable fact that however frightening they may be in themselves, they nevertheless serve as a mitigation of the horror, for they replace the penis, the absence of which is the cause of the horror. This is a confirmation of the technical rule according to which a multiplication of penis symbols signifies castration (Medusa's Head, 1940).

The female missing member emerges from the unconscious as worms, as rats, even as dwarfs (see the tale of Snowhite and her seven little dwarfs). As Freud has shown, little children symbolize the penis too. Little children = rats, like in the tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, where children and rats are inter-changeable. First the Pied Piper takes the rats, thereafter he takes the children. It is an equivalence: rats = children = female penis, like in the illustration below:

(http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/21830eb8ea.jpg)
The Pied Piper of Hamelin

The rat, sitting on the flute of the Pied Piper, is female, like the serpents of Medusa and the Indian dancers. She herself has a flute between her legs, like the witches who ride on brooms, another representation of phallic women. As in dreams, where the same concept is repeated by the way of condensation, the she-rat has a penis and she is a penis herself. With Abraham's words: " the idea that the female has concealed within her a very large penis into which the smaller organ of the man must penetrate"

Abraham told us also another important thing:

Quote
Freud has shown that besides the idea of motion and penis in the sense of gift there is still a third idea which is identified with both of them, namely, that of a child. Infantile theories of procreation and birth adequately explain this connection. The little girl cherishes the hope of getting a child from her father as a substitute for the penis not granted her, and this again in the sense of a gift.


Furthermore, "The female genital is looked upon as a wound, and as such it represents an effect of castration". Threfore, the cult of the child, which took hold since the beginning of Christianity, is to be understood as the cult of the missing female member, and as a defense against castration's anxiety. Worshipping the Child, namely, the female penis, the scaring absence of her phallus is denied. Faith says loudly: "it is there, therefore, it is not missing". The miracle consists in its re-emergence. From a Virgin, because virgins are perceived as still owning their original penis. Abraham has shown how sexual intercourse is unconsciously perceived as an act of castration, which the male inflicts on the female.

In this perspective, we can better understand why since the Middle Ages inflamatory accusations of ritual murder of a child spreaded, and were directed against the Jews.

(http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/b099c3a6e7.gif)

(http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/67ee7364c4.jpg)

The first illustration is associated to the case of Anderl von Rinn. The second is a woodcut showing Jews performing a ritual to extract a Christian child's blood. These prints were popular in Germany and the Netherlands in the 15th Century. Notice that in the illustration the extraction of the child's blood is synonymous of castration. The Jews are castrating the child. It is a reinforcement and a repetition of the child himself as a penis' symbol. The Jews deny the existence of the Divine Child. Henceforth, by their very credo they confirm the absence of the female member, and they trigger the castration fear. Therefore, the Jews were accused of being the ones who castrate the fantasized female penis. In this way, the level of tension induced by the terror of castration triggered at the sight of the vaginal "wound", is reduced at two levels:

1) Finding an explanation for female castration (they are the Jews who did it).
2) Projecting into them their own anal - sadistict drive to castrate the female.

The Jews become, in this way, the poison container for the accusers' own terrors and drives: the scapegoat.

The association between a child -- serpent, and the same grown up serpent, killed by the Jews, is everywhere in collective Western unconscious. In the Gospels, Christ is compared to a serpent.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lochies on November 03, 2007, 11:06:40 AM
The horror, the hatred, the terror, and the fixated erotic libido into the missing female member were projected into the Jews. It is not casual that the Nazis called the Jews "rats", and depicted them as infesting, polluting and proliferating in scaring ways. Exactly as the rats which invaded the pacific town of Hamelin. Here is a Jew attemptig at the numerous female penises, that are exiting between the legs of the girl, meaning, he is attempting at her virginity, because her non - violated penis is perceived as the apotropaic instrument defending her genital from penetration, as in the case of Medusa, Athena and all other virgin goddesses, who defended their verginity holding a phallic symbol, snakes or weapons.

(http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/a6f4124e59.jpg)

(http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/668e4523e7.jpg)

The Jew, who in the first poster had been accused of attempting at the girl's virginity, now is accused of being himself the terrifying female penis, the snake. As he is compared by the Nazis' propaganda to rats and insects. As in dreams, symbols work by condensation.

Freud told us in "Symbolism in Dreams" that the mushroom is the symbol of the male penis. However, we must not forget that he also has shown that the child perceives the female genital being like the masculine one. We have seen in the Pied Piper of Hamelin that rats, which are the symbol of the penis, are represented as females. Namely, in the context of invading, polluting, infesting, the phallus is perceived as feminine. The Atomic Bomb, which as every bomb is rounded and therefore female, delivers after the explosion an enormous mushroom. An atomic bomb exploding is equivalent to a woman delivering her baby. When General Groves cabled to President Truman to report that the first A-bomb was successful, he wrote: "The baby is born". The GI's called the bomb that exploded on Hiroshima: "Little Boy". Meaning the fungus of the bomb, which is a phallic symbol, is the baby = female penis, confirming to us Freud's words that baby, little, child, mushroom represent a penis, and Abraham's that the female sees in the child a compensation for her missing member. Therefore, the polluting, infesting female penises, which invaded Hamelin as rats, and as such compared by the Nazis to the Jews, are equivalent to destructive, poisonous mushrooms.

(http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/e0e61350c4.jpg)

 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: depositlaw on November 07, 2007, 08:36:22 PM
 :o
Are the smurfs in that mushroom jewish too? 
But seriously, if you've had Chicago or Illinois security deposit problems with a landlord, visit http://www.depositlaw.com (http://www.depositlaw.com)
Let's try to keep it together team.  This is a law school discussion board.  I don't see how hebrew mushrooms got involved.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: colombus in absentia on November 09, 2007, 11:00:55 AM

So basically Nietzsche was bull, he copied Will To Power from Schopenhauer, [...]


Here it is explained:


[...] Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social Darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live". Another particular standpoint of the will to power is that it is a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that Nietzsche argued was the underlying -- the "most fundamental fact" -- "inner" force of nature.

[...]

The "will to power" is thus a "cosmic" inner force acting in and through both animate and inanimate objects, but it may also take on many forms that could perhaps involve such mastery but in a "life-denying" modality. Not just instincts but also higher level behaviors (even in humans) were to be reduced to the will to power. In fact, Nietzsche considered consciousness itself to be a form of instinct. This includes both such apparently harmful acts as physical violence, lying, and domination, on one hand, and such apparently non-harmful acts as gift-giving, love, and praise on the other – though its manifestations can be altered significantly, such as through art and aesthetic experience. In "Beyond Good and Evil," he claims that philosophers' "will to truth" (i.e., their apparent desire to dispassionately seek objective, absolute truth) is actually nothing more than a manifestation of their will to power; this will can be life-affirming or a manifestation of nihilism, but it is the will to power all the same. As indicated above, the will to power is meant to explain more than just the behavior of an individual person or animal. It is not psychological, nor intentional or subjective. The will to power lends itself more to the view, though it be homogeneous in expression, its transformations are heterogeneous, based on the altering organizations of "quanta of power".


At one time or another, all of us have wondered what we'd do in the face of death. Suddenly confronted with his own mortality after a routine check-up, distinguished psychotherapist Julius Hertzfeld is forced to reexamine his life and work. He feels compelled to contact his patients of long ago. Has he really made an enduring difference in their lives? And what about the patients he failed to help? What has happened to them? Now that he was wiser and riper, can he rescue them yet? Reaching beyond the safety of his thriving San Francisco practice, Julius feels compelled to seek out Philip Slate, whom he treated for sex addiction some 23 years earlier. At that time, Philip's only means of connecting to humans was through brief sexual interludes with countless women, and Julius's therapy did not change that. He meets with Philip who claims to have cured himself -- by reading the pessimistic and misanthropic philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.

Much to Julius's surprise, Philip has become a philosophical counselor and requests that Julius provide him with the supervisory hours he needs to obtain a license to practice. In return, Philip offers to tutor Julius in the work of Schopenhauer. Julius hesitates. How can Philip possibly become a therapist? He is still the same arrogant, uncaring, self-absorbed person he had always been. In fact, in every way he resembles his mentor, Schopenhauer. But eventually they strike a Faustian bargain: Julius agrees to supervise Philip, provided that Philip first join his therapy group. Julius is hoping that 6 months with the group will address Philip's misanthropy and that by being part of a circle of fellow patients he will develop the relationship skills necessary to become a therapist.

(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2235/curecoverlgpbnk0.jpg)

Philip enters the group, but he is more interested in educating the members in Schopenhauer's philosophy -- which he claims is all the therapy anyone should need-than he is in their (or his) individual problems. Soon Julius and Philip, using very different therapy approaches, are competing for the hearts and minds of the group members. Is this going to be Julius's swan song -- a splintered group and years of good work down the drain? Or will all the members, including Philip, find a way to rise to the occasion that brings with it the potential for extraordinary change. This novel knits together fact and fiction and contains an accurate portrayal of group therapy in action as well as a presentation of the life and influence of Arthur Schopenhauer, Philip's personal guru and professional inspiration.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: by extension on November 09, 2007, 12:28:07 PM

If you reading into the OP's post quoting Nietzsche as saying that to adopt the Roman attitude and lifestyle one had to engage in prosecution of Jews as Nazi Germany did, I think you are wrong.

In fact, some people tend to dislike Friedrich Nietzsche on the grounds that his thought is dangerous, that it lends itself to totalitarianism and, more specifically, to fascism. The history of Nietzsche's adoption by the forces of National Socialism in Germany has been well documented. Adolf Hitler personally approved of Nietzsche's writings, and upon coming to power he promoted one of Nietzsche's first Nazi disciples, Alfred Baumler, to professor of philosophy in Berlin. During the Nazi period Nietzsche was both widely read and celebrated in Germany. He was considered to be one of the master-thinkers of the Aryan race. After Germany lost the war, Nietzsche's thought fell into disrepute. Martin Heidegger even blamed his involvement in Nazi politics on the influence of Nietzsche. Since that time, however, Nietzsche's work has enjoyed a modest revival. Nevertheless, Nietzsche is still viewed with suspicion in many circles because of a circumstance of history that was beyond his control. Many critics continue to argue that Nietzsche's thinking is at best dangerous or, at worst, downright evil because it leads directly to fascism.

This argument, though, is simply untenable given a careful reading of Nietzsche's work. From an examination of his texts, skipping the "approved" Nazi interpretations, one can easily argue that Nietzsche would have certainly opposed his appropriation by National Socialism, particularly its hideous manifestation in Nazi Germany.


In 1886 Nietzsche broke with his editor, Ernst Schmeitzner, disgusted over his anti-Semitic opinions. Nietzsche saw his writings as "completely buried and unexhumeable in this anti-Semitic dump" of Schmeitzner — associating the editor with a movement that should be "utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind".

It is his sister Elisabeth, who in 1886, married the anti-Semite Bernhard Förster and traveled to Paraguay to found Nueva Germania, a "Germanic" colony, a plan to which Nietzsche responded with laughter. Elisabeth, for instance, compiled "The Will to Power," from notes he had written, and published it posthumously. The general consensus holds that it does not reflect Nietzsche's intent. Indeed, Mazzino Montinari, the editor of Nietzsche's Nachlass, called it a forgery. Among other forgeries and suppressions of passages, Elisabeth removed aphorism 35 of "The Antichrist," where Nietzsche rewrote a passage of the Bible.

Although Nietzsche had in 1886 announced (at the end of "Beyond Good and Evil") a new work with the title, "The Will to Power: Essay of a Transvaluation of all Values," this project was finally abandoned and its draft materials used to compose "The Twilight of the Idols" and "The Antichrist" (both written in 1888). "The Will to Power," which Elisabeth Förster called Nietzsche's unedited magnum opus (which very concept is alien to Nietzsche's philosophy and style of writing), was in fact abandoned as a book by Nietzsche himself. Förster-Nietzsche cut up, mixed and pasted together fragments, according to her own antisemitic views (which were a bone of contention between her and Nietzsche himself). Nevertheless, the concept remains, and has, since the reading of Karl Löwith, been identified as a key component of Nietzsche's philosophy. So The Will to Power was not written by Nietzsche. But the concept of "will to power" is certainly in itself a major motif of Nietzsche's philosophy, so much so that Heidegger, under Löwith's influence, considered it to form, with the thought of the eternal recurrence, the basis of his thought.


Not to mention that after he stopped teaching at Basel University in 1879, on a visit to Rome in 1882 at 37 met Lou Salomé, a 21-old Russian-Jewish woman who was studying philosophy and theology in Zurich. He soon fell in love with her, and twice proposed to her. Although his both offers were rejected, the relationship was spoilt by Elisabeth who was absolutely anti-Semitic, and hated the Jewish blood in Lou. Thus Nietzsche has lost his love, and remained alone.


Interesting, Santa!
Title: Re: All horses are the same color
Post by: imam on November 09, 2007, 03:34:38 PM

Well, I guess it's fun time, so here's another puzzle for ya!

On an island, there are k people who have blue eyes, and the rest of the people have green eyes. There is at least one blue-eyed person on the island (k equals or is more than 1). If a person ever knows herself to have blue eyes, she must leave the island at dawn the next day. Each person can see every other persons' eye color, there are no mirrors, and there is no discussion of eye color. At some point, an outsider comes to the island and makes the following public announcement, heard and understood by all people there: "At least one of you has blue eyes". What is the eventual outcome?


Indeed a delectable fantasy -- in which the sole disappointment is that it didn't actually occur! :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Hadrian on November 17, 2007, 09:43:44 AM

Don't forget thou that money is speech! :)


??


I guess it refers to a Supreme Court doctrine maintaining that money equals speech.


Which case specifically?


I don't think, c a u s u a l, that that case "equated" money with speech in the sense you'd be interested.
Title: Re: All horses are the same color
Post by: Glee Client on November 20, 2007, 09:45:50 AM

Well, I guess it's fun time, so here's another puzzle for ya!

On an island, there are k people who have blue eyes, and the rest of the people have green eyes. There is at least one blue-eyed person on the island (k equals or is more than 1). If a person ever knows herself to have blue eyes, she must leave the island at dawn the next day. Each person can see every other persons' eye color, there are no mirrors, and there is no discussion of eye color. At some point, an outsider comes to the island and makes the following public announcement, heard and understood by all people there: "At least one of you has blue eyes". What is the eventual outcome?


Indeed a delectable fantasy -- in which the sole disappointment is that it didn't actually occur! :)


You mean that one?! Of course it did!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Mentorama on November 22, 2007, 01:24:55 PM
Awesome thread!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ² on November 24, 2007, 02:51:42 PM

[...] If one travels along the path described by this 7-pointed figure, one goes through a movement similar to the one described by the 6-pointed figure in the Enneagram. The Enneagram could have been drawn in such a way as to avoid using a 6-pointed figure. In other words, it was not because of the absence of adequate seven-pointed figures on which to map the 7-tone scale that Enneagram was chosen, with its 6-pointed figure.


According to Gurdjieff the enneagram figure is a symbol that represents the "law of seven" and the "law of three" (the two fundamental universal laws) and, therefore, the figure can be used to describe any natural whole phenomenon, cosmos, process in life or any other piece of knowledge. The basic use of the enneagram is to explain why nothing in nature and in life constantly occurs in a straight line, that is to say that there are always ups and downs in life which occur lawfully. Easier examples of this can be noticed in athletic performances, where a high ranked athlete always has periodic downfalls, as well as in nearly all graphs that plot topics that occur over time, such as the economic graphs, population graphs, death-rate graphs and so on. All show parabolic periods that keep rising and falling. Gurdjieff claimed that since these periods occur lawfully based on the Enneagram that it is possible to keep a process in a straight line if the necessary shocks were introduced at the right time.

The principal enneagram figure used by the Fourth Way and Gurdjieff is a circle with nine points. Within the circle is a triangle connecting points 9, 3 and 6. The inscribed figure resembling a web connects the other six points in a cyclic figure 1-4-2-8-5-7. This enneagram's construction is based on the laws of octaves. The enneagram's construction is also constructed lawfully on the same laws as the decimal system. If the enneagram is used to represent a whole octave of notes and the number 1, then by dividing 1 into seven different notes...

1/7=.142857...
2/7=.285714...
3/7=.428571...
4/7=.571428...
5/7=.714285...
6/7=.857142...
7/7=.999999...

...it can be noticed that all of these fractions, except in the case of the last one, are made up of the same numbers running in a definite sequence, and by joining those numbers on the figure the given web-like shape is obtained. Also, if the web is used in an explanation, by knowing the initial number of the period it is possible to immediately re-establish the whole period in full.

On the enneagram most processes are represented through octaves where the points serve as the notes; a concept which is derived from Gurdjieff’s idea of the law of seven. In an octave the developing process comes to a critical point (one of the triangle points) at which help from outside is needed for it to rightly continue. This concept is best illustrated on the keys of the piano where every white key would represent an enneagram point. The adjacent white keys which are missing a black key (half note) in between represent the enneagram web points which have a triangle point in between. In order that this point would pass onto the next, an external push is required.

(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2953/enneagramasanoctavepa3.jpg)

Using the enneagram a process is depicted as going right around the circle beginning at point 9 (the ending point of a previous process). The process can continue until it reaches point 3. At this point an external aid is needed in order that the process continues. If it doesn't receive the 'help' the process will stop evolving and will devolve back into the form from which it evolved. The process continues until point 6 and later 9, where a similar "push" is needed. If the process passes point 9 the initial process will end while giving birth to a new one.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: V e r a on December 05, 2007, 12:08:42 PM

At one time or another, all of us have wondered what we'd do in the face of death. Suddenly confronted with his own mortality after a routine check-up, distinguished psychotherapist Julius Hertzfeld is forced to reexamine his life and work. He feels compelled to contact his patients of long ago. Has he really made an enduring difference in their lives? And what about the patients he failed to help? What has happened to them? Now that he was wiser and riper, can he rescue them yet? Reaching beyond the safety of his thriving San Francisco practice, Julius feels compelled to seek out Philip Slate, whom he treated for sex addiction some 23 years earlier. At that time, Philip's only means of connecting to humans was through brief sexual interludes with countless women, and Julius's therapy did not change that. He meets with Philip who claims to have cured himself -- by reading the pessimistic and misanthropic philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.

Much to Julius's surprise, Philip has become a philosophical counselor and requests that Julius provide him with the supervisory hours he needs to obtain a license to practice. In return, Philip offers to tutor Julius in the work of Schopenhauer. Julius hesitates. How can Philip possibly become a therapist? He is still the same arrogant, uncaring, self-absorbed person he had always been. In fact, in every way he resembles his mentor, Schopenhauer. But eventually they strike a Faustian bargain: Julius agrees to supervise Philip, provided that Philip first join his therapy group. Julius is hoping that 6 months with the group will address Philip's misanthropy and that by being part of a circle of fellow patients he will develop the relationship skills necessary to become a therapist.

(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2235/curecoverlgpbnk0.jpg)

Philip enters the group, but he is more interested in educating the members in Schopenhauer's philosophy -- which he claims is all the therapy anyone should need-than he is in their (or his) individual problems. Soon Julius and Philip, using very different therapy approaches, are competing for the hearts and minds of the group members. Is this going to be Julius's swan song -- a splintered group and years of good work down the drain? Or will all the members, including Philip, find a way to rise to the occasion that brings with it the potential for extraordinary change. This novel knits together fact and fiction and contains an accurate portrayal of group therapy in action as well as a presentation of the life and influence of Arthur Schopenhauer, Philip's personal guru and professional inspiration.


Great signature, colombus!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: l n on December 08, 2007, 09:38:20 AM

Quote

Real integrity is doing the right thing, knowing that nobody's going to know whether you did it or not.


Great signature, colombus!
 

Well, Vera, Oprah should know since she appears to have done exactly what others consider the "right" thing. 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ariel on December 19, 2007, 09:39:01 AM

Quote

Real integrity is doing the right thing, knowing that nobody's going to know whether you did it or not.


Great signature, colombus!
 

Well, Vera, Oprah should know since she appears to have done exactly what others consider the "right" thing. 
 

She's just trying to calm herself down -- everyone knows it.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: anon on December 19, 2007, 05:19:45 PM
Awesome thread!
Title: Re: Legal Sophistry
Post by: ruffl on December 24, 2007, 11:34:12 AM

Here are the common logical fallacies that are crucial for a good lawyer to condemn theoretically and apply practically:

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma
 
Definition: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:
Either you're for me or against me.
America: love it or leave it.
Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Slippery Slope

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

Examples:
If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.
You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

Complex Question

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.

Examples:
You should support home education and the God-given right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs.
Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

Have you stopped using illegal sales practises? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal practises, and did you stop?)


Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.

A number of techniques which are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Now, the propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers).

The first three (ownership, funding, and sourcing) are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chomsky stated that the new filter replacing communism would be terrorism and Islam.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Refresh on December 26, 2007, 01:11:19 PM

Indeed, Simpson's acquittal and subsequent stiffing of the victim's families confirmed that the rich, famous and powerful have the deep pockets to hire a "dream team" of lawyers, a small army of high priced, high-profile attorneys, expert witnesses, experts and investigators that routinely mangle the legal system to stall, delay, and drag out their cases and eventually allow their well-heeled clients to weasel out of punishment and payment. Since most Americans can't afford anything resembling the type of legal star treatment Simpson got, it affirmed their belief that justice is for sale and that the rich, famous and powerful will always escape punishment. Even when prosecutors manage to win convictions against celebrities such as Winona Ryder and Martha Stewart, their money, fame, power and legal twisting often guarantee that they will do minimal jail time in a cushy country club prison, or none at all.

If a poll were taken today, a majority of whites would still rage that Simpson is a murderer who skipped away scot-free and scream that the trial and his acquittal were a farce and a blatant travesty of justice. In the same poll, a majority of blacks would rage that Simpson was victimized by a white racist criminal justice system and the verdict was a just one. The periodic news clips of Simpson in the years since the trial have shown a cheerful and relaxed Simpson golfing, vacationing, signing autographs and football collectors cards and taking an ill-fated stab at a reality show. Simpson comes off as a devil-may-care guy that laughs at and thumbs his nose at the public. This hasn't done much to endear him to anyone, let alone make the case go away.

And don't get me started about that @ # ! * i n g piece of *&^% Johnny Cochran who brought racism and prejudice up again and again. The scientific evidence against the n i g g a was overwhelming, yet Cochran successfully used race to give credibility to his defense. While it was undisputable that Simpson was an abusive master of Nicole Simpson, he described Nicole as a "very strong independent woman" and Simpson as a "member of a mutual relationship that was not master/servant in nature." In introducing the American "tradition" of slavery, Cochran insidiously reminded jurors that oppression, in the form of racism and white-on-black crime, still exists today. While Simpson was in effect a jealous chauvinist pig, he said that Simpson never stalked Nicole and even let other friends of hers get married at his house.


The social event which interested me about Simpson trial was not so much the connection between wealth and acquittal. Though it is a disappointment, I was not so suprised about that. The thing which interested me, was how public support for Simpson or for the prosecution followed roughly racial lines.

This suggests to me a variety of associations. One is that many black Americans are for some reason racial thinkers -- the support was almost undeniably black, while the opposition had people of many colors. The reason could be general lack of education, or general cultural separatism (or, among a number of other options, just plain unmotivated math, though that is unlikely). Both are well documented. Folks who ain't too bright think he didn't do it just cuz he's black. What assumption has the author used in the syllogism above?

Another association which I find deplorable is the issue of spousal abuse. The Simpson trial should rightly have been couched as a question of domestic violence and the irresponsibility of male partners in marriages, and sadly the African American community generally is remarkably weak in that regard already. That the members of that community then derailed a discussion which could have been valid and helpful to them -- that of male irresponsibility and violence against spouses -- to retrack it on a line that neither bore much relation to the evidence, nor served their community's best interests because it ignored the real issue ... well, that was a disappointment to me. It was a chance for America's blacks to think clearly, recognize a rot at the core of things, and perhaps address it. They dropped the ball. As one of Nicole Brown Simpson's sisters said at some press conference or other (I paraphrase, "If he says he's going to kill you, he probably is, and you need to seek protection.") The more germane spousal-abuse issue was largely left uninvestigated amid the cries for or against the "race card."

A third association is simply, the one of publicity. I watched the verdict live on TV. How many Americans can say, "I was there" about (for example) Congressional hearings about the deteriorating wetlands in Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Florida? Or Greenspan's last pronouncements about interest rates? We as a society take an interest in that which has a sound byte, a sudden and decisive impact at a moment of decision. We don't like long slow committee processes and an eventually carefully drafted report. Rather, we want drama, a sudden moment of decisive pressure, an all-or-nothing break. Courtrooms are good drama: the choices are near to absolute and the stakes are high. It's probably just human nature, but it's dissappointing that people who probably can't identify the Vice President or the Attorney General (when we HAVE one ...) watched in rapt attention to one defendant's verdict in a jurisdiction thousands of miles away from their own homes.

But I'm generalizing about social groups, here, and about the roles of popular impression and interpretation of the trial thanks to the media. That's not really on topic for this thread. I'm departing from the strictly rational questions of legality. And anyway I'm only a pre-LSAT prepper. I don't belong here at all. :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: 39729 on January 08, 2008, 12:19:31 PM
Holy Mary, Mother of God, what idiotic things you've written for all us to read!
Title: Re: All horses are the same color
Post by: L i n d a on January 18, 2008, 02:05:50 PM
sanctimonious, you're so @ # ! * i n g funny! Here's one for you ;)

(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/792/0999ay0.jpg)


Here it is another one

(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8717/untitleui6.jpg)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: episio on January 31, 2008, 01:35:28 PM
Hahaha! Your so funny Linda! ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: al so on February 05, 2008, 10:24:58 AM

According to Gurdjieff the enneagram figure is a symbol that represents the "law of seven" and the "law of three" (the two fundamental universal laws) and, therefore, the figure can be used to describe any natural whole phenomenon, cosmos, process in life or any other piece of knowledge. The basic use of the enneagram is to explain why nothing in nature and in life constantly occurs in a straight line, that is to say that there are always ups and downs in life which occur lawfully. Easier examples of this can be noticed in athletic performances, where a high ranked athlete always has periodic downfalls, as well as in nearly all graphs that plot topics that occur over time, such as the economic graphs, population graphs, death-rate graphs and so on. All show parabolic periods that keep rising and falling. Gurdjieff claimed that since these periods occur lawfully based on the Enneagram that it is possible to keep a process in a straight line if the necessary shocks were introduced at the right time.

The principal enneagram figure used by the Fourth Way and Gurdjieff is a circle with nine points. Within the circle is a triangle connecting points 9, 3 and 6. The inscribed figure resembling a web connects the other six points in a cyclic figure 1-4-2-8-5-7. This enneagram's construction is based on the laws of octaves. The enneagram's construction is also constructed lawfully on the same laws as the decimal system. If the enneagram is used to represent a whole octave of notes and the number 1, then by dividing 1 into seven different notes...

1/7=.142857...
2/7=.285714...
3/7=.428571...
4/7=.571428...
5/7=.714285...
6/7=.857142...
7/7=.999999...

...it can be noticed that all of these fractions, except in the case of the last one, are made up of the same numbers running in a definite sequence, and by joining those numbers on the figure the given web-like shape is obtained. Also, if the web is used in an explanation, by knowing the initial number of the period it is possible to immediately re-establish the whole period in full.

On the enneagram most processes are represented through octaves where the points serve as the notes; a concept which is derived from Gurdjieff’s idea of the law of seven. In an octave the developing process comes to a critical point (one of the triangle points) at which help from outside is needed for it to rightly continue. This concept is best illustrated on the keys of the piano where every white key would represent an enneagram point. The adjacent white keys which are missing a black key (half note) in between represent the enneagram web points which have a triangle point in between. In order that this point would pass onto the next, an external push is required.

(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2953/enneagramasanoctavepa3.jpg)

Using the enneagram a process is depicted as going right around the circle beginning at point 9 (the ending point of a previous process). The process can continue until it reaches point 3. At this point an external aid is needed in order that the process continues. If it doesn't receive the 'help' the process will stop evolving and will devolve back into the form from which it evolved. The process continues until point 6 and later 9, where a similar "push" is needed. If the process passes point 9 the initial process will end while giving birth to a new one.


This external "push" thing appears to be very interesting..
Title: Re: All horses are the same color
Post by: panknow on February 07, 2008, 10:01:53 AM

Here it is another one

(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8717/untitleui6.jpg)


So where's the flaw in reasoning?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gsh on February 09, 2008, 11:33:32 AM
Should there necessarily be one, pan? :)
Title: Re: Legal Sophistry
Post by: phoenix on February 10, 2008, 09:10:07 AM


Now, the propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers).


Could you expand a bit?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: sohn on February 12, 2008, 08:39:13 AM


Now, the propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers).


Could you expand a bit?


In a totalitarian state, it doesn't matter what people think, since the government can control people by force using a bludgeon. But when you can't control people by force, you have to control what people think, and the standard way to do this is via propaganda (manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusions), marginalizing the general public or reducing them to apathy of some fashion. It's the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector. In the U.S., the major decisions over what happens in a society (investment, production, distribution, etc.) are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations, conglomerates, and investment firms. They're also the ones who staff the major executive positions in the government, and they're the ones who own the media, and are the ones who are in the position to make decisions. They have an overwhelmingly dominant role in the way life happens, what's done in this society.

Chomsky's work is not directed to intellectuals, but to what are called 'ordinary people.' And in fact what he expects from them is exactly what they are, that they should understand the world and act according to their decent impulses. And that they should try to improve the world. He helps people develop intellectual self-defense... He doesn't mean go to school, because people are not going to get it there... It means that they have to develop an independent mind, and work on it. That's extremely hard to do alone... The "beauty" of the system is that it isolates everybody. Each person is sitting alone in front of the tube. It's very hard to have ideas or thoughts under those circumstances. You can't fight the world alone. Some people can, but it's pretty rare. The way to do it is through organization.

The point is that people have to work. And that's why the propaganda system is so successful. Very few people are going to have the time or the energy or the commitment to carry out the constant battle that's required to get outside of Lehrer, or Dan Rather, or somebody like that. The easy thing to do, you know, you come home from work, you're tired, you had a busy day, you're not going to spend the evening carrying out a research project. So you turn on the tube, you say it's probably right, or you look at the headlines in the paper, and then you're watching sports or something. That's basically the way the system of indoctrination works. Sure the other stuff is there, but you've to work to find it.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: viva on February 14, 2008, 07:14:29 AM

Here are some of the signs:

1. People who avoid answering the issues you raise with them;
2. A group that uses psychologically coercive techniques to recruit and indoctrinate members;
3. An organization that uses falsehood in their indoctrination and recruiting methods;
4. A group that maintains that "the end justifies the means";
5. An organization that forms a totalitarian society;
6. A group that has a charismatic, dogmatic leader who plays "Messiah" and demands total devotion: he or she can seem like the most wonderful person you have ever heard of;
7. A group that obtains funds through deception for the personal gain and/or power of the leader;
8. A group that performs no real service to society, although they claim to do so (remember, deceit is one of their tickets);
9. A group that destroys existing relationships with family and friends -- if your family is aware that something is happening to you, the group tells you that your family is evil, or doesn't want you to progress, or that your family is the only reason you have ever been sick or unhappy in your life. (This is another major tool destructive cults use: they tell you your family members or close friends, if they are critical of the organization, are "negative" or "suppressive", or whatever buzzword the group uses for its enemies, and that your family and friends are actually making you sick, and trying to hold you back);
10. An organization that teaches fear, hatred, and rejection of society, while claiming to promote the cause of world peace and universal love. (A good example of a group that teaches hate, fear and rejection is the Ku Klux Klan -- under the definition of most religions, political parties, the Mafia, any terrorist group, the KKK -- all of these could claim they are a religion, since they follow the same definition used by most of the pseudo-religious cults and mind control groups);
11. A group that practices intimidation of critics by threats (which they sometimes carry out) or lawsuits, allow no development of the individual. (If a person in the group questions or wants to be an individual, he or she is told that the way to be an individual is to become more and more involved with the organization);
12. An organization that isolates their members, either mentally or physically, polarizing the group and society into opposing camps, creating an "us/them" mentality, making the members identify exclusively with the group;
13. A group that demands full-time or lifetime commitment: if you are allowed to work in the outside world, it is to get money for the cult, or for further programming or training within the cult for yourself;
14. An organization that has secret practices and docrines and/or objectives that the average new recruit has absolutely no idea about;
15. A group that has simple black-and-white solutions for the world's problems: if everyone becomes a member of this particular cult, then there won't be any war, hunger, or oppression;
16. An organization that makes its members afraid to dare to speak up, even afraid to think about how the cult is oppressing them;
17. A group that suppresses critical thought, blocking out questions and doubts by various methods, such as: chanting; rules of silence; long hours of meditation, study, processing, or counselling; speaking in tongues; various forms of repetitive action; inadequate diet or sleep;
18. An organization whose methods rob their members of free will, destroying family relationships;
19. A group that creates an attitude of willing slavery in its members: people in the group become willing to work long, long hours for the benefit of the organization -- not for their own individual benefit;
20. An organization that creates neuroses and psychoses in its members, so that some members become very angry if anyone points out that their organization may not be what it says, and may even be a destructive cult, and other members can even become violent towards anyone who disagrees with them;
21. A group that creates physical deterioration in its members, often caused by malnutrition, sleep deprivation, overwork, or emotional stress;
22. An organization that destroys its members' judgment, reducing their ability to evaluate for themselves what is most important to them individually, so each member thinks only of the group, losing sight of his or her own self.


The FBI has always recognized the value of consulting with behavioral experts in crisis situations. The FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, maintains a Behavioral Sciences Unit and the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, both staffed with experienced forensic psychologists. The Behavioral Sciences Unit's work in profiling serial murderers has earned it a worldwide reputation. During the Waco standoff the FBI utilized the Behavioral Sciences Unit for advice in dealing with Koresh and his followers. In addition to utilizing its in-house resources, the FBI also solicited and received input from various outside experts in many fields, including:



The FBI received this input both orally and in writing, and in each case ensured that the appropriate officials at FBI headquarters and on scene at Waco were made aware of the input. The FBI and the Attorney General also received input from various military and medical experts in connection with the planning for the April 19 tear gas plan. The FBI also received unsolicited advice and offers of assistance from many individuals; not surprisingly, this input was rarely useful. For example, on March 16, 1993 a well-known rock band contacted the FBI and offered to perform outside the Mt. Carmel Compound, and to play a song that U.S. helicopters broadcast at enemy troops to demoralize them during the Vietnam War. On the other hand, the FBI received an unsolicited letter from the Harvard Negotiation Project containing thoughtful and specific suggestions to assist the negotiators in formulating a framework for further negotiations with Koresh. A smaller number of offers came from individuals lacking a firm grip on reality, such as people claiming to be God or Jesus offering to "order" Koresh to leave the compound. One person was arrested on his way to the compound brandishing a samurai sword, which he said God had told him to deliver to Koresh.

Throughout the Waco standoff, the FBI meticulously kept track of all unsolicited offers of assistance, and followed up on those that seemed to promise any reasonable chance of producing helpful information. There were certain areas of activity in which the FBI did not seek outside help. For example, the FBI did not request assistance from any outside law enforcement agencies in performing any of its tactical operations; it did not request assistance with negotiations, since the FBI's best negotiators were assigned to Waco throughout the 51-day standoff; and it did not consult with outside experts regarding the decision to play loud music and Tibetan Monk chants over the loudspeakers to irritate those inside the compound. Ultimately, the most useful information came from those experts (both inside and outside the FBI) from whom the FBI solicited information. These experts supplied a wide range of information about Koresh's state of mind and behavior, and provided input on some of the most important issues the FBI faced. For example, many of the experts agreed that the possibility of mass suicide existed, but no consensus emerged about the likelihood of suicide. Significantly, all the experts agreed that Koresh would not leave the compound voluntarily. on other issues, however, the expert opinions were not consistent. For example, some of the experts believed that Koresh was psychotic, while others believed he was not. The FBI considered all the information it received and made the best judgment it could considering how such information could best be used to further the FBI's goals of achieving a peaceful end to the standoff with no loss of life.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: M L E on February 14, 2008, 11:51:46 AM

The FBI has always recognized the value of consulting with behavioral experts in crisis situations. The FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, maintains a Behavioral Sciences Unit and the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, both staffed with experienced forensic psychologists. The Behavioral Sciences Unit's work in profiling serial murderers has earned it a worldwide reputation. During the Waco standoff the FBI utilized the Behavioral Sciences Unit for advice in dealing with Koresh and his followers. In addition to utilizing its in-house resources, the FBI also solicited and received input from various outside experts in many fields, including:

  • Psychology
  • Psychiatry
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Religion/Theology
  • Cults
  • Threat Assessment
  • Negotiation Techniques
  • Medicine


The FBI received this input both orally and in writing, and in each case ensured that the appropriate officials at FBI headquarters and on scene at Waco were made aware of the input. The FBI and the Attorney General also received input from various military and medical experts in connection with the planning for the April 19 tear gas plan. The FBI also received unsolicited advice and offers of assistance from many individuals; not surprisingly, this input was rarely useful. For example, on March 16, 1993 a well-known rock band contacted the FBI and offered to perform outside the Mt. Carmel Compound, and to play a song that U.S. helicopters broadcast at enemy troops to demoralize them during the Vietnam War. On the other hand, the FBI received an unsolicited letter from the Harvard Negotiation Project containing thoughtful and specific suggestions to assist the negotiators in formulating a framework for further negotiations with Koresh. A smaller number of offers came from individuals lacking a firm grip on reality, such as people claiming to be God or Jesus offering to "order" Koresh to leave the compound. One person was arrested on his way to the compound brandishing a samurai sword, which he said God had told him to deliver to Koresh.

Throughout the Waco standoff, the FBI meticulously kept track of all unsolicited offers of assistance, and followed up on those that seemed to promise any reasonable chance of producing helpful information. There were certain areas of activity in which the FBI did not seek outside help. For example, the FBI did not request assistance from any outside law enforcement agencies in performing any of its tactical operations; it did not request assistance with negotiations, since the FBI's best negotiators were assigned to Waco throughout the 51-day standoff; and it did not consult with outside experts regarding the decision to play loud music and Tibetan Monk chants over the loudspeakers to irritate those inside the compound. Ultimately, the most useful information came from those experts (both inside and outside the FBI) from whom the FBI solicited information. These experts supplied a wide range of information about Koresh's state of mind and behavior, and provided input on some of the most important issues the FBI faced. For example, many of the experts agreed that the possibility of mass suicide existed, but no consensus emerged about the likelihood of suicide. Significantly, all the experts agreed that Koresh would not leave the compound voluntarily. on other issues, however, the expert opinions were not consistent. For example, some of the experts believed that Koresh was psychotic, while others believed he was not. The FBI considered all the information it received and made the best judgment it could considering how such information could best be used to further the FBI's goals of achieving a peaceful end to the standoff with no loss of life.


No doubt about it -- FBI has some excellent profilers that it has used in cases like Waco; e.g., Clint van Zandt (although he was sent to the scene reluctantly -- someone had decided that Van Zandt's Christian faith might leave him susceptible to Koresh's evangelical teachings.) Van Zandt spent hours with Koresh, working diligently to pierce his veil of spirituality, trying to make sense of his wild ramblings while at the same time trying to talk some sense into him. Koresh addressed Van Zandt as "Brother Clint" because he knew Clint was a practicing Christian. Van Zandt says this drawn out ordeal took an emotional toll on him at a time in his career when he was "one fuse short of burning out."

http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/ClintvanZandt110206.aspx

Clint says he was born to be an FBI agent. In fact, throughout his growing up, Clint says, "an FBI agent was all I ever wanted to be. I wanted to chase the bad guys, preserve order, and protect my fellow man." After high school, Clint attended Eastern Illinois University but dropped out due to lousy grades and a tuition bill he couldn't afford. A short time later, Clint tried attending Southern Illinois University again, but this attempt was another bust. So, Clint applied with the FBI. He received a letter that J. Edgar Hoover sent him offering him a job as a GS-2 file clerk in the St. Louis Field Office. He stayed for about a year and then made the decision to once again go to college. He enrolled again at Southern Illinois University in late 1965. This time he was committed to his academic goals and completed his undergraduate degree a few years later. Meanwhile with the draft hanging over his head, his FBI agent friends advised him to enlist and do a stint for military intelligence.

Clint became a special agent with the U.S. Army Intelligence and served during the Vietnam War. With three years of military experience behind him as a special agent, one year as an FBI file clerk and one semester away from his undergraduate degree, Clint reapplied to the FBI in December 1970. He joined the Bureau in July 1971, a couple of weeks after graduation. His first assignment was to a small resident agency in Rome, Georgia. He made 100 arrests his first full year. From Rome it was on to upstate New York for the first significant, open-ended stop of his FBI career, which took Clint headfirst into a frontline hostage barricade assignment. It was there that Clint learned negotiating strategies and tactics. After a short stint to Philadelphia, Clint and his family moved to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he took a job at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. He served eight years in the Special Operation and Research Unit (SOARU) as Chief Hostage Negotiator and overall Program Manager for Hostage Negotiations. Clint retired from the FBI in 1995 after 25 years of service, ending his career as the FBI's Chief Hostage Negotiator and a Supervisor in the Bureau's Behavioral Science. After retiring from the Bureau in 1995, he started his own company, Van Zandt Associates, Inc., which provides behaviorally oriented crisis management, threat assessment and forensic consulting services to the corporate security world.
Title: "The Future of an Illusion"
Post by: Adel on February 15, 2008, 10:32:38 AM

I don't know where you're getting this from ... Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives -- "to catch fish" as one New Englander put it -- but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "inforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations.

Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it, the need for uniformity of religion in the state. Once in control in New England, they sought to break "the very neck of Schism and vile opinions." The "business" of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, "was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it." Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America's first major female religious leader. Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659 Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."


An important form of helplessness against which religion acts is our helplessness before our own internal and uncontrollable desires. Freud made much of the similarities between religious rituals and obsessional rituals (for example, the compulsive need to wash your hands in a specific pattern every time), the latter of which functioned to protect the ego from the emergence of fantasies, desires, and especially sexual impulses which were normally repressed. In the ritual, however, they gain some partial expression and release. Freud saw neurosis as an individual religion, religion as a universal obsessional neurosis. Drawing this parallel between the two, Freud called religion:

Quote
...the suppression, the renunciation, of certain instinctual impulses. These impulses, however, are not, as in the neuroses, exclusively components of the sexual instinct; they are self-seeking, socially harmful instincts, though, even so, they are usually not without a sexual component.


Anyone who has noticed the Christian obsession with all matters sexual, and particularly with the constant efforts to repress and deny most forms of sexual expression, will find that even if Freud is not entirely correct, he has certainly hit upon something important.

The issue of "illusion" is another very important part of Freud's critique of religion. At all times we must keep in mind that he drew a sharp distinction between "illusion" and "delusion," using only the former to describe religious beliefs. Illusions, including those of religion, are such not because of their content but by their sources. Calling religious beliefs illusions does not automatically deny them any sort of validity -- they may, after all, even come true. Their problem lies in their source: undisciplined and uncritical human wishes. It should be pointed out of course, that in Freud's theories just about all thinking, including scientific thinking, can have nonrational sources and be indicative of wishful thinking. With both religion and science, it is not that the source determines the value of an idea -- a great idea can have a nonrational source, and a poor idea can have a rational source. What is key is just how much influence that source continues to hold over the idea in question. Scientists can and do come across revolutionary ideas intuitively, but their intuition and wishful thinking are supposed to remain disciplined. Ideas are supposed to be open to rational critique, demonstration and verification. Convictions, no matter how strong, must be capable of being refined, modified and even abandoned if necessary. Scientific thinking can thus be differentiated from religious thinking, since religion rarely if ever allows for such an atmosphere to hold sway.
Title: Religion Offers The Model For Delusion
Post by: Adel on February 15, 2008, 11:14:26 AM
Studying the mechanisms of religious belief could lead to a better understanding of what goes on in the minds of people with psychiatric delusions. Some religious beliefs -- including that a virgin gave birth to the son of God -- qualify as delusions. The idea that religion was a delusion dated back to Sigmund Freud about 100 years ago.

Holy Books vs. Evidence

Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what a scientist believes (for example, evolution) he believes not because of reading a holy book but because he has studied the evidence. It really is a very different matter. Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In principle, any reader can go and check that evidence. When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn't happen with holy books.

Religion as a mass delusion

Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures. There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensitive to it. Something of the kind is indispensable. Voltaire has deflections in mind when he ends Candide with the advice to cultivate oneís garden; and scientific activity is a deflection of this kind, too. The substitutive satisfactions, as offered by art, are illusions in contrast to reality, but they are none the less psychically effective, thanks to the role which phantasy has assumed in mental life. The intoxicating substances influence our body and alter its chemistry. It is no simple matter to see where religion has its place in this series. We must look further afield...

People who are receptive to the influence of art cannot set too high a value on it as a source of pleasure and consolation in life. Nevertheless the mild narcosis induced in us by art can do no more than bring about a transient withdrawal from the pressure of vital needs, and it is not strong enough to make us forget real misery. Another procedure operates more energetically and more thoroughly. It regards reality as the sole enemy and as the source of all suffering, with which it is impossible to live, so that one must break off all relations with it if one is to be in any way happy. The hermit turns his back on the world and will have no truck with it. But one can do more than that; one can try to re-create the world, to build up in its stead another world in which its most unbearable features are eliminated and replaced by others that are in conformity with oneís own wishes. But whoever, in desperate defiance, sets out upon this path to happiness will as a rule attain nothing. Reality is too strong for him. He becomes a madman, who for the most part finds no one to help in carrying through his delusion. It is asserted, however, that each one of us behaves in some one respect like a paranoic, corrects some aspect of the world which is unbearable to him by the construction of a wish and introduces this delusion into reality. A special importance attaches to the case in which this attempt to procure a certainty of happiness and a protection against suffering through a delusional remoulding of reality is made by a considerable number of people in common. The religions of mankind must be classed among the mass-delusions of this kind. No one, needless to say, who shares a delusion ever recognizes it as such...

The collective irrational belief is not only wrong, an intellectual high treason, but pernicious in its resulting intolerance, oppression, bigotry, arrogance, child abuse, homophobia, abortion-clinic bombings, cruelties to women, war, suicide bombers, and educational systems that teach ignorance when it comes to math and science. This psychotic God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Thomas Jefferson claimed that Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. A 1796 treaty signed by John Adams declared that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Adams also said, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." Even conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, threatened to fight fundamentalists every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: schrelly on February 15, 2008, 01:42:25 PM

Legal Reasoning :: Obsessional Neurosis and Delusional Traits


DSM-IV defines delusion as,

Quote
A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith).



Yet, although delusions may be held tenaciously, their imperviousness to challenge by argument or evidence varies. For example, the submissive partner in a folie a deux may quickly lose their delusional beliefs when separated from the dominant partner. Some other deluded patients may waver in their beliefs when confronted by evidence.


Delusions are not necessarily false. The usual evidence given for this claim is the Othello delusion or delusional jealousy. This delusion often arises in a context of alcohol abuse and sexual dysfunction on the part of the deluded person, who believes that their partner is unfaithful. The partner may be unfaithful and yet the afflicted person is said to be deluded. Why? Because of the inadequate evidence cited as proof of the claim. For example, "She left her glasses at her sister's house, therefore she is having an affair."


Even the arguably self-evident characteristic that delusions are beliefs has been challenged. British psychiatrist German Berrios has proposed that delusions are "empty speech acts" on the grounds that delusions do not influence behaviour in the way beliefs do. For example, a patient may claim to be a multi-millionaire member of the royal family who is 300 years old, but live as a voluntary patient in a long-stay psychiatric ward. If he really believed what he claimed about himself, surely he would not calmly accept the role of a hospital patient.


This theory that delusions originate on a background of perceptual anomaly has been, and remains, influential. The Capgras delusion (that a familiar person has been replaced by an imposter) is another example. Experimental evidence suggests that this delusion arises from faulty face-recognition. The underlying defect is thought to be an uncoupling of affective and cognitive neural pathways, so that recognition of a person occurs without the feeling of familiarity. This gives rise to the rationalisation that an imposter has taken a loved-one's place. The delusion is therefore conceptualised as a kind of mirror image to prosopagnosia, in which the feeling of familiarity is retained but the person cannot be recognised. While the perceptual thesis seems to have much to recommend it, it still seems to leave an explanatory gap. The jump from "doesn't feel familiar" to "is an imposter," is quite a big one. This is even more noticeable when the rationalising claim is "my mother has been replaced by a spy/robot/alien." Some kind of commonsense seems to have been lost. Such delusional claims surely suggest some defect in reasoning or judgment in addition to any perceptual deficit.

Some delusions may arise as responses to unusual experiences. The implication is that delusion formation in some cases involves some kind of bottom-up mechanism -- roughly, from perception to belief. Delusion formation may also involve some kind of top-down mechanism. This could be in the shape of a patient's flawed background beliefs, or biases, which somehow modulate perception or ensure delusional interpretations of experience. There is little agreement about what kind of mechanism is primary in delusion formation, or, indeed, what the particular mechanisms and their neural substrates might be. In the evaluation of top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in delusion formation, a number of conceptual questions should be addressed. For example, if there is an experiential component, why is a hypothesis with a delusional explanation of the unusual experience seen as relevant? Why do the subjects come to believe it tenaciously? How come some unusual experiences do not develop into delusions? A number of empirical findings also need to be taken into account: for example, the damage to the autonomic system in Capgras delusion...
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: A. Joel on February 16, 2008, 01:05:03 PM
Wow, Schcrelly, awesome post!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: To Those Who Think on February 16, 2008, 02:39:24 PM

According to Gurdjieff the enneagram figure is a symbol that represents the "law of seven" and the "law of three" (the two fundamental universal laws) and, therefore, the figure can be used to describe any natural whole phenomenon, cosmos, process in life or any other piece of knowledge. The basic use of the enneagram is to explain why nothing in nature and in life constantly occurs in a straight line, that is to say that there are always ups and downs in life which occur lawfully. Easier examples of this can be noticed in athletic performances, where a high ranked athlete always has periodic downfalls, as well as in nearly all graphs that plot topics that occur over time, such as the economic graphs, population graphs, death-rate graphs and so on. All show parabolic periods that keep rising and falling. Gurdjieff claimed that since these periods occur lawfully based on the Enneagram that it is possible to keep a process in a straight line if the necessary shocks were introduced at the right time.

The principal enneagram figure used by the Fourth Way and Gurdjieff is a circle with nine points. Within the circle is a triangle connecting points 9, 3 and 6. The inscribed figure resembling a web connects the other six points in a cyclic figure 1-4-2-8-5-7. This enneagram's construction is based on the laws of octaves. The enneagram's construction is also constructed lawfully on the same laws as the decimal system. If the enneagram is used to represent a whole octave of notes and the number 1, then by dividing 1 into seven different notes...

1/7=.142857...
2/7=.285714...
3/7=.428571...
4/7=.571428...
5/7=.714285...
6/7=.857142...
7/7=.999999...

...it can be noticed that all of these fractions, except in the case of the last one, are made up of the same numbers running in a definite sequence, and by joining those numbers on the figure the given web-like shape is obtained. Also, if the web is used in an explanation, by knowing the initial number of the period it is possible to immediately re-establish the whole period in full.

On the enneagram most processes are represented through octaves where the points serve as the notes; a concept which is derived from Gurdjieff’s idea of the law of seven. In an octave the developing process comes to a critical point (one of the triangle points) at which help from outside is needed for it to rightly continue. This concept is best illustrated on the keys of the piano where every white key would represent an enneagram point. The adjacent white keys which are missing a black key (half note) in between represent the enneagram web points which have a triangle point in between. In order that this point would pass onto the next, an external push is required.

(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2953/enneagramasanoctavepa3.jpg)

Using the enneagram a process is depicted as going right around the circle beginning at point 9 (the ending point of a previous process). The process can continue until it reaches point 3. At this point an external aid is needed in order that the process continues. If it doesn't receive the 'help' the process will stop evolving and will devolve back into the form from which it evolved. The process continues until point 6 and later 9, where a similar "push" is needed. If the process passes point 9 the initial process will end while giving birth to a new one.


This external "push" thing appears to be very interesting..


Yeah, but I don't quite understand it.. any clarification would be appreciated
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: heinz on February 16, 2008, 04:03:22 PM
Hahaha...you guys are so funny
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: To Those Who Do on February 17, 2008, 05:18:51 AM
A very good thread, indeed. I'm going to refill my ink cartridges today to print it out
Title: The "As If" Philosophy
Post by: lollipop on February 20, 2008, 11:11:29 AM

The issue of "illusion" is another very important part of Freud's critique of religion. At all times we must keep in mind that he drew a sharp distinction between "illusion" and "delusion," using only the former to describe religious beliefs. Illusions, including those of religion, are such not because of their content but by their sources. Calling religious beliefs illusions does not automatically deny them any sort of validity -- they may, after all, even come true. Their problem lies in their source: undisciplined and uncritical human wishes. It should be pointed out of course, that in Freud's theories just about all thinking, including scientific thinking, can have nonrational sources and be indicative of wishful thinking. With both religion and science, it is not that the source determines the value of an idea -- a great idea can have a nonrational source, and a poor idea can have a rational source. What is key is just how much influence that source continues to hold over the idea in question. Scientists can and do come across revolutionary ideas intuitively, but their intuition and wishful thinking are supposed to remain disciplined. Ideas are supposed to be open to rational critique, demonstration and verification. Convictions, no matter how strong, must be capable of being refined, modified and even abandoned if necessary. Scientific thinking can thus be differentiated from religious thinking, since religion rarely if ever allows for such an atmosphere to hold sway.


Can't you put it more clearly in words? Our thought activity includes a great number of hypotheses whose groundlessness and even absurdity we recognize, but for a number of reasons we behave 'as if' we believed in these fictions. This is the case with religious doctrines, says Freud, because of their incomparable importance for the maintenance of human society. Freud asks the questions "In what does the force of such doctrines lay?" and "To what is it that the owe their efficacy, independent of recognition by reason?"

To Freud the psychical origin of religious ideas is that they are the fulfillments of the oldest and strongest wishes of humankind. As wishes, Freud notes, they are thus illusions. That is, they are illusions or wishes for the protection of humanity against the forces of nature. They are the moral justification and prolongation of earthly existence. As such wishes Freud claims that they issue from the infant's conflicts of the early father-complex. That is, religion is the phylogenic equivalent to the ontogenic conflicts with one's father during the Oedipus drama. To Freud an illusion is an error in terms of wish fulfillments. That is, illusions are derived from human wishes and therefore approach psychotic delusions. The difference between psychotic delusions and religious illusions is found in their relation to reality and falsity. A delusion is said to contradict reality utterly. Illusions, Freud points out, need not necessarily be false in relations to reality. That is, they could be either un-realizable or contradictory to reality. Freud writes:

Quote
We call a belief an illusion when a wish fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality...

Therefore, Freud concludes that religious doctrines are illusions. That is, on the one hand, no one can be compelled to believe in them and that they cannot be proved or refuted. On the other hand, no one can be forced to disbelieve religious doctrines. Freud then notes an interesting thing. He suggests that it is only the highest and most sacred things of a civilization that humanity allows itself the irrationality of belief. Thus it is something that is religious or approaching religious dimensions that we suspend disbelief and become, as Freud would put it, irrational. An example of this activity is belief in religion as Freud sees it. Freud next questions "What other illusions could there be in civilization?" Pointing out the illusions of sexuality, politics and so on, he quickly backs out of such an investigation, wisely noting that it is much too large a topic. What does this suggest? To me it suggests that Freud thinks that there is a lot in civilization which is illusory in nature. We just do not recognize it as such, and in fact are forbidden by unwritten social reuses to even talk about the fact that we do not recognize it.

A critic turns the tables accusing Freud as adhering to illusions and standing for reason and skepticism. It is an illusion, the critic claims, to believe in the primacy of the intellect over the life of the instincts, and in fact, he follows, those that have been brought up outside of religious systems approach this ideal no more that those from the religious background. The result being, if one wants to expel religious doctrines from European civilization, it must be replaced by another system of doctrines, and that such a system would, from the outset, take on the characteristics of religion -- rigidity, intolerance, prohibitions of thought -- for its own defense. The critic also notes that it is an ineradicable and innate defect of our and every civilization, that it imposes on our children, who are driven by instinct and are weak in intelligence, the making of decisions which only mature individuals can vindicate. The critic points out another advantage of religion. That is, it allows for a refinement and sublimation of ideas, which make it possible for it to be divested of most of the traces which it bears of primitive and infantile thinking. Something which science, the critic maintains, is incapable of doing. Thus the critic concludes that he has shown that Freud's "'endeavors come down to an attempt to replace a proved and emotionally valuable illusion by another one, which is unproved and without emotional appeal'."

Freud responds admitting that he is not inaccessible to such criticisms. He admits that perhaps his point of view is also illusory, but he notes one distinction that separates his thoughts from religious ones. It is this: "My illusions are not," he writes, " like religious ones, incapable of correction. They have not the character of delusion." Freud follows by noting that if experience should show that he is incorrect or mistaken, he will give up his expectations -- i.e, that religion is a neurosis and the hope that humanity will overcome it. Freud brings up two other points for discussion. First, the weakness of his position does not imply any strengthening of the religious one. He admits that the primacy of the intellect is off in the far-flung future but it is not in an infinitely distant one. He expect that it will set the same aims as have religions -- i.e., the love of humanity and the decrease of suffering. If this is so, then the antagonism of the religious and Freud's points of view is only temporary and they are not irreconcilable -- after-all they desire the same things. Still, Freud notes, on the way to this distant goal religious doctrines will have to be discarded, no matter whether the first attempts fail or if the substitutes prove to be untenable. The reason being: "in the long run nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction which religion offers to both is all to palpable."

The second point is as follows: there is a difference between the illusion from religion and Freud's illusion. The critic, Freud maintains, has defended his illusion with all his might. "If it becomes discredited -- and indeed the threat is great enough -- then your world would collapse." Freud notes that he is free of such bondage as he is prepared to renounce a great deal of infantile wishes and thus he can bear it if a few of his illusions are shattered. Freud then confronts the notion that education freed from the burden of religious doctrines may not effect humanity's psychological nature. He notes that there has been some value in the belief in god, but he does not think that this is reason enough to lose interest in the world and life, as he has one support that the religious person does not. That is, Freud believes that it is possible for scientific work to gain some knowledge about the reality of the world, and thus increase our power. "If this belief is an illusion," he writes, "then we are in the same position as you. But science has given us evidence by its numerous important successes that it is no illusion." In science's relatively short life span, Freud continues, it has clarified much that had been hidden. It is a system that is based upon laws and proofs which are said to be testable. It is a system that is said to develop hypotheses which are pout forward for criticism and which evolve as they are proven false. He argues the case for science.
Title: Re: Religion Offers The Model For Delusion
Post by: To Those Who Succeed on February 20, 2008, 12:22:20 PM

Religion as a mass delusion

Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures. There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances, which make us insensitive to it. Something of the kind is indispensable. Voltaire has deflections in mind when he ends Candide with the advice to cultivate oneís garden; and scientific activity is a deflection of this kind, too. The substitutive satisfactions, as offered by art, are illusions in contrast to reality, but they are none the less psychically effective, thanks to the role which phantasy has assumed in mental life. The intoxicating substances influence our body and alter its chemistry. It is no simple matter to see where religion has its place in this series. We must look further afield...

People who are receptive to the influence of art cannot set too high a value on it as a source of pleasure and consolation in life. Nevertheless the mild narcosis induced in us by art can do no more than bring about a transient withdrawal from the pressure of vital needs, and it is not strong enough to make us forget real misery. Another procedure operates more energetically and more thoroughly. It regards reality as the sole enemy and as the source of all suffering, with which it is impossible to live, so that one must break off all relations with it if one is to be in any way happy. The hermit turns his back on the world and will have no truck with it. But one can do more than that; one can try to re-create the world, to build up in its stead another world in which its most unbearable features are eliminated and replaced by others that are in conformity with oneís own wishes. But whoever, in desperate defiance, sets out upon this path to happiness will as a rule attain nothing. Reality is too strong for him. He becomes a madman, who for the most part finds no one to help in carrying through his delusion. It is asserted, however, that each one of us behaves in some one respect like a paranoic, corrects some aspect of the world which is unbearable to him by the construction of a wish and introduces this delusion into reality. A special importance attaches to the case in which this attempt to procure a certainty of happiness and a protection against suffering through a delusional remoulding of reality is made by a considerable number of people in common. The religions of mankind must be classed among the mass-delusions of this kind. No one, needless to say, who shares a delusion ever recognizes it as such...

The collective irrational belief is not only wrong, an intellectual high treason, but pernicious in its resulting intolerance, oppression, bigotry, arrogance, child abuse, homophobia, abortion-clinic bombings, cruelties to women, war, suicide bombers, and educational systems that teach ignorance when it comes to math and science. This psychotic God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Thomas Jefferson claimed that Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. A 1796 treaty signed by John Adams declared that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Adams also said, "this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." Even conservative icon, Barry Goldwater, threatened to fight fundamentalists every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans.


But of course! A resurgent Islam, for instance, is on a campaign of conquest throughout the world. Hordes of life-in-hand foot-solider fanatical Muslims are striving to kill and get killed. All they want is the opportunity to discharge their homicidal-suicidal impulse, on their way to Allah's promised glorious paradise. And in the background granting the foot-soldiers' wishes are their handlers, the puppeteers, who pull the strings and detonate these human bombs. The campaign of death waged by the Islamist-jihadist, be he a puppet or a puppeteer, is energized by the belief of delectable rewards that await the faithful implementer of Allah's dictates. Through a highly effective indoctrination, the jihadist has come to believe firmly in Islam's grand delusion. He believes that Allah is the one and only supreme creator of earth and heavens; that it is his duty and privilege to abide by Allah's will and carry out his plans at all costs; he believes firmly in a gloriously wonderful immortal afterlife in paradise, for which a martyr's death is the surest quickest admission. Although the dominating theme of the delusion is quasi spiritual, the promised rewards of the afterlife awaiting the martyr are sensual and material. All the things and activities that the jihadist desires and cannot attain or practice, and rejects in his earthly life will be purified and proffered to him in the paradise of the next life. Thus goes the delusion.

It is important to understand that the human mind is not a perfect discerner of the objective reality. In actuality, reality is in the mind of the beholder. The outside world only supplies bits and pieces of raw material that the mind puts together to form its reality. Depending on the type and amount of bits and pieces that a given mind receives, its reality can be very different from that of another mind. The more prescribed and homogeneous a group, the greater is the group's consensual reality, since the members share much in common experiential input and reinforce each others' mindset. Thus, members of a given religious order, for instance, tend to think much more similarly to one another than to members of other groups with different experiential histories. Various approximations of the objective reality, therefore, rule the mind. The degree to which these approximations deviate from the larger group's consensual reality determines its delusional extent and severity.

A cocaine mainliner, for instance, under the influence of the drug, may become convinced that a bug is burrowing under his skin. In his absolute, although clearly false, certitude of the reality of his perception, cocaine users are known to take a knife to their own body to dig the burrowing bug out before it has penetrated too deeply. A methamphetamine user's reality is often distorted in a different way. Under the influence of the drug, an intense paranoia overtakes him. His reality is dominated by the belief that one or more people are lurking about to harm or kill him. He may wield a deadly weapon, going from room to room, from closet to closet, in search of the assailants. If you believe that a bug is camping deeply in your body, then you might go ahead and try to dig the non-existent bug out. If you believe that people are lurking around the house to harm or kill you, you go after them before they get you. If you believe that all the troubles of the world are due to the evil-doings of the non-Muslims who war against Allah, then you do all you can to fight and kill them, particularly since Allah tells you to do so in the Quran.

Delusions, even when they are at great variance from the objective reality, can rule the mind without the need for drugs, or as a result of neurological dysfunctions or other factors. The young and the less-educated are most vulnerable to believe the claims of charlatans, con artists, and cunning clerics, as truth and reality. A tragic example of the young's susceptibility to induced delusion is the case of thousands of Iranian children who were used as human minesweepers in the last Iran-Iraq war. The mullahs issued made-in-China plastic keys for paradise to children as enticement to go forward and clear the minefield with their bodies ahead of the military's armored vehicles. The children believed the murderers and rushed to their death, thinking that they were headed for Islam's glorious paradise. The repeated intense indoctrination of the children even changed the perception of some of the charlatan mullahs so that they, themselves, believed their own lies, took their own keys to Allah's paradise and rushed to their death clinging to the plastic trinkets. Hence, some of the puppeteers, in this instance, became puppets themselves. Such are the follies and fallibilities of the human mind.

It is, therefore, understandable that many of the higher-up Islamic puppeteers, who are usually brainwashed from early childhood, devote their fortunes and persons to the implementation of their deeply engrained delusions. Deluded by the threats and promises of Islam, Muslims, poor or rich, vie with one another in furthering the violent cause of Allah. Many non-Muslims are also victims of a different, yet just as deadly, delusion. They believe that Islam is a religion of peace, that only a small minority of Muslims are jihadists, and Muslims can be reasoned with to abandon the Quran-mandated elimination of the non-believers. These well-meaning simpletons are just as deluded as the fanatic jihadists by refusing to acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the dictates of the Quran.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Pine on February 22, 2008, 06:46:03 AM

[...] During the Waco standoff the FBI utilized the Behavioral Sciences Unit for advice in dealing with Koresh and his followers. In addition to utilizing its in-house resources, the FBI also solicited and received input from various outside experts in many fields, including:


It's not so much the fault of the FBI and others when not being able to figure people like Koresh and the like -- they're too complex. Take, for instance, Jim Jones. It's been said that he learned many of his thought reform techniques by studying Marxism-Leninism. The ideology of the Temple became focused on placing the group and "cause" above the individual. Self-sacrifice (of followers) was considered the highest act, whereas selfishness was the lowest form of behavior. Jones mandated public "catharsis" of all "transgressions." This involved public confession, humiliation and punishment. Loyalty tests were given in the form of staged suicides, and "admission" of various crimes. Followers were required to write up their innermost "treasonous" thoughts and send them to Jones. Numerous irrational and conflicting messages were given to followers. One such message demonstrates a particularly fascinating example of projection on a rather primitive level. Jones declared himself the only "true heterosexual" and had most, if not all male followers "admit" they were gay. The fact that he was coercing sex from many male followers somehow did not present a contradictory message to Jones. Standard cult practices have been described elsewhere. In essence, they involve a leader with total control, and eventually, relative isolation of the group. The following list of basic techniques of thought reform can easily be found amongst Jones' methods:


Jones' use of these techniques helped indoctrinate members, and ultimately led to a collective group regression whereby the group resists most implications that they are following harmful directives. Collective regression involves a group's intense identification with an idealized leader. Group members have a shared, elevated conception of themselves as a group, as well as a shared group fantasy of merging with the "omnipotent" leader. To gain the leader's support, submission to the leader's will is essential. This inevitably generates secret hostility within individual group members. This then becomes a set up for the group leader to displace this hostility onto outside groups or individuals. The displacement of group anger also serves to promote group cohesion and paranoia. Or, as Freud noted, "It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness." When a leader is idealized, members feel freed from moral constraints. The need to be critical of the leader's commands is reduced or abrogated, allowing members to override the normal rules of society in the name of the "cause."
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: erand on February 23, 2008, 11:22:29 AM

[...] One such message demonstrates a particularly fascinating example of projection on a rather primitive level. Jones declared himself the only "true heterosexual" and had most, if not all male followers "admit" they were gay. The fact that he was coercing sex from many male followers somehow did not present a contradictory message to Jones. [...]


Truly amazing!
Title: Re: Bad Bedfellows
Post by: rte on March 01, 2008, 01:25:33 PM

Well, gangsters and cops alike are neither black nor white; they represent the color of gray. A hidden identity between good and evil. The symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted, embodied by men with guns pointed, arms at full extension, winding around each other in a distinctly homoerotic pas de deux.


In 1996 he chose to leave the programme and by the end of 1998 he had resumed his life of crime. Isolated from his mafia cohorts, Gravano found a new crew - a gang of young white supremacist drug dealers known as The Devil Dogs. The alliance was formed after Gravano's 23-year-old son, Gerard, became friendly with the Devil Dogs' leader, Michael Papa. Papa, 23, was a promising medical student who spent his spare time pumping iron and using steroids. He became Gravano's protegé. Within months Gravano and The Devil Dogs had sewn up the booming market in ecstasy on the Arizona nightclub circuit.

Gravano's gang was selling about 25,000 tablets a week, making a a-million-a-month profit. In September 1999 Gravano spoke at a conference of FBI supervisors about the use of informers. At the same time as he was speaking to these elite crimefighters, he was flooding Arizona with millions of dollars' worth of ecstasy. His supplier, it is alleged, was the Israeli mafia. But the Devil Dogs were amateurs compared with the New York mob, and their bragging and excessive violence soon drew the attention of the police, the FBI and the DEA. On 24 February 2000 DEA agents swooped on addresses all over the Phoenix area and arrested 45 people, including Papa, Gravano, his son and wife Debbie. Gravano is an unrepentant sociopath who wrapped himself up in an American flag and cosied up to the Feds. Ironically the case against Gravano, the king of mafia rats, depends largely on the evidence of Papa. "It is a delicious irony that the king rat has been betrayed by a baby rat," says Ron Kuby, a lawyer who represents Gravano's New York victims.

Now Gravano knows a lot of sensitive information and it is possible that the FBI will let "their man" go down. There may be another plea bargain in Arizona. A lot went on behind the scenes which the government does not want people to know. The FBI used to be revered as an agency beyond reproach but several incidents in recent years have tarnished its reputation. You saw it with McVeigh. They thought they could keep 3,000 documents from his lawyers. It's one thing after another. They keep getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.


(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8503/bk29uo7.jpg)

William Pepper is an English barrister and an American lawyer. He convenes a seminar on International Human Rights at Oxford University. He maintains a practice in the U.S. and the U.K. He is author of three other books and numerous articles. This book is the result of a quarter-century of an investigation.

In Memphis on the day of the assassination of Martin King there was an [Special Forces] Alpha 184 Team there. And nobody understood why that team was there. Alpha 184 6-man unit was a sniper team. No one understood why they were there. Martin King had been killed as the result of a Mafia contract. There were any number of bounties on him in those periods of time and a fair amount of money had been raised to try to get him killed. None of the occurrences were successful and ultimatily it was a Mafia hit. But now, all of a sudden, into this picture comes one of the most secretive aspects of the government of the United States: the role of the Army and the Army and military intelligence on American soil. It became evident that the military did not kill Martin King but that they were there in Memphis -- a backup operation. Because King was never going to be allowed to leave Memphis. If the contract that was given didn't work these guys were going to do it. The story they told was that the six of them were briefed at 4:30 in the morning at Camp Shelby. The started out around 5 o'clock. They came to Memphis. They were briefed there. They took up their positions. At the briefing at 4:30 they were shown two photographs who were their targets. One was Martin King and the other was Andrew Young. Andrew Young might even conceivably be a target? But that's what he was.

Now as far as they knew they were going to kill these people. They had no regrets about it at all because they considered them as traitors and they used very unkind words about them. So they were going to kill them and they were prepared to do that. But they never got the order. Instead they heard a shot. And each thought the other one had fired too quickly. Then they had an order to disengage. It was only later that they learned that, as they call it, 'some wacko civilian' had actually shot King and that their services were not required. But that's how they worked. This was not a one-off for these guys. They were trained snipers. You remember a hundred cities burned in America in 1967. These guys were sent around the country, teams of them, into different cities. These particular fellows had been in Detroit, Newark and Tampa and possibly L.A. They were given mugbooks. Those mugbooks were the photographs of community leaders and people who were to be their targets. And they would be put in positions and they would take out community leaders who would somehow be killed in the course of the rioting that was going on in various cities. The assassination of Martin King was a part of what amounted to an on-going covert program in which they tried to suppress dissent and disruption in America. He was shot from the bushes behind Jim's Grill, not from the bathroom window. And he was shot as a result of a conspiracy that brought a man called Frank Liberto -- who was a [Carlos] Marcello operative in Memphis, he ran a wholesale food place -- in to see Loyd Jowers whom he knew. Jowers owed him a very big favor. And in addition to that he paid Jowers $100,000 and that was to take complete use of that Grill facility for planning and staging of the assassination and the room upstairs that Raul (who was controlling James Earl Ray) would have James rent and then keep out of most of the afternoon.

The final stages of the assassination logistically were planned in Jim's Grill itself and there were a number of Memphis Police Department officers -- some of them were senior officers -- who were there. One of them was a black officer called Marrell McCollough. Marrell McCollough is still alive and well today in Memphis, Tennessee. He went from the Memphis Police Department to the CIA where he worked for a number of years [in the 1970s]. Before he became an undercover Memphis Police Officer, he was brought back to active duty by the [Army] 111th Military Intelligence Group [MIG] on June 16, 1967. So he was seconded from military intelligence to become a policeman to go undercover with a black group called the Invaders, a local group. So McCollough was very much in the frame, in terms of all of these that were happening. He participated in the planning. And Jowers named the other people who were involved in the planning as well.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: bon gre mal gre on March 05, 2008, 08:11:37 AM

Wow, Schcrelly, awesome post!


Very detailed I'd also say
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ora on March 05, 2008, 09:56:54 AM

Extortion, kidnapping, and even murder contracts become easier to set up. Extortion, for example, becomes almost unstoppable at the usual place: the collection of a payoff and/or the spending of the payoff money. The extortionist makes his threat from the safety of his home PC, using networks of remailers and message pools, and demands payment in untraceable digital cash. What if U.S. banks are forbidden to issue digital cash? Even if most nations and most banks decline to participate in a digital cash scheme, all it really takes is one such bank or mint. The extortionist can demand that blinded digital cash be bought from the one of the few banks that do offer digital cash: the victim is incentivized to cooperate (he can refuse, but...) and will make other arrangements, possibly including travelling to the country in which the bank is located. (Forbidding communication outside national borders, and/or forbidding travel, would of course be problematic to enforce. Not even totalitarian regimes of late have been able to stop such communications, and the U.S. and Western nations have vastly more channels of communication. Messages can easily be made indistinguishable from noise, as in packing 160 MB of data (!) in just the least significant bits of a 2-hour digital audio tape recording. If bales of marihuana cannot be stopped, how can bits be stopped? Bits are ever so much smaller...

Similar to extortion are markets for kidnappings (riskier, due to the physical act), and even untraceable markets for murders. For murder contracts, the usual risk is in setting up the hit--asking around is almost a guaranteed way of getting the FBI involved, and advertising in traceable ways is a similar invitation. This risk is largely removed when anonymous contact and payment methods are used. To ensure the job is completed, third party escrow services -- anonymous, of course, but with an established cyberspatial reputation -- hold the digital cash until completion. Much more has been written on this in various places.


No doubt about it! In fact it exists the notion of a market, a theoretical prediction market where any party can place a bet (using anonymous electronic money, and pseudonymous remailers) on the date of death of a given individual, and collect a payoff if they "guess" the date accurately. This would incentivise assassination of individuals because the assassin, knowing when the action would take place, could profit by making an accurate bet on the date of the subject's death. Because the payoff is for knowing the date rather than performing the action of the assassin, it is substantially more difficult to assign criminal liability for the assassination. Timothy C. May published around October 1994 a primer on the issue. Jim Bell's later article "Assassination Politics" described the concept in detail, concluding that as well as being an unholy mix of encryption, anonymity, and digital cash, the concept could also be used to help minimize violent crime. Timothy C. May, Carl Johnson and Matthew Taylor later developed the protocols to implement the concept online to the point that the IRS, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service investigated their motives for doing so. The US Secret Service circulated copies of 'Assassination Politics' and the relevant Wired articles in 2002. During investigations authorities pretended to be sympathizers in emails, posed as ISP representatives and sought Soviet style psychiatric repression in at least one case.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: l o l a on March 06, 2008, 08:35:29 AM

No doubt about it! In fact it exists the notion of a market, a theoretical prediction market where any party can place a bet (using anonymous electronic money, and pseudonymous remailers) on the date of death of a given individual, and collect a payoff if they "guess" the date accurately. This would incentivise assassination of individuals because the assassin, knowing when the action would take place, could profit by making an accurate bet on the date of the subject's death. Because the payoff is for knowing the date rather than performing the action of the assassin, it is substantially more difficult to assign criminal liability for the assassination. Timothy C. May published around October 1994 a primer on the issue. Jim Bell's later article "Assassination Politics" described the concept in detail, concluding that as well as being an unholy mix of encryption, anonymity, and digital cash, the concept could also be used to help minimize violent crime. Timothy C. May, Carl Johnson and Matthew Taylor later developed the protocols to implement the concept online to the point that the IRS, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service investigated their motives for doing so. The US Secret Service circulated copies of 'Assassination Politics' and the relevant Wired articles in 2002. During investigations authorities pretended to be sympathizers in emails, posed as ISP representatives and sought Soviet style psychiatric repression in at least one case.


My God, ora!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: jensa on March 06, 2008, 10:41:19 AM

[...] During the Waco standoff the FBI utilized the Behavioral Sciences Unit for advice in dealing with Koresh and his followers. In addition to utilizing its in-house resources, the FBI also solicited and received input from various outside experts in many fields, including:


It's not so much the fault of the FBI and others when not being able to figure people like Koresh and the like -- they're too complex. [...]

Oh please, pine, stop justifying them!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: zan on March 07, 2008, 12:42:39 PM
Awesome thread!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: castrot on March 09, 2008, 03:43:07 PM

Well, gangsters and cops alike are neither black nor white; they represent the color of gray. A hidden identity between good and evil. The symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted, embodied by men with guns pointed, arms at full extension, winding around each other in a distinctly homoerotic pas de deux.


(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8587/afterthesunset2bn8.jpg)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: c h e a p i e on March 12, 2008, 02:13:02 PM
After the Sunset, castrot?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: backaregodi on March 13, 2008, 03:43:36 AM

A very good thread, indeed. I'm going to refill my ink cartridges today to print it out


Thanks for letting us know
Title: Nietzsche's Will-To-Power
Post by: Cleo on March 16, 2008, 01:58:45 PM

[...] The concept must first be contrasted with Arthur Schopenhauer's "will to live": one must first of all take into account Nietzsche's background and criticism of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social Darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live".


Very, very, very similar to Schopenhauer's concept.


The force he calls "Wille zum Leben" or Will (literally will-to-life) is the forces driving man to remain alive and to reproduce, a drive intertwined with desire. This Will is the inner content and the driving force of the world. For Schopenhauer, Will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempting to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was a rare philosopher who considered philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain charitable practices ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline. Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire — i.e., Will. He proposed that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire.


I can not stand it when people make generalizations of this kind in such a superficial manner!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: J 12 on March 18, 2008, 12:32:20 PM

[...] in dealing with Koresh and his followers. [...]


Kordesh had described his early childhood as lonely, and it has been alleged that he was once raped by older boys. A poor student diagnosed with dyslexia, he dropped out of high school. Due to his poor study skills, he was nicknamed "Mister Retardo" by his classmates. By the age of 12, he had learned the New Testament by heart. When he was 19, he had a liaison with a 16-year-old girl who became pregnant; the girl left him because she considered him unfit to raise a child. He became a born-again Christian in the Southern Baptist Church and soon joined his mother's church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Koresh advocated polygamy for himself, and asserted that he was married to several female residents of the small community. Some former members of the cult also alleged that Koresh felt he could claim any of the females in the compound as his. Evidently he fathered at least a dozen children by the harem. His harem included girls as young as age 12. The other adults at the compound were told by Koresh not to tell anyone else about this "because they wouldn't understand."
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: C o c o on March 19, 2008, 07:17:29 AM

Kordesh had described his early childhood as lonely, and it has been alleged that he was once raped by older boys. A poor student diagnosed with dyslexia, he dropped out of high school. Due to his poor study skills, he was nicknamed "Mister Retardo" by his classmates. By the age of 12, he had learned the New Testament by heart. When he was 19, he had a liaison with a 16-year-old girl who became pregnant; the girl left him because she considered him unfit to raise a child. He became a born-again Christian in the Southern Baptist Church and soon joined his mother's church, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Koresh advocated polygamy for himself [...]


Koresh this, Koresh that...stop talking about 15-20 years ago stuff!
Title: Re: Bad Bedfellows
Post by: hotel on April 03, 2008, 05:31:06 AM

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8503/bk29uo7.jpg)

William Pepper is an English barrister and an American lawyer. He convenes a seminar on International Human Rights at Oxford University. He maintains a practice in the U.S. and the U.K. He is author of three other books and numerous articles. This book is the result of a quarter-century of an investigation.

In Memphis on the day of the assassination of Martin King there was an [Special Forces] Alpha 184 Team there. And nobody understood why that team was there. Alpha 184 6-man unit was a sniper team. No one understood why they were there. Martin King had been killed as the result of a Mafia contract. There were any number of bounties on him in those periods of time and a fair amount of money had been raised to try to get him killed. None of the occurrences were successful and ultimatily it was a Mafia hit. But now, all of a sudden, into this picture comes one of the most secretive aspects of the government of the United States: the role of the Army and the Army and military intelligence on American soil. It became evident that the military did not kill Martin King but that they were there in Memphis -- a backup operation. Because King was never going to be allowed to leave Memphis. If the contract that was given didn't work these guys were going to do it. The story they told was that the six of them were briefed at 4:30 in the morning at Camp Shelby. The started out around 5 o'clock. They came to Memphis. They were briefed there. They took up their positions. At the briefing at 4:30 they were shown two photographs who were their targets. One was Martin King and the other was Andrew Young. Andrew Young might even conceivably be a target? But that's what he was.

Now as far as they knew they were going to kill these people. They had no regrets about it at all because they considered them as traitors and they used very unkind words about them. So they were going to kill them and they were prepared to do that. But they never got the order. Instead they heard a shot. And each thought the other one had fired too quickly. Then they had an order to disengage. It was only later that they learned that, as they call it, 'some wacko civilian' had actually shot King and that their services were not required. But that's how they worked. This was not a one-off for these guys. They were trained snipers. You remember a hundred cities burned in America in 1967. These guys were sent around the country, teams of them, into different cities. These particular fellows had been in Detroit, Newark and Tampa and possibly L.A. They were given mugbooks. Those mugbooks were the photographs of community leaders and people who were to be their targets. And they would be put in positions and they would take out community leaders who would somehow be killed in the course of the rioting that was going on in various cities. The assassination of Martin King was a part of what amounted to an on-going covert program in which they tried to suppress dissent and disruption in America. He was shot from the bushes behind Jim's Grill, not from the bathroom window. And he was shot as a result of a conspiracy that brought a man called Frank Liberto -- who was a [Carlos] Marcello operative in Memphis, he ran a wholesale food place -- in to see Loyd Jowers whom he knew. Jowers owed him a very big favor. And in addition to that he paid Jowers $100,000 and that was to take complete use of that Grill facility for planning and staging of the assassination and the room upstairs that Raul (who was controlling James Earl Ray) would have James rent and then keep out of most of the afternoon.

The final stages of the assassination logistically were planned in Jim's Grill itself and there were a number of Memphis Police Department officers -- some of them were senior officers -- who were there. One of them was a black officer called Marrell McCollough. Marrell McCollough is still alive and well today in Memphis, Tennessee. He went from the Memphis Police Department to the CIA where he worked for a number of years [in the 1970s]. Before he became an undercover Memphis Police Officer, he was brought back to active duty by the [Army] 111th Military Intelligence Group [MIG] on June 16, 1967. So he was seconded from military intelligence to become a policeman to go undercover with a black group called the Invaders, a local group. So McCollough was very much in the frame, in terms of all of these that were happening. He participated in the planning. And Jowers named the other people who were involved in the planning as well.


Don't miss CNN's groundbreaking documentary,

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2008/black.in.america/
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: becky on April 03, 2008, 11:30:02 AM

The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy. The whole modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe.

The ordinary religion of the law school classroom is a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry.


Not to mention law's obsession with procedure. During the annual Innocence Network Conference held this weekend at Harvard Law School, Massachusetts's own federal district judge Nancy Gertner displayed a level of candor unusual for someone in her position. Judge Gertner's target: the glaring flaws in our legal system that produce a disturbingly large number of wrongful convictions each year and the judiciary's reluctance to deal with them head-on. With her trademark mixture of humor and sarcasm, Judge Gertner — a former high-profile criminal-defense and civil-rights lawyer — saved her sharpest criticism for those aspects of the justice system beholden to a "hopeless formalism" that all too readily elevates strict procedure over substantial justice. She compared some modern judges to those who, in the antebellum period, enforced the Fugitive Slave Laws despite a gnawing concern that somehow justice was not being done when an escaped slave was returned to the South. Her point was that a judge is in fact able to combine adherence to law with the dictates of justice and conscience, but that formalism is the all-too-easy enemy of such a balancing. She also lambasted the notion that "finality" should preclude courts from reviewing serious errors in "closed" cases. This "arid obsession with procedure" must yield, she told a sympathetic audience, to a higher commitment to accuracy and justice. Along these lines, she noted that Massachusetts is one of only 9 states that do not have laws guaranteeing inmates' access to DNA evidence. Nor has the Commonwealth yet seen fit to establish a formal innocence commission to examine erroneous convictions and recommend changes to a system that, "while the best in the world," remains "very much flawed."
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: nyt on April 05, 2008, 02:39:06 PM
Very interesting Becky!
Title: Re: Legal Sophistry
Post by: accosta on April 14, 2008, 12:30:34 PM

Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.

[...]


Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.
Title: The Universe as a Hologram
Post by: superpartner on April 16, 2008, 09:55:19 AM

[...]

It is important to understand that the human mind is not a perfect discerner of the objective reality. In actuality, reality is in the mind of the beholder. The outside world only supplies bits and pieces of raw material that the mind puts together to form its reality. Depending on the type and amount of bits and pieces that a given mind receives, its reality can be very different from that of another mind. The more prescribed and homogeneous a group, the greater is the group's consensual reality, since the members share much in common experiential input and reinforce each others' mindset. Thus, members of a given religious order, for instance, tend to think much more similarly to one another than to members of other groups with different experiential histories. Various approximations of the objective reality, therefore, rule the mind. The degree to which these approximations deviate from the larger group's consensual reality determines its delusional extent and severity.

[...]


Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes. This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something. To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram. In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: superpartner on April 16, 2008, 09:57:44 AM
Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system. The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many parapsychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: superpartner on April 16, 2008, 09:58:33 AM
In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.

Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations. In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study. Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm. As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.

The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical. Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body. Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because, in the holographic domain of thought, images are ultimately as real as "reality".

Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson describes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession. Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams. Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry. Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality". 
Title: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
Post by: ex nihilo on April 21, 2008, 11:55:03 AM

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html

Title: Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
Post by: brace on April 29, 2008, 10:32:34 AM

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


Hmm, I see...
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: scrap on April 29, 2008, 10:55:09 AM
Well, people eventually learn to get over the rejection, brace!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: R E M on May 05, 2008, 08:28:28 AM

According to Gurdjieff the enneagram figure is a symbol that represents the "law of seven" and the "law of three" (the two fundamental universal laws) and, therefore, the figure can be used to describe any natural whole phenomenon, cosmos, process in life or any other piece of knowledge. The basic use of the enneagram is to explain why nothing in nature and in life constantly occurs in a straight line, that is to say that there are always ups and downs in life which occur lawfully. Easier examples of this can be noticed in athletic performances, where a high ranked athlete always has periodic downfalls, as well as in nearly all graphs that plot topics that occur over time, such as the economic graphs, population graphs, death-rate graphs and so on. All show parabolic periods that keep rising and falling. Gurdjieff claimed that since these periods occur lawfully based on the Enneagram that it is possible to keep a process in a straight line if the necessary shocks were introduced at the right time.

The principal enneagram figure used by the Fourth Way and Gurdjieff is a circle with nine points. Within the circle is a triangle connecting points 9, 3 and 6. The inscribed figure resembling a web connects the other six points in a cyclic figure 1-4-2-8-5-7. This enneagram's construction is based on the laws of octaves. The enneagram's construction is also constructed lawfully on the same laws as the decimal system. If the enneagram is used to represent a whole octave of notes and the number 1, then by dividing 1 into seven different notes...

1/7=.142857...
2/7=.285714...
3/7=.428571...
4/7=.571428...
5/7=.714285...
6/7=.857142...
7/7=.999999...

...it can be noticed that all of these fractions, except in the case of the last one, are made up of the same numbers running in a definite sequence, and by joining those numbers on the figure the given web-like shape is obtained. Also, if the web is used in an explanation, by knowing the initial number of the period it is possible to immediately re-establish the whole period in full.

On the enneagram most processes are represented through octaves where the points serve as the notes; a concept which is derived from Gurdjieff’s idea of the law of seven. In an octave the developing process comes to a critical point (one of the triangle points) at which help from outside is needed for it to rightly continue. This concept is best illustrated on the keys of the piano where every white key would represent an enneagram point. The adjacent white keys which are missing a black key (half note) in between represent the enneagram web points which have a triangle point in between. In order that this point would pass onto the next, an external push is required.

(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2953/enneagramasanoctavepa3.jpg)

Using the enneagram a process is depicted as going right around the circle beginning at point 9 (the ending point of a previous process). The process can continue until it reaches point 3. At this point an external aid is needed in order that the process continues. If it doesn't receive the 'help' the process will stop evolving and will devolve back into the form from which it evolved. The process continues until point 6 and later 9, where a similar "push" is needed. If the process passes point 9 the initial process will end while giving birth to a new one.


This external "push" thing appears to be very interesting..


Hahaha!! I know whatta ya mean ;)
Title: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Vigilance on May 06, 2008, 11:32:33 AM

The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.


Like cud is regurgitated grass for cows, logic is regurgitated opinion for humans. Whenever and wherever cows belch or dispose, they enrich air and fertilize earth. Whenever and wherever logic burps or disposes, it can and does distroy life. If the situation were reversed, cows would have long-been eradicated for posterity's sake... but logic is not eradicated though posterity be at stake. Instead of looking to visionaries and dreamers, whose eyes see above and beyond known, authority persists in thumbing well-worn logic-pages and recycling ineffective solutions.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: localrealist on May 07, 2008, 01:15:28 PM

Indeed, Simpson's acquittal and subsequent stiffing of the victim's families confirmed that the rich, famous and powerful have the deep pockets to hire a "dream team" of lawyers, a small army of high priced, high-profile attorneys, expert witnesses, experts and investigators that routinely mangle the legal system to stall, delay, and drag out their cases and eventually allow their well-heeled clients to weasel out of punishment and payment. Since most Americans can't afford anything resembling the type of legal star treatment Simpson got, it affirmed their belief that justice is for sale and that the rich, famous and powerful will always escape punishment. Even when prosecutors manage to win convictions against celebrities such as Winona Ryder and Martha Stewart, their money, fame, power and legal twisting often guarantee that they will do minimal jail time in a cushy country club prison, or none at all.

If a poll were taken today, a majority of whites would still rage that Simpson is a murderer who skipped away scot-free and scream that the trial and his acquittal were a farce and a blatant travesty of justice. In the same poll, a majority of blacks would rage that Simpson was victimized by a white racist criminal justice system and the verdict was a just one. The periodic news clips of Simpson in the years since the trial have shown a cheerful and relaxed Simpson golfing, vacationing, signing autographs and football collectors cards and taking an ill-fated stab at a reality show. Simpson comes off as a devil-may-care guy that laughs at and thumbs his nose at the public. This hasn't done much to endear him to anyone, let alone make the case go away.

And don't get me started about that @ # ! * i n g piece of poo Johnny Cochran who brought racism and prejudice up again and again. The scientific evidence against the n i g g a was overwhelming, yet Cochran successfully used race to give credibility to his defense. While it was undisputable that Simpson was an abusive master of Nicole Simpson, he described Nicole as a "very strong independent woman" and Simpson as a "member of a mutual relationship that was not master/servant in nature." In introducing the American "tradition" of slavery, Cochran insidiously reminded jurors that oppression, in the form of racism and white-on-black crime, still exists today. While Simpson was in effect a jealous chauvinist pig, he said that Simpson never stalked Nicole and even let other friends of hers get married at his house.


The social event which interested me about Simpson trial was not so much the connection between wealth and acquittal. Though it is a disappointment, I was not so suprised about that. The thing which interested me, was how public support for Simpson or for the prosecution followed roughly racial lines.

This suggests to me a variety of associations. One is that many black Americans are for some reason racial thinkers -- the support was almost undeniably black, while the opposition had people of many colors. The reason could be general lack of education, or general cultural separatism (or, among a number of other options, just plain unmotivated math, though that is unlikely). Both are well documented. Folks who ain't too bright think he didn't do it just cuz he's black. What assumption has the author used in the syllogism above?

Another association which I find deplorable is the issue of spousal abuse. The Simpson trial should rightly have been couched as a question of domestic violence and the irresponsibility of male partners in marriages, and sadly the African American community generally is remarkably weak in that regard already. That the members of that community then derailed a discussion which could have been valid and helpful to them -- that of male irresponsibility and violence against spouses -- to retrack it on a line that neither bore much relation to the evidence, nor served their community's best interests because it ignored the real issue ... well, that was a disappointment to me. It was a chance for America's blacks to think clearly, recognize a rot at the core of things, and perhaps address it. They dropped the ball. As one of Nicole Brown Simpson's sisters said at some press conference or other (I paraphrase, "If he says he's going to kill you, he probably is, and you need to seek protection.") The more germane spousal-abuse issue was largely left uninvestigated amid the cries for or against the "race card."

A third association is simply, the one of publicity. I watched the verdict live on TV. How many Americans can say, "I was there" about (for example) Congressional hearings about the deteriorating wetlands in Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Florida? Or Greenspan's last pronouncements about interest rates? We as a society take an interest in that which has a sound byte, a sudden and decisive impact at a moment of decision. We don't like long slow committee processes and an eventually carefully drafted report. Rather, we want drama, a sudden moment of decisive pressure, an all-or-nothing break. Courtrooms are good drama: the choices are near to absolute and the stakes are high. It's probably just human nature, but it's dissappointing that people who probably can't identify the Vice President or the Attorney General (when we HAVE one ...) watched in rapt attention to one defendant's verdict in a jurisdiction thousands of miles away from their own homes.

But I'm generalizing about social groups, here, and about the roles of popular impression and interpretation of the trial thanks to the media. That's not really on topic for this thread. I'm departing from the strictly rational questions of legality. And anyway I'm only a pre-LSAT prepper. I don't belong here at all. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU&feature=related
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: byraze on May 07, 2008, 02:27:15 PM

In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.

[...]


Holding the Tensions

Carl Jung gave the image of the alchemical vessel in which processes of sublimation and purification take place. Psychotherapy provides this same kind of containment whereby tensions and paradoxes are charged with energy until they give way to active transformation. Even nuclear fusion requires the hot plasma to be contained long enough for fusion reactions to take place. The same is true of scientific and philosophical ideas. David Bohm regretted the speed with which Neils Bohr tried to resolve the tensions inherent in quantum theory. Within a year of Heisenberg's discovery of matrix mechanics Schrodinger produced his wave equation and Bohr and others quickly demonstrated the mathematical equivalence of the two approaches. Yet both approaches do subtly different things - Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, for example, makes no reference to an underlying or background space. If only the two approaches could have been held in tension, emphasizing both their similarities and differences, Bohm argued, then it may have been possible to develop a much deeper theory, one that transcended conventional notions of space-time and allowed for an intimate connection with relativity.

A similar tension exists today between scientific approaches to "consciousness theory" (in which the origin of mind is attributed to objective structures and processes within the brain - albeit some of them being quite novel, such as Penrose's notions of the gravitational collapse of the wave function) and our subjective experiences of consciousness, rare moments of transcendence and those inexplicable occurrences in which the irrational breaks through in dreams, synchronicities, etc. Then there are other phenomena which seem to have a foot in both camps, these include Jung's psychoid which is neither matter nor mind and both, the aforementioned synchronicities and phenomena such as projective identification. Rather than seeking a quick resolution between the subjective and objective it is valuable to hold on to the differences and paradoxes and use them as pointers to something deeper. Now that psychology has discovered the objective within consciousness (Jung's collective unconscious) so too physics must discover the subjective in matter; in fact, physics must come to terms with "the irrational in matter". Science is producing ever more delicate information about processes within the brain. Openness to Eastern meditative traditions brings with it alternative theories of consciousness and subtle matter. Transpersonal psychology addresses the idea of collective mind. Quantum theory and chaos theory help to loosen the appeal of traditional mechanistic theories and reductionistic approaches and, in the process, providing us with new metaphors. Nevertheless we are still victim to over two hundred years of mechanistic thinking and we work within a language that reflects and supports such a world view. As soon as we speak about mind and consciousness we find ourselves talking about objects, concepts, things, localization in space, separation and movement in time. Yet both quantum theory and Eastern psychology point to timelessness, active process and the ultimate illusion of the personal observer. It is very difficult for us, even now, to fully embrace the quantum paradigm, even the mathematics of quantum theory is still (paradoxically) expressed using space-time coordinates when the same theory predicts the break down of space-time structure. And time itself, as Prigogine points out, has never treated correctly in physics. Up to now it has been used more as an ordering parameter 't', and conveys nothing of the dynamics in which being gives way to becoming.

Locality and Beyond

The central question is: What is it that exists independent of the physical brain? Yet as soon as we attempt to formulate this questions we prejudice the answer through our linguistic concepts of object, location in space and so on. Current "consciousness studies" in the hard sciences assume that mind, or consciousness, emerges out of the physical brain and cannot therefore exist independent of it - although a variety of physical signals can be sent between brains. Our experience of consciousness awareness - scanning the environment and having access to our memories - is certainly conditioned by the state of the physical brain. But to suggest that brain is the sole cause of mind does not logically follow. Consciousness studies also argue in favour of some sort of quantum mechanical origin for consciousness. In its barest form it proposes that the sort of things done by consciousness (Penrose picks out mathematics) cannot all be reduced to algorithmic processes and therefore mind does not have a mechanical basis. While parts of it may be hard wired it does not totally operate like a computer. Quantum theory, the argument goes, is the other thing that cannot be reduced to algorithmic form. Ergo quantum theory must have something to do with consciousness. From there researchers rush on to theories of quantum tunneling, collapsing wave functions, non-local connections and coherent quantum structures. But a variety of other explanations are possible:

- That mind was present in the universe ab inito. For example, in the form of a proto mind associated with even the elementary particles.

- That mind is of a totally different order and makes its liaison with matter via the medium of the brain (The dualism of Popper and Eccles).

- That both mind and matter (at the quantum level) arise out of some deeper level.

- Or, to follow Bohm, that mind and matter form an unanalyzable whole which must be addressed through some totally different order of explanation - the Implicate Order. In this case the Cartesian cut is an illusion present only at the Explicate Order of perception and explanation.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: byraze on May 07, 2008, 02:30:10 PM
Phenomena

We are well on the road to invoking theoretical explanations and at this point it is important to go back to experience and psychic phenomena.

a. Projective Identification

Projective Identification offers a paradigm case of the tension between physics and psychic experience. Projective identification should be distinguished from Transference, in which the patient "projects" fantasies (for example, involving authority figures) onto the blank screen of the therapist. In projective identification something more akin to a literal pro-jection of psychic material takes place. It may happen that, during a session, the therapist experiences, without necessarily being aware that something unusual is going on, memories, feelings attitudes, associations that lie outside his or her experience. At the time, however, these are indistinguishable from "true memories". It is only later that the therapist realizes that the patient has injected external psychic material into the therapist's mind. It is very difficult to account for what happens. Clearly some aspect of the patient's psyche - a set of associations or a complex of memories and desires - has fragmented from the self and been projected outwards into the mind of the therapist. In its new location, and for a limited time, it integrates with the therapist's consciousness to produce awareness of new memories and associations. The patient is now able to view what was previously the very painful contents of personal consciousness in an objective way for now it belongs to someone else. The final result, hopefully, is to allow this material to be reabsorbed and reintegrated in a more creative manner. Projective identification appears to be a strategy used by the mind to produce movement and transform. One thinks of certain chemical reactions which, although energetically advantageous, cannot take place because energy barriers between molecules cannot be overcome. Although chemical transformation is desired it is prevented by internal energy barriers. Using a catalyst, however, molecules adsorb on its surface and "borrow" energy needed to undergo the necessary transformations whereby they can react together. After reacting they are then free to leave the catalyst's surface. In Projective Identification the mind of the therapist may play a similar role, allowing certain complexes to be absorbed into a new psychic location where they new become "free" and undergo transformation. Presumably a healthy mind also possesses a "psychic immune system" which is able to detect such projected material and eventually reject it so that alien memories do not possess the therapist for too long.

Projective Identification forces us in the position that "something" is being projected across space, from one mind to the other. This seems a more satisfying explanation than the assumption that both minds have access to some common pool of consciousness - for something seems to be shot, like the darts of a Medicine Person, from one to another. Of course this does not mean than "mind" as such is projected. It may simply be some sort of encoded information about mental processes, structure and content that projects from one brain to another. Once in its new location this information activates (like a virus) and makes use of mental energy to form a new centre in consciousness. Projective Identification is more common than we assume. It is, for example, the mechanism whereby art (and music) operate in that aspects of the psyche are projected outwards and encoded on the surface of a painting as gestures, masses, shapes colours and everything else that makes up a "visual code". The listener or viewer can also "enter into" the work and gain access to this activity of encoded information which then acts to induce transformations of consciousness. This is the meaning of early cave art. It is involves a transformation of consciousness and operates at the level of the psychoid.

b. Mystical States

In such states ego boundaries disappear as the mystic partakes in a transcendental reality, or speaks of having access to ancient knowledge, powerful symbols or alternative realities. Psychiatry may try to explain this in terms of psychic inflation, access to the archetypes or (following Groff) as an inherited body-memory. Mystics suggest that consciousness opens to the ground of all being. The Indian teacher, J Krishnamurti, taught that when the brain dies to thought something else operates that brings about a mutation of the brain's structure and a permanent transformation of consciousness. This suggests quite different mechanisms than Projective Identification in which the mind becomes an aspect of something much larger.


c. Group Mind

The sharing of consciousness, even during dreams, is a well established phenomenon amongst many Indigenous peoples. David Bohm believed that something similar could be achieved through his "dialogue process." Does this imply communication between minds, or the ability of individual minds to move into some deeper, collective domain?

d. Paranormal Phenomenon

There are a variety of anecdotal reports that individuals can practice remote viewing, move objects or have access to other minds. At the moment their scientific status is by no means universally accepted.

e. Synchronicities

During periods of extreme psychic stress experiences, replete with meaning, occur that appear to transcend the boundaries of matter and mind, space, time and causality. Like (d) above they remain anecdotal but are difficult to dismiss. They suggest that mind and matter may be aspects of some underlying reality - Jung's psychoid, Bohm's Implicate order.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: byraze on May 07, 2008, 02:31:51 PM
Non-local Mind

How are the various phenomena above to be explained? There are two general lines of approach. One argues that something is transmitted, transferred or projected between two minds. The other is that minds are able to partake, dip into, or unfold out of some common underlying ground, and that they are not bound by the categories of space and time.

a. Transmissions

Theories of transmission assume that, in addition to speech, pheromones, visual gestures, touch and possible electromagnetic effects, there exist more subtle forms of transmission. Yet as soon as one begins with the assumption of interchanges between two spatially located minds then one is firmly based within a mechanical order of space and time. Transmission effects may indeed occur - a sixth sense perhaps - but it is difficult to see how they can account for the richness of the phenomena discussed above.

b. Fields

This is a popular explanation (Langs bi-polar fields) for various non-local effects. But one must remember that a field is in essence a notion from classical physics. A field carries energy and is defined at each point in space. Hence one is still using the language of objects and location. (Admittedly there are also quantum fields but these are also defined at all space-time points and can only be stop-gap notions on the way to a deeper quantum theory) One could argue that the concept of field can be retained even when one drops the classical notions of space, time, energy and so on. But in such a case one has really given birth to a radically new concept in science, something which is not a field at all. The term "field". It is a short hand way of speaking about what are very vague concepts. It does not really help us understand things in any clearer way. As pointed out above the concept of "field" carries with it too much baggage from classical, mechanistic physics. What is called for is a totally new concept. Maybe if we agree to forgot that world "field" we will be forced to face phenomena themselves and seek some more appropriate concept.

c. Non-local connections

Quantum theory (Bell's Theorem) permits non-local connections and at first sight this is often taken as the mechanism for communication between minds. But these quantum correlations cannot be used to carry signals or information. Neither can quantum connections be invoked to explain paranormal phenomena. This is not to deny that non-local connections may indeed exist between brains. Or that mind transcends the distinctions of space and time. But this cannot be justified by appealing to Bell's Theorem. It may, however, be useful to propose that Bell's non-local connections are themselves a special case of something more general. Non-locality may, for example, be the direct consequence of global forms, forms that are not defined within space-time. In view of the importance of form in biological systems, in the Jungian archetypes, and as the "form of the wave function", the role of form in consciousness may be a profitable route to explore.

d. Information

Information is another idea attracting a great deal of attention (Laszlo's Psi fields, Sheldrake's morphic fields). Historically physics first dealt with matter, then energy. Maybe at the end of the century we will be dealing with information. Information appears to transcend the divide between subjective and objective, matter and in mind. The major difficulty with information lies in its ontology. What exactly is the nature of its existence and in what form is it present in mind and matter? If one talks of "fields of information" then one is back again to the old Cartesian world of objects in space and the need for a medium for the transmission of signals. If information is to prove useful then it has to have its own new level of description and its own mode of existence. Clearly information demands mathematical forms that lies beyond the concept of field. Maybe, for example, information is born at the level of prespace.

e. Active Information and Prespace

Bohm's Ontological Interpretation of quantum theory proposes that, at one level, the electron is a particle guided by a quantum potential. At a deeper level the electron is a continuous process of collapse and expansion. At an even deeper level these processes do not take place in space and time but in pre-space represented by something akin to Grassman and Clifford algebras. Grassman originally developed his algebras (in the 19th century) as a means of describing the movement of thought. When one notes the intimate connection between Grassman algebras, the notion of prespace and information the combination of ideas becomes striking. Pregeometries may turn out to be closely connected to mind. What Bohm was speaking about in this context was what he called "active information". Bohm proposed that quantum processes are guided by information - not passive information in the form of encoded data but an actual activity of information. Bohm's analogy is to the way subtle information in a television signal impresses itself upon, and thus gives form to, the crude energy entering the electrical plug. In this way a subtle signal produces pictures and sounds. For Bohm, information is an activity that acts on both matter and energy. He also connected the idea of active information to the operation of the immune system, which he saw as a form of intelligence delocalized over the whole body. For Bohm a change of meaning in the mind became a change of actual being in the body. Yet again the problem arises as to what exactly is the ontological status of active information. How is it to be described? Where does it exist? The whole topic is exciting but requires much work. It is tied to other speculative ideas in quantum theory about structures that exist prior to space and matter.

(As to the encoding of information at the quantum level, important clues may come from the reduced density matrix (a 2-particle form which contains information about the total N-particle wave function). N-particle information is encoded, or enfolded, within the reduced density matrix (as it is in the Green's Function). The N-representability problem deals with the question of how the antisymmetric form of the wave function places restrictions on the form of the reduced density matrix. It should be recalled that quantum non-locality exists precisely because of the anti-symmetric form of the wave function - an antisymmetric form cannot be factorized into subcomponents. Hence there is a deep connection between non-locality, information and the density matrix. A further connection is that N-representability conditions are connected to Grassman algebras (the algebras of exterior forms) and it is precisely these same algebras that seem to hold the key to pre space. Such a rich interconnection of ideas cannot be mere coincidence.)

Prespace algebras, such as the Grassman algebra, begin with a fundamental distinction being made in a featureless ground. Thought is indivisible yet creative perception can distinguish opposite poles in this thought. Once the first perception, or distinction, has been established then the algebra begins to generate itself and, in the process develop structures that may be the precursor of space. In an analogous fashion a thought in the mind is created out of an instant of perception. Once this perception has taken place and the thought is born then it begins to move by a dialectical process - in this way psychological time is born. Both space and thought seem to be born out of an analogous timeless, creative process. In summary, notions of interactions, transmission and fields may go part of the way to answering our questions yet still don't account for the full richness of "collective mind". They remain tied to mechanistic and Cartesian ways of thinking. Of more promise are versions of "information" or "active information" that lie beyond notions of causality, space and time. However, these ideas are very much in their infancy, they are far from clear and require a great deal of sorting out.
Title: Barack Obama thought O.J. did it
Post by: muhamad on May 11, 2008, 12:25:04 PM

The social event which interested me about Simpson trial was not so much the connection between wealth and acquittal. Though it is a disappointment, I was not so suprised about that. The thing which interested me, was how public support for Simpson or for the prosecution followed roughly racial lines.

This suggests to me a variety of associations. One is that many black Americans are for some reason racial thinkers -- the support was almost undeniably black, while the opposition had people of many colors. The reason could be general lack of education, or general cultural separatism (or, among a number of other options, just plain unmotivated math, though that is unlikely). Both are well documented. Folks who ain't too bright think he didn't do it just cuz he's black. What assumption has the author used in the syllogism above?

Another association which I find deplorable is the issue of spousal abuse. The Simpson trial should rightly have been couched as a question of domestic violence and the irresponsibility of male partners in marriages, and sadly the African American community generally is remarkably weak in that regard already. That the members of that community then derailed a discussion which could have been valid and helpful to them -- that of male irresponsibility and violence against spouses -- to retrack it on a line that neither bore much relation to the evidence, nor served their community's best interests because it ignored the real issue ... well, that was a disappointment to me. It was a chance for America's blacks to think clearly, recognize a rot at the core of things, and perhaps address it. They dropped the ball. As one of Nicole Brown Simpson's sisters said at some press conference or other (I paraphrase, "If he says he's going to kill you, he probably is, and you need to seek protection.") The more germane spousal-abuse issue was largely left uninvestigated amid the cries for or against the "race card."

A third association is simply, the one of publicity. I watched the verdict live on TV. How many Americans can say, "I was there" about (for example) Congressional hearings about the deteriorating wetlands in Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Florida? Or Greenspan's last pronouncements about interest rates? We as a society take an interest in that which has a sound byte, a sudden and decisive impact at a moment of decision. We don't like long slow committee processes and an eventually carefully drafted report. Rather, we want drama, a sudden moment of decisive pressure, an all-or-nothing break. Courtrooms are good drama: the choices are near to absolute and the stakes are high. It's probably just human nature, but it's dissappointing that people who probably can't identify the Vice President or the Attorney General (when we HAVE one ...) watched in rapt attention to one defendant's verdict in a jurisdiction thousands of miles away from their own homes.

But I'm generalizing about social groups, here, and about the roles of popular impression and interpretation of the trial thanks to the media. That's not really on topic for this thread. I'm departing from the strictly rational questions of legality. And anyway I'm only a pre-LSAT prepper. I don't belong here at all. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU&feature=related


(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/19/oj_2.jpg)

In his much-publicized and hashed-over speech on race relations Monday, Barack Obama made a brief reference to the notorious O.J. Simpson murder trial, citing it as an example of the predilection to "tackle race only as spectacle." Less noticed was the elaboration he provided in an interview aired Monday night on ABC's "Nightline" on the question that once so divided many whites and blacks: did Simpson butcher his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her wrong-place, wrong-time friend, Ron Goldman? "You remember when, during the O.J. trial ... black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I'm somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty," Obama told "Nightline's" Terry Moran.

He continued: "And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory." For Obama, the jury remains out on whether he has defused the controversy that enveloped him as attention turned late last week to inflammatory comments uttered over the years by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: schrödinger on May 13, 2008, 10:45:14 AM

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information -- another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. (Karl H. Pribram is an emeritus professor of psychology and psychiatry at Stanford University and Radford University. Board-certified as a neurosurgeon, Pribram did pioneering work on the definition of the limbic system, the relationship of the frontal cortex to the limbic system, the sensory-specific "association" cortex of the parietal and temporal lobes, and the classical motor cortex of the human brain.) Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.

This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many parapsychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.


The holographic paradigm is rooted in the concept that all organisms and forms are holograms embedded within a universal hologram, which physicist David Bohm called the holomovement. It is an extrapolation of the optical discovery of 2-dimensional holograms by Dennis Gabor in 1947. Holography created an explosion of scientific and industrial interest starting in 1948. Engineer Thomas Bearden describes holograms as "photographic recordings of the patterns of interference between coherent light reflected from the object of interest, and light that comes directly from the same source or is reflected by a mirror. When this photo image is illuminated from behind by coherent light, a three-dimensional image of the object appears in space. The characteristic of a hypothetically perfect hologram is that all its content is contained in any finite part of itself (at lower resolution). Observationally and perceptually, the universe is a hologram and in each part of itself, since all of it can be detected from/in each internal particle."

In 1973, what has come to be known as the Pribram-Bohm Holographic Model was non-existent. But the Seattle think tank, Organization for the Advancement of Knowledge (OAK), lead by Richard Alan Miller and Burt Webb were able to synthesize the work of Northrup and Burr on the electromagnetic nature of the human being with Dennis Gabor's work on optical holograms and come up with a new notion – a holographic paradigm. In "Languages of the Brain" (1971), Pribram had postulated that 2-dimensional interference patterns, physical holograms, underlie all thinking. The holographic component, for him, represented the associative mechanisms and contributed to memory retrieval and storage and problem solving.

However, Miller, Webb and Dickson extrapolated that the holographic metaphor extends to n-dimensions and therefore constitutes a fundamental description of the universe and our electromagnetic embedding within that greater field. It suggested the human energy body or bioenergetics was more fundamental than the biochemical domain. The "Holographic Concept of Reality" (1973) was presented at the 1st Psychotronic Conference in Prague in 1973, and later published by Gordon & Breach in 1975, and again in 1979 in Psychoenergetic Systems: the Interaction of Consciousness, Energy and Matter, edited by Dr. Stanley Krippner. Miller and Webb followed up their ground-breaking paper with "Embryonic Holography," which was also presented at the Omniversal Symposium at California State College at Sonoma, hosted by Dr. Stanley Krippner, September 29, 1973. Arguably, this is the first paper to address the quantum biological properties of human beings -- the first illustrations of the sources of quantum mindbody.

The premise is based in this hypothesis: The organization of any biological system is established by a complex electrodynamic field which is, in part, determined by its atomic physiochemical components. This field, in turn, determines the behavior and orientation of these components. This dynamic is mediated through wave-based genomes wherein DNA functions as the holographic projector of the psychophysical system - a quantum biohologram. Dropping a level of observation below quantum biochemistry and conventional biophysics, this holographic paradigm proposes that a biohologram determines the development of the human embryo; that we are a quantum bodymind with consciousness informing the whole process through the level of information. They postulated DNA as the possible holographic projector of the biohologram, patterning the three-dimensional electromagnetic standing and moving wave front that constitutes our psychophysical being -- quantum bioholography.

Recent development

The Gariaev (Garyaev) group (1994) has proposed a theory of the Wave-based Genome where the DNA-wave functions as a Biocomputer. They suggest (1) that there are genetic "texts", similar to natural context-dependent texts in human language; (2) that the chromosome apparatus acts simultaneously both as a source and receiver of these genetic texts, respectively decoding and encoding them; (3) that the chromosome continuum acts like a dynamical holographic grating, which displays or transduces weak laser light and solitonic electro-acoustic fields. The distribution of the character frequency in genetic texts is fractal, so the nucleotides of DNA molecules are able to form holographic pre-images of biostructures. This process of "reading and writing" the very matter of our being manifests from the genome's associative holographic memory in conjunction with its quantum nonlocality. Rapid transmission of genetic information and gene-expression unite the organism as holistic entity embedded in the larger Whole. The system works as a biocomputer -- a wave biocomputer. Gariaev reports as of 2007 that this work in Russia is being actively suppressed.
Title: Re: All horses are the same color
Post by: dru on May 15, 2008, 10:27:13 AM

(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/792/0999ay0.jpg)


Well, I don't think it's a big deal, 0.9999999999999... is pretty much 1, it's not exactly 1, but it is still very very close to... :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: beni on May 15, 2008, 11:06:03 AM
Actually 0.999... (infinitely repeating) is equal to 1.  If you don't think so, then find another number that's in between 0.999... and 1.  There aren't any.
Title: Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
Post by: revani on May 19, 2008, 10:30:26 AM

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


When I first saw the ads I thought for a moment it'd to do with the actress Sara Marshall of Blowfish (1996). Nick Calabrese (Sonny Marinelli) and his brother Gino (Joseph R. Gannascoli) were born and raised in Brooklyn, and they might well have been content to spend the rest of their lives there, but when their grandmother dies and leaves them a vintage automobile, they decide to drive down to Florida to pick it up. However, finding the little town where Grandma lived turns out to be more complicated than they expected, and when they finally do find it, they discover that the car is not the well-maintained showpiece that they were expecting, but a rustbucket on its last legs. What's worse, Nick and Gino's own car gives up the ghost, and they're stranded in the middle of nowhere. While trying to get home, the Calabrese boys meet Melody (Kelly Shea), and Nick starts putting the moves on her. A romance quickly blooms, but high-strung Nick discovers that Melody won't jump when he calls the way his old girlfriends in Brooklyn used to do, and the slow pace of Southern life is about to drive him crazy. But laid-back Gino finds he likes small-town Florida life just fine, and he becomes pals with the huge and largely silent Henry.
Title: Einstein and the EPR Paradox
Post by: nmla on May 27, 2008, 11:06:38 AM

[...] David Bohm regretted the speed with which Neils Bohr tried to resolve the tensions inherent in quantum theory. Within a year of Heisenberg's discovery of matrix mechanics Schrodinger produced his wave equation and Bohr and others quickly demonstrated the mathematical equivalence of the two approaches. Yet both approaches do subtly different things - Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, for example, makes no reference to an underlying or background space. If only the two approaches could have been held in tension, emphasizing both their similarities and differences, Bohm argued, then it may have been possible to develop a much deeper theory, one that transcended conventional notions of space-time and allowed for an intimate connection with relativity.


Here it is an interesting article on the issue:

By the 1920s, it had become clear to most physicists that classical mechanics could not fully describe the world of atoms, especially the notion of "quanta" first proposed by Planck and further developed by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect. Physics had to be rebuilt, leading to the emergence of quantum theory. Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and others who helped create the theory insisted that there was no meaningful way in which to discuss certain details of an atom's behavior: for example, one could never predict the precise moment when an atom would emit a quantum of light. But Einstein could never fully accept this innate uncertainty, once famously declaring, "God does not play dice." He wasn't alone in his discomfort: Erwin Schrödinger, inventor of the wave function, once declared of quantum mechanics, "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

In a 1935 paper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen introduced a thought experiment to argue that quantum mechanics was not a complete physical theory. Known today as the "EPR paradox," the thought experiment was meant to demonstrate the innate conceptual difficulties of quantum theory. It said that the result of a measurement on one particle of an entangled quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on another particle, regardless of the distance of the two parts. One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is the notion of uncertainty: not all the classical physical observable properties of a system can be simultaneously determined with exact precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observable properties–position and momentum, for example–that cannot both be known at the same time. Another peculiar property of quantum mechanics is entanglement: if two photons, for example, become entangled –that is, they are allowed to interact initially so that they will subsequently be defined by a single wave function–then once they are separated, they will still share a wave function. So measuring one will determine the state of the other: for example, with a spin-zero entagled state, if one particle is measured to be in a spin-up state, the other is instantly forced to be in a spin-down state.

(http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200511/images/entangled_photons.jpg)

This is known as "nonlocal behavior." Einstein dubbed it "spooky action at a distance." It appears to violate one of the central tenets of relativity: information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality. It's worth noting that Einstein wasn’t attempting to disprove quantum mechanics; he acknowledged that it could, indeed, predict the outcomes of various experiments. He was merely troubled by the philosophical interpretations of the theory, and argued that, because of the EPR paradox, quantum mechanics could not be considered a complete theory of nature. Einstein postulated the existence of hidden variables: as yet unknown local properties of the system which should account for the discrepancy, so that no instantaneous spooky action would be necessary. Bohr disagreed vehemently with this view and defended the far stricter Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The two men often argued passionately about the subject, especially at the Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930; neither ever conceded defeat.

There have been numerous theoretical and experimental developments since Einstein and his colleagues published their original EPR paper, and most physicists today regard the so-called "paradox" more as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical physics, rather than as evidence that quantum theory itself is fundamentally flawed, as Einstein had originally intended. But the paper did help deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before that paper, most physicists viewed a measurement as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system: one shines light onto an electron to determine its position, but this disturbs the electron and produces uncertainties. The EPR paradox shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. Today, quantum entanglement forms the basis of several cutting-edge technologies. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be intercepted by an eavesdropper without leaving a trace. The first viable quantum cryptography systems are already being used by several banks. And the burgeoning field of quantum computation uses entangled quantum states to perform computational calculations in parallel, so that some types of calculations can be done much more quickly than could ever be possible using classical computers.
Title: Re: Einstein and the EPR Paradox
Post by: gent on May 30, 2008, 12:56:24 PM

Here it is an interesting article on the issue:

By the 1920s, it had become clear to most physicists that classical mechanics could not fully describe the world of atoms, especially the notion of "quanta" first proposed by Planck and further developed by Albert Einstein to explain the photoelectric effect. Physics had to be rebuilt, leading to the emergence of quantum theory. Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and others who helped create the theory insisted that there was no meaningful way in which to discuss certain details of an atom's behavior: for example, one could never predict the precise moment when an atom would emit a quantum of light. But Einstein could never fully accept this innate uncertainty, once famously declaring, "God does not play dice." He wasn't alone in his discomfort: Erwin Schrödinger, inventor of the wave function, once declared of quantum mechanics, "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

In a 1935 paper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen introduced a thought experiment to argue that quantum mechanics was not a complete physical theory. Known today as the "EPR paradox," the thought experiment was meant to demonstrate the innate conceptual difficulties of quantum theory. It said that the result of a measurement on one particle of an entangled quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on another particle, regardless of the distance of the two parts. One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is the notion of uncertainty: not all the classical physical observable properties of a system can be simultaneously determined with exact precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observable properties–position and momentum, for example–that cannot both be known at the same time. Another peculiar property of quantum mechanics is entanglement: if two photons, for example, become entangled –that is, they are allowed to interact initially so that they will subsequently be defined by a single wave function–then once they are separated, they will still share a wave function. So measuring one will determine the state of the other: for example, with a spin-zero entagled state, if one particle is measured to be in a spin-up state, the other is instantly forced to be in a spin-down state.

(http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200511/images/entangled_photons.jpg)

This is known as "nonlocal behavior." Einstein dubbed it "spooky action at a distance." It appears to violate one of the central tenets of relativity: information can’t be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because this would violate causality. It's worth noting that Einstein wasn’t attempting to disprove quantum mechanics; he acknowledged that it could, indeed, predict the outcomes of various experiments. He was merely troubled by the philosophical interpretations of the theory, and argued that, because of the EPR paradox, quantum mechanics could not be considered a complete theory of nature. Einstein postulated the existence of hidden variables: as yet unknown local properties of the system which should account for the discrepancy, so that no instantaneous spooky action would be necessary. Bohr disagreed vehemently with this view and defended the far stricter Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The two men often argued passionately about the subject, especially at the Solvay Conferences of 1927 and 1930; neither ever conceded defeat.

There have been numerous theoretical and experimental developments since Einstein and his colleagues published their original EPR paper, and most physicists today regard the so-called "paradox" more as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical physics, rather than as evidence that quantum theory itself is fundamentally flawed, as Einstein had originally intended. But the paper did help deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Before that paper, most physicists viewed a measurement as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system: one shines light onto an electron to determine its position, but this disturbs the electron and produces uncertainties. The EPR paradox shows that a "measurement" can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle. Today, quantum entanglement forms the basis of several cutting-edge technologies. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be intercepted by an eavesdropper without leaving a trace. The first viable quantum cryptography systems are already being used by several banks. And the burgeoning field of quantum computation uses entangled quantum states to perform computational calculations in parallel, so that some types of calculations can be done much more quickly than could ever be possible using classical computers.


byraze, Einstein never liked Quantum Mechanics. Even though he virtually invented the quantum theory of light, the more he rolled the ideas of quantum mechanics around in his mind, the more he rejected the idea that it was complete -- or even worked at all. He didn't like the idea that the momentum of a particle, if it's position was known, was completely unknowable -- random. He said, "God does not play at dice with the universe." Neils Bohr, one of the greatest physicists working with quantum mechanics, wittily replied, "Quit telling God what to do!" But Einstein wasn't the only one who didn't like the theory. In 1935 he got together with two other like-minded physicists, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and wrote a famous paper entitled Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? We now refer to it as simply the EPR Paradox (no wonder, since the other title flows off the tongue so well). It wasn't until 1964, 29 years after the EPR Paradox was published, that serious proof was established that Einstein and friends had good reason to be worried. That was the year John S. Bell published his mathematical proof, a theorem that elegantly proved that if momentum and position were absolute values (that is, they exists whether they were measured or not) then an inequality, now called Bell's Inequality, would be satisfied (Pool). Einstein's position was clear: "I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.

What Exactly is the Problem?

In the EPR paradox, Einstein and friends imagined a scenario that would let you measure, say, both the position and momentum (as an example) of a particle with absolute certainty, a big no-no in quantum mechanics. A perfect example is the case of the neutral pion. A pion is a subatomic particle (very small) that decays into two photons, each with opposite spins. These are difficult concepts to understand, but all you really need to know is this:

- The pion has no spin. Imagine a baseball just sitting there, not spinning. Pretty simple.
- When the pion decays (a common occurrence in the subatomic world) it no longer is a pion. It splits into two photons that shoot away from each other in opposite directions.
- Photons have spin, but these two photons came from a pion with no spin. So, since you know the spin of one photon, you can find out the spin of the other photon because their spins have to add up to no spin at all. Imagine our baseball that was not spinning all of the sudden flies apart into two golf balls, each spinning in opposite directions.

Because the photons came from a single pion, it is said that they are entangled. You'll see what I mean. One of the photons flies to the right. You first measure it's spin along the x-axis with absolute certainty (quite possible). But, alas, quantum mechanics won't let you measure the y-axis spin, since you already know the x-axis spin. So you go to the second photon that flew to the left. You already know its x-axis spin without even measuring it: it is the exact opposite of the other photon. The paradox is this: Can you measure the y-axis spin of the second photon with absolute certainty even though you already know it's x-axis spin without measuring it? Duh, of course you can, says Einstein. How would the second photon "know" you measured the first photon? But quantum mechanics says you can't measure the y-axis spin with absolute certainty. It doesn't matter if the two photons were separated by an inch or 10 miles, the very instant you measure the first photon's x-axis spin, the y-axis spin of the second photon is impossible to measure. Relativity says that the "knowledge" of the measurement of the first photon can only travel the speed of light. But quantum mechanics requires the "knowledge" of the measurement to be instantaneous, because they have been entangled. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". If you understood all that, the rest of this is a piece of cake. If you didn't, don't worry, the rest is still interesting (you could always ask a question). So who's right? Ah, how the plot thickens when Bell comes on the scene.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gent on May 30, 2008, 01:13:46 PM
Bell's Inequality in Detail

To explain away this quirky paradox, some scientists said that there were "hidden variables" that exist in the photons that allow them to behave this way. Hidden variables are variables that we have yet to discover. They would be aspects of each of the photons that are the same, since they were entangled, but that did not depend on the other photon.

Bell proved mathematically that this was impossible with this inequality:

Number(A, not B) + Number(B, not C) >= Number(A, not C)

David M. Harrison, a physicist at the University of Toronto, explains it this way:

Quote
In class I often make the students the collection of objects and choose the parameters to be:

A: male
B: height over 5'8"
C: blue eyes

Then the inequality becomes that the number of men students who do not have a height over 5'8" plus the number of students, male and female, with height over 5'8" but who do not have blue eyes is greater than or equal to the number of men students who do not have blue eyes. I absolutely guarantee that for any collection of people this will turn out to be true.


What does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Here goes: you can shoot photons at a detector that detects the arrival time of the photon, and the photon's energy. If energy and arrival time were absolute values, that is, if the energy and arrival time of the photon exists whether it is measured or not, then the values would have to satisfy Bell's inequality, regardless of hidden variables.

The Punch Line: Does Quantum Mechanics Violate the Inequality?

In experiment after experiment Bell's Inequality is not violated, but instantaneous communication, or "spooky at a distance", seems to occur. If you rule out instantaneous communication, Bell's Inequality is violated. The most interesting experiment was carried out by a physicist at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, Nicolas Gisin in 1997. He split a single photon into two "smaller" photons (which meant they were entangled) and sent them down fiber optic cable in opposite directions. When the photons where about 10 kilometers apart they ran into a detector. Gisin found that even though a large distance separate the photons, something done to one photon at one end very much affected the photon at the other end...instantaneously.

What does this mean?

Let's take a look at assumptions. Here we invent two assumptions:

Quote
All birds have wings.
Everything that has wings flies.

We can conclude from these two assumptions that all birds fly. If we find a bird that has wings but doesn't fly, we know that at least one of our assumptions was wrong. In this case, it's obviously the last assumption (all the birds I know have wings).

It's interesting to know that Bell's Theorem has assumptions, too. They are:

Quote
Logic is valid.
There is a reality separate from its observation.
No information can travel faster than light.

The last assumption is called locality. Locality says that everything that is bound by relativity, everything that can't go faster than light, is local. If something is non-local it is thought to be part of a larger reality.

So which assumption is wrong in Bell's Theorem? Nobody knows.

Logic could be wrong. In 1930, Kurt Gödel proved that any theory proposed for the foundation of mathematics will be either insufficient for mathematics, incomplete, or inconsistent. This was a wild and crazy thing for a logician to do, as it essentially proved that logic was incomplete. There may be no reality separate from its observation. This is where physics melds with philosophy and religion. Could it be that the universe only exists because we are conscious of it? Perhaps we only exist because someone or something is conscious of us? The EPR paradox isn't the only paradox that raises this possibility. Erwin Schrödinger proposed a way to link the classical world that humanity knows to the quantum world of electrons and protons. He proposed that in a closed box one could put a live cat, a vial of poison gas, a geiger counter that smashes the vial if it detects radiation, and a radioactive atom. In an hour, the atom's likelihood of having decayed is 50%. In quantum mechanics, before you measure whether of not the atom decayed, it actually exists in a superstate of both decayed and not decayed. It's not that you just don't know, it's that it actually exists in both states at the same time. Thus, after an hour's time, before you peer into the box to see if the kitty is alive or dead, it must exist in a superstate of both dead and alive. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, did it actually exist at all? Information might be able to travel faster than light. Consider a one-dimensional creature, we shall call him a 1d, that exists on a line. Everything the 1d creature knows is in terms of length and nothing else. Then along comes a two dimensional creature, call him 2d. The 1d can measure the length of the 2d, but isn't aware of anything else. In fact, it's possible for the 1d to measure two lengths for a single 2d, making the 1d think that the 2d exists in two places at once, and in his universe he does! The same could be true for our universe.

(http://library.thinkquest.org/C008537/cool/bellsinequality/1d2d.gif)

The popular press likes to claim that quantum physics allows for faster than light communication of information. So far, physicists have not come to this conclusion. Dr. Ken Caviness, chair of the Physics Department at Southern Adventist University in Tennessee, says this:

Quote
I don't know of anyone in the field who seriously proposes instantaneous communication. On the contrary it seems that despite quantum entanglement information cannot be extracted from the system without some (at most) light-speed exchange of information.
Title: EMPOWERMENT THROUGH RAPE [SOUTH AFRICA]
Post by: T a s h on June 02, 2008, 01:08:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU&feature=related


(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/19/oj_2.jpg)

In his much-publicized and hashed-over speech on race relations Monday, Barack Obama made a brief reference to the notorious O.J. Simpson murder trial, citing it as an example of the predilection to "tackle race only as spectacle." Less noticed was the elaboration he provided in an interview aired Monday night on ABC's "Nightline" on the question that once so divided many whites and blacks: did Simpson butcher his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her wrong-place, wrong-time friend, Ron Goldman? "You remember when, during the O.J. trial ... black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I'm somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty," Obama told "Nightline's" Terry Moran.

He continued: "And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory." For Obama, the jury remains out on whether he has defused the controversy that enveloped him as attention turned late last week to inflammatory comments uttered over the years by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.


(http://www.thecivicplatform.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/evo.jpg)
Black men as savage beasts and killers of White men and rapists of White women.

EMPOWERMENT THROUGH RAPE: THE SEXUAL HOLOCAUST

By Greg Kay

In South Africa, there is a sexual holocaust in progress even as we speak: an orgy of violent rape that dwarfs all other violent crime. This holocaust is a deliberate program of violent sexual assault by one race upon another, and it is called 'interracial rape.' Virtually every case of black-on-white rape is a hate crime - nearly every one, because of the very nature of interracial rape. Certainly, every rape perpetrated by a savage upon a white woman that he has had to leave his black township in order to find would easily meet that definition, and not only for the very real psychological and social consequences to the victim which, in extreme cases, see her cut off from the members of her own society. The reason goes well beyond that. It is often argued that rape is not a sex crime, but a crime of violence or an act of power and control, but interracial rape, while it encompasses all of these motivations, is something more. Interracial, black-on-white rape is also a violent political act - a form of terrorism - the ultimate statement of the black power movement that has disguised itself under the innocuous-sounding banner of 'civil rights.'

Consider this: being able to take to woman or women of someone else and use them for your gratification, as an extension of the basic biological desire to breed that pits rutting animals against one another for the favours of the herd’s females in order to pass on their genes, is the ultimate statement of superiority, and the ultimate denigration to the male or the group to whom the female belongs, as well as to the woman herself. The act demonstrates not only to the victim and her attacker, but also to the kin of both the raped and the rapist that the rapist is the one with the power. In the USA (as it is the world over) both blacks and their liberal white admirers who have laboured endlessly on their behalf in order to raise that race to a useful position of political power all out of proportion to both their numbers and their contributions to society, have long recognized a simple but overlooked fact. Black-on-white rape as a political act is part of the world view of both the radical liberal and the open communist. At the infamous US Jefferson School, among others, it was reportedly taught by Communist historian, Dr. Herbert Aptheker.

At first, the communists there attempted to deny that any black-on-white rapes ever occurred, but when the facts of several cases became too obvious for even them to overlook, the line was changed to suggest that such an act was an un-condemnable and even semi-laudable revolutionary statement by the down-trodden proletariat against the corrupt elite, and was justified as a sort of payback for all of the white-on-black rapes which they claimed had occurred both during slavery and afterwards. To the leftists, the act of such a rape was not nearly as "criminal" as for a white victim to report the act the authorities, thus reinforcing the "racist" status quo. The victim, in radical philosophy, became the oppressor and the rapist the patriot throwing off his shackles. The class of educated blacks, many of whose most notable members were already either openly communist or sympathetic to them, quickly picked up on the concept of rape as a justified revolutionary act. Radical black 'Eldridge Cleaver' said so openly.

Quote
"Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women - and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful. I was getting revenge."


Black sociologist Calvin C. Hernton, in his work "Sex and Racism in America," made the following statements:

Quote
"I am well aware that, like murder, rape has many motives. But when the motive for rape, however psychotic, is basically racial, that is a different matter. I think now that, at one time or another, in every black who grows up in the South, there is a rapist, no matter how well hidden."


The reason for this, he quickly goes on to say, is not the fault of the black, but of the white man, reinforcing the radical philosophy. Although the FBI was inexplicably reluctant to keep records of race in rape statistics for many years, there are other figures out there. Consider the implications of a study done in Washington DC, a city with a black majority, by a Dr. Hayman. Hayman, in the late '60s and early '70s, recorded the racial data of those women who came to the DC General hospital for medical examinations and treatment following reported rapes. His figures are disturbing. In this particular urban area, black on black rape accounted for 76% of all reported cases of violent sexual assault, while white on white rape made up 3%, and white on black rape less than ½%. Astonishingly, black on white rape amounted to 21% of the total, indicating very clearly that urban blacks raped not only at a rate of 97 to 3 in comparison to the urban "white" population (a deceptive figure in itself, since Hispanics are considered white in many reports), but that they are far, far more likely to choose white victims than a white rapist is to choose a black victim.

In the ground-breaking study, "The Color of Crime," the figures show that American blacks in general are 38 times more likely to commit interracial rape than whites (again, with Latin American Hispanics who have a much higher crime rate than ethnic Europeans counted as white.) on a per-capita basis. In fact, even though blacks make up a fairly small percentage of the population, they commit the majority of all interracial crimes, including rape, in actual numbers of crimes. For instance, in 1994, blacks committed 30,000 interracial rapes, while whites (again, including Hispanics) committed only 5,400, despite a population several times larger. These and other studies show conclusively that interracial rape is very much a black on white phenomenon. It leaves one with the question, "Why?" Is it that blacks are simply more culturally or genetically prone to rape than other ethnic groups? That answer is obviously "Yes," but there's more to it. The radical blacks and their leftist defenders have told us the reason, a reason we refuse to accept. Do they know something we don't, namely that we are in a war, not for "equality," as there can never be true and total equality in an integrated society between two groups who are so very different, but a war for the supremacy of the one and the subjugation of the other, with no middle ground and no neutrality? Could it be that the Caucasians, the white race, are in a war for their place in the world and, ultimately, for their very survival, and nobody told them? Or, even worse, could it be that they were told, many times, by voices "crying in the wilderness," but they chose not to hear?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Em Woods on June 04, 2008, 10:29:53 AM
holy crap you just blew my mind.

tag.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Master Thespian on June 08, 2008, 10:57:17 AM

In other words, Dundee, the key to success just isn't self-improvement ;)


That's not the point, cen! As each is a self-scripted star in their life story, each also has the power and freedom to pen their own demise. Living according to individual truth considerably reduces the possibility to self-defeat becoming a pattern moment-to-moment, year-to-year, and life-to-life. Not only must WHAT to do and WHY to do be self-determined, but HOW and WHEN too. Individual feelings are the only motivator and motivation that inflames and sustains drive, and returns rewards that are personally meaningful and, therefore, more confidence-building than money and applause. Otherewise, after reasoning and logical convincing, what walks out to try and do is SHOULD. When that happens, success and happiness are not individual, but predicated on the average of all who attempted before. SHOULD not only comes with set rules for doing and limits on reward, but it also requires the input of many to supervise and encourage when enthusiasm flags. IF attained, success and happiness rewards are owed many and spread wide and thin. On the other hand, failure is a burden that's carried by one, though trying and doing involved many. SHOULD always has a record of past successes attached, which more often destroys self-confidence than builds it. DOING FOR SHOULD and DOING FOR MUST are 180-degrees apart in terms of success/failure and happiness/unhappiness. The former is reasoned so unreasonableness becomes the motivation. The latter is decided by MUST which is already unreasonable, so the only motivation available is self. When doing for MUST, happiness is a daily companion straight through to the end, regardless of success.


You go Vigilance! 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Valenta on June 10, 2008, 12:31:59 PM
Hmmm..
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: premiermaw on June 14, 2008, 01:18:37 PM


Interesting username, butterfly! It reminded me right away the technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in Chaos Theory I read. Small variations of the initial condition of a non-linear dynamical system that may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position. The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/TwoLorenzOrbitsSmall.jpg)
These figures show two segments of the three-dimensional evolution of two trajectories (one in blue, the other in yellow) for the same period of time in the Lorenz attractor starting at two initial points that differ only by 10-5 in the x-coordinate. Initially, the two trajectories seem coincident, as indicated by the small difference between the z coordinate of the blue and yellow trajectories, but for t > 23 the difference is as large as the value of the trajectory. The final position of the cones indicates that the two trajectories are no longer coincident at t=30.
Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather).



In the movie "Run Lola Run" (Lola rennt in German-1998), the butterfly effect is represented clearly. There, minor and almost sub-conscious actions in everyday life can be seen to have gross and wide spread effects upon the future. For example, the fact that Lola bumps into someone instead of passing by may lead to a painful death after suffering paralysis. As such, seemingly inconsequential actions can be seen to have drastic long-term results. Lola's boyfriend Manni is trying to prove his loyalty to a gang boss. Manni's final task in a particular job is to deliver 100,000 Deutsche Mark (about 51,000 Euro at the final exchange rate) to his boss Ronnie. Everything goes wrong. Lola's moped is stolen and she is unable to transport Manni to the meeting place. After waiting for her Manni decides to use the metro. He accidentally leaves the bag, with its 100,000 Mark, in the underground after an encounter with a bum and two ticket-controllers. The money is then found by the homeless man. Manni realizes what he's done and soon makes a desperate phone call to Lola, asking her to think of something, to help him. If he does not have the money by the meeting at 12 noon, he will certainly be killed. Lola promises to get him the 100,000 Mark. Manni warns her that he will rob a supermarket on the street corner if Lola has not come in 20 minutes. Can Lola get him the money and save his life? It is at this point that the three sequential alternative realities begin.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Runlolarun.jpg)
First reality: Manni and Lola rob a supermarket.

First run

As Lola flees from her apartment, a punk with a dog is shown on the staircase. The dog growls at her, causing her to scream and sprint faster. With little time and no vehicle, Lola runs through the streets of Berlin to get to her father's bank, with the intention of asking him for the money. Lola's father refuses, and says that he feels unappreciated at home, and that he is leaving Lola and her mother for his mistress. He also announces that he is not Lola's real father. Lola runs to where Manni is anyway, passing an ambulance that stops in front of a crew of workers carrying a window pane. She arrives at the street corner a few moments too late; Manni's robbery is already in progress. Lola decides to help Manni rob the store. The two flee on foot afterwards but find themselves surrounded by police, and a nervous police officer accidentally shoots Lola in the chest after Manni throws the bag with its stolen money into the air. While Lola is dying, a sequence of her memory (or, possibly, her consciousness) is shown. In it, Lola and Manni are together talking in bed. Lola questions Manni about his love for her and remains unconvinced that it is genuine. The scene fades in a sea of red.

Second run

As she dies, the film suddenly starts again. It jumps back to the end of Lola's first phone call from Manni and again she tries to get the money from her father. This time, the punk with a dog in the stairway trips her. Lola arrives at the bank a few moments later because of her limp, which leaves enough time for her father's mistress to explain that she is pregnant by someone else. Lola hears more of the argument this time, and becomes infuriated. She then robs her father's bank with a gun grabbed from the security officer, and takes off with the money to meet Manni, and tries to hitch a ride from the red ambulance. But her distracting the driver makes the ambulance crash into the window pane, stopping it for a few seconds. When Lola reaches Manni he is run down by the same ambulance as he crosses the street to meet her. After Manni is killed by the ambulance another memory sequence ensues in which Lola and Manni's roles are reversed: Manni questions Lola about her love for him.

Third run

The story starts a third time. Lola is a split second faster, as she leaps over the punk on the steps and stops on Mr. Meyer's (her father's co-worker, as it now turns out) car long enough to prevent his accident in the first two realities. This allows Mr. Meyer to get to work and pick up Lola's father. As a result, Lola misses her father completely. Not knowing what to do, she decides to simply keep running. However her father, along with Mr. Meyer now end up in an apparently fatal car crash as the tramp with the money distracts the driver. Lola enters a casino, buys a single 100-mark chip, and finds a roulette table. She wins two consecutive bets on the number "20" (an echo of the 20 minutes of her journey), which gives Lola 127,000 Marks. More than sufficient money to help Manni, but she still must catch him in time. She hitches a ride in the same ambulance, unnoticed by the driver, as it stops in front of the crew with the window pane. The ambulance is carrying Schuster, the security guard from her father's bank who has apparently suffered a heart attack, as foreshadowed by his clutching his chest and his loud heartbeats in the Second Run earlier in the film. Although some English subtitles here have Lola saying "I'll stay with him," the actual German line is "Ich gehöre zu ihm", which translates as "I'm with him" or "I belong with him." She holds Schuster's hand, and moments later, his heart rate begins to return to normal. Meanwhile, Manni has borrowed a phone card from a blind woman (portrayed for the third time) to make a phone call as he futilely seeks a loan. As in the other sequences, he returns the phone card to the woman, but this time the woman gestures with her head, and Manni looks up to notice the tramp with his money riding by on a bicycle. Manni chases him down, recovers his money, gives him his pistol in exchange for the bag of cash and then delivers it to Ronnie. Lola arrives to find Manni stepping out of Ronnie's car and shaking his boss's hand. The movie ends with Manni asking Lola what is in the bag she is carrying.

Connections between the runs

Throughout the film, Lola bumps into people, talks to them, or simply passes them by. Details of that person's future are subsequently shown in a series of still frames. The futures are widely divergent from encounter to encounter. In one scenario, a woman whom Lola accidentally bumps into remains poor and kidnaps an unattended baby after her child was taken away by social workers. In another scenario the woman wins the lottery and becomes rich. In the third scenario, the woman experiences a religious conversion. Several moments in the film allude to a supernatural awareness of the characters. For example, in the first reality, a nervous Lola is shown by Manni how to use a gun by removing the safety, whereas she does this as if remembered from a previous experience in the second reality. Lola's encounters with Schuster also contain an air of the supernatural. The movie itself begins by posing questions pertaining to the unpredictability of the world and the unknowable nature of its meaning. It suggests that drastically disparate consequences can alter the fates of different people from a one second change in the time of one person's running.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: b e s a m e on June 25, 2008, 03:28:45 PM

In other words, Dundee, the key to success just isn't self-improvement ;)


That's not the point, cen! As each is a self-scripted star in their life story, each also has the power and freedom to pen their own demise. Living according to individual truth considerably reduces the possibility to self-defeat becoming a pattern moment-to-moment, year-to-year, and life-to-life. Not only must WHAT to do and WHY to do be self-determined, but HOW and WHEN too. Individual feelings are the only motivator and motivation that inflames and sustains drive, and returns rewards that are personally meaningful and, therefore, more confidence-building than money and applause. Otherewise, after reasoning and logical convincing, what walks out to try and do is SHOULD. When that happens, success and happiness are not individual, but predicated on the average of all who attempted before. SHOULD not only comes with set rules for doing and limits on reward, but it also requires the input of many to supervise and encourage when enthusiasm flags. IF attained, success and happiness rewards are owed many and spread wide and thin. On the other hand, failure is a burden that's carried by one, though trying and doing involved many. SHOULD always has a record of past successes attached, which more often destroys self-confidence than builds it. DOING FOR SHOULD and DOING FOR MUST are 180-degrees apart in terms of success/failure and happiness/unhappiness. The former is reasoned so unreasonableness becomes the motivation. The latter is decided by MUST which is already unreasonable, so the only motivation available is self. When doing for MUST, happiness is a daily companion straight through to the end, regardless of success.


You go Vigilance! 


Cool post indeed!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Muhammad Mali on June 30, 2008, 11:56:42 AM

My God, ora!


lola, nice choice - your avatar - continue the good research work! 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Joycee on July 05, 2008, 07:09:47 PM

After the Sunset, castrot?


I didn't like that movie - After the Sunset is the sort of movie that may not find its ideal audience until channel-surfing insomniacs discover it late some evening, long, long after sunset indeed.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: elvira on July 07, 2008, 11:40:32 AM

I didn't like that movie - After the Sunset is the sort of movie that may not find its ideal audience until channel-surfing insomniacs discover it late some evening, long, long after sunset indeed.


And just before the sunrise ... LOL! ;)
Title: Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
Post by: hilt on July 10, 2008, 12:50:44 PM

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


Hmm, I see...

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: h i l t on July 10, 2008, 01:04:52 PM

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


Hmm, I see...


(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/4416/hologram5ur8.jpg)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: copula on July 16, 2008, 08:45:46 AM
I see you've posted twice within some minutes, hilt -- you had problems logging in and out?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Does Mona Lisa Ever Laugh on July 18, 2008, 05:18:29 AM
I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: QIR on July 19, 2008, 01:11:54 PM

I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.


(http://www.drdzoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/monalisa.jpg)

Great username, Mona Lisa! The smile on the face of the Mona Lisa is so enigmatic that it disappears when it is looked at directly, says a US scientist. Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University said the smile only became apparent when the viewer looked at other parts of the painting. The smile disappeared when it was looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information. The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral. Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows. The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision. The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision. The best example of this effect was if someone was to stare at a letter on a page of print. Concentrating on one letter made it difficult to pick out other letters even a short distance away. The smile only became apparent if a viewer looked at her eyes or elsewhere on her face.

Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: dadada on July 19, 2008, 04:57:10 PM
Quasi in rem?
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: mother in law on July 21, 2008, 12:58:01 PM
The famous "quasi in rem" -- (Latin, "as if against a thing") is a legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. A quasi in rem action is commonly used when jurisdiction over the defendant is unobtainable due to his/her absence from the state. Any judgment will affect only the property seized, as in personam jurisdiction is unobtainable. Of note, in a quasi in rem case the court may lack personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but it has jurisdiction over the defendant's property. The property could be seized to obtain a claim against the defendant. A judgment based on quasi in rem jurisdiction generally affects rights to the property only between the persons involved and does not "bind the entire world" as does a judgment based on "jurisdiction in rem". The claim does not have to be related to the property seized, but the person must have minimum contacts with the forum state in order for jurisdiction to be proper.

How can a court exercise personal jurisdiction over a case?

1) If the defendant lives in the state where the case is filed - this is in personam jurisdiction.

2) If the lawsuit is about a piece of tanglible property (a house, piece of land, etc.) located in the state where the case is filed - that's in rem jurisdiction.

3) If the person has sufficient assets in the state where the case is filed to pay any damages that may be awarded in the case - that's quasi in rem jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: godo on July 22, 2008, 02:45:31 PM

I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.


Your explanation is appreciated, Does Mona... :)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: n.ear on July 26, 2008, 04:00:02 PM

I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.


(http://www.drdzoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/monalisa.jpg)

Great username, Mona Lisa! The smile on the face of the Mona Lisa is so enigmatic that it disappears when it is looked at directly, says a US scientist. Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University said the smile only became apparent when the viewer looked at other parts of the painting. The smile disappeared when it was looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information. The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral. Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows. The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision. The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision. The best example of this effect was if someone was to stare at a letter on a page of print. Concentrating on one letter made it difficult to pick out other letters even a short distance away. The smile only became apparent if a viewer looked at her eyes or elsewhere on her face.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cjRmuljAKc&feature=related
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: situation on July 27, 2008, 12:50:06 PM

In 1921, upon publishing "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," Freud was among the first to study the powerful influence that group leaders can have over group members. In his paper, Freud referred to the contagious and regressive nature of groups described by LeBon and McDougall, but he added the dimension of intrapsychic cathectic shifts that could occur in groups. Freud described the similarity of such groups as the Catholic Church and the army with the hypnotic situation. In all of these situations, there is a leader and one or more followers. The follower obeys the leader and gives up his own superego and ego ideal as he identifies with the leader's superego. Freud also compared the psychological changes occurring in group members to changes that occur to those who fall in love. In both cases, the ego can disregard the previous standards of the superego, because it gains a sufficient amount of narcissistic support and gratification of instinctual wishes elsewhere.


If the individuals in a group are combined into a unity, there must be something to unite them, and this bond might be precisely the thing that is characteristic of a group. Le Bon thinks that the particular acquirements of individuals become obliterated in a group, and that in this way their distinctiveness vanishes. The racial unconscious emerges; what is heterogenous is submerged in what is homogeneous. The mental superstructure, the development of which in individuals shows such dissimilarities, is removed, and the unconscious foundations, which are similar in everyone, stand exposed to view. In a group, the individual is brought under conditions which allow him to throw off the repressions of his unconscious instinctual impulses. The apparently new characteristics which he then displays are in fact the manifestations of this unconscious. Le Bon believes that the individuals in a group display new characteristics which they have not previously possessed. Three factors are put forth as reasons for this: 1) the individual forming part of a group acquires a sentiment of invincible power which allows him to yield to instincts which, had he been alone, he would perforce have kept under restraint; 2) contagion; and 3) suggestibility. A group is impulsive, changeable, and irritable. It is led almost exclusively by the unconscious. A group is credulous and open to influence, it has no critical faculty, and the improbable does not exist for it. A group is subject to the magical power of words. Groups have never thirsted after truth.

Shielded by the anonymity of a crowd, people abandon personal responsibility and surrender to the contagious emotions of the crowd. A crowd thus assumes a life of its own, stirring up emotions and driving people toward irrational, perhaps violent, action. However, it must be noted that if Le Bon often referred to the cliché of the irrational crowd, which was current in the 19th century and before (in particular in the fields of criminology, which tended to describe crowds as irrational and criminal groups), he considered himself the founder of "crowd psychology". Thus, he didn't consider crowds as totally irrational, but simply thought that ordinary individualist psychology wasn't relevant to this phenomenon. Le Bon was a pioneer in propaganda, which he considered a suitable and rational technique for managing groups, using for example communal reinforcement of beliefs, etc. Le Bon's 1895 "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" influenced many 20th century figures, including Adolf Hitler, whose "Mein Kampf" insisted on Le Bon's work.

Le Bon made abundant use of the concept of "collective soul". Sigmund Freud would criticize this notion of collective unconscious, asserting that crowds do not have a soul of their own, nor do specific ethnic groups have a Volkgeist. Rather, individuals identify themselves to their leaders through their own "ideal ego" (that is, their subjective representation of their leader). The Freudian concept of an "ideal ego" later became the super-ego. Ultimately, leaders themselves identify themselves to an idea.


tag the post.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: thegayismine on July 28, 2008, 09:23:01 AM

Extortion, kidnapping, and even murder contracts become easier to set up. Extortion, for example, becomes almost unstoppable at the usual place: the collection of a payoff and/or the spending of the payoff money. The extortionist makes his threat from the safety of his home PC, using networks of remailers and message pools, and demands payment in untraceable digital cash. What if U.S. banks are forbidden to issue digital cash? Even if most nations and most banks decline to participate in a digital cash scheme, all it really takes is one such bank or mint. The extortionist can demand that blinded digital cash be bought from the one of the few banks that do offer digital cash: the victim is incentivized to cooperate (he can refuse, but...) and will make other arrangements, possibly including travelling to the country in which the bank is located. (Forbidding communication outside national borders, and/or forbidding travel, would of course be problematic to enforce. Not even totalitarian regimes of late have been able to stop such communications, and the U.S. and Western nations have vastly more channels of communication. Messages can easily be made indistinguishable from noise, as in packing 160 MB of data (!) in just the least significant bits of a 2-hour digital audio tape recording. If bales of marihuana cannot be stopped, how can bits be stopped? Bits are ever so much smaller...

Similar to extortion are markets for kidnappings (riskier, due to the physical act), and even untraceable markets for murders. For murder contracts, the usual risk is in setting up the hit--asking around is almost a guaranteed way of getting the FBI involved, and advertising in traceable ways is a similar invitation. This risk is largely removed when anonymous contact and payment methods are used. To ensure the job is completed, third party escrow services -- anonymous, of course, but with an established cyberspatial reputation -- hold the digital cash until completion. Much more has been written on this in various places.


No doubt about it! In fact it exists the notion of a market, a theoretical prediction market where any party can place a bet (using anonymous electronic money, and pseudonymous remailers) on the date of death of a given individual, and collect a payoff if they "guess" the date accurately. This would incentivise assassination of individuals because the assassin, knowing when the action would take place, could profit by making an accurate bet on the date of the subject's death. Because the payoff is for knowing the date rather than performing the action of the assassin, it is substantially more difficult to assign criminal liability for the assassination. Timothy C. May published around October 1994 a primer on the issue. Jim Bell's later article "Assassination Politics" described the concept in detail, concluding that as well as being an unholy mix of encryption, anonymity, and digital cash, the concept could also be used to help minimize violent crime. Timothy C. May, Carl Johnson and Matthew Taylor later developed the protocols to implement the concept online to the point that the IRS, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service investigated their motives for doing so. The US Secret Service circulated copies of 'Assassination Politics' and the relevant Wired articles in 2002. During investigations authorities pretended to be sympathizers in emails, posed as ISP representatives and sought Soviet style psychiatric repression in at least one case.


You have to take into account that Internet (digital) cash is strictly regulated and
Title: O.J. - Kavka's Puzzle
Post by: Grand Hotel on July 28, 2008, 07:20:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU&feature=related


(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/19/oj_2.jpg)

In his much-publicized and hashed-over speech on race relations Monday, Barack Obama made a brief reference to the notorious O.J. Simpson murder trial, citing it as an example of the predilection to "tackle race only as spectacle." Less noticed was the elaboration he provided in an interview aired Monday night on ABC's "Nightline" on the question that once so divided many whites and blacks: did Simpson butcher his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her wrong-place, wrong-time friend, Ron Goldman? "You remember when, during the O.J. trial ... black and white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. I'm somebody who was pretty clear that O.J. was guilty," Obama told "Nightline's" Terry Moran.

He continued: "And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way, but I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory." For Obama, the jury remains out on whether he has defused the controversy that enveloped him as attention turned late last week to inflammatory comments uttered over the years by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.


An eccentric billionaire places before you a vial of toxin that, if you drink it, will make you painfully ill for a day, but will not threaten your life or have any lasting effects. The billionaire will pay you one million dollars tomorrow morning if, at midnight tonight, you intend to drink the toxin tomorrow afternoon. He emphasizes that you need not drink the toxin to receive the money; in fact, the money will already be in your bank account hours before the time for drinking it arrives, if you succeed. All you have to do is...intend at midnight tonight to drink the stuff tomorrow afternoon. You are perfectly free to change your mind after receiving the money and not drink the toxin.

A possible interpretation: Can you intend to drink the toxin, if you know you don't have to?

The paradoxical nature can be stated in many ways, which may be useful for understanding analysis proposed by philosophers:

- An omniscient pay-off mechanism makes a person's decision known to him before he makes the decision, but it is also assumed that the person may change his decision afterwards, of free will.
- Kavka's claim, that one cannot intend what one will not do, makes pay-off mechanism an example of reverse causation.
- Pay-off for decision to drink the poison is ambiguous.
- There are two decisions for one event with different pay-offs.

Since the pain caused by the poison would be more than off-set by the money received, we can sketch the pay-off table as follows.

(http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9307/93127906db8.jpg)

According to Kavka: Whether you are paid or not, drinking the poison would leave you worse off. A rational person would know he would not drink the poison and thus could not intend to drink it.

(http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/5249/99652897to4.jpg)

David Gauthier argues once a person intends drinking the poison one cannot entertain ideas of not drinking it.

The rational outcome of your deliberation tomorrow morning is the action that will be part of your life going as well as possible, subject to the constraint that it be compatible with your commitment-in this case, compatible with the sincere intention that you form today to drink the toxin. And so the rational action is to drink the toxin.

(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9096/55176347zw6.jpg)

One of the central tenets of the puzzle is that for a reasonable person

- There is reasonable grounds for that person to drink the toxin, since some reward may be obtained.
- Having come to the above conclusion there is no reasonable grounds for that person to drink the toxin, since no futher reward may be obtained, and no reasonable person would partake in self-harm for no benefit

Thus a reasonable person must both intend to drink the toxin by the first argument, yet if that person intends to drink the toxin then they are being irrational by the second argument. If, however, there was a man who has always tried to keep every promise that he has made in his life, then all he would have to do would be to promise the man that he would drink the toxin, knowing that he would have to drink it. Therefore he would, with complete confidence, decide to drink it, and not change his mind later.
Title: Mona Lisa Was 83% Happy
Post by: s c h e l on July 30, 2008, 11:12:03 AM

(http://www.drdzoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/monalisa.jpg)

The smile on the face of the Mona Lisa is so enigmatic that it disappears when it is looked at directly, says a US scientist. Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University said the smile only became apparent when the viewer looked at other parts of the painting. The smile disappeared when it was looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information. The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral. Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows. The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision. The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision. The best example of this effect was if someone was to stare at a letter on a page of print. Concentrating on one letter made it difficult to pick out other letters even a short distance away. The smile only became apparent if a viewer looked at her eyes or elsewhere on her face.


AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — The mysterious half-smile that has intrigued viewers of the Mona Lisa for centuries isn't really that difficult to interpret. She was smiling because she was happy — 83% happy, to be exact, according to scientists from the University of Amsterdam. In what they viewed as a fun demonstration of technology rather than a serious experiment, the researchers scanned a reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece and subjected it to cutting-edge "emotion recognition" software, developed in collaboration with the University of Illinois. The result showed the painting's famous subject was 83% happy, 9% disgusted, 6% fearful and 2% angry. She was less than 1% neutral, and 0% surprised.

Leonardo began work on the painting in 1503, and it now hangs in the Louvre in Paris. The work, also known as "La Gioconda," is believed to have portrayed the wife of Francesco del Giocondo. The title is a play on her husband's name, and also means "the jolly lady" in Italian. Harro Stokman, a professor at the University of Amsterdam involved in the experiment, said the researchers knew the results would be unscientific — the software isn't designed to register subtle emotions. So it couldn't detect the hint of sexual suggestion or disdain many have read into Mona Lisa's eyes. In addition, the technology is designed for use with modern digital films and images, and subjects first need to be scanned in a neutral emotionless state to accurately detect their current emotion. Lead researcher Nicu Sebe took the challenge as seriously as he could, using the faces of 10 women of Mediterranean ancestry to create a composite image of a neutral expression. He then compared that to the face in the painting, scoring it on the basis of six emotions: happiness, surprise, anger, disgust, fear and sadness.

"Basically, it's like casting a spider web over the face to break it down into tiny segments," Stokman said. "Then you look for minute differences in the flare of the nostril or depth of the wrinkles around the eyes." Stokman said with a reading of 83%, it's clear happiness was the woman's main emotion. Biometrics experts not involved with the experiment said the results were interesting even if they aren't the last word on the Mona Lisa. "Facial recognition technology is advancing rapidly, but emotional recognition is really still in its infancy," said Larry Hornak, director of the Center for Identification Technology Research at West Virginia University. "It sounds like they did try to use a data set, even if it was small, and that's typical of work in an area like this that's relatively new.

It's an interesting result," he said. Stokman said he knew the University of Amsterdam effort won't prove or disprove controversial theories about the painting. One is that it was actually a self-portrait of Leonardo himself as a woman. "But who knows, in 30, 40, 50 years, maybe they'll be able to tell what was on her mind," Stokman said. Hornak agreed the idea was entertaining. "It's always fun to apply technology to areas of public interest, and sometimes you can come up with results that are very illuminating," he said. Jim Wayman, a biometrics researcher at San Jose State University agreed. "It's hocus pocus, not serious science," Wayman said. "But it's good for a laugh, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: per hair on August 02, 2008, 10:46:34 AM
hahaha ;)
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: miXin on August 13, 2008, 06:08:57 PM

I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.


(http://www.drdzoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/monalisa.jpg)

Great username, Mona Lisa! The smile on the face of the Mona Lisa is so enigmatic that it disappears when it is looked at directly, says a US scientist. Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University said the smile only became apparent when the viewer looked at other parts of the painting. The smile disappeared when it was looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information. The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral. Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows. The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision. The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision. The best example of this effect was if someone was to stare at a letter on a page of print. Concentrating on one letter made it difficult to pick out other letters even a short distance away. The smile only became apparent if a viewer looked at her eyes or elsewhere on her face.


I guess we'd need the services of analysts to reduce the ambiguity of this highly ambiguous situation - with the ambiguity, I'd assume, deliberately created by Leonardo.
Title: Not That Sarcastic, After All...
Post by: hitch on August 14, 2008, 11:27:57 AM

The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.


Like cud is regurgitated grass for cows, logic is regurgitated opinion for humans. Whenever and wherever cows belch or dispose, they enrich air and fertilize earth. Whenever and wherever logic burps or disposes, it can and does distroy life. If the situation were reversed, cows would have long-been eradicated for posterity's sake... but logic is not eradicated though posterity be at stake. Instead of looking to visionaries and dreamers, whose eyes see above and beyond known, authority persists in thumbing well-worn logic-pages and recycling ineffective solutions.


Bob's Balding Spot

Bob was looking forlornly into the bathroom mirror while holding a pocket mirror up to the back of his head.

'There goes another hair,' he said sadly.

'Stop worrying' replied Sarah. 'You can't turn from being not bald to being bald with the loss of a single hair, can you?'

'I guess not' said Bob.

'So you're still not bald, are you?' said Sarah.

'I suppose not. But hang on! If what you say is true, then, no matter how many hairs fall out of my head, I will never be bald!'

'Er. I didn't say that.'

'But it does follow from what you said, doesn't it? Suppose there are exactly a million hairs on my head now, and I am not bald. If one hair is removed, and you're right that removing a single hair can't transform a non-bald person into a bald one, then I still won't be bald. And so on, until there are no hairs left. I still won't be bald! So it follows that your principle that, by removing a single hair from his head, you can't turn a person from being not bald into being bald, must be false!'

'You're mad.'

'But it follows! In fact, there must come a point where, by losing just a single hair, I'll turn from being bald into being not bald!'

'But that's absurd. There's not a precise number of hairs that marks the boundary between being bald and being not bald.'

'But there must be!'

'But then what is that number of hairs?'

'I don't know. Maybe it's 10,027. Maybe it's 799. But there must be such a number.'

'That's just plain silly.'

'Actually, it must be true! In fact, perhaps the hair that just fell out was the one that turned me from being not bald into being bald!'
Title: Re: Not That Sarcastic, After All...
Post by: 4F-1 on August 15, 2008, 12:33:31 AM

The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.


Like cud is regurgitated grass for cows, logic is regurgitated opinion for humans. Whenever and wherever cows belch or dispose, they enrich air and fertilize earth. Whenever and wherever logic burps or disposes, it can and does distroy life. If the situation were reversed, cows would have long-been eradicated for posterity's sake... but logic is not eradicated though posterity be at stake. Instead of looking to visionaries and dreamers, whose eyes see above and beyond known, authority persists in thumbing well-worn logic-pages and recycling ineffective solutions.


The history of civilization is largely the account of the attempts of man to forget his transformation from an animal into a human being. So stubborn a refusal to forget is not an accident. Even the most enlightened of us will set up a Christmas tree for his children without having the least idea what this custom means, invariably disposed to nip any attempt at interpretation in the bud. For the thoughtful observer, however, both Christmas tree and trickster afford reason enough for reflection. For instance, if the myth of the trickster were nothing but an historical remnant, one would have to ask why it has not long since vanished into the great rubbish-heap of the past, and why it continues to make its influence felt on the highest levels of civilization, even where, on account of his stupidity and grotesque scurrility, the trickster no longer plays the role of a "delight-maker." His figure seems like an old river-bed in which the water still flows. You can see this best of all from the fact that the trickster motif does not crop up only in its mythical form but appears just as naively and authentically in the unsuspecting modern man -- whenever, in fact, he feels himself at the mercy of annoying "accidents" which thwart his will and his actions with apparently malicious intent.

He then speaks of "hoodoos" and "jinxes" or of the "mischievousness of the object." Here the trickster is represented by counter-tendencies in the unconscious, and in certain cases by a sort of second personality, of a puerile and inferior character, not unlike the personalities who announce themselves at spiritualistic seances and cause all those ineffably childish phenomena so typical of poltergeists. On the civilized level, it is regarded as a personal "gaffe," "slip," "faux pas," etc., which are then chalked up as defects of the conscious personality. We are no longer aware that in carnival customs and the like there are remnants of a collective shadow figure.

Anyone who belongs to a sphere of culture that seeks the perfect state somewhere in the past must feel very weird indeed when confronted by the figure of the trickster. He is a forerunner of the savior, and, like him, God, man, and animal at once. He is both subhuman and superhuman, a bestial and divine being, whose chief and most alarming characteristic is his unconsciousness. Because of it he is deserted by his (evidently human) companions, which seems to indicate that he has fallen below their level of consciousness. He is so unconscious of himself that his body is not a unity, and his two hands fight each other. He takes his anus off and entrusts it with a special task. Even his sex is optional despite its phallic qualities: he can turn himself into a woman and bear children. From his penis he makes all kinds of useful plants. This is a reference to his original nature as a Creator, for the world is made from the body of a god.

On the other hand he is in many respects stupider than the animals, and gets into one ridiculous scrape after another. Although he is not really evil, he does the most atrocious things from sheer unconsciousness and unrelatedness. His imprisonment in animal unconsciousness is suggested by the episode where he gets his head caught inside the skull of an elk, and the next episode shows how he overcomes this condition by imprisoning the head of a hawk inside his own rectum. True, he sinks back into the former condition immediately afterwards, by falling under the ice, and is outwitted time after time by the animals, but in the end he succeeds in tricking the cunning coyote, and this brings back to him his savior nature. The trickster is a primitive "cosmic" being of divine-animal nature, on the one hand superior to man because of his superhuman qualities, and on the other hand inferior to him because of his unreason and unconsciousness. He is no match for animals, either, because of his extraordinary clumsiness and lack of instinct. These defects are the marks of his human nature, which is not so well adapted to the environment as the animal's but, instead, has prospects of a much higher development of consciousness based on a considerable eagerness to learn, as is duly emphasized in the myth.

The so-called civilized man has forgotten the trickster. He remembers him only figuratively and metaphorically, when, irritated by his own ineptitude, he speaks of fate playing tricks on him or of things being bewitched. He never suspects that his own hidden and apparently harmless shadow has qualities whose dangerousness exceeds his wildest dreams. As soon as people get together in masses and submerge the individual, the shadow is mobilized, and, as history shows, may even be personified and incarnated.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: shell oil on August 15, 2008, 12:13:21 PM

Well, gangsters and cops alike are neither black nor white; they represent the color of gray. A hidden identity between good and evil. The symbiotic relationship of hunter and hunted, embodied by men with guns pointed, arms at full extension, winding around each other in a distinctly homoerotic pas de deux.


(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8587/afterthesunset2bn8.jpg)
After the Sunset


You could have left out the picture..
Title: Re: Legal Sophistry
Post by: maskarovka on August 15, 2008, 01:48:37 PM

Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.

A number of techniques which are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Now, the propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers).

The first three (ownership, funding, and sourcing) are generally regarded by the authors as being the most important. Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chomsky stated that the new filter replacing communism would be terrorism and Islam.


I think Chomsky's most important contribution to science has been in linguistics, semantic networks and the like, isn't that so?

Throughout the history of the study of man there has been a fundamental opposition between those who believe that progress is to be made by a rigorous observation of man's actual behavior and those who believe that such observations are interesting only in so far as they reveal to us hidden and possibly fairly mysterious underlying laws that only partially and in distorted form reveal themselves to us in behavior. Freud, for example, is in the latter class, most of American social science in the former. Noam Chomsky is unashamedly with the searchers after hidden laws. Actual speech behavior, speech performance, for him is only the top of a large iceberg of linguistic competence distorted in its shape by many factors irrelevant to linguistics. Indeed he once remarked that the very expression "behavioral sciences" suggests a fundamental confusion between evidence and subject matter. Psychology, for example, he claims is the science of mind; to call psychology a behavioral science is like calling physics a science of meter readings. One uses human behavior as evidence for the laws of the operation of the mind, but to suppose that the laws must be laws of behavior is to suppose that the evidence must be the subject matter.

In this opposition between the methodology of confining research to observable facts and that of using the observable facts as clues to hidden and underlying laws, Chomsky's revolution is doubly interesting: first, within the field of linguistics, it has precipitated a conflict which is an example of the wider conflict; and secondly, Chomsky has used his results about language to try to develop general anti-behaviorist and anti-empiricist conclusions about the nature of the human mind that go beyond the scope of linguistics. His revolution followed fairly closely the general pattern described in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: the accepted model or "paradigm" of linguistics was confronted, largely by Chomsky's work, with increasing numbers of nagging counterexamples and recalcitrant data which the paradigm could not deal with. Eventually the counter-examples led Chomsky to break the old model altogether and to create a completely new one. Prior to the publication of his Syntactic Structures in 1957, many, probably most, American linguists regarded the aim of their discipline as being the classification of the elements of human languages. Linguistics was to be a sort of verbal botany. As Hockett wrote in 1942, "Linguistics is a classificatory science."

Suppose, for example, that such a linguist is giving a description of a language, whether an exotic language like Cherokee or a familiar one like English. He proceeds by first collecting his "data," he gathers a large number of utterances of the language, which he records on his tape recorder or in a phonetic script. This "corpus" of the language constitutes his subject matter. He then classifies the elements of the corpus at their different linguistic levels: first he classifies the smallest significant functioning units of sound, the phonemes, then at the next level the phonemes unite into the minimally significant bearers of meaning, the morphemes (in English, for example, the word "cat" is a single morpheme made up of three phonemes; the word "uninteresting" is made up of three morphemes: "un," "interest," and "ing"), at the next higher level the morphemes join together to form words and word classes such as noun phrases and verb phrases, and at the highest level of all come sequences of word classes, the possible sentences and sentence types.

The aim of linguistic theory was to provide the linguist with a set of rigorous methods, a set of discovery procedures which he would use to extract from the "corpus" the phonemes, the morphemes, and so on. The study of the meanings of sentences or of the uses to which speakers of the language put the sentences had little place in this enterprise. Meanings, scientifically construed, were thought to be patterns of behavior determined by stimulus and response; they were properly speaking the subject matter of psychologists. Alternatively they might be some mysterious mental entities altogether outside the scope of a sober science or, worse yet, they might involve the speaker's whole knowledge of the world around him and thus fall beyond the scope of a study restricted only to linguistic facts. Structural linguistics, with its insistence on objective methods of verification and precisely specified techniques of discovery, with its refusal to allow any talk of meanings or mental entities or unobservable features, derives from the "behavioral sciences" approach to the study of man, and is also largely a consequence of the philosophical assumptions of logical positivism. Chomsky was brought up in this tradition at the University of Pennsylvania as a student of both Zellig Harris, the linguist, and Nelson Goodman, the philosopher.

Chomsky's work is interesting in large part because, while it is a major attack on the conception of man implicit in the behavioral sciences, the attack is made from within the very tradition of scientific rigor and precision that the behavioral sciences have been aspiring to. His attack on the view that human psychology can be described by correlating stimulus and response is not an a priori conceptual argument, much less is it the cry of an anguished humanist resentful at being treated as a machine or an animal. Rather it is a claim that a really rigorous analysis of language will show that such methods when applied to language produce nothing but false-hoods or trivialities, that their practitioners have simply imitated "the surface features of science" without having its "significant intellectual content." As a graduate student at Pennsylvania, Chomsky attempted to apply the conventional methods of structural linguistics to the study of syntax, but found that the methods that had apparently worked so well with phonemes and morphemes did not work very well with sentences. Each language has a finite number of phonemes and a finite though quite large number of morphemes. It is possible to get a list of each; but the number of sentences in any natural language like French or English is, strictly speaking, infinite. There is no limit to the number of new sentences that can be produced; and for each sentence, no matter how long, it is always possible to produce a longer one. Within structuralist assumptions it is not easy to account for the fact that languages have an infinite number of sentences.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: maskarovka on August 15, 2008, 01:54:22 PM
Furthermore the structuralist methods of classification do not seem able to account for all of the internal relations within sentences, or the relations that different sentences have to each other. For example, to take a famous case, the two sentences "John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please" look as if they had exactly the same grammatical structure. Each is a sequence of noun-copula-adjective-infinitive verb. But in spite of this surface similarity the grammar of the two is quite different. In the first sentence, though it is not apparent from the surface word order, "John" functions as the direct object of the verb to please; the sentence means: it is easy for someone to please John. Whereas in the second "John" functions as the subject of the verb to please; the sentence means: John is eager that he please someone. That this is a difference in the syntax of the sentences comes out clearly in the fact that English allows us to form the noun phrase "John's eagerness to please" out of the second, but not "John's easiness to please" out of the first. There is no easy or natural way to account for these facts within structuralist assumptions. Another set of syntactical facts that structuralist assumptions are inadequate to handle is the existence of certain types of ambiguous sentences where the ambiguity derives not from the words in the sentence but from the syntactical structure. Consider the sentence "The shooting of the hunters is terrible." This can mean that it is terrible that the hunters are being shot or that the hunters are terrible at shooting or that the hunters are being shot in a terrible fashion. Another example is "I like her cooking." In spite of the fact that it contains no ambiguous words (or morphemes) and has a very simple superficial grammatical structure of noun-verb-possessive pronoun-noun, this sentence is in fact remarkably ambiguous. It can mean, among other things, I like what she cooks, I like the way she cooks, I like the fact that she cooks, even, I like the fact that she is being cooked.

Such "syntactically ambiguous" sentences form a crucial test case for any theory of syntax. The examples are ordinary pedestrian English sentences, there is nothing fancy about them. But it is not easy to see how to account for them. The meaning of any sentence is determined by the meanings of the component words (or morphemes) and their syntactical arrangement. How then can we account for these cases where one sentence containing unambiguous words (and morphemes) has several different meanings? Structuralist linguists had little or nothing to say about these cases; they simply ignored them. Chomsky was eventually led to claim that these sentences have several different syntactical structures, that the uniform surface structure of, e.g., "I like her cooking" conceals several different underlying structures which he called "deep" structures. The introduction of the notion of the deep structure of sentences, not always visible in the surface structure, is a crucial element of the Chomsky revolution, and I shall explain it in more detail later. One of the merits of Chomsky's work has been that he has persistently tried to call attention to the puzzling character of facts that are so familiar that we all tend to take them for granted as not requiring explanation. Just as physics begins in wonder at such obvious facts as that apples fall to the ground or genetics in wonder that plants and animals reproduce themselves, so the study of the structure of language beings in wondering at such humdrum facts as that "I like her cooking" has different meanings, "John is eager to please" isn't quite the same in structure as "John is easy to please," and the equally obvious but often overlooked facts that we continually find ourselves saying and hearing things we have never said or heard before and that the number of possible new sentences is infinite.

The inability of structuralist methods to account for such syntactical facts eventually led Chomsky to challenge not only the methods but the goals and indeed the definition of the subject matter of linguistics given by the structuralist linguists. Instead of a taxonomic goal of classifying elements by performing sets of operations on a corpus of utterances, Chomsky argued that the goal of linguistic description should be to construct a theory that would account for the infinite number of sentences of a natural language. Such a theory would show which strings of words were sentences and which were not, and would provide a description of the grammatical structure of each sentence. Such descriptions would have to be able to account for such facts as the internal grammatical relations and the ambiguities described above. The description of a natural language would be a formal deductive theory which would contain a set of grammatical rules that could generate the infinite set of sentences of the language, would not generate anything that was not a sentence, and would provide a description of the grammatical structure of each sentence. Such a theory came to be called a "generative grammar" because of its aim of constructing a device that would generate all and only the sentences of a language.

This conception of the goal of linguistics then altered the conception of the methods and the subject matter. Chomsky argued that since any language contains an infinite number of sentences, any "corpus," even if it contained as many sentences as there are in all the books of the Library of Congress, would still be trivially small. Instead of the appropriate subject matter of linguistics being a randomly or arbitrarily selected set of sentences, the proper object of study was the speaker's underlying knowledge of the language, his "linguistic competence" that enables him to produce and understand sentences he has never heard before. Once the conception of the "corpus" as the subject matter is rejected, then the notion of mechanical procedures for discovering linguistic truths goes as well. Chomsky argues that no science has a mechanical procedure for discovering the truth anyway. Rather, what happens is that the scientist formulates hypotheses and tests them against evidence. Linguistics is no different: the linguist makes conjectures about linguistic facts and tests them against the evidence provided by native speakers of the language. He has in short a procedure for evaluating rival hypotheses, but no procedure for discovering true theories by mechanically processing evidence.

The Chomsky revolution can be summarized in the following chart:

(http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1972062901.jpg)

Most of this revolution was already presented in Chomsky's book Syntactic Structures. As one linguist remarked, "The extraordinary and traumatic impact of the publication of Syntactic Structures by Noam Chomsky in 1957 can hardly be appreciated by one who did not live through this upheaval." In the years after 1957 the spread of the revolution was made more rapid and more traumatic by certain special features of the organization of linguistics as a discipline in the United States. Only a few universities had separate departments of linguistics. The discipline was (by contrast to, say, philosophy or psychology), and still is, a rather cozy one. Practitioners were few; they all tended to know one another; they read the same very limited number of journals; they had, and indeed still have, an annual get-together at the Summer Linguistics Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, where issues are thrashed out and family squabbles are aired in public meetings.

All of this facilitated a rapid dissemination of new ideas and a dramatic and visible clash of conflicting views. Chomsky did not convince the established leaders of the field but he did something more important, he convinced their graduate students. And he attracted some fiery disciples, notably Robert Lees and Paul Postal. The spread of Chomsky's revolution, like the spread of analytic philosophy during the same period, was a striking example of the Young Turk phenomenon in American academic life. The graduate students became generative grammarians even in departments that had traditionalist faculties. All of this also engendered a good deal of passion and animosity, much of which still survives. Many of the older generation still cling resentfully to the great traditions, regarding Chomsky and his "epigones" as philistines and vulgarians. Meanwhile Chomsky's views have become the conventional wisdom, and as Chomsky and his disciples of the Sixties very quickly become Old Turks a new generation of Young Turks (many of them among Chomsky's best students) arise and challenge Chomsky's views with a new theory of "generative semantics."

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19720629.htm
Title: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post by: m a s k a r o v k a on August 15, 2008, 02:15:06 PM

[...]

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

[...]

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Pattern

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: head phone on August 19, 2008, 05:35:21 PM

[...]

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

[...]

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Pattern

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


In the natural world, most things occur in loops. That is cause becomes effect and effect becomes cause. It is a logical loop. It doesn't reduce well in the linear logic of most people. This confuses a lot of people. It seems quite logical because of this to understand that whatever process controls earth expansion would be altered by its progress. It is both cause and effect. For those who think A + B = C or other linear logic this is confusing. It doesn't reduce well. It doesn't fit computer programs well either. In the case of EE I expect in time that the reaction rates and end products will be altered by the very planet in which they occur. It is neither linear nor exponental. It is discrete quanta or packages. The reaction would happen one way for a while, and then another for a while and so on because the planet or star it happens on changes the reaction in both the matrix it happens in as well as changing the energy supply for it. The discussion of time is important because time is a pure and simple man made illusionary construct. I don't mean that things don't age but rather the clock is pure man. Many of the limitations imposed here cause us not to see what is happening or has happened because we live short lives etc. When we attempt to look too far back in time, we get a lot of errors in what we believe. In addition we rely too much on needing to know the end reaction (IE Big Bang). The Big Bang for example is taken as gospel yet even if it occurred it had to do so within an existing matrix of conditions. It wasn't the beginning. It was part of an on going process. Yet that is so far removed from our condition and events that it is really of no value to suppose it.

The Big Bang owes itself to a dynamic effort arising in the 1880's and was very much part of a social event set associated with the fracturing of religion and the rise of evolution. It was a necessity for the evolutionists to be able to destroy the possibility of creation so they latched onto a series of theories that rose up into the "big bang" cosmology. The only problem was that this theory stinks as bad as the simplistic belief of ignorant people. It really has no fact behind it. When Hubble came along the "Hubble Constant" became the holy grail of this pseudo religion or anti-religion religion. It isn't real. There is lots of good cosmologic observation that just dumps it in the trash bin. The "big bang" theory is a reaction to religion and not good science in any way. With all of this in mind, lets look at what can be expected regards the acceptance of EE. That is what will happen. Some time in the near future we will see a few literate organizations starting to openly accept small parts of the data. In time some parties will openly come out. After that it will get a place in the great discoveries. This path was what Plate Techtonics followed. It just takes people getting out of their chairs (Literally endowments) and new people coming in. I think this process is well under way. It just takes time. We can never expect a thank you note from the gang who comes in. They may not even allow us in the game. 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Norlan on August 20, 2008, 04:45:08 AM
lol, this is a long thread to read. Keep us posted
Title: Re: Not That Sarcastic, After All...
Post by: fortuneteller on August 20, 2008, 11:16:39 AM

The history of civilization is largely the account of the attempts of man to forget his transformation from an animal into a human being. So stubborn a refusal to forget is not an accident. Even the most enlightened of us will set up a Christmas tree for his children without having the least idea what this custom means, invariably disposed to nip any attempt at interpretation in the bud. For the thoughtful observer, however, both Christmas tree and trickster afford reason enough for reflection. For instance, if the myth of the trickster were nothing but an historical remnant, one would have to ask why it has not long since vanished into the great rubbish-heap of the past, and why it continues to make its influence felt on the highest levels of civilization, even where, on account of his stupidity and grotesque scurrility, the trickster no longer plays the role of a "delight-maker." His figure seems like an old river-bed in which the water still flows. You can see this best of all from the fact that the trickster motif does not crop up only in its mythical form but appears just as naively and authentically in the unsuspecting modern man -- whenever, in fact, he feels himself at the mercy of annoying "accidents" which thwart his will and his actions with apparently malicious intent.

He then speaks of "hoodoos" and "jinxes" or of the "mischievousness of the object." Here the trickster is represented by counter-tendencies in the unconscious, and in certain cases by a sort of second personality, of a puerile and inferior character, not unlike the personalities who announce themselves at spiritualistic seances and cause all those ineffably childish phenomena so typical of poltergeists. On the civilized level, it is regarded as a personal "gaffe," "slip," "faux pas," etc., which are then chalked up as defects of the conscious personality. We are no longer aware that in carnival customs and the like there are remnants of a collective shadow figure.

Anyone who belongs to a sphere of culture that seeks the perfect state somewhere in the past must feel very weird indeed when confronted by the figure of the trickster. He is a forerunner of the savior, and, like him, God, man, and animal at once. He is both subhuman and superhuman, a bestial and divine being, whose chief and most alarming characteristic is his unconsciousness. Because of it he is deserted by his (evidently human) companions, which seems to indicate that he has fallen below their level of consciousness. He is so unconscious of himself that his body is not a unity, and his two hands fight each other. He takes his anus off and entrusts it with a special task. Even his sex is optional despite its phallic qualities: he can turn himself into a woman and bear children. From his penis he makes all kinds of useful plants. This is a reference to his original nature as a Creator, for the world is made from the body of a god.

On the other hand he is in many respects stupider than the animals, and gets into one ridiculous scrape after another. Although he is not really evil, he does the most atrocious things from sheer unconsciousness and unrelatedness. His imprisonment in animal unconsciousness is suggested by the episode where he gets his head caught inside the skull of an elk, and the next episode shows how he overcomes this condition by imprisoning the head of a hawk inside his own rectum. True, he sinks back into the former condition immediately afterwards, by falling under the ice, and is outwitted time after time by the animals, but in the end he succeeds in tricking the cunning coyote, and this brings back to him his savior nature. The trickster is a primitive "cosmic" being of divine-animal nature, on the one hand superior to man because of his superhuman qualities, and on the other hand inferior to him because of his unreason and unconsciousness. He is no match for animals, either, because of his extraordinary clumsiness and lack of instinct. These defects are the marks of his human nature, which is not so well adapted to the environment as the animal's but, instead, has prospects of a much higher development of consciousness based on a considerable eagerness to learn, as is duly emphasized in the myth.

The so-called civilized man has forgotten the trickster. He remembers him only figuratively and metaphorically, when, irritated by his own ineptitude, he speaks of fate playing tricks on him or of things being bewitched. He never suspects that his own hidden and apparently harmless shadow has qualities whose dangerousness exceeds his wildest dreams. As soon as people get together in masses and submerge the individual, the shadow is mobilized, and, as history shows, may even be personified and incarnated.


Great post, 4F!
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: ambulando on August 21, 2008, 05:07:41 PM

I guess so, copula - sometimes the site does not allow you to log in no matter what! You've to set up another account risking being called an 'imposter' since any one can use the previous poster's username and avatar in order to somehow give the impression s/he is indeed the real thing.


(http://www.drdzoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/monalisa.jpg)

Great username, Mona Lisa! The smile on the face of the Mona Lisa is so enigmatic that it disappears when it is looked at directly, says a US scientist. Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard University said the smile only became apparent when the viewer looked at other parts of the painting. The smile disappeared when it was looked at because of the way the human eye processes visual information. The eye uses two types of vision, foveal and peripheral. Foveal, or direct vision, is excellent at picking up detail but is less suited to picking up shadows. The elusive quality of the Mona Lisa's smile can be explained by the fact that her smile is almost entirely in low spatial frequencies, and so is seen best by your peripheral vision. The more a person stares fixedly ahead, the less useful is their peripheral vision. The best example of this effect was if someone was to stare at a letter on a page of print. Concentrating on one letter made it difficult to pick out other letters even a short distance away. The smile only became apparent if a viewer looked at her eyes or elsewhere on her face.


I guess we'd need the services of analysts to reduce the ambiguity of this highly ambiguous situation - with the ambiguity, I'd assume, deliberately created by Leonardo.


I have the impression you can never ever get anything out of looking at the picture - she's so enigmatic, as if she's telling you smth along the lines, "You can go ahead and @ # ! * yourself!"
Title: Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post by: tidbit on August 25, 2008, 02:08:57 PM

[...]

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

[...]

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Pattern

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


Never have heard of this "abductive" reasoning you mention having been taken seriously by anyone ... take for instance the issue of figuring out a criminal suspect - there are two approaches.

By induction, assuming that the criminal has similar characteristics and motives to other people who have perpetrated that particular crime (a repeat rapist who attacks white women is most likely not black).

The second approach is by means of deductive reasoning - you study carefully the suspect's actions and explain the situation by means of the evidence you find in the process (your suspect's clothes can not be dry when it had been raining all day). You draw inferences about the criminals' behaviors based on work experience, gut feelings, and the motivation of the offender. This form of deductive profiling is where the profiler assumes one or more facts as self-evident about a crime or offender and then, following his experience and hunches, arrives at other facts commonly called conclusions.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: u03B4 on August 26, 2008, 07:40:34 PM
Here it is an interesting approach on the subject:

I live for science. It fascinates me. By trade, I am a real Criminal Profiler. There has always been a problem with profiling in the early day in the FBI (deductive profiling. I use Inductive profiling or another word for it is Behavioral analysis of crime scenes (a way to have any lay-person be able to reproduce the same results as I produce). Using the scientific method, it is a way to NOT accuse the wrong person. The deductive way makes assumptions and lands innocent people in jail or prison all the time. Here is an example of deductive thinking:

Neighbor 1: "Hi, there, new neighbor, it sure is a mighty nice day to be moving."
New Neighbor: "Yes, it is, and people around here seem extremely friendly."
Neighbor 1: "So what is it you do for a living?"
New Neighbor: "I am a professor at the University; I teach deductive reasoning."
Neighbor 1: "Deductive reasoning-- what is that?"
New Neighbor: "Let me give you an example. I see you have a dog house out back. By that I deduce that you have a dog."
Neighbor 1: "That is right."
New Neighbor: "The fact that you have a dog leads me to deduce that you have a family."
Neighbor 1: "Right again."
New Neighbor: "Since you have a family I deduce that you have a wife."
Neighbor 1: "Correct!"
New Neighbor: "And since you have a wife, I can deduce that you are heterosexual."
Neighbor 1: "Yup."
New Neighbor: "That is deductive reasoning."
Neighbor 1: "Cool."

Later that same day

Neighbor 1: "Hey, I was talking to that new guy who moved in next door."
Neighbor 2: "Is he a nice guy?"
Neighbor 1: "Yes, and he has an interesting job."
Neighbor 2: "Oh, what does he do?"
Neighbor 1: "He's a professor of deductive reasoning at the University."
Neighbor 2: "Deductive reasoning-- what is that?"
Neighbor 1: "Let me give you an example. Do you have a dog house?"
Neighbor 2: "No."
Neighbor 1: "Fag."

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/view_profile.php?userid=20143
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: rent a car on August 27, 2008, 10:29:53 AM
Pretty effective at making the point, u03! I was curious, though, how exactly does inductive profiling work; I mean, the specifics of it...
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: rememberme? on August 28, 2008, 04:13:49 PM

Pretty effective at making the point, u03! I was curious, though, how exactly does inductive profiling work; I mean, the specifics of it...


Senator Larry E. Craig used a dirty word as he explained how in June 2007 he wound up suspected of cruising for sex: profiling. Mr. Craig said the police officer working undercover in the next stall at a Minneapolis airport bathroom had lumped him neatly into the behavioral profile of someone on the prowl: the wide stance, the toe-tapping, the upward-facing palm, the flash of a wedding ring. In the well-developed profile of how a man intending to engage in lewd conduct in that bathroom behaved, the gestures added up to a coded message. The police were using a common tactic that has received less attention than the widely criticized practice of racial profiling (or gender, age, weight, ethnic or religious profiling, for that matter). That sort of profiling targets suspects based on their innate attributes, not on what they say or do.

But behavioral profiling, highly nuanced, draws heavily from cognitive psychology and, often, on the personal experiences with previous crimes and the subjective interpretations of the profilers. In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC Mr. Craig said: "I now know that this cop is — this officer is a profiler. He said looking into a stall was one of it, and then a hand gesture or foot tap is another one. Now I know all about profiling. I know what people feel like when they're profiled, when innocent people get caught up in what I was caught in as an innocent person. It's very angering at times."

There are essentially two kinds of profiling, inductive and deductive. Inductive profiling, as was the approach in Mr. Craig's case, uses statistical probability and behavioral clues from previous offenders to create cookie-cutter profiles and predict the likelihood of a future crime. Deductive profiling involves analyzing the evidence — a tire track, DNA, a bloody knife — after the crime occurs in order to create a profile of that offender and use it to catch him. Behavioral clues, on the other hand, can range from the physical to the ethereal. For example, the possession of cold medicine, mason jars, rubber tubing, coffee filters and brake fluid would quickly lead investigators to suspect someone of intending to produce methamphetamine. A traveler with a stack of small bills, with only carry-on luggage and a one-way ticket, could easily be suspected of being a drug courier. Tattoos and the color of clothing — and even more obvious, a grab at the waist as if to draw a gun — are basic clues to gang activity.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: small talk on August 28, 2008, 06:53:51 PM
Inductive reasoning works from observation (or observations) toward generalizations and theories. This is also called a "bottom-up" approach. Inductive reason starts from specific observations (or measurement if you are mathematician or more precisely statistician), look for patterns (or no patterns), regularities (or irregularities), formulate hypothesis that we could work with and finally ending up developing general theories or drawing conclusions. In a conclusion, when we use Induction we observe a number of specific instances and from them infer a general principle or law. Inductive reasoning is open-ended and exploratory especially at the beginning. Induction is ampliative. The conclusion of an inductive argument has content that goes beyond the content of its premises. A correct inductive argument may have true premises and a false conclusion. Induction is not necessarily truth preserving. New premises may completely undermine a strong inductive argument. Inductive arguments come in different degrees of strength. In some inductions the premises support the conclusions more strongly than in others.

The major disadvantages of the Inductive Criminal Profiling model are equally apparent to the critical thinker. First, the information itself is generalized from limited population samples, and not specifically related to any one case, therefore it is not by its nature intended for reconstructing a "profile" of an individual person. It is a generalized set of representations, averaged from a small group of individuals who may or may not have been appropriately sampled, depending on the knowledge and ability of the person collecting and assembling the data.

Second, and perhaps most commonly noted, is that inductive profiles are generalized and averaged from the limited data collected only from known, apprehended offenders. An Inductive Criminal Profile does not fully or accurately take into account current offenders who are at large, therefore it is by its very nature missing datasets from the most intelligent or skillful criminal populations; the criminals who are successful in continually avoiding detection by law enforcement.

A third major disadvantage is that, as with any such generalization, an Inductive Criminal Profile is going to contain specific inaccuracies that can and have been used to implicate innocent individuals. This occurs when an Inductive Criminal Profile is used as some sort of infallible predictive measure by an unprofessional, trigger-happy profiler. Recent examples include the 1996 case of Richard Jewell in the "Olympic Park Bombing" and, also in 1996, the Colin Stagg profile debacle in Great Britain. 
 
Assumptions of the Inductive Criminal Profiling model include: 

- Small groups of known offenders, who commit the same types of crimes as unknown offenders, have commonly shared individual characteristics that can be accurately generalized back to initially similar individual unknown offenders. 
- Offenders who have committed crimes in the past are culturally similar to current offenders, being influenced by at least similar environmental conditions and existing with the same general and sometimes specific motivations. 
- Individual human behavior and characteristics can be generalized and even predicted from the initial statistical analysis of characteristics and behaviour in very small samples. 
- Behavior and motivation do not change within an individual over time, being static, predictable characteristics.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: small talk on August 28, 2008, 06:54:28 PM
Deductive reasoning works from the "general" to the "specific". This is also called a "top-down" approach. The deductive reasoning works as follows: think of a theory about topic and then narrow it down to specific hypothesis (hypothesis that we test or can test). Narrow down further if we would like to collect observations for hypothesis (note that we collect observations to accept or reject hypothesis and the reason we do that is to confirm or refute our original theory). In a conclusion, when we use deduction we reason from general principles to specific cases, as in applying a mathematical theorem to a particular problem or in citing a law or physics to predict the outcome of an experiment. In a valid deductive argument, all of the content of the conclusion is present, at least implicitly, in the premises. Deduction is nonampliative. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Valid deduction is necessarily truth preserving. If new premises are added to a valid deductive argument (and none of its premises are changed or deleted) the argument remains valid. Deductive validity is an all-or-nothing matter; validity does not come in degrees. An argument is totally valid, or it is invalid.

Deductive Criminal Profiling is also useful for thoroughly establishing Modus Operandi behavior, as well as offender signature behaviour, which assists in the linkage of seemingly unrelated crimes. The Modus Operandi, or MO behaviour, or method of operation, is a dynamic, learned behaviour, changing over time, as the offender becomes more experienced. It involves only those actions that are necessary to commit the offense. 
 
Signature behavior, or the signature aspect of criminal behavior, is comprised of those behaviors not required to commit the offense. Signature is comprised of significant personality identifiers that distinguish the nature of the offender's crime scene methodology. These significant and highly individualized personality identifiers are evident in such things as: 
 
- When an offender repeatedly engages in a specific order of sexual activity; 
- When an offender repeatedly uses a specific type of binding; 
- When an offender inflicts similar types of injuries to different victims; 
- When an offender displays the body in a certain manner for shock value; 
- When an offender tortures and/or mutilates his victims, and/or engages in some other form of specific ritualistic behavior.
 
The disadvantages of Deductive Criminal Profiling are also well worth noting. First is that it is not a quick fix or a cure all; it requires a great deal of effort and multi-disciplinary skill on the part of each member of the investigative team. Second, because it is such an intensive process, it can be extremely emotionally exhausting. Investigators that learn to use these techniques should take care to be emotionally grounded individuals and not be afraid to discuss any emotional difficulties with those close to them. And third, a Deductive Criminal Profile cannot not point out a specific known individual and say with confidence that they are likely responsible for a certain crime or series of crimes unless that offender's unique signature is known and established. 
 
Assumptions of the Deductive Criminal Profiling method include: 
 
- No offender acts without motivation. 
- Every single offence should be investigated as its own unique behavioral and motivational existent. Given the nature of human behaviour, no two cases are really ever alike. 
- Some offenders have unique motivations and/or behaviours that should be individuated from other similar offenders. 
- All human behaviour develops uniquely, over time, in response to environmental and biological factors. 
- Criminal MO behaviour can evolve over time and over the commission of multiple offences. 
- A single offender is capable of multiple motives over the commission of multiple offences, or even during the commission of a single offence. 
- Statistical generalizations and experiential theorizing, while sometimes helpful, are incomplete and can ultimately mislead an investigation, and encourage investigative laziness. When we think that we have all of the answers in a case, not only might we only collect evidence that fits those answers, we might think that a thorough investigation is no longer requisite at all.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: in lieu of on August 29, 2008, 06:16:31 PM
Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:     

Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too.

Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.
     
Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event -- the next time he kicks the ball. As you can see, the difference between inductive and deducative reasoning is mostly in the way the arguments are expressed. Any inductive argument can also be expressed deductively, and any deductive argument can also be expressed inductively.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: st a s h on September 02, 2008, 02:20:33 PM

[...] one becomes "re-socialized," learns to "think like a lawyer," learns to cope with stress and many other things collateral to learning law, but not collateral to "lawyering." Like boot camp (or virginity's loss!), when you enter law school, your life turns a corner past which it can never again pass. Don't get me wrong, I do not regret the trip ... but it brings a permanent change. [...]


Well, I did not finish law school, but I can tell you once you get in law school your life really turns a corner past which it can never again pass... you never forget the whole experience, it stays with you forever I guess..
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: OpaOpa on September 02, 2008, 04:17:23 PM

Well, I did not finish law school, but I can tell you once you get in law school your life really turns a corner past which it can never again pass... you never forget the whole experience, it stays with you forever I guess.


Will you finish it up? 
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: gia on September 02, 2008, 06:35:31 PM

The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.


Like cud is regurgitated grass for cows, logic is regurgitated opinion for humans. Whenever and wherever cows belch or dispose, they enrich air and fertilize earth. Whenever and wherever logic burps or disposes, it can and does distroy life. If the situation were reversed, cows would have long-been eradicated for posterity's sake... but logic is not eradicated though posterity be at stake. Instead of looking to visionaries and dreamers, whose eyes see above and beyond known, authority persists in thumbing well-worn logic-pages and recycling ineffective solutions.


Philosophers believe that their theories are produced through a dispassionate, objective and rational process -- a cold, pure divinely unperturbed dialectic -- which they like to contrast with the subjective, unreliable efforts of mystics and others. In reality, however, philosophers' thinking is always preceded by a desire, a prejudice, an inspiration or "desire of the heart" -- that is, an irrational need or belief which they proceed to make abstract and defend with reason.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: marshallah on September 03, 2008, 04:52:49 PM
Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owj8e1A7hsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: latte on September 03, 2008, 05:54:09 PM

Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. [...]


In fact Harrison Ford (Prez Marshall) gets @ # ! * e d real bad in the movie to let the viewer understand that what he did in Moscow was fundamentally wrong and that America would not hesitate to send such a son of a female dog to his premature, calculated death. The "beauty" of movies, however, is that they lie -- for a reason -- so we see Prez Marshall being actually loved by his administration back in Washington, despite what he did.

Only a fool would not understand what a slick, m o t h er @ # ! * i n g movie Air Force One is.


This movie reminded me very much indeed Chuck Norris's "Delta Force." Complete b u l l * & ^ %.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: lust on September 03, 2008, 06:20:41 PM

Conservatives could revel in the most masturbatory boys' book fantasies about a man putting his hand in the fire to see what he's made of. "Air Force One" was as indicative of the poverty of current American political discourse as anything out there. [...]


In fact Harrison Ford (Prez Marshall) gets @ # ! * e d real bad in the movie to let the viewer understand that what he did in Moscow was fundamentally wrong and that America would not hesitate to send such a son of a female dog to his premature, calculated death. The "beauty" of movies, however, is that they lie -- for a reason -- so we see Prez Marshall being actually loved by his administration back in Washington, despite what he did.

Only a fool would not understand what a slick, m o t h er @ # ! * i n g movie Air Force One is.


This movie reminded me very much indeed Chuck Norris's "Delta Force." Complete b u l l * & ^ %.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYGOXbEZvg&feature=related
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: happy accident on September 04, 2008, 06:42:41 PM

Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related


marshallah, is this the original video - I mean, I did a simple Google search and all I found was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1csFO4pDM&feature=related

As you can see the woman in black is "stolen" at the end by the man on the horse, while your link leaves the woman unmoved, so to speak, by that man. This simple fact attracted my attention because gia's avatar shows them both on the horse.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: zet on September 05, 2008, 06:09:29 PM

Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related


marshallah, is this the original video - I mean, I did a simple Google search and all I found was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1csFO4pDM&feature=related

As you can see the woman in black is "stolen" at the end by the man on the horse, while your link leaves the woman unmoved, so to speak, by that man. This simple fact attracted my attention because gia's avatar shows them both on the horse.


So what the deal is - I mean, is the woman in the Sultan's harem and the man on the horse takes her away? Something along these lines?
Title: Re: 'Mother' star goes full frontal for 'Sarah Marshall'
Post by: le mains sales on September 05, 2008, 06:49:40 PM

Sarah Marshall of Glendora didn't get a lot of notice. Until about three weeks ago. That's when hundreds of billboards started appearing in five cities, including L.A. They proclaimed, in black letters scrawled against a white background: "I'm So Over You, Sarah Marshall," "You Suck Sarah Marshall," "My Mother Always Hated You, Sarah Marshall," and "You Do Look Fat in Those Jeans, Sarah Marshall."

The billboards are part of a marketing campaign for the comedy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," from Universal Pictures, about a dumped boyfriend trying to get over his ex. The animosity toward their fictional namesake has brought the real Sarah Marshalls -- who include an advertising student in Texas, a special-education teacher in Connecticut and a high school senior in Glendora -- an outpouring of concern. "They're everywhere, and they're so annoying," said Sarah Marshall the Glendora student, who lives three blocks from one of the billboards. Adults called her parents to ask if she was the target of a hate campaign. "I wish they specified that it's a movie," she said. Ad student Sarah Marshall of Fort Worth, Texas, one of 276 Sarah Marshalls on Facebook, said: "I got a lot of e-mails and phone calls asking if my boyfriend and I were OK."

But don't expect any sympathy cards from the Universal marketing department.


Here we go

From Ernest Borgnine in "Marty" to Jon Favreau in "Swingers," Hollywood has long portrayed sensitive men humbled at the feet of cold-hearted women. But never has a guy been put down quite like Jason Segel in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." In his breakout role, Segel reveals his knack for a raw vulnerability that would be depressing if it wasn't so funny.

And "reveals" is the operative word.

In the opening scenes, Segel's character misinterprets the reason for his girlfriend's urgent visit. Instead of a roll in the hay -- and he has completely disrobed in preparation -- Sarah Marshall has come to dump him. Utterly distraught, he doesn't cover up for Marshall -- or for the camera. In several full frontal shots, Segel completely bares himself. The R-rated gag is already the most-talked about scene in the film. It's culled from an experience the 28-year-old Segel -- who wrote "Sarah Marshall" -- had several years ago. He says it's presented "almost verbatim" in the movie. "This naked breakup commenced and, honest to God -- maybe this is part of the problem -- all I kept thinking was, 'This is ... hilarious,' " Segel recalls.

In a recent interview on the set of "How I Met Your Mother," where he is a co-star, the 6-foot-4 Segel is much like his characters suggest he would be: good-natured and a little sheepish. "He kind of has a gentle giant thing going on," says "Sarah Marshall" director Nicholas Stoller, who's also a close friend of Segel's. "His eyes naturally look hurt, but he's not actually a depressed guy. He's a very positive, happy guy." A L.A. native, Segel was "noticed" when Paramount's president of casting happened to be in the audience of his high-school production of Edward Albee's "The Zoo Story," which Segel says he was putting on "for almost no reason at all." After a few small film roles, Segel's career began in earnest when Judd Apatow cast him in "Freaks and Geeks," the revered high school comedy that was canceled in 2000 after one season. It has since established a fervent cult following, and was a foundational experience for Apatow, Segel and much of the young cast, which included Seth Rogen and James Franco. As Nick Andopolis, Segel was both exceptionally earnest and terribly awkward -- trying to impress girls with his 29-piece drum set, for example. In Apatow's next TV show, the similarly short-lived "Undeclared" (2001-2002), Segel played a lovelorn long-distance boyfriend.

"It's always funny to watch Jason get beat up on and suffer," says Apatow, who produced "Sarah Marshall." "He's just fun to watch feel pain and that's always what made me laugh about him." Says Segel: "Judd and I really collided on the idea that, for some reason, I'm able to remain likable while getting awfully close to the creepy line. It's one of my strange skills, so we've definitely cultivated that for 10 years now." After "Undeclared," Segel was out of work until Apatow's fortunes skyrocketed with 2005's "The 40-Year-Old Virgin." On a Thursday soon after the film opened, the two went to a Laker game. Apatow informed him: " 'Listen, I can get movies made now. Are you writing?'" Segel told him about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," sent him an outline the next day, and received contracts from Universal by Monday. Still shaking his head, Segel says, "It's ridiculous. It's nuts."

In the film, Segel's character attempts to get over Marshall by taking a trip to a resort in Hawaii, where, coincidentally, Marshall is staying with her new boyfriend, a British rocker played by Russell Brand. Many of the supporting roles are filed by Apatow regulars -- Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Bill Hader -- but the new love interest, a hotel receptionist, is played by Mila Kunis ("That '70s Show"). It's received strong reviews and been heavily promoted by the studio, thanks largely to Apatow's track record. (It took the No. 2 slot at the weekend box office.) Besides "Virgin," he produced "Superbad" and directed "Knocked Up" -- in which Segel played Rogen's friend, the aggressive and cheesy seducer. "My character in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' couldn't be more different than my character in 'Knocked Up,' but sadly, I think there's some of me in both," says Segel. "It really depends on how much I've had to drink." Progressing from bit player to box-office comic star like Steve Carell ("Virgin") and Rogen ("Knocked Up," "Superbad") won't be easy. Segel has faith in the film, though, and besides, he's already swimming in new projects. He's currently filming "I Love You, Man," co-starring Rudd; he's writing a script titled "Five-Year Engagement" that Stoller will direct and Apatow will produce; and he's writing a script with Stoller for a new Muppet movie for Disney. (Segel counts Kermit, "the original Tom Hanks, the everyman," as a major inspiration.) At any rate, Segel doesn't expect to run out of real-life material for his films. "I'm filled with horribly awkward moments," he says. "It's probably why I don't sleep very well."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/21/film.jasonsegel.ap/index.html


I think this movie has a problem as far as nudity is concerned: well, that's, of course, in accordance with Apatow's 2007 announcement "I'm gonna get a penis in every movie I do from now on." The film shows full-frontal nudity of Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) 3 times in the beginning and once at the end of the film (albeit for only a fraction of a second each time).
Title: Re: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post by: wheresmyadude on September 06, 2008, 11:15:41 AM

[...]

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


Before the effect one believes in different causes than one does after the effect.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: re hear se on September 08, 2008, 04:45:00 PM

Is Despina Vandi the woman of your avatar, gia? In her 2001 well-known video Gia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoN1QDJkDrU&feature=related


marshallah, is this the original video - I mean, I did a simple Google search and all I found was this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt1csFO4pDM&feature=related

As you can see the woman in black is "stolen" at the end by the man on the horse, while your link leaves the woman unmoved, so to speak, by that man. This simple fact attracted my attention because gia's avatar shows them both on the horse.


So what the deal is - I mean, is the woman in the Sultan's harem and the man on the horse takes her away? Something along these lines?


Here it is an interesting book on the subject:

"Valide" from Barbara Chase-Riboud

In "Valide," Ms. Chase-Riboud returns to those themes, this time against a drastically different backdrop. Exploration of the complex institution of slavery in another culture - the sultan's harem of the Ottoman Empire during the late 18th and early 19th centuries - has prompted some interesting changes in Ms. Chase-Riboud's thinking. Ms. Chase-Riboud's second novel makes a broader and more radical point: love is impossible in a slave society, where absolute power over other human beings poisons all personal relationships and eliminates the possibility of free choice that is at the root of all real love.

"Valide's" story concerns a young woman from Martinique who is captured by pirates in 1781 and sold into the harem of the Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid I. Renamed Naksh-i-dil (Embroidered Tongue), she survives the mortal intrigues of harem life to become Ikbal, the favorite of the Sultan. She bears him a son and is elevated to the rank of Kadine, one of his seven official wives. When that son becomes Sultan in 1807, she gains the position of Valide, the pinnacle of power for a woman in this society: "The Ottomans accepted that a Sultan could have many wives, but he could have only one Empress. Thus the mother of the Sultan occupied the unique place of honor that nothing could alter save death. She was entrusted with the most intimate and private possessions of her son - his women. From slave, she had become master, from prisoner to jailer, from property to absolute despot." 

Those four sentences encapsulate several of Ms. Chase-Riboud's themes - maternity as a woman's principal means to power, the meaninglessness of sexuality in a society where women's bodies are men's absolute possessions, and the paradoxical nature of an empire where monarchs are the sons of slaves and one of those slaves will rise after a lifetime of subjection to rule. Unfortunately, this passage is typical of the book's stilted, unreal prose - though mercifully free of the baroque trimmings that elsewhere threaten to give an essentially serious novel the overheated sensibility of a bad romance. The language in "Valide" seldom lives up to the ideas.

Still, the ideas themselves are provocative. Particularly intriguing is Ms. Chase-Riboud's analysis of the harem, a much more vivid character than any of the book's individuals. We are in a world of sensuality, boredom and futility where women are reduced to the basic functions of sex and childbearing, but the vast majority of the Sultan's female slaves will never even sleep with him, let alone have his child. Power is gained through artifice, manipulation and murder. Slaves can no more love one another than they can their master, because each woman is an enemy in the ceaseless struggle to catch the Sultan's eye.

The rulers are no less crippled by this system than the ruled; the Sultan's sons, locked away in the Prince's Cage to protect them from poisoning, know as little of the outside world as the most ignorant harem inhabitant. Abdulhamid, Naksh-i-dil realizes, "had the mentality of a slave.... He was, as much as she, a prisoner in his own palace." The novel contrasts the self-defeating insularity of the Ottomans with the will to change found in their traditional enemy, Russia, which is shown struggling to face the challenge of the West and modernize under the leadership of Catherine the Great. Naksh-i-dil both admires and hates Catherine, as an example of what women can do with power and a reminder of her own ineffectiveness. "Valide" is so crammed with incident, especially in the second half, that we lose the heroine amid the crowds of subsidiary characters (most not nearly as interesting as their author finds them) and the rapid flow of public events. Ms. Chase-Riboud has clearly thought long and hard about slavery - what it does to the people caught up in it and, more fundamentally, what aspects of human nature its existence expresses - but these thoughts lack a successful fictional context in "Valide." Nonetheless, she has large ambitions and an important subject, both fine things for a novelist. Perhaps in her next book they will be realized more completely.

Title: Abductive Reasoning as a Way of Worldmaking - Résumé/Abstract
Post by: Teach Me Tiger on October 07, 2008, 04:44:00 PM

[...]

Abduction means determining α. It is using the postcondition and the rule to assume that the precondition could explain the postcondition (β ∧ R1 ⇒ α).

[...]

- Abduction allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a of "a entails b" to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Pattern

The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.

Cause & Effect: Logical Reasoning

http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf


Abductive Reasoning as a Way of Worldmaking

The author deals with the operational core of logic, i.e. its diverse procedures of inference, in order to show that logically false inferences may in fact be right because -- in contrast to logical rationality -- they actually enlarge our knowledge of the world. This does not only mean that logically true inferences say nothing about the world, but also that all our inferences are invented hypotheses the adequacy of which cannot be proved within logic but only pragmatically.

In conclusion the author demonstrates, through the relationship between rule-following and rationality, that it is most irrational to want to exclude the irrational: it may, at times, be most rational to think and infer irrationally. Focussing on the operational aspects of knowing as inferring does away with the hiatus between logic and life, cognition and the world (reality) -- or whatever other dualism one wants to invoke: knowing means inferring, inferring means rule-governed interpreting, interpreting is a constructive, synthetic act, and a construction that proves adequate (viable) in the world of experience, in life, in the praxis of living, is, to the constructivist mind, knowledge.

It is the practice of living which provides the orienting standards for constructivist thinking and its judgments of viability. The question of trüth is replaced by the question of viability, and viability depends on the (right) kind of experiential fit.
Title: Re: Legal Reasoning
Post by: Teach Me Tiger on October 07, 2008, 04:45:18 PM
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), the founder of pragmatism, spent 4 decades on the investigation of induction and deduction, models of thinking well established in logic, and supplemented them by an inferential procedure which he called abduction. He distingui