Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Legal Reasoning  (Read 170687 times)

opinion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #410 on: January 22, 2009, 01:36:55 PM »
Marcuse's Heidegger-Marxismus appears to be quite intriguing, to say the least!

Peter s Father In Law

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Margaret Singer's conditions for mind control
« Reply #411 on: January 23, 2009, 12:29:29 PM »

[...]

Thought reform is a hyperefficient indoctrination achieved when secrecy impairs indoctrinees' awareness of what is happening to them and what they are becoming - thus, there is no full, informed consent. Brainwashing or mind control are popular terms for thought reform.


Psychologist Margaret Singer describes in her book "Cults in our Midst" 6 conditions which she says would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Singer states that these conditions involve no need for physical coercion or violence.

  • Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how attempts to psychologically condition him or her are directed in a step-by-step manner.
  • Control the person's social and/or physical environment; especially control the person's time.
  • Systematically create a sense of powerlessness in the person.
  • Manipulate a system of rewards, punishments and experiences in such a way as to inhibit behavior that reflects the person's former social identity.
  • The group manipulates a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in order to promote learning the group's ideology or belief system and group-approved behaviors.
  • Put forth a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure that permits no feedback and refuses to be modified except by leadership approval or executive order.

However, a report on brainwashing and mind control presented by an American Psychological Association (APA) task force known as the APA Taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC), chaired by Singer, was rejected in 1987 by the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) as lacking "the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." and cautioned the task force members to "not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board."

caracosta

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: The Supplement
« Reply #412 on: January 25, 2009, 04:46:54 PM »

Remember, the goal is to question Binary Logic:

Derrida introduced, for instance, the SUPPLEMENT. The French word supplément means both addition and replacement. The supplement both extends and replaces -- as a dietary supplement both adds to the diet and becomes part of the diet. The supplement obeys a strange logic.

To be an addition means to be added to something already complete, like Son to the King.

... yet it cannot be complete if it needs an addition. The King is complete and has an addition; needing an addition, the King is not yet whole.

The supplement extends by replacing. The King's son has the same blood and is the King's extension. But the supplement opposes by replacing. The King's son will usurp the king, take his place.

The declaration, "The King is dead, long live the King!" must escape the grip of standard logic. It follows the logic of the supplement. The king must be the same but different: he is figured twice, as the father-king and the supplement-king.

Thoth opposed his father-king, but he opposed what he himself repeated. He opposed himself. Thoth, the demi-god, is undecidable. And so is Theuth, his Greek counterpart.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9302/spplyj5.jpg


This appeared to me kinda complex - however, after I read this other post,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3004490.msg5274268.html

I think I know what Derrida might have had in mind when introducing the metaphor.

chainlaw

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #413 on: January 27, 2009, 12:33:54 PM »

Derrida says that there is nothing outside of the text - does this mean that deconstruction is just a bookish kind of thing that cannot be applied to action and life?


Dear sous rature: To read does not mean to spend nights in the library; to read events, to analyze the situation, to critisize the media, to listen to the rhetoric of the demagogues, that's close reading, and it is required more today than ever.


Well, in Derridean terms, it actually means more than close reading, sous! :)

that-which-is-not

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #414 on: January 28, 2009, 03:20:34 PM »

Remember, the goal is to question Binary Logic:

Derrida introduced, for instance, the SUPPLEMENT. The French word supplément means both addition and replacement. The supplement both extends and replaces -- as a dietary supplement both adds to the diet and becomes part of the diet. The supplement obeys a strange logic.

To be an addition means to be added to something already complete, like Son to the King.

... yet it cannot be complete if it needs an addition. The King is complete and has an addition; needing an addition, the King is not yet whole.

The supplement extends by replacing. The King's son has the same blood and is the King's extension. But the supplement opposes by replacing. The King's son will usurp the king, take his place.

The declaration, "The King is dead, long live the King!" must escape the grip of standard logic. It follows the logic of the supplement. The king must be the same but different: he is figured twice, as the father-king and the supplement-king.

Thoth opposed his father-king, but he opposed what he himself repeated. He opposed himself. Thoth, the demi-god, is undecidable. And so is Theuth, his Greek counterpart.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9302/spplyj5.jpg


This appeared to me kinda complex - however, after I read this other post,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3004490.msg5274268.html

I think I know what Derrida might have had in mind when introducing the metaphor.


caracost, think about Sartre's famous conception of being and nothingness :)

Sartre tries to improve on Heidegger's famous, or infamous, dictum in "What is Metaphysics?" that 'nothingness nihilates' by saying 'Nothing does not nihilate itself. Nothingness "is nihilated"'. Heidegger too is trying to avoid the charge of holding that nothing in some sense exists, but Sartre thinks Heidegger makes a mistake in his formulation. By saying 'nothing nihilates' Heidegger imparts an agency to nothing; the power to nihilate, but this agency could hardly be efficacious unless it or that which exercises it existed. Sartre's 'Nothingness is nihilated' does not carry the logical or grammatical connotation of accomplishment. It is a putative affirmation of nothing's non-being logically consistent with that of Eleatic pre-socratic philosopher Parmenides. Sartre fails to observe that his passive rendering of Heidegger's active voice may have equally incoherently construed nothing as a subject of anihilation, and hence, something that exists.

Nonetheless, it is true acording to Sartre that there are absences. There are refusals and denials, acts of imagining that things could be otherwise. For example, in the celebrated passage from "Being and Nothingness" Sartre is expecting his friend Pierre to be in a cafe, but Pierre is not there. Sartre encounters nothingness. Sartre wonders whether this is a judgement or thought that Pierre is absent or whether there is an experience of Pierre's absence, an intuition of nothingness. Sartre knows there is a prima facie absurdity in speaking of the experience of nothing. Nothing is not anything, so an experience of nothing would not be an experince of anything. Nevertheless, Sartre decides that it is by sight that the absence of Pierre was detected. There was at least the phenomenon of seeing that Pierre is absent, even if not a seeing of Pierre's absence.

It is as if nothingness existed. Non-being is a component of the real. Nothingness is real even though nothingness is not. We may speak of absent friends, holes in the ground, negative and false propositions, purely imaginary states of affairs, fictitional characters as though they existed because nothingness possesses an appearance of being, a being it borrows from being.
The universe has no master plan.

1998

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #415 on: January 30, 2009, 11:33:51 AM »

caracost, think about Sartre's famous conception of being and nothingness :)

Sartre tries to improve on Heidegger's famous, or infamous, dictum in "What is Metaphysics?" that 'nothingness nihilates' by saying 'Nothing does not nihilate itself. Nothingness "is nihilated"'. Heidegger too is trying to avoid the charge of holding that nothing in some sense exists, but Sartre thinks Heidegger makes a mistake in his formulation. By saying 'nothing nihilates' Heidegger imparts an agency to nothing; the power to nihilate, but this agency could hardly be efficacious unless it or that which exercises it existed. Sartre's 'Nothingness is nihilated' does not carry the logical or grammatical connotation of accomplishment. It is a putative affirmation of nothing's non-being logically consistent with that of Eleatic pre-socratic philosopher Parmenides. Sartre fails to observe that his passive rendering of Heidegger's active voice may have equally incoherently construed nothing as a subject of anihilation, and hence, something that exists.


Nothing strange about it, that-which, from the point in time you begin to talk about "Nothing" you have established it as something that exists.

parasdr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Mireille Mathieu - Sahara
« Reply #416 on: January 31, 2009, 01:11:41 PM »

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=Nt_rNjY6B9I&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?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVw-fFDUz8c&feature=related

qiverori

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Mireille Mathieu - Sahara
« Reply #417 on: February 01, 2009, 12:47:42 PM »

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?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVw-fFDUz8c&feature=related


Sarah Brightman's Harem appears to be just as great!

Kocci

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Mireille Mathieu - Sahara
« Reply #418 on: February 01, 2009, 01:09:02 PM »

Spotting_Trains

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: The Joker
« Reply #419 on: February 05, 2009, 07:32:32 PM »

Theuth is the father's other, the father, and himself. [...]


Is this pretty much the same notion/concept elaborated here?



Ouroboros, Chrysopeia: the center reads "Hen to Pan, all is one"

Indeed. Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype and the basic mandala of alchemy. He believed that alchemists, who in their own way know more about the nature of the individuation process than we moderns do, expressed this paradox through the symbol of the ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. In the age old image of the ouroboros lies the thought of devouring oneself and turning oneself into a circulatory process, for it was clear to the most astute alchemists that the prima materia of the art was man himself. The ouroboros is a dramatic symbol for the integration and assimilation of the opposite, i.e. of the shadow self. This feedback process is at the same time a symbol of immortality, since it is said of the ouroboros that he slays himself and brings himself to life again, fertilizes himself and gives birth to himself. This is much like the cycle of the Phoenix, the feminine archetype. Ouroboros symbolizes The One, who proceeds from the clash of opposites, and therefore constitutes the secret of the prima materia which unquestionably stems from man's unconsciousness.


The notion of a 'being who is his own parent'. The archetypal image associated with this family of metaphors is that of the uroboros - the snake which, by eating its own tail (or impregnating itself, or giving birth to itself), is wrapped around into a circle of perpetual motion. The product of such a reflexive union is, of course, the 'being who is his/her own father/mother'. The 'bootstrap' metaphor is a variation of the uroboros motif that seems to emphasize the element of HUMAN FRAILTY.

[...]