Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Legal Reasoning  (Read 167520 times)

macthbeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #430 on: February 16, 2009, 04:01:50 PM »



Robotarium, I'll try to elaborate a bit on the Supplement... if that's what you're asking...

One of most prevalent concepts in Alice in Wonderland, for instance, is the idea of "Nonsense." We can fit this nicely into traditional binary structures, like so:



This culminates in a broad thematic opposition:



Thus, we can arrive at a working thesis:

  • In Alice in Wonderland, "nonsense" acts as a "supplement" to sense...
  • Nonsense replaces sense, seems inferior to it, and yet also completes it...
  • Nonsense says things about existence that can't be said through sense.
  • Nonsense, as a supplement, shows us how nonsensical sense can be.


Derrida discusses in "Of Grammatology" the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss who spent a lot of time in the Brazilian rain forests. There are many naked girls there. In fact, there were entire tribes of naked natives wandering about in these rain forests. The chief of these tribes got all the best babes. And they had many of them. There is only one problem. Levi-Strauss's studies of the natural innocence of these tribes untouched by civilization was supposed to be scientific. But according to Derrida, Levi Strauss is just as phallogocentric as you, because his anthropology indulges in a nostalgia for presence, for origins and for self-presence of speech. Levi-Strauss, in his passion for the innocence of naked natives, sets up a binary opposition between nature and culture. Speech, for Levi-Strauss is part of nature -- innocent and pure. Writing, on the other hand, is part of culture -- and thus responsible for violence. But Derrida points out that in Levi-Strauss's own account, the Nambikwara tribe he is studying already make use of inscription, making marks on their grounds. Furthermore they eagerly begin to use the anthropolgist's pencils to illustrate their family tree when they are explaining to him their genealogy. Thus, in a sense, they already possess writing: demarcation, notation. Because the chief can demarcate himself as higher than other males, he gets all the girly action. This is in itself a form of violence that writing in the narrow sense is not responsible for. Furthermore, the Nambikwara fight wars. They demarcate their territory and themselves as different from their enemies. But Levi-Strauss would never admit such a thing. He wanted to view the natives only as pure and noble.

It was the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau who came up with the idea of "the noble savage." And in "Of Grammatology" Derrida points out many similarities between the thinking of Levi-Strauss and that of Rousseau. Rousseau also thought that Nature was good and true and beautiful, and that culture was perverse. Therefore, he also felt that face-to-face speaking, as is done by the members of a tribe, is natural and good. Writing, on the other hand, is evil and perverse. Similarly, he feels that sex is natural and good whereas masturbation is evil. BUT, as Derrida points out, Rousseau is ambivalent. After all, he says that civilization is sometimes a necessary supplement to nature, that sometimes writing is a necessary supplement to speech, and that masturbation is sometimes a necessary supplement to sex. Derrida asks: If Nature and speech and sex are complete within themselves, then why do they need a supplement? Another fence-straddler, thus. And Derrida uses this fence-straddler to show us that Rousseau has already undermined the binary oppositions he has set up between nature and culture, speech and writing, sex and masturbation -- beacuse each of the first terms need a supplement.

ca r l e s s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Indra's Net: What Is It?
« Reply #431 on: February 18, 2009, 09:43:24 PM »



Buddhism's philosophy of interdependence lets us see our differences as a vast interconnected web. In fact, the image Buddhists use to illustrate this is that of Indra's net. At each intersection of the strands of this net, which is the universe of different selves, is a jewel -- a "self" -- which reflects all the other jewels in the net. No single jewel, then, is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon, and reflects, all the others. And so, in Buddhist lingo, each jewel is Empty of self-existence!


There are several aspects of Indra's Net, as described in the above quote, that signify it as a crystal clear allegory of reality:

1. The Holographic Nature of the Universe

Long before the existence of the hologram, the jeweled net is an excellent description of the special characteristic of holograms: that every point of the hologram contains information regarding all other points. This reflective nature of the jewels is an obvious reference to this. This kind of analogy has been suggested by science as a theory for an essential characteristic of the cosmos, as well as as the functioning of the human brain, as beautifully described in The Holograpic Universe by Michael Talbot.

2. The Interconnectedness of All Things

When any jewel in the net is touched, all other jewels in the node are affected. This speaks to the hidden interconnectedness and interdependency of everything and everyone in the universe, and has an indirect reference to the concept of "Dependent Origination" in Buddhism. Additionally, Indra's Net is a definitive ancient correlate of Bell's Theorum, or the theory of non-local causes.

3. Lack of a substantive self

Each node, representing an individual, simply reflects the qualities of all other nodes, inferring the notion of 'not-self' or a lack of a solid and real inherent self, as seen in the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism and Buddhism in general.

4. Non-locality

Indra's Net shoots holes in the assumption or imputation of a solid and fixed universe 'out there'. The capacity of one jewel to reflect the light of another jewel from the other edge of infinity is something that is difficult for the linear mind, rational mind to comprehend. The fact that all nodes are simply reflections indicates that there is no particular single source point from where it all arises.

5. Innate Wisdom

The ability to reflect the entirety of all light in the universe attests to the inherent transcendant wisdom that is at the core of all nodes, representing all sentient beings, and to the inherent Buddha Nature.

6. Illusion or Maya

The fact that all nodes are simply a reflection of all others implies the illusory nature of all appearances. Appearances are thus not reality but a reflection of reality.

7. Universal Creativity

A familiar concept in various high dharmas is one of an impersonal creative intelligence that springs forth into reality through the instruments of all living beings.

8. The Mirror-like Nature of Mind

The capacity to reflect all things attests to the mind being a mirror of reality, not its basis. This is a common thesis among various schools and religions.
il n'y a pas de hors-texte

halivero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Kleinian groups
« Reply #432 on: February 19, 2009, 02:55:23 PM »

In the same way as modernists, we are trying to fill in the post-Nietzschean Void by inventing our own images and grand narratives. Although the grand narratives of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have a difficult time dealing with differences, there are two major traditions -- Buddhism and Hinduism -- that can and do embrace the differences in our increasingly pluralistic world. Buddhism is democratic, cool, practical, inexpensive and politically correct with the liberation of Tibet from China becoming a hip cause. Postmodern peoples and cultures live in a world of differences. Buddhism's philosophy of interdependence lets us see our differences as a vast interconnected web. In fact, the image Buddhists use to illustrate this is that of Indra's net. At each intersection of the strands of this net, which is the universe of different selves, is a jewel -- a "self" -- which reflects all the other jewels in the net. No single jewel, then, is self-sufficient. Its existence depends upon, and reflects, all the others. And so, in Buddhist lingo, each jewel is Empty of self-existence!


Kleinian group fractals have been popularized by the book "Indra's Pearls" by David Mumford, Caroline Series and David Wright. The key to fractals of this type is an understanding of Möbius transformations. Möbius transformations form a mathematical group. They are also known as linear fractional transformations, and are represented as:



where z is the complex number being transformed, and a, b, c and d are complex constants. A Möbius transformation can be viewed as a composition of translations, scalings and inversion. Properly chosen Möbius transformations can be iterated, with the limit set of the iterated points defining a fractal. The fractals created from the iteration of Möbius transformations can be as beautiful and varied as fractals created by other better known methods.

Möbius transformations can be represented in a matrix form:



Iteration of the transformation is accomplished by matrix multiplication and inversion by matrix inversion. The matrix should be normalized, which means that ad-bc = 1. The conjugate of a transformation (conjugated with another transformation) is defined as:



The trace of a transformation is defined as:



The trace of a transformation is unchanged by conjugation. Möbius transformations can be classified by the value of the trace and the number of fixed points (one or two).

Loxodromic. These have one source and one sink .  On iteration, points spiral out from the source and into the sink. TrT is not between –2 and 2, and they are conjugate to T(z) = kz, |k|>1.

Hyperbolic. Points move not in spirals but in circles through , . TrT is real and not between –2 and 2, and they are conjugate to T(z) = kz, k real, k>0.

Elliptic. Have two neutral fixed points and move around circles round the fixed points. TrT is real and strictly between –2 and 2, and they are conjugate to T(z) = kz, |k| = 1.

Parabolic. Have one fixed point that is both the source and sink. TrT=+2, and they are conjugate to the translations T(z) = kz+a, k = 1.

The trace of the transformation determines if, and what type of fractal, is generated upon iteration. Consult the Indra's Pearls book for more detail.

Two examples of Kleinian group fractals are shown below:


Indra's Net (A Schottky group)


Kleinian 1/15 Cusp

p o l k a

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: The Joker
« Reply #433 on: February 19, 2009, 03:32:59 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.

[...]



I would not put it that way, Spotting - but there's a parallel to it.

Autre/autre

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #434 on: February 21, 2009, 04:12:24 PM »

Derrida is very interesting indeed - If his writing has no extractable concepts or method, we can still loo at WHAT it does: what EFFETCS it has. Derrida offers a way of thinking these effects. By his own account, his writing has a matrix. Its two strands are DERAILED COMMUNICATION and UNDECIDABILITY. Derrida finds both of these in the figure of the VIRUS. "Everything I have done is dominated by the thought of a virus, the virus being many things. Follow two threads. One, the virus introduces disorder into communication, even in the biological sphere -- a derail of coding and decoding. Two, a virus is not a microbe, it is neither living nor non-living, neither alive nor dead. Follow these threads and you have the matrix of all I have done since I started writing."


Many Marxists and feminists have attacked deconstruction because it cannot provide a firm foundation for political action or even political criticism. Because if language is just the free play of meanings -- with no fixed meanings -- if all texts degenerate into the play of meanings, then there is no basis for political action. And if language is fragmented, then people, who use language, must be somewhat fragmented too.

If the sentence breaks down, so does the psyche. So does our experience of past, present and future. Deconstruction and postmodernism wallows in the play of meanings, it surfs these meanings and is concerned with performance, play and process rather than with the finished product. It delights in the ever-changing play of appearances, rather than with sources and roots and origins.

Chrysanthi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
The Seamless Monument
« Reply #435 on: February 21, 2009, 08:02:09 PM »

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.


For Jung, the mandala represents the 'Self' - another term that he borrowed from Eastern philosophy. This 'Self' is NOT what we ordinarily refer to as the 'ego', 'I' or everyday 'self' (without a capital 'S'), but stands in relation to these in such a way that when, during the 'enlightenment' of the individual, the personality shifts from its center in the 'ego' to its center in the 'Self', such a shift can either be understood as the attainment of a state of 'egolessness' or the accomplishment of 'Self-realization'.


"Instructions to the Cook: A Zen Master's Lessons in Living a Life that Matters" by Bernard Glassman & Rick Fields

Hardly a seamless monument!



When will these old blowhards learn that no matter where they plop themselves down, as long as there are just two of them they won't be able to say they are sitting in a circle? Even if you have nine lives to devote to finding a solution to this dilemma, it won't matter. One thing is for sure, though - they made us laugh so hard our insides fell out!

In their book Glassman and Fields describe it in the following way:

Quote
"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."

The visual figure that Glassman and Fields use as their central metaphor for 'realization' - the dimensionless central point that spawns an all-encompassing circle - is none other than the figure of the mandala! Plotinus used this metaphor to describe God. English poet and clergyman Thomas Traherne also spoke of a 'center' that 'surrounds':

'A Strange Extended Orb of Joy,
Proceeding from within,
Which did on evry side convey
It self, and being nigh of Kin
To God did evry Way,
Dilate it self even in an Instant, and
Like an Indivisible Centre Stand
At once Surrounding All Eternitie.'

So did astronomer Johannes Kepler: "The natural soul of man is not larger in size than a single point, and on this point the form and character of the entire sky is potentially engraved, as if it were a hundred times larger."
The child is father of the Man.

Yourgangee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #436 on: February 22, 2009, 05:23:02 PM »
Quote

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.


I would appreciate a little bit more clarification.


Robotarium, maybe this other post will shed a little light on the matter?


[...] Dissemination is NEITHER just polyseme, semantic richness, nor multiple meanings. It is not just ambiguity. Dissemination is about an indefinite number of meanings that the author does NOT intend.

Life is math!

graft

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: The Seamless Monument
« Reply #437 on: February 23, 2009, 10:24:20 PM »


Quote
"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."

The visual figure that Glassman and Fields use as their central metaphor for 'realization' - the dimensionless central point that spawns an all-encompassing circle - is none other than the figure of the mandala! Plotinus used this metaphor to describe God. English poet and clergyman Thomas Traherne also spoke of a 'center' that 'surrounds':

'A Strange Extended Orb of Joy,
Proceeding from within,
Which did on evry side convey
It self, and being nigh of Kin
To God did evry Way,
Dilate it self even in an Instant, and
Like an Indivisible Centre Stand
At once Surrounding All Eternitie.'

So did astronomer Johannes Kepler: "The natural soul of man is not larger in size than a single point, and on this point the form and character of the entire sky is potentially engraved, as if it were a hundred times larger."


Is this similar to what you'd come to realize were you to hold a mirror up to a mirror?
Love is Not Supposed to Hurt.

Rigoletto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #438 on: February 23, 2009, 10:48:12 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.

[...]



I would not put it that way, Spotting - but there's a parallel to it.


It's right on, polka, actually.

Sun M Patinka

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Legal Reasoning
« Reply #439 on: February 25, 2009, 06:14:04 PM »


Quote
"Most people think [that spiritual self-sufficiency] involves building up a strong sense of self. But building oneself up - becoming the whole universe - really consists of what Dogen calls 'forgetting the self'... It's as if we become a point that has no dimension, but that point is the center of an all-encompassing circle. There's no longer any separation between us and everything else."

The visual figure that Glassman and Fields use as their central metaphor for 'realization' - the dimensionless central point that spawns an all-encompassing circle - is none other than the figure of the mandala! Plotinus used this metaphor to describe God. English poet and clergyman Thomas Traherne also spoke of a 'center' that 'surrounds':

'A Strange Extended Orb of Joy,
Proceeding from within,
Which did on evry side convey
It self, and being nigh of Kin
To God did evry Way,
Dilate it self even in an Instant, and
Like an Indivisible Centre Stand
At once Surrounding All Eternitie.'

So did astronomer Johannes Kepler: "The natural soul of man is not larger in size than a single point, and on this point the form and character of the entire sky is potentially engraved, as if it were a hundred times larger."


Is this similar to what you'd come to realize were you to hold a mirror up to a mirror?


So how does this "holding a mirror up to a mirror" thing work, graft?