Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL  (Read 106068 times)

F. Korbee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #570 on: December 06, 2011, 10:47:15 PM »

America's version of political liberal "morality" is a vague belief in science resting atop an uneasy and heterogeneous combination of Enlightenment, materialist/Protestant and pagan values. As a country, America celebrates stupidity in order to help people ignore the dissonance between their belief that America is a democratic nation with civil rights and the fact that it is an Orwellian totalitarian state derived from lessons learned in the "great experiments" of Fascism and Stalinism.

In fact, the connection to Hitlerism is not only revealed in its propaganda terminology but also in myriad tendrils, personal and institutional, from the silverware used by the Bushes at the Skull and Bones club, which counted Hitler among its previous owners, to loans made from Prescott Bush to Nazi Germany after 1942, to the practice extreme methods of torture and killing by the state intelligence apparatus (albeit it often outside national boundaries and by proxy.)


palikari - we understand that, we are not stupid - please do not repeat it over and over again! :)

F. Korbee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #571 on: December 06, 2011, 11:02:06 PM »

In approximately 1914, before World War I, the narrator, a young cerebral writer who wants to become rooted in the earth and physical labor, rents a lignite mine on the beautiful island of Crete. As he is about to depart, he meets a much older, experienced, and very earthy Alexis Zorba, whom he hires to be his foreman and cook. What he learns, and we through him, may change your life. First, a warning: to appreciate this amazing book, one must be able to look past the misogyny and sexism of life on Crete in 1914, and focus on the love and relationship of two men. Zorba plays the santuri, has had a family and many lovers, has fought in the Balkan Wars, has lived and loved - his knowledge is rooted in love, suffering, sweat, and blood. He is a simple but deep man who lives life without shame, bares himself, has no guile or guise, and lives every moment fully -- not only his joy, but his tears, his compassion, his anger, his hunger, his thoughts and his questions. His character is perceptively portrayed by the first person narrator who is a contemplative who gradually comes to see the poverty of a life always filtered through philosophical, religious, or cultural judgments. He immediately appreciates Zorba's wonder at life, Zorba's music and dance, and the way Zorba sees the same old things every day as if new. Zorba is life itself, a fleeting moment with a discrete beginning and final end. The narrator especially learns that by holding on to his safety and security he has sacrificed much by failing to live to the fullest like Zorba. The book is absolutely beautifully written, makes you cry at the beauty and wonder of being alive, makes you ache for loved ones who are gone, and cry at our ultimate fate, death, in the face of which we must live with ever more Zorba-like zest.


Dicka, I absolutely love this movie - Kazantzakis' book is marvellous, the movie also was truly a hit, with Anthony Quinn (Alexis Zorba), Alan Bates (Basil), Irene Papas (widow) having performed at their very best!

Dashi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Nietzsche's 'Masters'
« Reply #572 on: December 07, 2011, 01:55:18 AM »

It may just be that people ruling us have taken themselves for Nietzsche's Superman, as this post describes it:


[...]

While Nietzsche's emphasis on free will might seem to rescue humanity from the degrading philosophies of environmental or biological determinism, it does nothing of the sort. It only elevates a small elite of humanity, whom Nietzsche called the Superman, or more literally, Overman. Nietzsche's freedom was freedom only for these Supermen, the creative geniuses (like himself) who would rise above the hoi polloi. He had nothing but disdain for the masses, whom he thought incapable of exercising true freedom. What Nietzsche contemptuously called the herd instinct of the masses fitted them for nothing other than submission to the domination of the Superman.

Despite its stress on freedom, then, Nietzsche's philosophy is really a philosophy that aims at enslavement. Power ultimately decides not only who rules politically, but also what counts as truth. Nietzsche rejected any form of fixed truth or morality, thus undermining the very notion of humanity and human rights. [...]



The Darwinian idea of "the survival of the fittest" is simply a struggle for existence -- for life rather than death. The exceptional life-forms may well be poorly adapted to survive. The history of evolving forms shows that happy accidents are eleminated, the more highly evolved types lead nowhere; it is the average and below types which invariably ascend. This simple biological progression is no progression at all -- it leads to the victory of the herd.

Charles Darwin writes in "The Descent of Man" that a tribe which consisted of many members who were always ready to give aid to each-other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. Nietzsche reversed this scenario. Let the tribe sacrifice itself, if necessary, to preserve the existence of one great individual. It is not the quantity but the the quality of humanity that we must seek to increase. He goes on to say, "A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them!" A struggle, not for existence (Darwin), but rather a struggle for greatness -- and with that, a struggle for power. This highly undemocratic view of humanity as a kind of "raw material" out of which a few great individuals will emerge, leads to one's political views, which are far from ordinary...

Now, if my own will happens to coincide with the will of the group, this is just a happy accident, which raises the so-called paradox of democracy. In a democracy, I am committed to two principles: 1. the will of the majority (the State); 2. My own will. Unfortunately, there is no necessary reason why these two principles should ever coincide! Clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of the government -- a kind of political darwinism. The herd triumphs once again, this time under the banner of the state. The better the State is organized, the duller humanity will be. As little State as possible!



palikari, I don't think it's a matter of "having taken themselves for" - I tend to believe that Nietzsche's philosophy is all power, and how to find oneself in such a position, disregarding any values, ethics, morality, and so on - so, if certain people ARE in power, then they are his "Supermen," regardless of the fact that they may, in actuality, be dumbasses!

This is just my hunch on the issue, so if you guys have any better interpretations on the matter, go ahead and let us know..


Nietzsche's Masters: he says that every 'higher' or noble culture began with barbarians, 'predatory' humans who conquered either the 'more well-behaved, peaceable' ones or 'crumbling cultures'. They establish an 'aristocratic' class, based in ideas of a natural hierarchy between people, who dominated by their stronger will to power. This class is the origin of ideas of 'nobility'. The aristocratic class Nietzsche has in mind the aristocratic societies of ancient Rome and Greece faced challenging conditions, wars with other societies, the threat of revolt by those oppressed. These conditions made for strong, unified people with a harsh and intolerant set of values. Such a class has no qualms about using 'lower' human beings for its own ends; this is itself understood as 'justice' and 'natural'. The whole of society is understood to exist for their sake, for the sake of what is great and noble.


F. Korbee, it looks like to me that you not transforming the whole debate about Nietzsche's 'genius' and the like to something completely different. CMIW, but both "gia" and "schoo" that Wolsey quotes talk about Nietzsche's 'Superman' in terms of the latter being a 'genius' (high IQ), under the rule of whom people should rightfully come.

You, on the other hand, turned this whole discussion about his 'Superman' in a debate about brave, noble warriors, who have these sadomasochistic and pederastic propensities, and as to whether today's ruling class in the Western world is really that kind or not..

Maybe it's just me who's not following closely enough, but don't you think you are trying to establish an artificial link here?!

Sh.Gemal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: GAY SHOWS THE WAY
« Reply #573 on: December 10, 2011, 07:18:49 AM »

[...] All this as a demonstration that human beings really can change, really can overcome the competition and struggle to dominate, the survival of the fittest, that reactionaries have always proclaimed is an eternal part of the human condition. It is needed not only the abolition of class, but equally of the gender system that underlies this, with its masculine specialization in violence, domination of men over women, and institutionalized heterosexuality. Gay men and lesbian women are rebels against the gender system and gender differences altogether. Instead of two radically different types of human being, feminine women and masculine men -- with this distinction involving a very definite relationship of oppression in the bargain -- a post-gender society would enable all human beings to combine the positive aspects attributed at present to one sex or the other alone, and jettison the negative aspects. Love is to be seen as a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. [...]


I don't get it - first you are saying that men indeed @ # ! * each-other and then that they need to physically experience one another ... am I missing something here?

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #574 on: December 10, 2011, 01:48:31 PM »
maybe he just mean mindfucking.

vergene

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: GAY SHOWS THE WAY
« Reply #575 on: December 11, 2011, 02:37:13 AM »

Gay people are spiritually different from the rest of society. They are more in touch with nature, bodily pleasure, the true essence of human nature. They seek to refashion the world after their egalitarian, non-hierarchical views. What drives them is a belief that sexuality is sacred. A belief that queer sexuality has an essential outsider quality that makes the outcast homosexual the perfect prophet for a heterosexual world lost in strict gender roles, enforced reproductive sexuality and numbingly straitjacketed social personae. A cross between born-again queers and in-your-face shock troops practicing g e n d e r @ # ! * drag.

The new human being will be of a kind that would seem to us as intrinsically both masculine and feminine, as seemingly both a man and a woman, and because of this, this new kind of human being will be in fact, really neither masculine nor feminine, neither man nor woman, but instead something new, something of a character that will have superseded the usefulness and meaningfulness of such divisions and demarcations. In any event, this new human being would probably not seem in all respects equally masculine and feminine to us, equally a man and a woman, but in fact, would more likely seem at least in the area of close interpersonal relations (those of social and sexual intimacy and desire) to be more feminine than masculine, more "like a woman" than "like a man." In addition, not only would this future human being seem to be what we would describe as "bisexual" but also would likely seem to us to be far more gay than straight.

In a society dominated by the sexist culture it is very difficult - if not impossible - for heterosexual men and women to escape their gender-role structuring and the roles of oppressor and oppressed. But gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psycho sexual needs, and gay women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor, so that at this moment in time the freest and most equal relationships are most likely to be between homosexuals. All this as a demonstration that human beings really can change, really can overcome the competition and struggle to dominate, the survival of the fittest, that reactionaries have always proclaimed is an eternal part of the human condition. It is needed not only the abolition of class, but equally of the gender system that underlies this, with its masculine specialization in violence, domination of men over women, and institutionalized heterosexuality. Gay men and lesbian women are rebels against the gender system and gender differences altogether. Instead of two radically different types of human being, feminine women and masculine men -- with this distinction involving a very definite relationship of oppression in the bargain -- a post-gender society would enable all human beings to combine the positive aspects attributed at present to one sex or the other alone, and jettison the negative aspects. Love is to be seen as a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for us to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homosexually and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established in the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual'.


I don't think 'mind f u c king' was what the quoted poster meant, Julie. I think s/he is talking about @ # ! * i n g guys 'physically', but in context which allows one of them (at least) to deny to oneself that he's gay.

The kind of @ # ! * i n g that happens everyday, without being (too much) noticed, or talked about, for that matter ... you know ...

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #576 on: December 11, 2011, 12:09:33 PM »
^
^
Is this just a long and confusing way of saying: "you're a homo"?  Ahh high school nostalgia.
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: GAY SHOWS THE WAY
« Reply #577 on: December 11, 2011, 03:37:52 PM »

Gay people are spiritually different from the rest of society. They are more in touch with nature, bodily pleasure, the true essence of human nature. They seek to refashion the world after their egalitarian, non-hierarchical views. What drives them is a belief that sexuality is sacred. A belief that queer sexuality has an essential outsider quality that makes the outcast homosexual the perfect prophet for a heterosexual world lost in strict gender roles, enforced reproductive sexuality and numbingly straitjacketed social personae. A cross between born-again queers and in-your-face shock troops practicing g e n d e r @ # ! * drag.

The new human being will be of a kind that would seem to us as intrinsically both masculine and feminine, as seemingly both a man and a woman, and because of this, this new kind of human being will be in fact, really neither masculine nor feminine, neither man nor woman, but instead something new, something of a character that will have superseded the usefulness and meaningfulness of such divisions and demarcations. In any event, this new human being would probably not seem in all respects equally masculine and feminine to us, equally a man and a woman, but in fact, would more likely seem at least in the area of close interpersonal relations (those of social and sexual intimacy and desire) to be more feminine than masculine, more "like a woman" than "like a man." In addition, not only would this future human being seem to be what we would describe as "bisexual" but also would likely seem to us to be far more gay than straight.

In a society dominated by the sexist culture it is very difficult - if not impossible - for heterosexual men and women to escape their gender-role structuring and the roles of oppressor and oppressed. But gay men and lesbian women don't need to oppress women in order to fulfill their own psycho sexual needs, and gay women don't have to relate sexuality to the male oppressor, so that at this moment in time the freest and most equal relationships are most likely to be between homosexuals. All this as a demonstration that human beings really can change, really can overcome the competition and struggle to dominate, the survival of the fittest, that reactionaries have always proclaimed is an eternal part of the human condition. It is needed not only the abolition of class, but equally of the gender system that underlies this, with its masculine specialization in violence, domination of men over women, and institutionalized heterosexuality. Gay men and lesbian women are rebels against the gender system and gender differences altogether. Instead of two radically different types of human being, feminine women and masculine men -- with this distinction involving a very definite relationship of oppression in the bargain -- a post-gender society would enable all human beings to combine the positive aspects attributed at present to one sex or the other alone, and jettison the negative aspects. Love is to be seen as a relationship between equals, rather than between dominant and subordinate.

Even when straight men are allied by common work, kinship or belief, they are still underneath it all enemy brothers; it is legendary how competition over women turns brotherhood into hate. Even when not immediately realized, this potential lurks just beneath the surface, dividing men from one another and thus helping perpetuate the law of violence -- indeed it is the first precondition for masculine hierarchy. If men are to love one another, it must be possible for us to love one another in the full, sexual sense; as long as this is tabooed, inter-male competition can never be dissolved. What perpetuates this vicious competition, of course, is not the practice of heterosexuality, but the non-practice of homosexuality. It would disappear if the gender system were abolished, and human beings could relate to one another irrespective of biological sex, i.e., both homosexually and heterosexually, with the family accordingly replaced by a form of commune. But in this case, the resultant 'bisexuality' would be clearly established in the terms of homosexuality, or rather gayness. It would be a sexuality between essentially similar individuals, rather than essentially dissimilar, thus 'homosexual' rather than 'heterosexual'.


I don't think 'mind f u c king' was what the quoted poster meant, Julie. I think s/he is talking about @ # ! * i n g guys 'physically', but in context which allows one of them (at least) to deny to oneself that he's gay.

The kind of @ # ! * i n g that happens everyday, without being (too much) noticed, or talked about, for that matter ... you know ...

but how that work when both have weenies?  please explain.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #578 on: December 11, 2011, 03:39:40 PM »
^
^
Is this just a long and confusing way of saying: "you're a homo"?  Ahh high school nostalgia.

so you gay in high school?  wow.  get letter in that?

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #579 on: December 11, 2011, 05:02:04 PM »
No Julie, my letter was in ballet and goatfucking.  I was the best, almost went national.  But was straight all the way.
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."