Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: poor lawyers  (Read 48409 times)

Gina

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
« Reply #110 on: July 06, 2006, 10:47:46 PM »

There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."


Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other nonbodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.

R. Bennett

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #111 on: July 07, 2006, 12:32:12 AM »
Quote
Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other nonbodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.

Well, now that's real c*ap.   :o

Back to topic, though, the point is that lawyers can earn a decent living, but very few of them are rich financially, and many earn very modest amounts.  If you want riches, be an investment banker or an entrepreneur.  If you want a career that many find respectable (despite the jokes) in which your role is helping others in one way or another, then maybe the law is your field.  Yes, many lawyers do much what paralegals in the big firms do (plus some).  Some lawyers do the wrong thing, usually because of their money problems.  But if you can survive law school, if you enjoy what you are taught, and if you can budget yourself and keep from having delusions of grandeur so you can maintain financial stability and (with time) growth, then be a lawyer.  But don't be a lawyer if you do it just for the money.  Most lawyers make less than the public has the impression lawyers make.

delpiero

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #112 on: July 07, 2006, 03:09:38 AM »

There is nothing wrong with making money. But money can become the tail that wags the dog. Karl Llewellyn's observations of some 40 years ago, on lawyers and money, still ring true. He observed "a brand of lawyer for whom law is making of a livelihood, a competence, a fortune. Law offers means to live, to get ahead. It is so viewed. Such men give their whole selves to it, in this aspect. Coin is their reward. Coin makes it possible to live. Coin is success, coin is prestige, and coin is power. Such lawyers, I take it, reflect rather adequately the standards of our civilization. They have perceived the mainspring of a money economy. They follow single-heartedly on their perception. Coin is, in this society, the measure of a man."


Freud argued that feces, as matter that comes from within oneself and then becomes matter outside and thus independent Of oneself, is recognized by the child as his "creation." In this recognition, the child frequently uses feces for love, offering it up as a gift to those for whom he cares. As something which he makes and which becomes his own (and is not bestowed on him externally), the child perceives of feces as personal property that defines independence. The child also recognizes that this substance, often problematically received by the world, can be used aggressively, as a weapon. Thus a child's sense of mastery, power, and defiance derives initially from manipulation of excrement.

Freud explained that as one evolves out of the stages of infant sexuality, the values attributed to feces are reattached through sublimation to other nonbodily objects. According to Freud, anal erotism moves from feces to money.

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.


Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. Indeed, it is because infants view their faeces as the first tangible proof of their capacity to produce something meaningful, on both a material level and a "relational" one, that money stands in a relation of symbolic equivalence, for the unconscious of every subject, with the notions of faeces, gift, penis, and baby.

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. As regards the relational point of view, it is not long before the child comes up against a parental injunction usually expressed by the mother to "do" when and where it is necessary. The child thus finds himself or herself faced with an alternative: either to obey and defecate in the pot upon which he or she is placed, and thereby secure maternal satisfaction, along with rewards and caresses; or to disobey, in a show of defiance directed at the beloved mother, by "doing" anytime and anywhere (in bed, for example) or by refusing to perform when asked to, and thereby annoy, or even anger, his or her mother.

The first option consists in the child's presenting his or her first real gift to the mother namely, the gift of his or her stools, capable of extracting cries of joy or surprise from the latter and in thereby taking up an attitude of object love. The second option amounts to the child's preferring a narcissistic position -- refusal, stubbornness, obstinacy, opposition, etc. -- and his or her obtaining an aggressive satisfaction (the anal-sadistic aspect of which Freud speaks). This would form the source of the pleasure that adults can take in refusing demands made by other people -- such as demands for a pay rise made by employees in a firm, with such a refusal being all the more significant, on the symbolic level, when the rise in question is almost negligible in strictly financial terms. In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind (Borneman, 1978), an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavoured to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome.

Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires. This is all the more the case given that "globalization" seems to increase multinational corporations' power of influence (which rivals that of nation-states) and that capitalism now has a free rein almost every- where in the world (with the notable exception of Cuba and North Korea).

nsre421

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #113 on: July 07, 2006, 12:53:17 PM »
isn't there a way you can get your loans forgiven?

wanton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #114 on: July 07, 2006, 02:20:21 PM »
tag

frolick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #115 on: July 08, 2006, 07:51:44 PM »
What a thread!

enola

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: From Homo Oeconomicus to Homo Sexualis
« Reply #116 on: July 10, 2006, 04:35:35 AM »

Freud elaborated the notion that the emergence of money economy is rooted in the "anal" phase of sexuality. The child's attitude toward excretion thus adumbrated its later attitude toward possessions. Since fecal matter was the first object created by the infant which could be alienated from it in exchange for others' praise, an anal retentive character prefigured excessive parsimony, an anal expulsive character excessive improvidence. Feces itself became the prototype for gold, a hypothesis Freud defended by referring to cross-linguistic data suggesting a connection between "filthy lucre" and precious metal.


Intersting!

oro

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #117 on: July 10, 2006, 06:44:20 PM »

zztop

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #118 on: July 10, 2006, 07:18:14 PM »

there's nothing wrong with being middle class


and there's nothing wrong with being unemployed either

loretta

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: poor lawyers
« Reply #119 on: July 11, 2006, 08:06:18 PM »

Freud himself who was to declare to Fliess in a letter dated 16 January 1898, that money did not form the object of an infantile wish which is why, as the well-known saying puts it, money proves incapable of "making one happy" as an adult. Yet, it can nevertheless give the impression of doing so, to the extent that it is capable as we know from Freudian metapsychology of functioning as the unconscious substitute and equivalent for any "object" whatsoever that is invested by the libido of the subject, be this oral, phallic or, especially, anal. Indeed, it is because infants view their faeces as the first tangible proof of their capacity to produce something meaningful, on both a material level and a "relational" one, that money stands in a relation of symbolic equivalence, for the unconscious of every subject, with the notions of faeces, gift, penis, and baby.

On a material level, faeces represent for children their first possessions of value. Indeed, if children tend at first, roughly between the ages of 2 and 3, to take an auto-erotic pleasure in defecating (the first phase of the anal stage), they subsequently discover, around the age of 3 or 4, that they can obtain a more intense excitation by holding back their stool (the second phase of the anal stage). This is the source of the pleasure adults take in holding onto money, valuable objects or, yet again, time (as shown by the character-traits of avarice and parsimony, as well as the pleasure of hoarding or saving), in accordance with the equation of money and excrement. As regards the relational point of view, it is not long before the child comes up against a parental injunction usually expressed by the mother to "do" when and where it is necessary. The child thus finds himself or herself faced with an alternative: either to obey and defecate in the pot upon which he or she is placed, and thereby secure maternal satisfaction, along with rewards and caresses; or to disobey, in a show of defiance directed at the beloved mother, by "doing" anytime and anywhere (in bed, for example) or by refusing to perform when asked to, and thereby annoy, or even anger, his or her mother.

The first option consists in the child's presenting his or her first real gift to the mother namely, the gift of his or her stools, capable of extracting cries of joy or surprise from the latter and in thereby taking up an attitude of object love. The second option amounts to the child's preferring a narcissistic position -- refusal, stubbornness, obstinacy, opposition, etc. -- and his or her obtaining an aggressive satisfaction (the anal-sadistic aspect of which Freud speaks). This would form the source of the pleasure that adults can take in refusing demands made by other people -- such as demands for a pay rise made by employees in a firm, with such a refusal being all the more significant, on the symbolic level, when the rise in question is almost negligible in strictly financial terms. In the most extreme case, according to the psycho-analytical argument that is often put forward, an overly active or precocious repression of the child's psychosexual development during the anal stage -- especially at the moment of toilet training -- can lead to the development, in later life, of a veritable obsessional (or, as it was sometimes called, anal) neurosis. Since the pathbreaking work of Oskar Pfister on the psychical structure of classical capitalism and the financial mind (Borneman, 1978), an entire current of thought (Reich, Fromm, etc.) has endeavoured to locate within the capitalist system the indices of a collective obsessional neurotic syndrome.

Just as the child is under the illusion of the omnipotence of his or her excrements, so the capitalist would tend to believe that his or her money gives him or her the power -- and, above all, the right -- to do whatever he or she so desires. This is all the more the case given that "globalization" seems to increase multinational corporations' power of influence (which rivals that of nation-states) and that capitalism now has a free rein almost every- where in the world (with the notable exception of Cuba and North Korea).


So basically,

money = *&^%
capitalism = anal