| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | “This is a business in which everyone relies on representations,” Judge Day says. “Lawyers are the ones who invented spin.” She distinguishes this form of sometimes somewhat lying truth/perception skew/management, however, from outright misrepresentation. Of the less objectionable variety, she says, “Lawyers know too much. If you know too much, how don’t you lie?” I might interpret some sense of "how don't you preferably angle/manipulate?" | |
<
< | There’s “too much meaning”—in the context of contents, people, positions, facts, possibilities, interests, statutes, cases, procedures, awarenesses, interpretations, certainties and uncertainties, knowledge, sense, “everything you say has another meaning.” Since “a real lawyer has an ethical obligation to defend his or her client,” lawyers approach meaning opportunistically. On one hand, “the posturing, the playacting, arguing over the smallest things, the narcissism, the beyond-belief egomania—it’s all part of that.” But on the other hand, “it’s inherent in the process.” | >
> | There’s “too much meaning”—in the context of contents, people, positions, facts, possibilities, interests, statutes, cases, procedures, awarenesses, interpretations, certainties and uncertainties, knowledge, sense, “everything you say has another meaning.” Since “a real lawyer has an ethical obligation to defend his or her client,” there's some typicality of lawyers approaching meaning with partisan opportunism. On one hand, “the posturing, the playacting, arguing over the smallest things, the narcissism, the beyond-belief egomania—it’s all part of that.” But on the other hand, “it’s inherent in the process.” | | | | |
<
< | There are intentions/facilities/procedures to get at good/right/true, and in the end a judge or jury adjudicates meaning by “discerning,” which is possible with reasonable effectiveness, but can still be fallible or flawed in objective/subjective reality/awareness/interpretation/preference or otherwise sort of untrue or difficult for the judged. And there are kind/degree analogies in life outside of lawyering and the courtroom. | >
> | There are intentions/facilities/procedures/protections to get at good/right/true, and in the end a judge or jury adjudicates meaning by “discerning,” which is possible with reasonable effectiveness, but can still be fallible or flawed in objective/subjective reality/awareness/interpretation/preference or otherwise sort of untrue or difficult for the judged. And there are kind/degree analogies in life outside of lawyering and the courtroom. | | | The Winkers | | | Situational awareness puts a grouping in relief, with people operating at different levels of the conversation. Winkers can manipulate various levels simultaneously, perhaps by goading one toward a dead-end while winking at another. The winker can then use the winked-at (who feels good for being winked at) to reinforce the misdirection while he talks with his secretary about travel plans. | |
<
< | People capable of this sort of behavior are proud to be in tune and perhaps believe in their superiority (“it’s those who don’t listen to what they’re saying who are the most insufferable people on earth”), but Judge Day gives examples to show why others dislike them. “He was looking straight at the girl with enormous confidence. You know, that look—and letting you know it—of knowing something you don’t. Of being above, somehow.” She is even disconcerted by someone she regards affectionately, “You never know about Paul. He sounds so sincere—the way he looks and talks—and he is, but sometimes you don’t know when he’s kidding you.” They may seem to have exclusive access to a higher/superior level of meaning/circumstance, or just their own in a way that may be unfavorable/tricky to you, that you may be subject to. | >
> | People capable of this sort of behavior may be proud to be in tune and perhaps believe in their superiority (“it’s those who don’t listen to what they’re saying who are the most insufferable people on earth”), but Judge Day gives examples to show why others may dislike them or be unnerved/concerned about things like that. “He was looking straight at the girl with enormous confidence. You know, that look—and letting you know it—of knowing something you don’t. Of being above, somehow.” She is even disconcerted by someone she regards affectionately, “You never know about Paul. He sounds so sincere—the way he looks and talks—and he is, but sometimes you don’t know when he’s kidding you.” They may seem to have exclusive access to a higher/superior level of meaning/circumstance, or just their own in a way that may be unreliable/uncertain/unfavorable/tricky to you, that you may be condescended/subject to. | | | The Insolent and Scared
In contrast, Judge Day presents the “insolent and scared,” people who may have difficulty in content situations and possibly resent the systemic and interpersonal imposition of meaning. Under this heading, she includes a young counterfeiter: “You know you’re going to put them in prison, and they know you know it, and they try to look right through you … Insolent. Toward you, toward themselves, toward life itself.” And she includes a former clerk: “He says—he’s quite agitated about it—that there no longer is a nation. What is really going on is that we’re in a state of civil wars … A Generation X lawyer has thoughts like this? Well, I can tell you, just because they may be insolent, and they are scared, doesn’t mean there aren’t some very serious sorts in their twenties roaming around out there.” (It might be possible that lawyers and judges, or at least some, may be addled a bit by dealing with problem cases as much as they do, like more element/proportion focused in that way than your average bear, while other less problematic content/life is more common, and even this essay of mine has a kind of prompted angle by some of the Lawyerland source and class, and in naive wonder topic without wanting or expecting problem too much, perhaps a naive mark at the table, though not to be cynical about others, and I might have to confer with my lawyers before noting that perhaps some details of this essay were not the best content/tone and insofar as problematically effectual I would want to withdraw/fix/improve some such details. I do not think it's or want civil wars and whatnot. I prefer/like benign content/stakes, earnestness/facility to good/right/reasonable/decent/comfortable/fine.) | |
<
< | They may have problems, may not believe in the system's assignment of meaning, may be difficultly subject, may be expressive or active or resigned with respect to that, and this may be observed or otherwise advocated in some extent. But they have doubts and fear for themselves— Kafka said, “In the struggle between you and the world, back the world.” Aside from more troubling contents/circumstances, some contents/dynamics in life can be observed or have characteristics in similar ways some, more or less good/right/true/understandable/coherent/graceful or this or that, often with humanism/perspective/facility/humor. | >
> | They may not know about or believe in some things of circumstance or the system's assignment of meaning, may have problems or be difficultly subject, may be expressive or active or resigned with respect to that, and this may be observed or otherwise advocated in some extent. But they have doubts and fear for themselves— whether it be a child scared of the dark, or like Kafka said, “In the struggle between you and the world, back the world”, or some Focker situation, etc. Aside from more troubling contents/circumstances, some contents/dynamics in life can be observed or have characteristics in similar ways some, more or less good/right/true/understandable/coherent/graceful or this or that, often with humanism/perspective/facility/humor. | | | Deep Answers? | |
<
< | Joseph’s inscription for Lawyerland is a quote from Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet: “Don’t be confused by surfaces; in the depths, everything becomes law.” Is he telling us that indefiniteness/uncertainty or various perspective or contradiction are illusions and that there is law-like meaning in all cases? Accessible? Are the insolent and scared mired in an immature perception/reaction? (Mom's leg is a pretty safe base when you're a child. She wouldn't play a badly intended trick on you.) We commonly know/observe/assume specific nature of some things/causations, like leaves/flowers/etc, however much one perceives or knows about this, while some other things/perspectives may be less definedly/fixedly natured (Flick's tongue was not stuck to a pole and then it was stuck to a pole, which is not a case that ought to be fixedly stuck that way, and then it wasn't stuck to a pole again, and he probably knows now not to do that, you can see what happened there at the ostensible natural understanding level), more variable or dynamically uncertain, or more obscure/inaccessible, though there may be actual/real case of that. Speculating as to natural... I'm not a scientist as to all these things, aside from educated amateur/observer, and it's many-detailed, and not to get into wondering about quantum physics here... as well as conceivably the supernatural/unseen. One wonder example is that the content/reason of eyebrows or other features is apparently approximately the same whether as result of intelligent design or evolution. Which seems more likely/perceivable to you? But if it's in God's image, where did the chicken or egg of His case come from? Etc details. Natural and by conscious awareness/motive/effort. Correct me if I'm wrong. | >
> | Joseph’s inscription for Lawyerland is a quote from Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet: “Don’t be confused by surfaces; in the depths, everything becomes law.” Is he telling us that indefiniteness/uncertainty or various perspective or contradiction are illusions and that there is law-like meaning in all cases? Accessible? Are the insolent and scared mired in an immature perception/reaction? (Mom's leg is a pretty safe base when you're a child. She wouldn't play a badly intended trick on you.) We commonly know/observe/assume specific nature of some things/causations, like leaves/flowers/etc, however much one perceives/attends/knows about this, while some other things/perspectives may be less definedly/fixedly natured (Flick's tongue was not stuck to a pole and then it was stuck to a pole, which is not a case that ought to be fixedly stuck that way, and then it wasn't stuck to a pole again, and he probably knows now not to do that, you can see what happened there at the ostensible natural understanding level, I don't know if it was necessarily to be that way, fate, f-lick, f-ate, ...), more variable or dynamically uncertain, or more obscure/inaccessible, though there may be actual/real case of that. Speculating as to natural... I'm not a scientist as to all these things, aside from educated amateur/observer, and it's many-detailed, and not to get into wondering about quantum physics here... as well as conceivably the supernatural/unseen. One wonder example is that the content/reason of eyebrows or other features is apparently approximately the same whether as result of intelligent design or evolution. Which seems more likely/perceivable to you? But if it's in God's image, where did the chicken or egg of His case come from? Etc details. Natural and by conscious awareness/motive/effort, including some actual/good/right substantiality/tendency/facility. Correct me if I'm wrong. | | | | |
<
< | Judge Day offers a related view to Rilke's quote: “Perhaps the finest lawyer I’ve ever known used to say—it was one of his cardinal rules—if you look hard enough for an answer, you’ll find it. Everything’s there, you just have to look for it.” But the lawyer later reappears to urge, “Do whatever you can to achieve your objective.” That statement or approach might sometimes recast the first to mean that there will always be an argument to make for your objective, whether that is otherwise true or not, and some lawyerly phenomena, real or just cliche, can be like that. Willfulness may determine reason/meaning from one point of view while perhaps another exists with difference and substance/reason/meaning, with some objective/intersubjective understanding/rapprochement. If one's objective is true/good/right/fair generally, then everything is actually there in the way that it is, possibly aside from how well you grasp it, how palatable/preferable it is, what it's actually like, content and sense reality as may be. There's a line in Samuel Beckett's Watt that says "no symbols where none intended" (is Watt probably a pun for what?). Willfulness and content/position cases may still exist, generally and possibly in spin-like ways, possibly with cases like the young counterfeiter, Bartleby, or the Underground Man acting or thinking in different ways. In some cases, if you don't like it you can go suck an egg may come into play with regard to content/rapprochement. Camus suggested, "There is no fate that cannot be overcome by scorn", though I'm not sure how you'd sassafras feel about being head down in the mud of an Inferno or something, whether some conceivable negatives are due to stupidity or malice, how about "no cruel and unusual punishment"? Or something like Harry Nilsson's "Who Done It?", the latter part's kind of funny/pertinent, not that murder situations are common or wanted/liked/done by people like the singer in that song. | >
> | Judge Day offers a related view to Rilke's quote: “Perhaps the finest lawyer I’ve ever known used to say—it was one of his cardinal rules—if you look hard enough for an answer, you’ll find it. Everything’s there, you just have to look for it.” But the lawyer later reappears to urge, “Do whatever you can to achieve your objective.” That statement or approach might sometimes recast the first to mean that there will always be an argument to make for your objective, whether that is otherwise good/right/true or not, and some lawyerly phenomena, real or just cliche, can be like that. Willfulness may determine reason/meaning from one point of view while perhaps another exists with difference and substance/reason/meaning, with some objective/intersubjective understanding/rapprochement. How about the invisible hand? One of the things about that is that from the local position of a person, self-situation and reasonable self-interest is real, part of what exists and is plausible/accessible to be aware of and operate with (e.g., I know when I need to go to the bathroom and can handle that myself), has good/right sense/accessibility for self and others, including that one may respect and value interests of others, be reasonably nice/fair/muditic, practice the golden rule.
If one's objective is true/good/right/fair generally, then everything is actually there in the way that it is, possibly aside from how well you grasp it, how palatable/preferable it is, what it's actually like, content and sense reality as may be. There's a line in Samuel Beckett's Watt that says "no symbols where none intended" (is Watt probably a pun for what?). Willfulness and content/position cases may still exist, generally and possibly in spin-like ways, possibly with cases like the young counterfeiter, Bartleby, or the Underground Man acting or thinking in different ways. In some cases, if you don't like it you can go suck an egg may come into play with regard to content/rapprochement. Camus suggested, "There is no fate that cannot be overcome by scorn", though I'm not sure how you'd sassafras feel about being head down in the mud of an Inferno or something, whether some conceivable negatives are due to stupidity or malice, how about "no cruel and unusual punishment"? Or something like Harry Nilsson's "Who Done It?", the latter part's kind of funny/pertinent, not that murder situations are common or wanted/liked/done by people like the singer in that song. | | | A multiplicity of contents/meanings has seemed to me a positive fact of life, in some ways/extents at least, for instance I like music and have some personal taste/freedom, though there may be some issues. While favored contents/interpretations may be most advantageous for some people at some time and place, local truth can be mistaken for global truth to the detriment of freedom, creativity, and diversity and at the risk of overrelying on flawed or incomplete building blocks. William H. Simon suggested, "A society which treats all conflict as a threat sacrifices individual development to conformism and impoverishes both self-expression and social relations. In such a society, where officially sanctioned patterns of behavior are perceived as coercively imposed, they engender cynicism and frustration. Where they are spontaneously adopted, they narrow the individual's perception of the world and of his own possibilities." The freedom of content/interpretation/perspective/will keeps society in flux, content/sense/people, possibly with “no one in complete agreement with anyone else about any of it”, though there is substantial thoroughfare of reality/content/sense, which can be substantially actual/true/congenial/agreeable (good/right is a parallel for congenial/agreeable, though they are not synonyms, considerably), generally and/or individually/particularly/availably, etc. 2+2=4 is a pretty solid example piece of benign/good/right/true content that exists, that people have and are pretty much same/agreed about. I can do it right now with my fingers, two fingers, one, two, two other fingers, one, two, them together, one, two, three, four, variousness/doubt/other-possibility case aside. School makes sense in a good/right/reasonable/suited way, in first principles circumstance/idealism and in good faith assumedly honestly/earnestly intended/done, with some positive nature/facility/validation/accountability, e.g., one's experience and understandability/conscience. The distance of the pitcher's mound from home plate makes sense. Vehicles are for transportation in space. I'm an excellent driver. Etc. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and I'm presently reading Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth. Yeah, definitely. I'm going to have some coffee and read Jesus of Nazareth. Yeah. I usually get my underwear in 5-packs of boxers, different designs. Definitely boxers. If I was forced not to wear boxers, like one of the other kinds, it would be a detriment to my freedom, and who are you?, but you don't have to be exactly the same in these details. About this one, can definitely have different things you health/taste need/like fine in flexible/congenial case/proportion some. Some narrow/broad field/issues of good/right. Jesus says narrow is the way that leads to life, and in familiar-to-me normal situation/sense that is true and practiced significantly and does lead to life, I/people do things pretty specifically within conceivability/possibility in a sensible way, e.g., when I have to go to the grocery store I go to the grocery store and then return to my home and eat and drink water and stuff reasonably specifically to health/taste life maintenance, not sure if an apple a day'll keep the doctor away, or if motherhood and apple pie is truly wholesomely benign, amongst other things, though this is a sense/finding of that that is pretty common, not that rare, some possibly further issues/specifics of whats/narrowness. Do you not do, like, armed robberies, cause that could be hazardous? God, no, not even if you asked me to. Heat is not my idea of a good time. I could, and might want to, wear plain white boxers. |
|