Law in Contemporary Society
I agree with Prof. Moglen that defining aims would help narrow our focus to manageable problems.

I'll tentatively propose that one should reconcile three kinds of signals: (1) one's skills, (2) one's sense of issues or people that are on the right track, and (3) one's sense of an ideal future world.

Our excerpt of "Something Split" shows "All Great Problems Come from the Streets" as the next chapter, which accords with Arnold's analysis of new organizations rising to fill unmet needs, an example of the second signal category above. Those things are sensible and can be important, and can be incorporated/approached sensibly. (Some concern/process sense of correction/development/incorporation... In the 1800s we had pro-business laws and "rugged individualism" for development/capability. Further on with some development and capacity, rich and poor, we consider/develop equality and provisions further, like social safety net. These things both having sense to them and combining with interest in good/right/appropriate case.)

The third signal may be a further instrument of perspective and calibration. I suspect there are some substantial differences in what people have in mind (more or less consciously) and range of what's out there, currently and in plausible prospectivity. I wonder to what extent people think there's an important division of opinion between:

• We live on Earth in a broadly recognizable way, approaching ideals of goodness, fairness, and sustainability, and

• We expand infinitely (or something, whether this involves outer space or not, e.g., substantially/totally/perfectly) in capability and knowledge, overcoming scarcity and death on our way to complete freedom/good-case/apotheosis.

I might attribute the first to Tharaud (or Woody, I guess) and more of the second to Cerriere (or Buzz, I guess, in that sort of sense). Views like these may underlie/contribute to our perceptions/orientations/approaches, some like Galileo and Jesus from Galilee, variably focused/oriented though plausibly consistent. I wonder if Galileo Galilei and Galilee is design-intended, perhaps with humor/sense, with respect to this kind of question of sun/Son centrality/orientation? Also, triangulation/generational through line of one's life and good for son/children, sun/Son/son (God/Jesus/heaven/angels stuff may be like Buzz-side in that kind of way, and/or cowboy?). Is it useful to think about? Sprinkle in jokes lightly, like what's for lunch? Be careful to not be offensive or problematic though. Is that split infinitive a problem? To not be or not to be is not that helpful a Hamlet joke... I'm funny... And watch out for Inspector Gadget Claw, if that's a thing. Microcosm, macrocosm, my current circumstance, the present, short, medium, long-term future/goals, content and facility, is-ought wheel, xy-field like what/why content/reason. I'm hydrated, got to clean my kitchen... like part Roomba. I like dogs and bookshelves, being decent/comfortable/happy, good content/moral / health/taste, family photo albums. Going to church today, it's All Saints' Day, a holy day of obligation. Currently reading Paterson by William Carlos Williams, after seeing a flick I enjoyed called Paterson. ... wonder stylings ...

-- GregOrr - 09 Apr 2009


Webs Webs

r7 - 21 Nov 2020 - 04:50:01 - GregOrr
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM