| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | -- By GregOrr - 12 Jun 2009 | |
<
< | In my first paper, I discussed our reliance on precarious interpretations in communicating and making decisions. With the help of a chapter of Lawyerland called “All Great Problems Come from the Streets,” I’ll discuss the struggle over meaning within the legal profession. | >
> | In my first paper, I discussed content and sense in reality, communication, and making decisions. With reference to a chapter of Lawyerland called “All Great Problems Come from the Streets,” I’ll discuss the struggle over meaning within the legal profession. | | | Adjudicating Meaning
“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 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?” | |
<
< | There’s “too much meaning”—by which Judge Day means ‘too many interpretations’ as opposed to ‘too important.’ In the context of statutes, cases, facts, procedures, and various players, “everything you say has another meaning.” Since “a real lawyer has an ethical obligation to defend his or her client,” lawyers play with 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, statutes, cases, procedures, interpretations, certainties and uncertainties, “everything you say has another meaning.” Since “a real lawyer has an ethical obligation to defend his or her client,” lawyers play with 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.” | | | In the end a judge or jury adjudicates meaning by “discerning,” which is possible with reasonable effectiveness, but even this can be fallible or flawed resonance in subjective interpretation or otherwise sort of untrue or difficult for the judged. | | | 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. | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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. |
|