| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | 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. | |
<
< | There's some difference in one's objective being true/good/right/fair generally rather than conditional upon the interests of a particular client/perspective/situation, though a client/perspective/situation is part of the whole. I wonder the extent to which lawyers experience a kind of odd conditional appropriateness sometimes in which they have objectives or make arguments on behalf of their clients that they don't actually regard as true/good/right/fair generally. Can note the difference between cases like that and some other jobs or content things more directly/simply interested in and approaching true/good/right/fair. Do lawyers with clients sometimes/typically actually have the perspective of trying to true/good/right/fair the case generally, believing or at least as proxy effectiveness to representation that that is true/good/right/fair appropriate and not true/good/right/fair appropriate in some general way, even if it in some sense favored one's client, is not actually favorable/comfortable. Perhaps in the process components they have sense of doing their part true/good/right/fair particular to their client representation, which is appropriate to the realm/consideration of the case, while hoping/expecting the other client to do the same and for the process through decision to be accurate to true/good/right/fair generally though perhaps their client representation thesis was understandably/appropriately/necessarily/knowingly aimed at a mark particular to their client oftentimes somewhat different from the general good decision, but it's not like they'd preferredly take advantage of the situation biased to their client ("did we perform too well and the other guy not so much so that it's offbase skewed? as my client's lawyer am I even allowed to less favorable to my client tempering to general true/good/right/fair assessment/way?"), they're interested in actual good case, inside and outside of the courtroom (other life things, like I don't steal your furniture not just because (1) I don't want it or (2) some external institution keeps me from doing so, which I am congenially adapted to, don't worry, it's effectively - and securely - that way, part of the effectiveness and security is that it's built well to ensure that effect and doesn't rely on some sense of my not advantage-taking goodness). The consideration then is whether the process is best adapted to true/good/right/fair generally and whether lawyers participating appropriately have issues of obfuscation/barrier to not-lying true/good/right/fair in a sophisticated client-particular true/good/right/fair appropriateness/responsibility. | >
> | There's some difference in one's objective being true/good/right/fair generally rather than conditional upon the interests of a particular client/perspective/situation, though a client/perspective/situation is part of the whole. I wonder the extent to which lawyers experience a kind of odd conditional appropriateness sometimes in which they have objectives or make arguments on behalf of their clients that they don't actually regard as true/good/right/fair generally. Can note the difference between cases like that and some other jobs or content things more directly/simply interested in and approaching true/good/right/fair. Do lawyers with clients sometimes/typically actually have the perspective of trying to true/good/right/fair the case generally, believing or at least as proxy effectiveness to representation that that is true/good/right/fair appropriate and not true/good/right/fair appropriate in some general way, even if it in some sense favored one's client, is not actually favorable/comfortable. Perhaps in the process components they have sense of doing their part true/good/right/fair particular to their client representation, which is appropriate to the realm/consideration of the case, while hoping/expecting the other client to do the same and for the process through decision to be accurate to true/good/right/fair generally though perhaps their client representation thesis was understandably/appropriately/necessarily/knowingly aimed at a mark particular to their client oftentimes somewhat different from the general good decision, but it's not like they'd preferredly take advantage of the situation biased to their client ("did we perform too well and the other guy not so much so that it's offbase skewed? as my client's lawyer am I even allowed to less favorable to my client tempering to general true/good/right/fair assessment/way?"), they're interested in actual good case, inside and outside of the courtroom (other life things, like I don't steal your furniture not just because (1) I don't want it or (2) some external institution keeps me from doing so, which I am congenially adapted to, don't worry, it's effectively - and securely - that way, part of the effectiveness and security is that it's built well to ensure that effect and doesn't rely on some sense of my not advantage-taking goodness). The consideration then is whether the process is best adapted to true/good/right/fair generally and whether lawyers participating appropriately have issues of obfuscation/barrier to not-lying true/good/right/fair in a sophisticated client-particular and other/general/whole true/good/right/fair appropriateness/responsibility/circumstance. | | | | |
<
< | 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, what it's actually like, how palatable/preferable it is, content/sense reality/reason as may be or may be made to be. There's a line in Samuel Beckett's Watt that says "no symbols where none intended," but is Watt probably a pun for what? On what mountain, have a quote groove for, Of course the Bible's about true/good/right/fair, that's why they call it the Bible! Consider the ontology and/or ontologizing of true/good/right/fair/actual. | >
> | 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, what it's actually like, how palatable/preferable it is, content/sense reality/reason as may be or may be made to be. There's a line in Samuel Beckett's Watt that says "no symbols where none intended," but is Watt probably a pun for what? On what mountain, have a quote groove for, Of course the Bible's about true/good/right/fair, that's why they call it the Bible! Consider the ontology and/or ontologizing of actual/true/good/right/fair. | | | | |
<
< | Willfulness and content/position/sense cases may still exist, generally and possibly in spin-like ways, possibly with cases familiar, like a lawyer, like the young counterfeiter, like Bartleby, or like the Underground Man with people being/acting/thinking in consistent/different/wondering ways, more or less independently/relatedly/conciliantly. In some cases, if you don't like it you can go suck an egg may come into play with regard to content/rapprochement. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus suggests, "There is no fate that cannot be overcome by scorn," and/or thinks of the "sublimate your situation" Oblique-ish Strategy, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Though I'm not sure how you'd sassafras feel about something like being head down in the mud of an Inferno, whether some conceivable negatives are due to stupidity or malice - how about "no cruel and unusual punishment"? The latter part of Harry Nilsson's "Who Done It?" is kind of funny/pertinent, not that murder situations are common or wanted/liked/done by people like the singer in that song. Regarding a somewhat similar point in Christian sense, there is bearing your cross. | >
> | Willfulness and content/position/sense cases may still exist, generally and possibly in spin-like ways, possibly with cases familiar, like a lawyer, like the young counterfeiter, like Bartleby, or like the Underground Man with people being/acting/thinking in consistent/different/wondering ways, more or less independently/relatedly/conciliantly. In some cases, if you don't like it you can go suck an egg may come into play with regard to content/rapprochement. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus suggests, "There is no fate that cannot be overcome by scorn," and/or thinks of a "sublimate your situation" oblique-ish strategy, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Though I'm not sure how you would or could feel about something like being head down in the mud of an Inferno (sassafras), whether some conceivable negatives are due to stupidity or malice - how about "no cruel and unusual punishment"? The latter part of Harry Nilsson's "Who Done It?" is kind of funny/pertinent, not that murder situations are common or wanted/liked/done by people like the singer in that song. Regarding a somewhat similar point in Christian sense, there is bearing your cross. | | | | |
<
< | 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. If I was forced not to wear boxers, like one of the other kinds, that would be a detriment to my freedom, but with reasonably flexibility to circumstances, and 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. Etc. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and I'm presently reading Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth. 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, not that that specific detail's a big deal, and I don't want to set up rules that would be onerous or inappropriately/overly specific/consequential like if I step on a crack I break my mom's back, but I like good white, good/right/comfortable. | >
> | 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. If I was forced not to wear boxers, like one of the other kinds, that would be a detriment to my freedom, but with reasonably flexibility to circumstances, and 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. Etc. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and I'm presently reading Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth. 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, not that that specific detail's a big deal, and I don't want to set up rules that would be onerous or inappropriately/overly specific/consequential like if I step on a crack I break my mom's back, but I like good white, good/right/comfortable. Some circumstance/cinch of actual/true/good/right/fair. |
|