| | |
|
MarkBierdzSecondPaper 3 - 24 Apr 2010 - Main.AlexAsen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Mark, I think you have a lot to say and an interesting way of framing it all. I had difficulty parsing your individual sentences and ended up rewriting a lot more than I wanted to. In an effort to make the paper clear enough for me to easily understand, I am sure I inadvertently cut much of what you have to say. Hopefully you will be able to use some of my suggestions to find a satisfactory balance between clarity and sophistication. | | | Law school should be a multiple step game. First, you pick up the predictable gauntlet, but then you drop your own. You entice them – professors and student alike -- to pick up your gauntlet and play the game on your terms.
Students should be cautious about confusing non-reactivity with disengagement. Denying the formulaic premise of the game is a path towards independent creative thought, ignoring the premise, on the other hand, is a path to ignorance. The idea is to be aware of what you are doing when you argue within the terms of a discourse; to understand the game you're playing and how you're playing it. You can play games without them becoming your identity and your creed.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
A few thoughts:
I was not clear what the ultimate goal of understanding non-reactivity is. I interpreted the goal to be a way to reach creative legal thought – a jump that I think is well within grasp, but that takes more explanation. If you had some other goal in mind, throw it out there more clearly.
The dog metaphor uses the word “dominance.” Expand on this. What, if anything, does it mean to be “dominant” in law school? Maybe this concept can be tied back to the ultimate goal of the paper. Maybe, on the other hand, the metaphor does not work perfectly, but its failure offers an opportunity to explain why the law dynamic is more complex the dog park dynamic.
Underlying everything appears to be the idea of understanding one’s self and the narrative one presents to himself and to the world. This may be an alternate route for you to develop.
Last, I’d love to see a concrete example of your theory in practice in law school. Something personal might be powerful. Otherwise, a fictional example could probably work too.
Alex Asen | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
| Revision 3 | r3 - 24 Apr 2010 - 18:49:06 - AlexAsen |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 23 Apr 2010 - 22:06:19 - AlexAsen |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |