| | |
|
MichelleLuoFirstPaper 9 - 22 Apr 2012 - Main.RumbidzaiMaweni
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | I agree that logic is no less abstract than the unconscious, which is why I prefaced the quoted text with "there is a real sense that." Like you said, because we've been trained to think logically, this is the mode of thought that feels most concrete to us- that enables us to feel as though we are building upon firm foundation. But I can also understand why this may be more preferable to some, than an alternative, that feels- to many of us- far more elusive. | |
<
< | I like your idea of harnessing the unconscious on a personal level, though I'm a little ambivalent about and uncertain as to what it would even mean to apply this to "the institution of law." To try and depart from logical reasoning would seem to be a move away from the entire enterprise of being a legal practitioner; it's the tool we have to work with, and there are other disciplines that are far better equipped to deal with the utility of emotional memory than the legal profession. Then, again, if we believe that an institution is not a monolithic entity, but comprised of and informed by its constituent parts, I think allowing more than legal reasoning to inform the the way we, as individuals, personally think about our practice, and view our role as lawyers, would already go a long way towards making the profession one we're proud to be a part of. But anything beyond that just strikes me as, perhaps, unrealistic. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I like your idea of harnessing the unconscious on a personal level, though I'm a little ambivalent about and uncertain as to what it would even mean to apply this to "the institution of law." To try and depart from logical reasoning would seem to be a move away from the entire enterprise of being a legal practitioner; it's the tool we have to work with, and there are other disciplines that are far better equipped to deal with the utility of emotional memory than the legal profession. Then, again, if we believe that an institution is not a monolithic entity, but comprised of and informed by its constituent parts, I think allowing more than legal reasoning to inform the way we, as individuals, personally think about our practice, and view our role as lawyers, would already go a long way towards making the profession one we're proud to be a part of. But anything beyond that just strikes me as, perhaps, unrealistic. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |