Shay: I think you overstate your presumption as to the purpose of the class. That may be the purpose as you receive it; but it's not clear to me that it really is the purpose in the objective sense, supposing that exists. For my part, to exemplify the nuances to the reception, it may very well be that exposure to topics greatly unfamiliar to a majority of the class ultimately results in the expansion and more precise direction of creative legal approaches than those which would result were the class to focus on overly materialist orientations. Funny enough, this possibility seems to mirror the conceptual framework of impoverished Indian children expressing their curiousity and ingenuity through the language of computers; we simply take the role of the children and our knowledge of the law fills in the gaps newly created by the subject matter and presentation within the class. I don't take it that the goals you describe are couched as secondary. Rather I suggest that the process of countenancing them is somewhat inverted in relation to what we would otherwise expect in the pursuit of such ambitions—expectations hardwired into our learning centers, I may surmise, by an educational system that Eben seems to fundamentally denounce.

As for the ultimate point as to where the judgment came from, my two years and change of law school have given me the impression that, when dealing with matter that is simultaneously arcane and unprecedented, it is often best to simply throw a bunch of stuff at a wall and see what sticks.

None of this is to disagree with your perspective as such. Just a thought.

-- GreggBadichek - 07 Oct 2015