Jeff Cox Responds to Criticism in Mother Jones Article

After the posting this morning over the controversy involving former Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox, I had an opportunity to discuss the allegations with him in detail. Cox makes an interesting free speech case over his treatment and later termination for comments that he made on Twitter and on his blog. I wanted to share some of those details and the concern over a termination based on a lawyer’s statements in his private life.

Here are the salient facts that Jeff Cox revealed in our conversation:

First, Cox confirmed that he never connected his statements to his position at the Indiana Attorney General’s office. After he created his blog, he corresponded anonymously. Later, he added his name but never identified himself with his office. Indeed, he told me that Adam Weinstein from Mother Jones first contacted him at his work e-mail. He responded to that e-mail from his personal e-mail. When Weinstein again replied using his work address, Cox said that he answered his questions using his personal account.

Second, Cox says that his superiors knew that he had the blog and did not discourage him. Indeed, he said that he started the blog Pro Cynic in 2004 as an experiment for the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, which was still unsure of how to use blogs. He began to use his real name only after he was assured that he could not be punished for blogging so long as he did not associate his office or his position with the blogs. He recounted how, sometime in 2006, he had discussions with senior staff and was told that there was no need to keep his blog posts pseudonymous. He said that he viewed the blog as personal, not representative of the office, because he never identified it with the office, blogged on his own equipment and time and did not talk any issues that related to the office or state matters. The office simply asked him to avoid discussing local or state issues. Ironically, that meant that Cox focused on international issues like Afghanistan and out of state issues like that of the strike in Wisconsin.

Third, Cox insists that many of these comments are taken out of context. He said that he made a great number of comments designing to start debates and often meant in jest. He is not anti-union and actually comes from a union family (his father is a union member and his family is composed of steel workers and coal miners). He said that he was bothered by reports that the Sergeant of Arms told legislators that he could not guarantee their safety but that the reference to live ammunition was meant as hyperbole. He insisted that he liked to spar on the blog and often used incendiary language to spur debates. That is why, he insists, his site was called “Pro Cynic.” “Pro Cynic” was short for “Professional Cynic” and was “always intended to be a mixture of seriousness and humor, ‘cynic’ being a synonym for satire, sarcasm or irony.” He stated that the office was aware of his often off-the-wall commentary on the blog, which would sometimes be the subject of office joking. He says that he would make fun of himself on the site, such as proclaiming that the site was “one small step for man …”

Fourth, Cox did not work in any area remotely associated with the Wisconsin controversy. He handled eminent domain cases and was a member of the transportation practice group.

Fifth, he was terminated by the Attorney General’s office after a brief discussion with his superiors. He was told that he could be fired for simply bringing discredit upon the office — even due to statements made as an individual.

Sixth, Cox had a good record with the office. In fact, in 2010, he earned the “You Rock” award – a painted rock – for going above the call of duty in serving the people of Indiana. He had worked with the office since 2001 when he began as a law clerk and continued after his graduation.

In my view, these facts (if proven) would make for a strong free speech claim. We have been discussing the trend toward increasing discipline for public officials based on actions or statements occurring in their private lives. We have seen this regulation of private speech in cases that involve disciplinary actions against students (here, teachers (here and here and here and here and here and here), police officers (here and here and here) and other public employees (here).

The connection made in this context to the office was not apparently made by Cox but by Mother Jones magazine. Cox has since closed his blog and regrets causing the controversy. The question is why he was not simply given a warning about such comments and how they reflect upon the office. Now that his name has been associated with the office, he would likely have curtailed or stopped such comments.

There is obviously a great deal of anger over these comments, but the real question is whether a public employee like Cox has any protection for comments made as a private citizen.

In 2006, the Court decided the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, in a close 5-4 decision against a public employee. In this case, Justice Kennedy ruled that the First Amendment does not protect “every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” However, this was a case where the assistant district attorney was making the comments are part of his duties and the Court ruled that “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” In this case, Cox made no association with his office. Notably, even in a matter involving statements made in the course of one’s duties, the vote was a close call with Justice Alito deciding the case as the fifth vote.

In Pickering v Board of Education (1968), the Court ordered the reinstatement of a teacher who wrote a letter to a newspaper critical of the local school board. The Court found that a public employee’s statements on a matter of public concern could not be the basis for termination without more of a showing, such as knowing or reckless falsehoods or the statements were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job.

I have great problems with the scope of the Garcetti opinion. Yet, Kennedy did note that:

At the same time, the Court has recognized that a citizen who works for the government is nonetheless a citizen. The First Amendment limits the ability of a public employer to leverage the employment relationship to restrict, incidentally or intentionally, the liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972) . So long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively. See, e.g., Connick, supra, at 147 (“Our responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government”).

This case would appear to involve matters of public concern and comments made as an individual citizen.

What do you think?

Jonathan Turley

Additional source: ABA Journal

169 thoughts on “Jeff Cox Responds to Criticism in Mother Jones Article

  1. Color of Office…sorry…..I think you are held to a higher standard…. If he was advocating using lethal and/or criminal matter to settle the issue in Wisconsin….then….I would say that it may not be within the purview of his office but still people will rely on his statements as justification… I would put it with yelling fire in a theater…. But thats just me….

  2. >He said that he made a great number of comments designing to start debates and often meant in jest.

    “It was just a joke” is the first refuge of the scoundrel. I wish I had a nickel for every time some a-hole said that when called out on something offensive (and unfunny).

  3. Snark is difficult in 140 characters. His comments were way out there, even threatening to a degree. That said, I think you’re right. Does the state own his private life in addition to his public life? There’s a scary thought!

    Was there any reason to be concerned that his private views were influencing his public actions? If not, this is one of those tough ones where even though what he said blows past intolerance and into crazy town, he still has the right to say it. Would that be different if violence were incited? Don’t know. But, it would seem that he played by all of the state’s rules and is now getting burned because his non-public life comments were unfunny at best or intolerant and disgusting at worst and the state wants to distance themselves from him after saying he could do what he did. Kind of like stepping away from your pals when the cops show up… Weak.

  4. “There is obviously a great deal of anger over these comments, but the real question is whether a public employee like Cox has any protection for comments made as a private citizen.

    Perhaps that is the real “free speech” question and he is welcome to litigate it and perhaps, after a few years, he will win. In the mean time he’s going to have to find a job and the real question prospective employers will be asking is: “Mr. Cox, have you developed any common sense where the issue of free speech is concerned?

  5. The critical question, as I mentioned earlier, is “Would you want this lawyer’s judgment determining the course of any important issue in your life?” The “I was just joking” defense, and the “I was just starting debate” defense, along with the “I didn’t identify myself with my official office” defense eloquently speak to this issue of character competent enough to justify one’s trust. Personally, I think the citizens of Indiana deserve much better and I have no qualms with the employment action.

    Young Mr. Cox has every right to First Amendment protections for his speech. What he doesn’t enjoy is a right to his employment in a responsible position. As my friend Buddha reminds us on appropriate occasion, “words have consequences.” It is ironic indeed that one calling for the violent censorship of his fellow citizens as they exercise their own free speech protections seeks to shield and mitigate his own vile words by that very right — ironic and hypocritical, I might add.

  6. I’m not buying the “in jest” argument. His statements seemed to come from the heart, not the funny bone.

    I think JT is very generous with his time to talk with this guy and then write it up.

  7. Isn’t that what a raging asshole always claims? That their comments are “just a joke” and that people need to “lighten up” and not take their “jokes” so seriously?

    My wife’s a teacher. I didn’t find his “joke” funny at all; in fact, with the political climate being what it is, and one political mass murder under our belts for the year so far, I find his “joke” terrifying; a direct threat to my family.

    Blouise and mespo727272 both make most excellent points above and I agree with them. I might also add that when Mr. Cox lands a job in the private sector (it’s going to be difficult with such a public display of poor judgment so prominently on his record) his new employer will not show the tolerance towards his comedic blogging that his previous employer did.

    If I pulled a stunt like that at my current job, I’d be fired. End of story.

  8. This is indeed one of those “words have consequences” moments, mespo. And what Nal said. And I know funny. This wasn’t funny nor was it an attempt at humor that failed. It hasn’t a single resemblance to a joke in construction or execution. When one of my jokes fail, I at least own it – sometimes with a disclaimer beforehand even if I know it’s dubious. The least Cox can do is own his statements and not hide behind weak excuses. The least, that is, should he want to preserve any shred of dignity about this affair. The statements – for the reasons mespo pointed out – were of the sort to cause a substantial interference with the ability of the employee to continue to do his job. He demonstrated a willingness to oppress the rights of others with violence and physical threat. That is hardly appropriate behavior from a Deputy AG sworn to uphold the laws of the land and protect the Constitution, including the rights to free speech and free assembly.

  9. I have extremely irreverent sense of humor (people worry about taking me to funerals), but I’m not buying the “it was a joke” defense. As a factory worker’s kid, I’m also not necessarily buying the “blue collar” defense–the children of blue collar workers are often the biggest snobs about status and the first to look down on unions, rank and file public employees, non-professionals, etc. My experience is that I tend to be the exception to this, as I retain a working class distrust of middle class professionals despite becoming one (or perhaps because of seeing what nitwits and snobs they can be). Most other upwardly mobile blue collar kids tend to go the other way and become annoying defenders of the status quo.

    I was surprised that the AG’s office was so swift in its termination and may have expected him being put on leave pending an investigation or on some sort of probation. The “making us look bad” defense would make sense if he was a political appointee but seems inappropriate for a civil servant. The lack of connection with official duties seems clear up to a point—no one would necessarily know that his areas were far removed from the issues at hand. His choice of this topic could, with minimal investigation (as done by Mother Jones) lead one to think that this was part of another state interfering with the affairs of Wisconsin, rather than just shutting up.

  10. “Second, Cox says that his superiors knew that he had the blog and did not discourage him. Indeed, he said that he started the blog Pro Cynic in 2004 as an experiment for the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, which was still unsure of how to use blogs. He began to use his real name only after he was assured that he could not be punished for blogging so long as he did not associate his office or his position with the blogs. He recounted how, sometime in 2006, he had discussions with senior staff and was told that there was no need to keep his blog posts pseudonymous. He said that he viewed the blog as personal,…” ~article
    ____________________________________________
    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…….,this is a tad shifty to me….ala ‘it was mine…I was doing them a favor…… they said I could….’

    ….whose time (dime) was he blogging on?

  11. Sorry, Jeffrey. I don’t buy it. You are (well, were) an ADA, and should be held to a higher standard. You are (were) a representative of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, not an associate with Dumbf**k & Associates.

    Your position does not allow for you to spout off such nonsense – and violent nonsense at that. How is the private citizen to trust your objectivity and your legal obligation to represent them fully and fairly, when those people might be someone you believe is liberal Nazi scum?

    “Jest”, my ass. “Knock, knock, who’s there?” is a joke; the vileness you posted is not.

  12. Mespo, Nal and Buddha, hit the nail on the head. Mr. Cox doth protest too much. When you suggest “use live ammunition” in the context used, isn’t that akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater? AFter the Tucson shootings and all of the right wing going crazy with their conceal and carry legislation, and the firestorm over union killing plans in Wisonsin and Indiana at that moment, this comment becomes very dangerous. I don’t like it when people lose their job, but he deserved everything that he got. All he had to do is add a smiley face after his alleged joke and he would have had an argument. Buddha is also right that Indiana deserves better.

  13. Mr. Cox’s argument doesn’t sound very convincing to me.
    *****

    “The question is why he was not simply given a warning about such comments and how they reflect upon the office.”
    *****

    How old is Mr. Cox? If he doesn’t have the common sense to understand how such comments reflect upon his office, maybe he’s not mature enough or intelligent enough to hold the office of Deputy Attorney General.

  14. “I have extremely irreverent sense of humor (people worry about taking me to funerals)” (Rich)

    ======================================================

    lol

    Excellent illustration defining your assertion of irreverent humor … you are invited to my funeral … I’ll put it in my will …

  15. The difficulty here is not with what was said, but with the fact that the speaker’s anonymity was compromised. Of course the statements were crude and outrageous. That in and of itself would be insufficient to warrant any disciplinary action. However, once the identity of the speaker and his position with the State of Wisconsin became known, it became a matter of legitimate concern to the employer. Mr. Cox knew or should have known that at least some members of the public would conclude that his statements were representative of certain attitudes within the office of the Wisconsin Attorney General. If the public comes to believe that an official of the agency of the state charged with enforcement of its laws espouses lawlessness an an appropriate response to political disagreements, the faith of the public in the fairness and integrity of the agency is seriously impaired. Accordingly, the termination of Mr. Cox was justified.

  16. “What he doesn’t enjoy is a right to his employment in a responsible position.”

    Well, I disagree with you guys. How about the teacher fired for criticizing the school board? If people can be summarily fired by their employers for their free speech, then they don’t have free speech. Their employers own their lives.

    What if employers fired employees that openly declared they were Democrats? Or Atheists? Or Muslim? Saying somebody has a “freedom” but better not exercise it for fear of punishment is just patently ridiculous. Saying I have free speech as long as I don’t mind losing my job, and I should remember never to embarrass or criticize my superiors, that is a pretty empty “right.”

    The Supreme Court got it right; the speech of a person speaking as a private citizen is protected and should be protected, no matter how distasteful it may be, and especially so if the person works as a public servant.

    I am pro-union and I hate Republicans with a visceral passion, but I love civil liberties even more than that. The Wikileaks issue is already watering down freedom of speech and freedom of the press; these kinds of chilling actions only exacerbate the crumbling of our civil rights in favor of the corporatist agenda. Because if the government employers can chill the free speech of their employees, why can’t the corporations make their employees shut up and toe the line?

    (Yes, toe. Look it up.)

  17. Tony,

    I don’t think anyone is attacking his right to say it. He can say what he likes. However, given the nature of his position as a defender of peaceful legal process, the stupidity of his remarks are naturally going to have consequences for him. Would you want a cop on the job of enforcement who blogs about how it’s a good idea to “roll queers” and “beat down some spics and niggers”? Of course you wouldn’t. His remarks show he doesn’t have the proper disposition of temperament and respect for the law. Equally, Cox’s comments show a shocking disregard for the law and that he is not the kind of guy you want responsible for handling legal matters for the State of Indiana as a DAG. As mespo pointed out, his lack of respect for others rights calls into question his very fitness to practice. But no one is saying he cannot say what he said. Unlike Cox, we respect his 1st Amendment right. Also unlike Cox, we recognize – especially given his professional capacity – that rights come with responsibilities.

  18. Every time an attorney unwittingly validates my research findings regarding the nature of mistakes, I a saddened for a while because no one who might really benefit from a gently dialogue with me appears to have the courage to contact me to explore the real possible value of the work I am doing.

    From Sidney J. Harris, “Majority of One,” Houghton Mifflin Co, 1957, page 17:

    “Ancient Greece is dead, but its problems remain: especially the one problem that great democracy could not solve — how to achieve both freedom and safety at the same time. Learning why Greece failed may help us find some happier solution.”

    Methinks that learning why the United States of America is also always failing in finding both freedom and safety at the same time, I suggest, may yet help us to find a happier solution than has ever happened in the past.

    I live that happier solution, live it now, and understand how and why it works and why nothing else will ever work except the direct honesty of children uncorrupted by the adversarial principle.

    Why do people keep messing up their lives and the lives of others? Because the adversarial principle is adverse even to lives not messed up, because the adversarial principle is the grand poombah mess up of all possible eternities?

  19. Again, your postulate about the a value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    You are also mistaken about the nature of children. Conflict is in their nature as they are unformed and untaught personalities. Sharing and restraint are learned behaviors, not innate. There is no cruelty in children? There is nothing more cruel than children.

  20. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    I surmise that you are clinging in abject unknowing desperation to the nonsense that the world you believe you know and in which you believe you live actually exists other than as a phantasm of trauma-induced brain damage. Of course, unlike you, at least as your words make the slightest useful sense to me, I know that I am often met with mistaken forms of knowing and understanding, for my life has the gift of intense personal and situational doubts, so the perfect certainty you have that you are always perfectly right in your interpretation of my words as I use them in my effort to share my research and research findings with whoever may find them useful is leading me to ponder whether you really believe that your understanding of the world, yourself, and others is really as absolutely perfect as your words always seem to me to indicate.

    How is it that you are able to claim human imperfection and yet claim perfection regarding someone you have never met, and, with blatant fortitude, falsely claim to perfectly understand.

    Do you not recognize that your words contradict themselves as though they are your main adversary?

    Again, your postulate about the a value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    As the Adversarial System has always acted toward me adversely, and in very damaging ways to my family, why on earth would I be so utterly stupid as to reward that which damages my family so the Adversarial System can damage my family even more?

    You are the strong, I am the weak, and you have absolutely no tyranny over me, and the violence of the meaning of your words never reaches me. I do not need or use self-help, there is help always available to me that self-help can never come close to approaching.

    Your theory about the strong and the weak is totally refuted by my actual life.

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Without exception throughout the whole of my life, the only effect of adversarial due process (to me, always undue process in disguise) has been the maximizing of adversity, and never, not ever, have I observed any exception to adversity generating more adversity. Yes, sufficient terrorizing coercion can generate the illusion and/or delusion of conflict resolution by driving people into forms of schizophrenic catatonic stupor, only doing that may pave the way for schizophrenic catatonic stupor decompensation rapid enough to lead someone like Jared Loughner to start killing people as his internalized, catatonic-stupor-suppressed rage finally builds until it becomes horridly uncontrollable because it overwhelms all available executive control.

    You are also mistaken about the nature of children. Conflict is in their nature as they are unformed and untaught personalities. Sharing and restraint are learned behaviors, not innate. There is no cruelty in children? There is nothing more cruel than children.

    You obviously do not understand the work of psychiatrist Alice Miller, psychiatrist W. R. D. Fairbairn, psychiatrist R. D. Laing, and you obviously do not understand your own childhood.

    Never in my whole life have I read anything so absurdly dastardly about children as your beyond0-my-power-of-words-insanely delusional version of hatred of children. I worked for about 25 years at Cook County Children’s Hospital, and, until little children became sufficiently contaminated with the sort of hatred of children that you, to me, seem to exude with beyond dastardly egotistical pride, every little child I ever saw was much as little children have been described by Lillian Paley, in her book, “The Kindness of Children.”

    Fritz Redl and David Wineman, sponsored by the Detroit Junior League, circa 1950, set up a “sanitary” environment for children who had developed the sort of hatred I find you telling about, and wrote of their research in two books, later combined into one, and published in one volume under the title, “The Aggressive Child”

    Redl and Wineman wrote “Children Who Hate: The Disorganization and Breakdown of Behavior Controls,” The Free Press, 1951, and “Controls From Within: Techniques for the Treatment of The Aggressive Child,” The Free Press, 1952.

    Sorry, BiL, but your conduct with respect to me has been textbook perfect in terms of my understanding of the pioneering, not yet to my knowledge surpassed, work of Redl and Wineman regarding what your sort of passive-aggressive authoritarian personality structure appears to me to be like, with my understanding based only on the way you set out as though to smash me and my work.

    Alas, I am weaker than you, and bend like bamboo in a light breeze when you blow your hatreds my way.

  21. He suggested acts that could easily lead to serious harm or death.

    And reiterated that suggestion.

    The victems he or his readers would be envisioning as targets were and are unarmed citizens who are exercissian their rights and doing so lawfully.
    They deserve to be able to do so without without being in fear of their lives.

    His suggestion of lethal violence could easily serve as positive reinforcement, affirmation, and encouragement to some one who has violent tendencies.

    His threats, and they are threats, also come in the context of many others, including the Governor, threatening various levels of force and violence against unarmed civilians.

    I would think the total context of the moment does matter in determining how humorous his call to extreme lethal violence was.

    Put it another way, it would seem that a great many normal people do not find the “humor” very funny.

    Certainly, using such imagery in the aftermath of Tuscon shows extremely poor judgement, especially from a person connected with the legal community, and one who is an employee of the people who, where he in Wi are the targets he is seeing in his mind’s eye.

  22. Brian,

    “As the Adversarial System has always acted toward me adversely, and in very damaging ways to my family, why on earth would I be so utterly stupid as to reward that which damages my family so the Adversarial System can damage my family even more?

    You are the strong, I am the weak, and you have absolutely no tyranny over me, and the violence of the meaning of your words never reaches me. I do not need or use self-help, there is help always available to me that self-help can never come close to approaching.”

    First, anecdotal evidence and personal vendetta. If you think you are the only person ever screwed over by an imperfect system? You’d be wrong. I’ve been damaged by the imperfect system too. Irreparably damaged. The details are irrelevant and none of your business, but it has damaged both me personally and my family. The difference between you and me is that I don’t hold a grudge against imperfection. If you expect perfection out of a legal system – or indeed any human built systems – you will live a life of disappointment awaiting perfection that will never arrive. And hooray for you that you’ve got help. Most people don’t and as redress for the wrongs others have done to them have to either rely upon courts or do it themselves. The reason I do not hold an irrational vendetta – although I do have plenty of reason to – is that I have seen the system when it works and it is a thing of beauty. The bad guys eat it and the good guys get a just and equitable solution to the wrongs done to them. I will not throw out that baby with the bathwater out of my personal misfortune and desire for revenge. Unlike you.

    As to tyranny over you? Like I’ve said before, it’s your idea that I loathe. I’ve never claimed you as property. To you the person I am as I am to all but my friends and few enemies – indifferent except in the abstract. But your idea sucks and I’ll kick the Hell out of it every time you mention it. Treated you like I would treat any propagandist spreading a bad idea? You bet. And with no apologies. If you don’t like it? Too damn bad. The survival of civilization is simply more important than your feelings.

    “Without exception throughout the whole of my life, the only effect of adversarial due process (to me, always undue process in disguise) has been the maximizing of adversity, and never, not ever, have I observed any exception to adversity generating more adversity.”

    First, that is anecdote again, not evidence of lack of systemic value to society. Second, you misunderstand adversarial process. It is not there reduce the adversity that arose naturally from human interaction and circumstance. Adversarial process is adversarial because it has to be to reflect the adverse nature of the parties and because it is adverse, it can and will be contentious. Adversarial due process is there to remove the possibility of direct violence or self-help as a solution so as to prevent a spiral of escalation that can and often would end in death of the weaker party. For example, if you stole from me – the stipulated stronger party – without the courts? What is to prevent me from simply killing you and taking back my property? Nothing is what. And that would be tyranny of the strong over the weak. What if you simply had something I wanted and took it from you? Without the courts, you could try to take it back, but as the stipulated stronger party? I would just kill you and take the remainder of your stuff. And that would be the tyranny of the weak over the strong. Why? Because that is human nature without laws and courts for dispute resolution. That’s how cavemen did things, Brian.

    Your idea is not only simply wrong, it is rooted in the selfish and ultimately self-destructive motive of revenge. Do you know what the Chinese say about vendettas? The man who starts on revenge is best to dig two graves. Do you know what I say about the man who would remove legal dispute resolution in the adversarial mode from the equation of civilization? He is best to dig 6.8 billion graves.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Whether you learn it or not is up to you.

    Do not take this to mean that I will not attack your idea in perpetuity, because I will as long as you attempt to spread it here.

  23. Sorry, one html tag got away from me, reversing one of my intended meanings. I make mistakes, admit to making them, and do my best to rectify them, never using the Adversarial Principle in so doing.

    RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    I surmise that you are clinging in abject unknowing desperation to the nonsense that the world you believe you know and in which you believe you live actually exists other than as a phantasm of trauma-induced brain damage. Of course, unlike you, at least as your words make the slightest useful sense to me, I know that I am often met with mistaken forms of knowing and understanding, for my life has the gift of intense personal and situational doubts, so the perfect certainty you have that you are always perfectly right in your interpretation of my words as I use them in my effort to share my research and research findings with whoever may find them useful is leading me to ponder whether you really believe that your understanding of the world, yourself, and others is really as absolutely perfect as your words always seem to me to indicate.

    How is it that you are able to claim human imperfection and yet claim perfection regarding someone you have never met, and, with blatant fortitude, falsely claim to perfectly understand.

    Do you not recognize that your words contradict themselves as though they are your main adversary?

    Again, your postulate about the a value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    As the Adversarial System has always acted toward me adversely, and in very damaging ways to my family, why on earth would I be so utterly stupid as to reward that which damages my family so the Adversarial System can damage my family even more?

    You are the strong, I am the weak, and you have absolutely no tyranny over me, and the violence of the meaning of your words never reaches me. I do not need or use self-help, there is help always available to me that self-help can never come close to approaching.

    Your theory about the strong and the weak is totally refuted by my actual life.

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Without exception throughout the whole of my life, the only effect of adversarial due process (to me, always undue process in disguise) has been the maximizing of adversity, and never, not ever, have I observed any exception to adversity generating more adversity. Yes, sufficient terrorizing coercion can generate the illusion and/or delusion of conflict resolution by driving people into forms of schizophrenic catatonic stupor, only doing that may pave the way for schizophrenic catatonic stupor decompensation rapid enough to lead someone like Jared Loughner to start killing people as his internalized, catatonic-stupor-suppressed rage finally builds until it becomes horridly uncontrollable because it overwhelms all available executive control.

    You are also mistaken about the nature of children. Conflict is in their nature as they are unformed and untaught personalities. Sharing and restraint are learned behaviors, not innate. There is no cruelty in children? There is nothing more cruel than children.

    You have finally given me the tragic truth about your life, that you were evidently so horridly coerced during your infant-child transition phase that your are rendered oblivious to the real nature of little children who have not been shattered by the terrors of catastrophically aggressive-passive parenting methods. You are virtually a poster child for the worthy efforts I make to prevent the sort of traumatic brain damage your espoused beliefs reveal. Your beliefs are not your fault, and I am inclined to believe that you fought against being deceived by whosoever took upon themselves the transactional parent role for your childhood until the effort broke you as though beyond all possible repair. I have counseled people about as shattered as I observe you to be, and done so with success when I have been able to work with such a person in person.

    You remind me of the last hold-out juror in the original (starring Henry Fonda) version of Twelve Angry Men, of which the holdout was by far the angriest of all.

    Oh, I do have the 9 hours of cassette tapes of Alan Dershowitz, “The Genesis of Justice.” Methinks Dershowitz has a view of children not in accord with your espoused view.

    You obviously do not understand the work of psychiatrist Alice Miller, psychiatrist W. R. D. Fairbairn, psychiatrist R. D. Laing, and you obviously do not understand your own childhood.

    Never in my whole life have I read anything so absurdly dastardly about children as your beyond-my-power-of-words-insanely delusional version of hatred of children. I worked for about 25 years at Cook County Children’s Hospital, and, until little children became sufficiently contaminated with the sort of hatred of children that you, to me, seem to exude with beyond dastardly egotistical pride, every little child I ever saw was much as little children have been described by Lillian Paley, in her book, “The Kindness of Children.”

    Fritz Redl and David Wineman, sponsored by the Detroit Junior League, circa 1950, set up a “sanitary” environment for children who had developed the sort of hatred I find you telling about, and wrote of their research in two books, later combined into one, and published in one volume under the title, “The Aggressive Child”

    Redl and Wineman wrote “Children Who Hate: The Disorganization and Breakdown of Behavior Controls,” The Free Press, 1951, and “Controls From Within: Techniques for the Treatment of The Aggressive Child,” The Free Press, 1952.

    Sorry, BiL, but your conduct with respect to me has been textbook perfect in terms of my understanding of the pioneering, not yet to my knowledge surpassed, work of Redl and Wineman regarding what your sort of passive-aggressive authoritarian personality structure appears to me to be like, with my understanding based only on the way you set out as though to smash me and my work.

    Alas, I am weaker than you, and bend like bamboo in a light breeze when you blow your hatreds my way.

    I find you completely innocent, for, in all of my life, I have never encountered anyone who tells the sort of story I observe you telling who was not the child of parents who, as children, had parents who, as children, had parents, who as children, had parents…(infinite regression)who as children had parents who were not shatteringly abusive because it was not yet possible for anyone to know or understand better because, if the universe began with the supposed big bang, it was so close to the big bang that the big bang really damaged those very first human parents.

    I only have “The Genesis of Justice” on cassette tapes, perhaps I wisely buy the book. Perhaps, for those who have not yet read it, buying it would also be wise.

    {pause}

    Found a paperback copy of “The Genesis of Justice” for $0.99 plus shipping…

    There is always hope, BiL. “Hatred will not cease by hatred; by love alone will it end.” –The Threshold Choir.

  24. “Without the courts, you could try to take it back, but as the stipulated stronger party? I would just kill you and take the remainder of your stuff. And that would be the tyranny of the strong over the weak.”

    Sorry. Bad typing. Bad bad fingers! Get under the house.

  25. No, Brian.

    I’m in quite objective touch with reality.

    You, on the other hand, are living in fantasy land.

  26. Dr. Harris:

    The problem of freedom and safety exists in virtually every sort of social unit. Its root cause is always and everywhere fear. Fear in turn is a function of ignorance. No one can feel truly free without a sense of security. And no one can feel secure without the knowledge and understanding of one’s environment.

    Virtually every rule, law, edict and decision which we skewer on a daily basis is a product of fear of the other. Indeed, it almost seems as though we are unable to live without it. If we merely removed the word “Muslim” from what passes for political debate and replaced it with the word “Communism,” we would see that the dramas being played out today are merely adaptations of plays from fifty years ago. Then we feared an ideology which professed to have no god. Now we fear an ideology which professes a god we do not understand.

    I have always liked Matthew Arnold’s explanation in “Dover Beach”:

    Ah, love, let us be true
    To one another! for the world, which seems
    To lie before us like a land of dreams,
    So various, so beautiful, so new,
    Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
    Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
    And we are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.

    There. That should make you feel better.

  27. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 24, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    No, Brian.

    I’m in quite objective touch with reality.

    You, on the other hand, are living in fantasy land.

    ##################################

    Your version of fantasy is my experience of reality.

    I continue to inform you about our living in contrasting worlds, in which your world is the world of make-believe within “my” world.

    Delusion is such as to delude, else it be not delusion.

    I have the Bioengineering Ph.D. I successfully defended my dissertation. I am the Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, a profession, in stark contrast with law, absolutely prohibits the use of deception in professional practice.

    If your delusion demands of you that you deem hard science bioengineering of delusion, I shall fervently pray for you and for your eventual reconciliation with your infancy and childhood.

  28. “I have the Bioengineering Ph.D. I successfully defended my dissertation. I am the Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, a profession, in stark contrast with law, absolutely prohibits the use of deception in professional practice.

    If your delusion demands of you that you deem hard science bioengineering of delusion, I shall fervently pray for you and for your eventual reconciliation with your infancy and childhood.”

    No. First, what you are engaging in is not your professional practice. You are trying to practice law and sociology and failing miserably. Second, what I deem to be delusional is your concept of reality and your irrationally childish vendetta against imperfection in human built systems.

    These examples of what courts prevent are quite clear, so clear a child could understand them:

    For example, if you stole from me – the stipulated stronger party – without the courts? What is to prevent me from simply killing you and taking back my property? Nothing is what. And that would be tyranny of the strong over the weak.

    What if you simply had something I wanted and took it from you? Without the courts, you could try to take it back, but as the stipulated stronger party? I would just kill you and take the remainder of your stuff. And that would be the tyranny of the strong over the weak.

    Why? Because that is human nature without laws and courts for dispute resolution. That’s how cavemen did things, Brian.

    If you cannot accept that is truly reality?

    Then you must be delusional.

  29. Some lawyers can argue anything — especially when attempting to defend another lawyer. (Ever seen a case of legal malpractice which didn’t end up with everyone, and the judge, dumping all the responsibility onto a paralegal?) Other lawyers have ethics.

    This isn’t actually rocket science:

    1. Cox apparently got an education in law. That would include a course in Constitutional law, and the fact that the First Amendment protects the expression of views of which Cox disapproves from threats of violence intended to suppress that expression. That being the fact, he should know better; but I guess the education didn’t sink in. I guess he is more-patriotic-than-thou, therefore is above the law as concerns the rights of everyone who disagreees with his views.

    2. Cox swore an oath to supprt and defend, among others, the Constitution and laws of the US. That includes the First Amendment. Either his oath was genuine, sincere, and in good faith, therefore he held to it 24/7 without any great effort. Or it only applied when he had no coice in the matter, for 40 hours per week.

    3. Now Cox, an obvious bad-faith hypocrite, is rightly out of a job, and without a union to go his bail . . .

    And he should be disbarred for launching a treasonous attack on our system of laws — directly contrary to said oath.

  30. I am struck by the torrent of cases of people in some public position being forced out on the basis of expression of their personal views — often very off-the-cuff personal expression.

    Some that come to mind: Helen Thomas, Nir Rosen, Ward Churchill, and now Jeffrey Cox…

    I think it is safe to say that _most_ of these cases have involved liberals or progressives hounded out by the right. And now the chickens are coming home to roost. A number of conservatives have now been raked over the coals for their comments.

    In general, I think it’s absurd to force somebody out on the basis of speech. But it is also the case that there is a difference between a person in a position of little or no authority — like Thomas, Rosen or Churchill — and someone who has the power to direct law enforcement to act.

    To my knowledge, all of the incidents of police getting heavy-handed in recent years have involved liberal or progressives. I’m not aware of any case of police rounding up conservative protesters. (I am _emphatically_ not suggesting there are no such cases.)

    Moreover, the history of this country is thick with brutal, conservative treatment of civil rights protesters, labor organizers, and other progressives. There is _nothing_ remotely comparable in treatment of conservative organizations.

    So there is something more to be concerned about in someone like Jeffrey Cox advocating police crimes — even if he is saying it in jest and off the cuff. That said, he still shouldn’t lose his job over it.

  31. BiL: “You are also mistaken about the nature of children. Conflict is in their nature as they are unformed and untaught personalities. Sharing and restraint are learned behaviors, not innate. There is no cruelty in children? There is nothing more cruel than children.”

    Correct in half. Sharing and restraint as as inherent as cruelty. Some of the greatest acts of kindness you will ever see come from 2 year olds. 8 month old infants know how to share. As one who has taught children from 2 to 22 (I’ve taught pre-school, elementary, middle school and university), I can personally attest to this.

  32. Forty two years ago, I served as a medical officer in Vietnam, often visiting villages and refugee camps to bring Medical Civic Action to indigenous Vietnamese and Montagnards.

    But nothing in civilian life had prepared me for the carnage that I encountered, thanks to the unspeakable ability of modern weapons to kill and maim.

    Yes, I saw firsthand the devastating effects of live ammunition on humans, animals, property, and the Vietnamese countryside.

    Nothing, and that includes our vaunted first amendment, can ever justify any sort of joking about live ammunition and deadly force.

  33. Hugh,

    “That said, he still shouldn’t lose his job over it.”

    Seems at odds with . . .

    “In general, I think it’s absurd to force somebody out on the basis of speech. But it is also the case that there is a difference between a person in a position of little or no authority — like Thomas, Rosen or Churchill — and someone who has the power to direct law enforcement to act.

    To my knowledge, all of the incidents of police getting heavy-handed in recent years have involved liberal or progressives. I’m not aware of any case of police rounding up conservative protesters. (I am _emphatically_ not suggesting there are no such cases.)

    Moreover, the history of this country is thick with brutal, conservative treatment of civil rights protesters, labor organizers, and other progressives.”

    A DAG has the power to direct law enforcement. Much like King Henry II when he said in anger “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Which famously led to four knights taking him that it was a legal command. Their consequent murder of Thomas à Becket nearly started a war. Henry wasn’t stupid. He knew killing Becket would martyr him and cause more problems. But because of his “excited utterance” and his power of law, people took him at his word.

    Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

    Would you feel better about Cox losing his job is there was a body count first?

    Or perhaps removing the power to cause “accidents” by cavalier speech and creating one unemployed lawyer is better than dead citizens killed for simply exercising their Constitutional rights?

    JNagarya nailed. This isn’t rocket science. Cox’s free speech is a right, but it is a right that comes with responsibilities and he was in an office and a profession that heightens those responsibilities.

  34. Dr. Selkin,
    Thanks for sharing your experiences from Vietnam. I agree that commenting about using live ammunition is never a joke when it is done in the context of the police possibly being used to control lawful protestors.

  35. “He is not anti-union and actually comes from a union family (his father is a union member and his family is composed of steel workers and coal miners)”.

    “….why, some of my best friends are……..”

  36. Jeff Cox apparently believes that it should be illegal for an employee to be dismissed, unless it is “for cause” and the cause does not violate his constitutional rights as a citizen. First, you have to ask what rights he has a employee of the State of Indiana. Was he an at-will employee? If he were in ND, where the law is employment at will — an employee can be dismissed at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all — he could not complain. I guess he wants to be a poster boy for workers’ rights, which is a little bit of switch from his anti-union tweets.

  37. RE: Tom Wood, February 25, 2011 at 12:16 am

    BiL: “You are also mistaken about the nature of children. Conflict is in their nature as they are unformed and untaught personalities. Sharing and restraint are learned behaviors, not innate. There is no cruelty in children? There is nothing more cruel than children.”

    Correct in half. Sharing and restraint as as inherent as cruelty. Some of the greatest acts of kindness you will ever see come from 2 year olds. 8 month old infants know how to share. As one who has taught children from 2 to 22 (I’ve taught pre-school, elementary, middle school and university), I can personally attest to this.

    ###################################################

    It is my observation, garnered muchly during the twenty-five or so years of working in Pediatric Cardiology at Cook County Children’s Hospital doing biomedical engineering while having job descriptions of Medical Laboratory Technician and Medical Technologist (people autistic as I am often can find no useful and meaningful employment at all), that brain plasticity (or the ability to learn) is of astonishing capability.

    I absolutely reject the tabula rasa notion of the brain of a newborn being completely blank, for the simple reason that stress hormones appear to cross the placental barrier, along with a whole bunch of other maternal biological factors. It is my consistent observation that newborns are born with a plethora of learning experiences in place, and these experiences are of both inner and outer environment. What newborns lack is being able to share thoughts through the words of ordinary spoken and written languages.

    Yet, absent serious brain issues, all newborns I have yet observed are born with very effective and efficient affective communication skills which are well-formed and effective.

    Doubt that? How long can you listen to a crying little baby before you become stirred to action?

    And, if you are not stirred to action by the crying of a little baby, I become prone to asking, “What in Hell on Earth happened to you?”

    I held a Chicago Substitute Teacher certficate, and, later, a Wisconsin Substitute Teacher certificate, and I have done substitute teaching with children of pre-school age, grade school age, high school age, and have taught as a guest lecturer in college classes.

    I have video tape recordings of some of my college guest lecturer classes, and have ordered Apple Final Cut Express 4 to use with the recently-acquired Macintosh dual G5-2.7gHz, 7 gigabyte ram computer intended for effective video processing, and expect to be able to properly put excerpts of my actual college guest lecturing on the Internet, with the identities of individual students properly protected, yet the classrooms clearly identifiable.

    That said, it is my view that all memory is reconstructive, as Elizabeth Loftus has indicated, and that memory reconstruction may be very accurate to very inaccurate according to the particular circumstances associated with a particular memory.

    I have never observed any newborn child who was born as though of strong conflict except babies born to mothers addicted to illegal drugs. Of course, my “sample” is small, a few thousand babies at most whom I have been able to observe closely enough to deem my observations to be of plausibly decent quality data.

    For a baby, having a drug-addicted mother may be of a version of ultimate tragedy. Understanding this as I do, I seek to learn what actually leads people into drug abuse and what may effectively and efficiently lead people away from drug abuse.

    Consider the book by Dr. Alice Miller, in English translation, “The Untouched Key: Tracing Childhood Trauma in Creativity and Destructiveness,” Anchor Books – Doubleday, 1990.

    From the back cover or my paperback version, “The Untouched Key poses the important question of why some troubled children turn out to be artists and others turn their sufferings against the world…The implications of Alice Miller’s vision are undeniable.” –The New York Times

    It is my observation that there are troubled children who turn out to be artists at successfully turning their sufferings against the world, a quality I found and continue to find is characteristic of “top tier” people such as I encountered while a physics major at Carleton College.

    I have the courage to name names when I observe public officials to be plausibly excellent exemplars of adults who were put through serious childhood suffering and who became profoundly proficient artists in turning their sufferings against the world. I here name three such prominent elected officials as fit into my classification system as particularly likely to be high-quality exemplars, of what may happen to an innocent baby who is sufficiently terrorized by socialization trauma as to be as though blissfully unaware of the stark havoc I find hinted at by their public conduct to me, if to no one else.

    1. Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker.
    2. Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
    3. House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor.
    4. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell.

    As I watch these four people via television, it is to me as though they lavishly exude utter self-contempt masquerading as rejection of almost everything I, personally, experience as being of the gentle decency and kindness which I have recognized in every not-terribly-brain-damaged-by-maternal-drug-abuse newborn child throughout the whole of my life to date.

    Both of my parents regarded a newborn infant as fully being a whole person and not, as may be suggested by the title of a Book by Carl Rogers, Ph.D., “On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy,” Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1961.

    I have never been allowed to become a person because I have never been other than a person, and it is impossible for a person who is a person to become a person due to always having been a person.

    My doctorate, its thesis and thesis research, and my subsequent work as a Professional Engineer is very serious work, and is significantly of the design and development of improved paradigms for human society, in the public safety interest. I shall continue to state this as fact, while having been highly cognizant that people who are as though strongly committed to, or perhaps even intensely addicted to, the older, conventional paradigm my work is intended to supplant would plausibly respond in much the manner in which some of the blawgers here have done.

    I have been working out in the open, without concealing my “identiy” or my purpose. And I continue to work at finding words which will more accurately convey who I am and what I am doing.

    One rather odd way to model my work is it being of the form of “hacking” the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence.

    Because I invariably find the prehistorically developed construct of the Adversarial Principle to be perfectly contiguous with unmitigated evil, I continue to test whether that thus far invariable finding may be flawed in a way I have not yet recognized. Alas, every comment in response to my comments has the effect of invalidating the null hypothesis to the effect that a genuine and significant flaw will be found within the essential core of the work.

    When I set out to do the thesis that became my doctoral dissertaion, the head of bioengineering at the time, Dr. Irving F. Miller commented that he thought that I would likely encounter much difficulty in persuading people of the value of my work. However, as a student of the philosophy of Karl Popper, I thought it wiser to use as a null hypothesis that someone would actually demonstrate, and not merely assert, a refutation. While many refutations have been asserted, none have been reproducibly demonstrated to date.

    An idea which appears to shred a core notion of human society since its earliest historical beginnings is plausibly going to be “hard to swallow,” especially for folks who have built their careers upon the old paradigm and may rationally fear ruin if the new paradigm is found to be valid.

    In particular, those who believe in the notion of tort liability may rationally be totally freaked by the view that tort liability is a form of illusion or delusion. However, the up side is that the law profession, along with everyone else, is totally released from liability of all sorts and kinds by the research I have accomplished if it be not possible to demonstrably and reproducibly refute said research.

    Dr. Thomas Jobe, the University of Illinois neuropsychiatrist on my thesis committee, commented to me that my work, if not refuted, “would get everyone off the hook.” I find no hint of evidence that such will not be the outcome of the research I have done.

    If “everyone is off the hook,” what form will conflict assume?

    If I calculate the trajectory of a space probe using only Newtonian physics to calculate the relativistic effects, I will calculate no relativistic effects because Newtonian physics excludes relativistic effects.

    Attempting to understand my research within the paradigm which excludes is akin to doing theory of relativity calculations only with Newtonian physics, no less possible because Newtonian physics excludes relativistic physics; the traditional paradigm of the past excludes the paradigm of my work because my work is of a new paradigm, and therefore, necessarily not included in the paradigm to which it is an added enhancement.

    I am not one of the top tier folks, and to prove this, I am now constructively a retiree member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union Retirees.

    As no top tier member would plausibly be a union member, mixing as peers with the underclass, I am now clearly bottom tier, right where I belong.

    There is a real advantage to being on the bottom. When one has nothing, one has nothing to lose. When one is on the bottom, there is nowhere to fall.

    Them thar Minnesota Congregationalists are interesting. Many Minnesota Congregationalists disavow hierarchy in all possible forms.

  38. It is hard enough being me. Now I hear that I am conflicted. Does that mean I am also a Victim. Can I get money from the government for this disability?

  39. Your flaw, Brian, is that you don’t take into account human nature. When people feel that they are wronged, they want either redress or revenge and sometimes both. “If ‘everyone is off the hook,’ what form will conflict assume?”

    The same form as conflict assumed yesterday.

    Simply because someone will still feel wronged and in fact be wronged by another no matter your ridiculous pronouncements to the contrary. Why? Because that’s human nature. It’s how we evolved. With an ingrained desire to protect ourselves and those close to us from danger, damage and death. That ingrained disposition for that behavior is what caused the evolution of social unit like tribes, clans, and nations – gathering together for mutual protection. That ingrained disposition for that behavior is what led to the creation of laws and civics. It is the core behavior in the self-organization of civilization over a simple collection of individuals running amok like lone wolves. Humans are social creatures. You can no more change that than you can change the atomic weight of hydrogen.

  40. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 25, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Your flaw, Brian, is that you don’t take into account human nature. When people feel that they are wronged, they want either redress or revenge and sometimes both. “If ‘everyone is off the hook,’ what form will conflict assume?”

    I am human, and I have often been terribly wronged and intensely felt wronged. Never, never, never have I ever wanted redress or revenge nor ever wanted both. I am human and my nature is human, and thus my mere existence is sufficient to refute your null hypothesis that no one like me exists. Given the perfect refutation of your null hypothesis, my alternate hypothesis (that it is not necessarily human nature to want redress or revenge or both) is thereby proven as true.

    The same form as conflict assumed yesterday. Change happens except in the minds of those whose beliefs are as though frozen in time.

    Simply because someone will still feel wronged and in fact be wronged by another no matter your ridiculous pronouncements to the contrary.

    Why? Because that’s human nature.

    Such is absolutely NOT my human nature and I am human.

    It’s how we evolved. With an ingrained desire to protect ourselves and those close to us from danger, damage and death. That ingrained disposition for that behavior is what caused the evolution of social unit like tribes, clans, and nations – gathering together for mutual protection. That ingrained disposition for that behavior is what led to the creation of laws and civics. It is the core behavior in the self-organization of civilization over a simple collection of individuals running amok like lone wolves. Humans are social creatures.

    You can no more change that than you can change the atomic weight of hydrogen.

    BiL, you might make an effort to learn something about real science, for you just “blew” any credibility you ever had regarding physics and such, and therefore, also biophysics.

    It is trivial to change the atomic weight of hydrogen. Hydrogen comes in three isotope flavors, one commonly called hydrogen, atomic number 1 and atomic weight circa 1, the second isotope of hydrogen is commonly called deuterium, atomic number 1 and atomic weight circa 2, and the third readily found isotope of hydrogen is commonly called tritium, atomic number 1 and atomic weight circa 3.

    I really thank you, BiL for your courage in demonstrating to the world your wonderful ignorance with respect to high school physics.

    Give to me access to a suitable neutron source and a suitable contaiment system and some hydrogen (atomic weight 1) and out will come, with proper methods, some deuterium (atomic weight 2) or perhaps some tritium (atomic weight 3).

    Now that you have shown the world your inadequacy with the simple concepts of first semester high school physics, what sensible person is going to buy the notion that you are anything other than utterly clueless regarding biophysics and/or bioengineering?

    Congratulations! You finally outed yourself!

    And, it did not really take all that long for you to do it!

    I have known people, particularly some men, who were virulently homophobic, condemning homosexual men with more ferocity than you have worked at condemning my work. All such men whom I have known woke up one fine day, came to useful self-understanding, set aside their long-standing self-hatred, and became active in Pflag.

    Self-hatred is a terrible thing to experience. Self-hatred so intense as to mislead a decent person into believing your expressed beliefs about children while not being consciously aware of such self-hatred is, to me, a strong indicator of beyond absolutely devastating infant-child transition suffering.

    Whatever happened to you was not your fault, nor the fault of whosoever taught you to transition that way from infancy to childhood, nor the fault of whoever taught whoever taught you, and you may run the regression back infinitely without ever finding a valid object to which truthful fault can be attached.

    There is hope in my world for everyone!

  41. Oooo.

    Nice explosion of obfuscating bullshit, Brian.

    “I am human, and I have often been terribly wronged and intensely felt wronged. Never, never, never have I ever wanted redress or revenge nor ever wanted both. I am human and my nature is human, and thus my mere existence is sufficient to refute your null hypothesis that no one like me exists. Given the perfect refutation of your null hypothesis, my alternate hypothesis (that it is not necessarily human nature to want redress or revenge or both) is thereby proven as true.”

    That is a double error. First, your sample space is again anecdotal. You are not the same as the entire human race. You are an individual. Which leads to the second error: the logical fallacy of composition – when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Your refutation is far from perfect. It’s illogical crap.

    As to science? Your assumption is that I don’t know what deuterium and tritium are. What I said was HYDROGEN. And that’s what I meant. See, unlike you, I know that words have meaning. Had I meant either of the isotopes, I would have used their proper chemical names. But I didn’t. And you didn’t prove you could change the atomic weight of hydrogen either. You’ve pointed out only that hydrogen, like other elements, have isotopes that – by their very change in structure and weight – are not the same thing as the base element itself.

    Yet this is simply a distraction from the fact that you did not address the how’s and why’s of human evolution and our subsequent organization into groups.

    Or to put it simply, you’ve combined obfuscation and distortion with evasion yet again.

    You aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.

    But you are as full of shit as I think you are and your responses prove that.

    Now, how about you proving your postulate without resorting to logical errors.

  42. One of the books in my “professional library” is written in both German and English, and titled “Traum & Trauma” or “Dream & Trauma,” and contains illustrations of works of art with commentary from the Dakis Joannou Collection, in Athens.

    From pages 21 and 23 of said book, this being a book review, the text here is of fair use:

    “The psychic organism reacts to the stimulus satiation with a blackout, compensating for maximum presence with maximum absence. In aesthetic terms, horror vacui means abstraction. In the recurring trauma, the psyche reveals its urgent insistence on convalescence, integration of the repressed material and therefore, what has been split off in Richard Wagner’s Parsifal, Amfortas’s salvation from his nonhealing wound — a would that does not heal is, by the way, Poka-Yio’s definition of the trauma — is only possible by the return of Parsifal with the lost Holy Spear. But one weapon serves: only the Spear that smote you can heal your wound! This sentence, written in the nineteenth century, before the founding of psychoanalysis, gives witness to the power of healing found in repetition; it asserts that healing is possible with its representation in analysis and art and conscious return to the origin of the trauma. The trauma, therefore, is something more than just a severe, constantly recurring would: the trauma bears within it a transgressive potential which can be found again in the Christian promise of salvation on which Parsifal is based.

    There is a quote of Dakis Joannou on page 26,

    “YOU HAVE THE ART AS A SHIELD FROM BEING REALLY SEEN”

    {caps in the original]

    I have no need to be shielded from being really seen. –J. Brian Harris.

    Those who need to shield themselves, with psychological defenses, from being truly seen in public retain trauma such as I have fully forsaken. –J. Brian Harris.

    I hold the view that this book, Traum & Trauma, or, Dream & Trauma, merits serious use in the healing of trauma, for the visual impact of much of the pictured art reaches into the very depths of my being, searching for overlooked remnants of traumas not fully resolved. For its perspective, visual and verbal, regarding trauma, I give it “20 stars out of 5.”

  43. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., February 25, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Typo:

    “constantly recurring would”

    is properly:

    “constantly recurring wound”

    Sorry.

  44. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Oooo.

    Nice explosion of obfuscating bullshit, Brian.

    Or, you are ever more demonstrating your ignorance regarding the methods of real, cutting edge scientific research of the major paradigm shifting variety

    “I am human, and I have often been terribly wronged and intensely felt wronged. Never, never, never have I ever wanted redress or revenge nor ever wanted both. I am human and my nature is human, and thus my mere existence is sufficient to refute your null hypothesis that no one like me exists. Given the perfect refutation of your null hypothesis, my alternate hypothesis (that it is not necessarily human nature to want redress or revenge or both) is thereby proven as true.”

    More evidence of your not being competent in science? As I read your writing, it is you who made the categorical imperative claim about human nature, and I took your claim as a testable hypothesis, used your claim as the null hypothesis (because my existence violates your definition of human nature, I, J. Brian Harris, do not exist) and refuted that null hypothesis by my merely existing, therefore refuting your model of human nature by the existence of but one counter-example.

    That is a double error. First, your sample space is again anecdotal. You are not the same as the entire human race. You are an individual. Which leads to the second error: the logical fallacy of composition – when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Your refutation is far from perfect. It’s illogical crap.

    It would do you good to study Philosophy of Science, W. H. Werkmesiter, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend and others. No competent student of the Philosophy of Science I can find makes such naively foolish science blunders as I observe you to be accomplishing. Yes, you have unbreakable certainty regarding your convictions, yet such implacable certainty is among the main hallmarks of intense trauma response.

    As to science? Your assumption is that I don’t know what deuterium and tritium are. What I said was HYDROGEN. And that’s what I meant. See, unlike you, I know that words have meaning. Had I meant either of the isotopes, I would have used their proper chemical names. But I didn’t. And you didn’t prove you could change the atomic weight of hydrogen either. You’ve pointed out only that hydrogen, like other elements, have isotopes that – by their very change in structure and weight – are not the same thing as the base element itself.

    Again, your ignorance of science history and science process is impending upon astonishment to me, given your implacable claims to the contrary. Water may be named “water,” “liquid water,” “frozen water,” “water vapor,” “superheated steam,” “ice,” “mono-anhydrous hydronium,” “di-hydrogen monoxide,” “aqua,” “agua,” “wasser,” “de-ionized, triple-distilled water,” and there is a very long list not here included.

    BiL, you appear to me to be approaching pscyhotic pride in your adamant scientific ignorance. You have been bothering me with your misunderstandings long enough and persistently enough that I am in the process of inviting you to come to your senses and begin to recognize the foolish blunder you have been making. Sooner or later, I expect you to wake up and smell the roses, when you are ready.

    One of the occasional comment posting folks admonished you to the effect, as I recall, that you are making yourself foolish in going after an autistic person such as I am. I have mentioned my observation, which is also the observation of some others who have really come to known and understand me, that I am of the savant category of autistic people and you are attempting to as-though attack me where I am the strongest of all. Back in 1991, one of my very bright Carleton Class of 1961 classmates talked with me for a while as we sat together on the Bald Spot during the 30th reunion of my Carleton Class. This classmate, now a retired physician, remarked that the other men on Third Davis felt sorry for me because I was living in a single room, without a roommate. He said that my Third Davis floormates had many “bull sessions” about me and indicated that they finally concluded that I was some sort of genius beyond what they thought possible.

    It has always been blatantly, clearly, obvious to me that, as you have been given to know yourself and the world in which you live, your view is perfectly correct. Your blunder, alas, is to so egotistically magnify your self-importance as to rule out the validity of someone with a larger world view than yours. Or, can you demonstrate that my hunch, as just described is really seriously wrong?

    How about an unreliable reference regarding hydrogen isotopes?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen

    If you really knew anything of actual depth regarding physics, you would have known to use the correct, conventional word for hydrogen of atomic weight 1, which, as you evidently are utterly ignorant of, is “protium.”

    While my use of hydrogen as I used it is scientifically correct, I gave you yet another opportunity to stumble over your prideful ignorance, the better for you to continue your curious efforts at self-immolating your credibility regarding biophysics and bioengineering. You are discrediting yourself, with vicious effectiveness, and that saddens me, for I find you are a really good, yet tragically traumatized, person.

    Known isotopes of hydrogen:
    Hydrogen-1 (protium)
    Hydrogen-2 (deuterium)
    Hydrogen-3 (tritium)
    Hydrogen-4 (quadrium)
    Hydrogen-5
    Hydrogen-6
    Hydrogen-7

    Had you valid knowledge of science, you would have used the correct word, “protium,” if you intended to mean Hydrogen-1. Quite obviously, you simply did not know the correct word, “protium,” well enough to use it properly, this being evident merely because you did not use it properly.

    The problem you are having is one I recognized while yet in grade school. When one person knows enough more in some field of human inquiry than does another, the one with the lesser knowledge is invariably incapable of recognizing the extent of knowledge of the one with the greater knowledge. You are proving this grade-school observation of mine with stupendous skill!

    As for the proof for which you (mindlessly?) keep asking, it is on the Internet, in my peer-reviewed doctoral dissertation, something I have mentioned before. It has been on the Internet since before January of 2006, more than five years, and I have directed quite a few people toward it, without ever finding one person reporting a significant error upon having properly studied it. Read the dissertation and tell me how you can outperform everyone else who has read and studied it… I really would like someone to reproducibly demonstrate some significant error in the essential core findings. Someone actually does that, and I will make amends to you in every way I actually can.

    To me, the method you are using has been called, “browbeating the witness,” a technique that I understand nearly always works if it is allowed to run its course. False confession upon false confession has been obtained through police browbeating innocent people until the demanded false confession culminates a sequence of dastardly traumatic “abuse by police officer”…

    I have learned, through a sequence of personally very tragic events to resist being browbeaten without ever succumbing to it.

    Because I observe hints of your possible impending decompensation with respect to your insistence that your view of my work is superior to my view of it, an absurdity if there ever were one, after this comment, I shall not again respond to any of your comments which I believe are directed toward me. At the same time, I have not been using bulbitating words as you have, and I have stayed well within any useful sense of blawg civility principles.

    If Professor Turley invites me to stop commenting and or to stop reading his blawg, I shall fully respect his decision.

    Yet this is simply a distraction from the fact that you did not address the how’s and why’s of human evolution and our subsequent organization into groups.

    Or to put it simply, you’ve combined obfuscation and distortion with evasion yet again.

    You aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.

    I do not think I am smart and I do not think I am intelligent because, except as aspects of acculturation, I am clueless as to what “smart” means and not nearly intelligent enough to know what intelligence is.

    One of my sometimey comments is to the effect, “There is this SETI (Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) project, and there is something about it which bothers me a little. It seems to me that it would be wise to search for intelligence here on earth first, because the earth is close and convenient. If we cannot find any form of intelligence here on earth, how on earth would we know for what to look anywhere else?

    BiL, if I were in your immediate physical presence, I would have affective clues as to the safety factor you have in terms of the risk of acute decompensation. With only words via the Internet, this last comment is as far as I am at all comfortable going with you on your path of personal struggle as evidenced in your comments directed toward me and my work.

    As to whatever it is within your life that has led you to comment about my shared aspects of the research I have done and continue to do, I am sorry and it grieves me, yet I was not there and I am not among those whose actions may have hurt you.

    Thus, I here stipulate that I find every hostile or otherwise aggressive comment you have made, may be making, or will ever make regarding myself and my work I herewith declare to be of falsehood, and do so regarding all of the past, all of the future, and for all of now.

    I can manage what you have been doing without limit. I have doubts as to whether that is also true for you. I seek to not hurt or harm you, yet I cannot, for the same reason of conscience, allow anyone, through default on my part, to regard your comments as though about me and my work as really being about anything other than about you and your life.

    I find it as though you are commanding to play an absolutely intolerable childish game of “chicken” with me, and I am too chicken to consider doing that. We had chicken for dinner, tonight.

    But you are as full of shit as I think you are and your responses prove that.

    I thought of some very witty responses to this form of scatology verbal gambit, none of which meet my decency standards, so I shall forgo all of them.

    Now, how about you proving your postulate without resorting to logical errors.

    Read my dissertation until you really understand it…

    Because I have used one link in this comment, I will put where to find my dissertation in my next posted comment.

  45. My doctoral dissertation is on the Internet, at:

    harriselectronicservice.com/files/Internet_Version_20051225B.pdf

  46. “More evidence of your not being competent in science? As I read your writing, it is you who made the categorical imperative claim about human nature, and I took your claim as a testable hypothesis, used your claim as the null hypothesis (because my existence violates your definition of human nature, I, J. Brian Harris, do not exist) and refuted that null hypothesis by my merely existing, therefore refuting your model of human nature by the existence of but one counter-example.”

    No. Simply more evidence you don’t follow the rules of logic or statistics. An assertion plagued with common logic fallacies like a composition errors or circular logic is an illogical assertion by definition. A sample space of one is useless establishing baselines in a population of 6.8 billion.

    “As for the proof for which you (mindlessly?) keep asking, it is on the Internet, in my peer-reviewed doctoral dissertation, something I have mentioned before. It has been on the Internet since before January of 2006, more than five years, and I have directed quite a few people toward it, without ever finding one person reporting a significant error upon having properly studied it. Read the dissertation and tell me how you can outperform everyone else who has read and studied it… I really would like someone to reproducibly demonstrate some significant error in the essential core findings. Someone actually does that, and I will make amends to you in every way I actually can.”

    Fuck your dissertation. You’re spouting your nonsense here, it’s being challenged here, defend it here. Oh, that’s right. You can’t. Because it’s nonsense. And the method I am using is called “logical dissection of inconsistencies in testimony” and “speaking to the veracity of the testimony”. The method you are using is called “the Big Lie coupled with obfuscation”. Just to be clear.

    “Because I observe hints of your possible impending decompensation with respect to your insistence that your view of my work is superior to my view of it, an absurdity if there ever were one, after this comment, I shall not again respond to any of your comments which I believe are directed toward me. At the same time, I have not been using bulbitating words as you have, and I have stayed well within any useful sense of blawg civility principles.”

    Because you’re the only one fit to judge your “work”, eh sport? We reading here just “wouldn’t understand” as you’ve claimed before. And I don’t care if you respond to me or not. I’m still going to attack your idiotic and antisocial idea every time you spout it. If you find that uncivil? I really don’t care. Your refusal to acknowledge critical challenge also belies your egoist bent and appeals to your own demonstrably irrational authority. Speaking of which . . .

    “I do not think I am smart and I do not think I am intelligent because, except as aspects of acculturation, I am clueless as to what “smart” means and not nearly intelligent enough to know what intelligence is.”

    But you are apparently of a high enough opinion of your intellect to have repeatedly compared yourself to people like Galileo, Einstein and Hawking. So sell that false modesty bullshit to someone who can’t read your previous posts.

    Then you simply blather some more, so I’ll skip ahead a bit.

    “As to whatever it is within your life that has led you to comment about my shared aspects of the research I have done and continue to do, I am sorry and it grieves me, yet I was not there and I am not among those whose actions may have hurt you.”

    “When a man lies he murders some part of the world. These are the pale deaths men miscall their lives.” – Paul Gerhardt. Your postulate is based on bad logic, no evidence, demonstrated lies and distortions, false equivalences and appeals to your own inappropriate authority. It is a Big Lie. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. You mistake being the object of address with being the object of message. But you harm me? Others harm me? No. My motivations are much simpler than that. “I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius.

    “Thus, I here stipulate that I find every hostile or otherwise aggressive comment you have made, may be making, or will ever make regarding myself and my work I herewith declare to be of falsehood, and do so regarding all of the past, all of the future, and for all of now.”

    Again, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. You mistake being the object of address with being the object of message. And recycling the “I know you are but what am I” defense is going to be just as ineffective now as it was the other times you’ve used it.

    “I can manage what you have been doing without limit. I have doubts as to whether that is also true for you. I seek to not hurt or harm you, yet I cannot, for the same reason of conscience, allow anyone, through default on my part, to regard your comments as though about me and my work as really being about anything other than about you and your life.”

    Really? Because I haven’t relented yet. There are people who have posted here far longer than you who will attest to my relentless nature. I’ll attack your ridiculous idea every time you spout it or try to rationalize it with a mask of lies and evasion. You seek to hurt all of society with your fallacious assertion, ergo, you seek to not only harm me, but everyone. And make no mistake, my comments are about the quality or lack thereof of your work and the character of one who would call such antisocial, pro-tyranny drivel work. If I want to talk about myself? I’ll talk about myself. Attacking your bad idea and you as a purposeful purveyor of social destruction is all about your “work” and the kind of people who embrace tyranny by encouraging lawlessness and then add insult to injury by claiming you are only “trying to help”.

    And for the record? I don’t play chicken with proponents of tyranny and anarchy. I run them over.

    You made your claims here. They were challenged here. You defend them here. Otherwise you simple keep proving that you are a propagandist for an idea that has been demonstrably shown to be against the best interests of civilization. Otherwise in the game of chicken you referenced? You are indeed playing, like it or not. And the bad news for you?

    You’re flinching like a fearful lunatic.

    If your defense of your idea is so good? You shouldn’t be afraid to construct it here. An immovable object to counter the irresistible force of the logical challenge against them.

    As to your dissertation, I was crystal clear before. If you’re not willing to defend it here, where it has been challenged? Then it’s simply not worth reading.

  47. lol

    In a way, raff. :) Since modern atomic weights are calculated from atomic mass, two distinct hydrogen atoms would weigh approximately 2, precisely 2.016 mol.

  48. I love the adversarial system. Anything can be declared a fact by default.

    Oh. Sorry. Me rong.

    My handy Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is wrong! How could they make such a stupid error?

    In that book, the atomic weight of Hydrogen is incorrectly listed as being 1.0079, so the book is obviously wrong because I have on perfect authority the absolute fact that the atomic weight of Hydrogen is exactly 1.

    Scientists are so stupid. Pity.

    I can hardly wait until the Congress repeals the law of identity.

  49. Brian,

    Actually, the approximate weight is widely recognized as 1 and the more precise number I used is simply a function of rounding. You can blather about hydrogen some more because endless evasion is just furthering my assertions about your inability to defend your idea.

    Or you can defend your idea, in the forum you presented it, in the forum it was challenged.

  50. “Why do people keep messing up their lives and the lives of others? Because the adversarial principle is adverse even to lives not messed up, because the adversarial principle is the grand poombah mess up of all possible eternities?” Dr. Harris
    —————————————————
    Dr. Harris, I agree that the ‘adversarial’ process has gone waaaaaay too far in many forums…most especially in law where it is often used as an excuse to cause damage rather than to shine the light of reason on some situations….that said, there is no perfect world without some adversity…no real safety without some regard for those elements that cause harm….if we are looking ONLY for safety we are also looking for a cage….

  51. ad·ver·sar·y
       /ˈædvərˌsɛri/ Show Spelled [ad-ver-ser-ee] Show IPA noun, plural -sar·ies, adjective
    –noun
    1.
    a person, group, or force that opposes or attacks; opponent; enemy; foe.
    2.
    a person, group, etc., that is an opponent in a contest; contestant.
    3.
    the Adversary, the devil; Satan.

  52. W=c,

    No offense, but good luck trying to get me to stop hindering the propagation of bad ideas, but especially ones that are destructive to society. It’s my nature. The same goes with propaganda. The success of propaganda relies largely upon unchallenged repetition. Challenge and adversity are not always bad things. They drive change. To quote Duke Leto Atreides, “Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken.” And to quote JFK out of context, “We do not do these things because they are easy but because they are hard.”

    There are some ideas worse for civilization than the idea than removing the option of dispute resolution in the adversarial mode, but not many. An important function of the courts is indeed safety, but for society to continue requires more than just safety. It requires equity and justice. Inequity and injustice do more than just create a safety risk for society. Allowing them to go unchecked appeals to the worst elements of human nature. Indeed, it encourages them. Without equity and justice, we are all barbarians subject to the tyranny of the strong over the weak. Without laws and moderated dispute resolution – which by its very nature must be an adverse process – society lacks the tools to prevent barbarism.

    Barbarians at the gate?

    Removing the function of courts simply gives them the keys.

  53. RE: Woosty’s still a Cat, February 26, 2011 at 6:51 am

    and Buddha (no offense but…) maybe you and Dr.Harris should get a room….

    ################################

    I have already paid the required deposit with the Innkeeper, and the room is already prepared and waiting.

    The room will be held indefinitely, waiting for as long as is needed, even if longer than beyond eternity.

    …and The Dance goes on…

  54. “There are some ideas worse for civilization than the idea than removing the option of dispute resolution in the adversarial mode, but not many. An important function of the courts is indeed safety, but for society to continue requires more than just safety. It requires equity and justice. Inequity and injustice do more than just create a safety risk for society.”~Buddha
    ————————————-
    Amen to that, and thanks for doing that job…I wish more in your profession took their role that seriously and did it that well. And the Marcus Aurelius quotes…:)

    It’s just that you 2 seem so distinctly polarized that the product is becoming…well…an issue….;)

  55. W=c,

    All that is required to end the challenge is to end the undefended – and I am certain indefensible – assertion (for without proof its constant repetition is merely antisocial propaganda) or defend it adequately to refute the challenge without resorting to bad logic, distortions or magical thinking. As to polarization? But of course we’re polarized. I’m for truth, civilization and the rule of law. He, by the very nature his assertion, is not. Some polarities are irreconcilable.

  56. I have already paid the required deposit with the Innkeeper, and the room is already prepared and waiting.

    Wow Buddha, first I proclaimed I am ready and now an offer from Dr. Harris. :)

  57. Some polarities are irreconcilable. ~Buddha
    ——————————
    yes

    which is why mediation is important…and IMHO should NOT be adversarial :)

    I am both a lover and a fighter.~Buddha
    ——————————
    …another obvious fact….I do believe that I am jealous!

  58. The Adversarial Principle NECESSARILY EXCLUDES the Affirmational Principle; else the Adversarial Principle would be incapable of being Adversarial.

    — LIKEWISE —

    The Affirmational Principle NECESSARILY INCLUDES the Adversarial Principle; else the Affirmational Principle would be incapable of being Affirmational.

  59. Brian,

    “The Adversarial Principle NECESSARILY EXCLUDES the Affirmational Principle; else the Adversarial Principle would be incapable of being Adversarial.”

    BZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer in attempt at mischaracterization!

    The use of legal dispute resolution in the adversarial mode affirms both equity and justice which in turn affirm social stability and peace, ergo the use of legal dispute resolution in the adversarial mode works to affirmation by adversity.

    W=c,

    Mediation is important and an alternative to suit that I encourage where possible, however, it is still an adverse process. Without a dispute – an adversity of opinion and/or fact – there would simple be no need to mediate. Adversity (and this is key to why Brian is wrong) is a naturally occurring state of polarity. Any dispute, mediated or litigated, is going to be adverse at its core and the process to resolve them is going to have to reflect this reality.

  60. The Dedication in Karl Popper, “The Poverty of Historicism,” Routledge Classics, copyright 2002, The Estate of Karl Popper:

    “In memory of the countless men, women and children of all creeds or nations or races who fell victim to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

    I find that resolutely unshakable belief in the adversarial principle is a significant exemplar of belief in the “Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

    I categorically and unequivocally reject any and all versions and varieties of “Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

    I categorically and unequivocally reject any and all versions and varieties of any form of “Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny” which purport to deny the unfolding Perfect Union of Religion and Science.

    The Unified Field Theory may be thus stated, in connotative form:

    EXISTENCE AFFIRMS ITSELF!

  61. Any dispute, mediated or litigated, is going to be adverse at its core and the process to resolve them is going to have to reflect this reality.~Buddha
    ———————————–
    Agreed, sortof….when mediation occurs voluntarily it asserts that there is a proclivity towards solution beyond adversity, no?

    And if not….there should not be that attempt to mediate but go directly to lawsuit, do not pass go…do not collect $200.

  62. Again, you are trying to refute fact with belief. Adversity is a fact of nature. Animals want to eat and not be eaten.

    Shouting in bold italics won’t change that.

  63. W=c,

    “Agreed, sortof….when mediation occurs voluntarily it asserts that there is a proclivity towards solution beyond adversity, no?

    And if not….there should not be that attempt to mediate but go directly to lawsuit, do not pass go…do not collect $200.”

    No. The only thing mediation asserts is that there is a possibility of resolution without involving the courts (and ergo the associated costs and some restrictions on outcome posed by law), not that the adversity inherent in the situation doesn’t exist. Adversity is inherent in the dispute. Solution resides in a result/resolution that all parties of the dispute get through either a binding arbitration/mediation agreement or through adjudication.

  64. From the INTRODUCTION of Karl Popper, “The Poverty of Historicism,” the first paragraph:

    “Scientific interest in social and political questions is hardly less old than scientific interest in cosmology and physics; and there were periods in antiqity (I have Plato’s political theory in mind, and Aristotles collection of constitutions) when the science of society might have seemed to have advanced further than the science of nature. But with Galileo and Newton, physics became successful beyond expectation, far surpassing all the other sciences; and since the time of Pasteur, the Galileo of biology, the biological sciences have been almost equally successful. But the social sciences do not as yet seem to have found their Galileo.”

    To the whole world, I herewith state without hesitation or equivocation, that I can find not one whit of evidence to the effect that the social sciences have not now, finally, found their Galileo in the work of my late parents, my late brother, and in the work of my family which I continue.

    That is an absurd claim unless it can be properly demonstrated.

    However, by definition and by process, because the Adversarial Principle totally, absolutely, and perfectly excludes the work of my family, within the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle, no validity can ever be found to exist for the work of my family.

    The fact that the work of my family cannot exist within the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle has, as I observe, been repeatedly and amply demonstrated in many of he comments posted to the Professor Jonathan Turley Blawg.

    That which is perfectly impossible has a curious property:

    That Which is Impossible Never Happens.

    I am not defending the value of my family’s work within the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle because of the simple, and perfectly tragic, fact that the work of my family exists only absolutely and totally outside the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle.

    The Prosecutor, “Did you stop tickling your purple-people-eating pet unicorn last Tuesday on Friday afternoon at 27:89:73 o’clock? Answer yes or no!”

    The Defendant, ” ”

    The Judge, to the Defendant, “You WILL answer yes or no!”

    The Defendant, “Yes or no?”

    The Jury, “Guilty as charged.”

    The Judge, to the Defendant, “I sentence you to summary execution!”

    In pursuit of peace, the Judge aims and fires his piece.

    BANG! (DER KOPF IST KAPUT!)”

    The Defendant now in peace, now in pieces…

    ADVERSARIAL JUSTICE

    (Purple-people-eating unicorns do not exist.)

  65. “The fact that the work of my family cannot exist within the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle has, as I observe, been repeatedly and amply demonstrated in many of he comments posted to the Professor Jonathan Turley Blawg.”

    That is simply because your “work” cannot withstand critical scrutiny and challenge – a requisite of both good science and good law.

    “I am not defending the value of my family’s work within the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle because of the simple, and perfectly tragic, fact that the work of my family exists only absolutely and totally outside the boundaries of the Adversarial Principle.”

    Again, you are not defending the value of your work because it has no valid defense and only a demonstrable negative value for society.

    The rest of your blather?

    Disputes, adverse by their very nature and arising from natural interaction between human and within their environment, have two sides a minimum. Resolution therefor demands that either one side wins and the other loses, that the dispute is a nullity and all side suck it up and go home or that mutual accord be reached – accord which may or may not be to every concerned parties satisfaction.

  66. Adversity is inherent in just about everything…is it also the purpose of the legal system? Because too much adversity in the process itself …well how does THAT serve anyone but the lawyers?

  67. “Adversity is inherent in just about everything…is it also the purpose of the legal system?”

    No. The legal system is a process to resolve adversity and minimize the damage to the social fabric that self-help and violence incur. A purpose (but not the only purpose) of the legal system is to bring about resolution, not end adversity itself. Because adversity is a simple part of nature, the best we can do is mitigate the damages, but seeking to eliminate it is a fool’s errand.

    “Because too much adversity in the process itself …well how does THAT serve anyone but the lawyers??

    The process is adverse because disputes are adverse and the process must reflect that realty to find a solution. It is impossible to have a disagreement without it being adverse. The excess of adversity in the system comes from the disputes of clients – we are an overly litigious society and not every dispute merits suit as we see by stories regularly posted to this very blog – and overzealous and/or greedy lawyers who push the limits of abusing process and/or maximize their billings to clients bent on revenge and/or victory at any cost – also reflected in the stories posted here. No system is perfect, but it is still better than telling the clients “Here are a couple of knives. You two step out into the parking lot and resolve your problems.” Such systemic abuses can be minimized by system improvements such as more severe penalties for filing frivolous suits for both attorneys and clients. But you can believe this too – lawyers, like most people in business, would prefer to make money as quickly as possible and with as little effort as possible. Unless they are simply milking a client, a pre-trial settlement – although possibly less profitable than a judgment – is a preferable solution.

  68. From Max C. Otto, “Science and the Moral Life,” The New American Library, 1949. (I have in hand a falling-to-pieces paperback Mentor Book printing.)

    From the opening paragraphs of Chapter 5, “Scientific Method and the Good Life”:

    The social problems resulting from the wide dissemination of scientific knowledge are problems of peculiar difficulty. Possible solutions are not easy to think of and harder to put into effect. They are problems of such importance, however, that every opportunity to see them more clearly must be taken advantage of.

    It would help us all, in the first place, to clarify our conception of science by doing away with a number of vital errors. One of these is a confusion between science as it actually is, and the aura of myth and legend which envelops it. Popular science is not science as conceived by the scientist. It has a good deal of magic and the miraculous about t, and very little of the scientific temper. Belief in science may even be a form of superstition. For superstition is a frame of mind. It is a manner of believing, far more than it is this or that belief. The attitude of many people toward institutionalized science is not unlike the superstitious credulity of the average medieval man or woman toward institutionalized religion. They believe in Science and in what scientists tell them very much as their ancestors believed in the Church and what they were told by their priests.

    There is abundant reason why this should be so. A man cannot read a newspaper or listen to a radio without being told of ideas emanating from science which he can only accept on faith. His mind is bombarded by half-understood scientific pronouncements which are advertised to have the profoundest bearing on his life, the truth of which he is unable to determine…

    When the work I am doing is adequately finished so as to be capable of its truth being trivially easy for a typical year and a half old child to appraise, then the requested “proof” will be put in the public domain.

    Good Grief! I continue to truthfully describe the difficulties I encounter, as an autistic person being autistic as I am, in finding words that work decently. I do not yet have the needed words, and I shall not tolerate being coerced through bullying into deluding myself that I have attained suitable words before their time has come.

    I live in a world of actual process, and not in a mythic world of pointless points pointing to nothing.

    My world is much as the world described by Matthew Fox, in his “Original Blessing.” I have in hand the 2000 Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam thirteenth printing.

    As his earthly reward for doing the sort of work I do, Fox was “dismissed by the Dominican Order” (the Order of Preachers) “in 1993.”

    It seems to me that everyone who makes a genuine effort to live as I live, an effort to live in accord with the Affirmational Principle, is subject to abuse by those who act in accord with sincerely believing in the Adversarial Principle.

    That harshness happens as response to affirmation may be the most profound validation of the Affirmational Principle ever actually possible.

  69. “When the work I am doing is adequately finished so as to be capable of its truth being trivially easy for a typical year and a half old child to appraise, then the requested “proof” will be put in the public domain.”

    In other words, you have no proof and the proof you allegedly have “we’re just not smart enough to understand because compared to your Galileo-like intellect, we are all just babies.” Sorry. But many of the regular posters and indeed regular readers are frighteningly intelligent. “I’m not ready and you wouldn’t understand” is not a defense of your idea.

    “Good Grief! I continue to truthfully describe the difficulties I encounter, as an autistic person being autistic as I am, in finding words that work decently. I do not yet have the needed words, and I shall not tolerate being coerced through bullying into deluding myself that I have attained suitable words before their time has come.”

    You didn’t have any problems expressing your idea prematurely or trumpeting about how true they were and what a genius you are so you shouldn’t have any problem defending your idea prematurely, genius. Measure twice and cut once, ya know. But you’ve had your idea challenged and that’s abusive because you can’t and won’t defend it because we’re just children compared to your towering intelligence.

    Awwwww. Poor lil’ martyred and misunderstood you. If you didn’t want your assertion challenged?

    Tough. You shouldn’t have made it in a free speech forum full of critical thinkers, many of them trained in logic and argument, all of them thriving on proof. This isn’t about you. This is about your idea. You released it into the wild proclaiming the truth of it as if it were gospel and when challenged, you lied, obfuscated, used false equivalences, insulted other people’s intelligence, pitied yourself and now try to float that “you’re not ready”.

    Defend your idea or else be content that everything I’ve challenged about it is true.

    The rest is whining, evasion and obfuscation.

  70. Deception is not my name,

    Deception is not my game.

    No one shall I ever blame.

    The world of the broad path is a crying shame?

    No, it merely needs to become tame!
    .
    .
    .
    Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince, XXI

    It was then that the fox appeared.

    “Good morning,” said the fox.

    “Good morning,” the little prince responded politely, although when he turned around he saw nothing.

    “I am right here,” the voice said, “under the apple tree.”

    “Who are you>” asked the little prince, and added, “You are very pretty to look at.”

    “I am a fox,” the fox said.

    “Come and play with me,” proposed the little prince. “I am so unhappy.”

    “I cannot play with you,” the fox said. “I am not tamed.”

    “Ah! Please excuse me,” said the little prince.

    But after some thought, he added:

    “What does that mean — ‘tame’?”

    “You do not live here,” said the fox. “What is it that you are looking for?”

    “I am looking for men,” said the little prince. “What does that mean — ‘tame’?”

    “Men,” said the fox. “They have guns and they hunt. It is very disturbing. They also raise chickens. These are their only interests. Are you looking for chickens?”

    “No,” said the little prince. “I am looking for friends. What does that mean — ‘tame’?”

    “It is an act too often neglected,” said the fox. “It means to establish ties.”

    ” ‘To establish ties’?”

    “Just that,” said the fox. “To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall be in need of each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…”

    “I am beginning to understand,” said the little prince. “There is a flower…I think she has tamed me…”

    “It is possible,” said the fox. “On the Earth one sees all sorts of things.”

  71. Missed a typo:

    “Who are you?” asked the little prince, and added, “You are very pretty to look at.”

    Mistakes happen.

    Forgiveness for mistakes made?

    I forgive without limit.

  72. Fortunately, there was a front page piece in the Detroit Lakes (Minnesota) Tribune regarding the swimming incident in which my body was on the bottom of the Carleton pool, in the basement of Sayles-Hill Gymnasium, on March 15, 1960, and fortunately I have (most of?) my class notebooks and fortunately both my roommate at the time of the incident and my roommate during the fall, 1960 semester, during which I finished my three semesters at Carleton, are alive.

    Carleton College is not much help, and I would guess that there was the usual sort of suppression of bad news records that is characteristic of the adversarial mindset as I can fathom it.

    Came yesterday, via email:

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: your records at Carleton
    Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:32:23 -0600 (CST)
    From: Nat Wilson
    To: drjbrianharris@ (not @yahoo.com, the address I have intentionally made rather public)
    CC: Eric S. Hillemann

    Hi Dr. Harris,

    I looked in all the paper and microform records that we have on you and talked to the main archivist here about records relating to your accident in the Carleton pool. The records talk about your admission application, some of your course work and donation history, but I could not find anything on the incident you described. I’m sorry but I don’t think we are going to be able to help you with your research. Good luck and let me know if you have any other questions.

    Nat Wilson
    Digital Archivist and Library Technology Coordinator
    Carleton College Library
    1 N. College Street
    Northfield MN 55057
    507.222.4265
    nwilson@carleton.edu

    Methinks folks dislike “bad news” so much that the actions of dislike make “bad news” astonishingly more common than it would be were “bad news” no less welcome than is “good news.”

  73. All that blather and still not a cogent defense of your idea. Tsk, tsk, tsk. The evidence mounts that you have no proof or logic to defend your assertion. Only your personal vendetta against the legal system and an untenable, illogical and indefensible assertion that you clothe in obfuscation, lies and excuses when the logical validity of your idea is challenged. Like a temper-tantrum throwing child wanting to tear down the house because his fingers got pinched in the bathroom door. Your desire to harm society – conscious or not, but certainly contained in your inherently antisocial message making the message harmful in effect – may have a causal connection in harm you have endured. However, that makes said desire no less irrational nor does it make your assertion any less irrational. You can repeat your Big Lie to yourself. Please do if it makes you feel better. But when you repeat it to others? Especially if they are of weak reasoning and believe you? You are becoming that which you claim to despise – harmful. To the individuals and to society as a whole, you are asking them to abandon the rule of law and invite tyranny and anarchy into their lives . . . all because you were personally hurt and disappointed. Misery loves company, but if you truly wanted to be helpful to others? You’d keep it to yourself rather than spread it about in an attempt to destroy a social mechanism that protects them, no matter that it protects them imperfectly.

  74. Buhha,

    What is Brian rambling about….. I think the discussion has moved on….not sure what the topic was anymore…

  75. And that’s the point of tactical obfuscation, AY.

    Hey! Isn’t that a giant ape climbing the Empire State Building!

    It’s the human equivalent of “Confuse a Cat”.

  76. Life may be interesting. I just finished talking with a “GW” graduate who indicated that he knows Professor Turley.

    I called him about a little problem of mutual concern, one that is of possible dispute, and he and I found that the method I use resulted in no adversarial aspects whatsoever, while also resolving a “mistake” without adversarial disputation.

    Perhaps I will eventually ask him to connect with Professor Turley.

    Anyone note how I give a bunch of different sources of information, all of which can be independently verified by anyone willing to bother verifying them, while others seem to me to only give personal opinions under the guise of objective fact?

    Curious, said the tail of that Cheshire Cat, deep down in the rabbit hole.

    I continue here because I find it possible to do so, and to avoid messing around with other threads, our of respect for those who read and perhaps also comment here.

  77. Awwwww.

    Going to talk to the Prof to see if you can silence my “mistake” in taking your assertion to task? Knock yourself out. Talk to whomever you like.

    In the mean time, how about you providing some logic and proof, sport? Hmm? Why not?

    Not ready? We wouldn’t understand? It’s unethical to defend your own postulates?

    That’s just adorable!

    Citing irrelevant or misapplied sources is not proof, nor is citing your own authority by reference to your dissertation.

    Your logic is still faulty as a matter of the operation of the rules of logic.

    The only mistake made here is by you in believing you can assert something as true – especially something demonstrably dangerous to society – without proof or logic and expect it not to be challenged.

  78. Robert Fulghum, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”:

    “There is a terrible and wondrous truth working here. Namely, that all things live only if something else is cleared out of the path to make way. No death; no life. No exceptions. Things must come and go. People. Years. Ideas. Everything. The wheel turns and the old is cleared away as fodder for the new.”

    From page 147 of the Ivy Books paperback I have in hand.

    The time-corrupted logic of the past is as the needed fodder for the flowering of the Affirmational Principle.

    Who really has such power as to deny to existence its right to repair itself?

  79. Blank has the right to spread illogical ideas with no proof that are detrimental to civilization and do so unchallenged.

    What is “No one”, Alex.

    I’ll take “Desperate Propagandists” for $500.

  80. Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian”, the Touchstone paperback, page 151, in the chapter, “Nice People.”

    In general, nice people leave the policing of the world to hirelings because they feel the work to be not of such as a person who is quite nice would wish to undertake. There is, however, one department which they do not delegate — namely, the department of backbiting and scandal. People can be placed in a hierarchy of niceness by the power of their tongues. If A talks against B and B talks against A, it will generally agreed by the society in which they live that one of them is exercising a public duty, while the other is actuated by spite; the one who is exercising the public duty is the one who is the nicer of the two…

    Obviously, I am not a nice person. Nice people watch a war movie and talk about how nice the movie was. Nice people attend a memorial service for victims of violent torture-murder and talk about how nice the homily was.

    By no consent of mine will I ever be a nice person.

    Were it ever allowed, I would gladly be a kind and honest person.

    If not in this world, when?

  81. Nice has noting to do with public duty. If I were always nice, I’d have never graduated law school. Besides, “killing someone with kindness” is a truism for a reason. Sometimes caring means saying “No.” Sometimes saying “no” gets you called a “big meanie”. Ask any responsible parent. Plus, suffering fools – or manifestly destructive ideas – gladly is not a virtue. For all that is required for evil for flourish in the world is for good people to stand by and do nothing.

  82. Sincerity is not truthfulness, while, absent sincerity, there can be no pragmatic truthfulness.

    Sincerity is a necessary and not-sufficient condition for pragmatic truthfulness.

    The work which has intrigued me since infancy is of the necessary and sufficient conditions of pragmatic truthfulness.

    Pragmatic truthfulness is not a function of reality as defined by social and/or societal consensus.

    Within the human phenomenon, the unit of action is inescapably the individual human person.

    No group of humans, regardless of number, ever does anything except as the superposition of the doings of the individual members comprising the group.

    “If everyone is doing it, it is okay,” is, to me, the most plausibly blatant form of the operational presence of The Evil One within the group of all humans whom The Evil One has successfully deceived which I have yet been able to recognize.

    What I have been doing on this Turley blawg is of an effort of researching the scientific validity of that which I understand to be the philosophical-religious ultimate principle of Bahá’i.

    The book, “Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era” (J. E. Esslemont, Bahá’í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL) was among the most essential of the books I read in my parents library during my traditionally chronological-childhood time. First published in 1928, the version I read during “my childhood” was the 1937 first revised edition that is the edition I first read. I have now in hand the 1950 second revised edition.

    To me, the philosophical-religious ultimate principle of the Bahá’í faith tradition is simply that the ultimate organizing principle of existence is collaboration as superposition of the totality of extant existence.

    The website of Hope United Church of Christ, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin is:

    www(dot)hopechurchdc(dot)org

    I am a among the members thereof; I have served on the Board of Deacons and the Board of Trustees, and was co-chairman of the Open and Affirming Committee at the time Hope United Church of Christ voted to become one of the Open and Affirming congregations of the United Church of Christ.

    I became a member of Hope Congregational Church on June 28, 1953.

    While some may claim that religion and science are of perfectly and eternally separate domains, others, including myself, both know and understand that religion and science share being essential aspects of the unity of all possible existence.

    At the limit, it requires only three things to be a member of Hope United Church. The first is being willing to become a member. The second is becoming a member. The third is being adequately capable of avoiding abusing self and others.

    There are no established creeds, doctrines, or dogmas.

    As is written on the sign outside the church building, near the southwest corner of Michigan Street and 12th Avenue, in Sturgeon Bay, “ALL ARE WELCOME” and that is the essence of the covenant which is the central organizing principle of Hope United Church of Christ.

    On the “About Us” page of the Hope Church web site is found:

    We began as the Society of Hope Church in 1881 and became Hope Congregational Church in 1883. Our current, beautiful church home was built in 1967.

    We come to Hope Church…

    To worship God

    To promote personal and spiritual growth

    To develop a religious community which encourages tolerance and openness of thought and accepts diversity of thought and action

    To search for meaning in life and for understanding of ourselves through the teachings of Jesus and other great teachers

    To understand how all things are related to each other and to learn how we may best serve our local community and our world community

    To celebrate with joy the richness of ourselves and our religious community.

    What about that three word “To worship God” thing at the beginning? Does one need to believe that “God” exists? Of course not! At Hope Church, a person is free to decide what “To” means and what “worship” means and what “God” means in terms of the individual person’s life, with no other person having any trace of authority as to what those words, or any other words, mean to anyone other than with respect to the individual self.

    The only authority recognized at Hope Church is the authority uniquely within each individual member.

    The notion that the adversarial principle can have the slightest authority over my life constitutes a violation of my Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 19, right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience.

    This is an absolute and pure dichotomy. Either I have the right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience or I have no such right. If the Adversarial Principle has the slightest trace of authority over me and/or over my life, then I have absolutely no right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience, because my conscience dictates to me that the Adversarial Principle has no authority over me and/or over my life.

    Welcome to a the fallacy of an intractable double bind, wherein the Adversarial Principle is become its very own intractable Adversary.

    From John. S. Hatcher, “Close Connections: The Bridge between Spiritual and Physical Reality,” Bahá’í Publishing, Willmette, IL, copyright (c) 2005 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States.

    From page 5, in the fair use book review sense:

    [begin quote from “Close Connections]
    A Rational for Employing the Bahá’í Perspective

    I am predisposed to compare the theories about reality to those presented in the Bahá’í teachings because the very means by which i became a Bahá’í was to test rigorously the foundational tenets of the Bahá’í Faith with whatever questions I could conceive and then compare the solutions it offered to those of any other theological, philosophical, or scientific explanation I could discover. That was forty-five years ago, and I am still employing this same approach to my various ventures into the realm of creative investigation of reality, most especially about the nature of physical reality.

    Though the Bahá’í Faith is known primarily for its assertion that the world’s revealed religions are part of a single systematic attempt on the part of a Divine Creator to instruct humanity, of particular relevance to the subject of this study is the Bahá’í axiom that there is no inherent contradiction between science and religion. This verity is not intended to imply that there aren’t contradictions between individuals studying in these two areas of interest or between theories about reality that they propose — the ongoing debates about such vital issues as the theory of evolution or the question of abortion are but two examples that suggest that no reconciliation between science and religion seems imminent. Rather, the Bahá’í teachings affirm that all study of reality can be valid if pursued with the logical tools with which human beings have been endowed, particularly when these faculties are employed in a well-conceived regimen such as the so-called “scientific method”:

    God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition.
    [end quote from Close Connections]

    A noted world religion is thus shown to refute the claims made by those who claim that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence is not of the form of a superstitious religious establishment, and the superstition is thus:

    from Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 1721:
    “Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of fact excuses; ignorance of law does not excuse. – Every person must be considered cognizant of the law; otherwise, there is no limit to the excuse of ignorance…”

    If, as I am readily able to demonstrate, it is a fact that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence is an ancient-origin, superstitious religious establishment, then all who have been deceived into believing otherwise are absolutely and totally excused because of having been ignorant of the fact that there is no limit to the excuse of ignorance.

    It being a fact of law that ignorance of fact of law excuses, ignorance of the fact of law that the Adversarial Principle is itself, as fact, a violation of fact of law; all who have been deceived by the Adversarial Principle are, as fact of law, absolutely and totally excused.

    That fact of law does not deconstruct except into itself.

    Tell me that science and religion are of separate dominions and I will disprove that by the fact of the existence of a world religion of differing understanding.

    Because the view, expressed in the quote from “Close Connections,” of “the Bahá’í axiom that there is no inherent contradiction between science and religion” is of the form of an axiom and not merely as yet another testable hypothesis, I am constrained to the freedom of the United Church of Christ because I find therein no axioms and no dogmas and no doctrines and find instead only that which people learn through the way of direct observation as direct observation is given to each and every person as, and only as, an individual person who, as an individual may share or not share what is directly observed according to individual conscience.

    Conscience is the only existing alternative to authoritarian passive-aggressive tyranny that I find is ever likely to exist.

    Conscience is the only possible basis I am able to recognize for the practicable authoritative-reciprocity of humans within human society in which all persons, regardless of situation, circumstance, socio-economic status or any other divisive categorization schema, are truthfully of equal actual worth.

    Quod erat demonstrandum?

  83. Not QED.

    Religion is not a counter argument nor is it a defense of your manifestly destructive postulate. Religion had its chance to prove its value to society running concurrently throughout history with the development of secular law. At best, they are apples and oranges.

    At worst?

    Religion is responsible for more wars and hideous crimes against humanity than any other aspect of human behavior and their social constructs.

    The Crusades.

    The Muslim Conquests and various Jihads.

    The Taiping Rebellion.

    The Thirty Years War.

    The French Wars of Religion.

    And that is hardly a comprehensive list either.

    “If, as I am readily able to demonstrate, it is a fact that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence is an ancient-origin, superstitious religious establishment, then all who have been deceived into believing otherwise are absolutely and totally excused because of having been ignorant of the fact that there is no limit to the excuse of ignorance.”

    Except the facts are that you can’t readily demonstrate a goddamn thing, Brian.

    The origin of secular legal traditions is innately, inherently and historically not based in religion. Secular legal systems formed as an alternative parallel structure to ecclesiastical or canon laws. Civil legal systems can trace their direct lineage back to the Code of Justinian – the basis of Roman civil law. Their laws based solely upon codifications, these systems traditionally used inquisitorial modes of dispute resolution where judges served as both adjudicative authority and primary developers of cases and discoverers of evidence – a system with obvious potential for abuse. The Anglo-American tradition of common law is based upon using case law – precedent – as a guide to applying laws to decisions in a consistent manner. By contrast to civil systems, the common law operates differently in regard to dispute resolution with the judge sitting as a neutral third party while the prosecution and defense bars make their respective cases – a format that is less prone to abuse than the inquisitorial mode of dispute resolution for obvious reasons. Namely that it removes potential conflict of interests for the judge by making him a neutral party and it insures that both sides of the dispute get an equal hearing as both the prosecution at bar and the defense at bar get to present their full cases and supporting evidence. Because this better system recognizes the adverse relationship and interests of prosecution and defense, it is called an adversarial system. Again, the adversity is inherent in the dispute, not in the system to adjudicate the dispute.

    The ignorance here is yours and it is purposeful ignorance. You need to propagate this lie about the origin and history of laws and other lies about the origins of law to make your circular logic sound palatable. You are simply lying and ignorant about the history of law.

    Religion is not a replacement for legal dispute resolution in the adversarial mode. Religion starts conflicts because the majority of religions are divisive in nature: either you’re “special/chosen” and “in the club” or it’s fair game to kill you or to attempt forced conversion.

    In contrast, no war was ever started because people had the option to peacefully settle the matter of a dispute in a court of law.

    The only thing you keep demonstrating Brian is that you have no defense for your postulate that doesn’t resort to religious thinking – which would make you a theocrat on par with any Islamic or Christian fundamentalist extremist, faulty and fallacious logic, false equivalences, lies and obfuscation.

    If you want to use religion as your rationale for doing away with legal dispute resolution and the function of the courts?

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Keep your religion off of the Constitution.

    Unfounded and unproven beliefs have no proof and are prime facie irrational.

    Secular laws are the realm of reason and proof. Courts and the adversarial process including discovery are methods to ascertain the truth before applying appropriate law to render a solution to a dispute in question – a final adjudication. If you don’t like that and it conflicts with your personal vendetta against legal systems?

    Too bad.

    You still haven’t proven that the criticisms of your postulate – namely that it is inherently destructive to society because removing the function of courts would encourage tyranny of the strong over the weak and anarchy – are not valid criticisms. This is an argument you cannot win no matter how many time you try to misdirect your way out of the logic and historical facts that stand against your assertion.

    Because at its core, your assertion is illogical crap with no valid proof whatsoever to back it up.

    Logic and proof are King.

    I have no issue with putting you in checkmate every time you want to spout your antisocial propaganda.

  84. I find that the Religion of the Adversarial Principle is demonstrably responsible for every possible war and every possible form of child abuse.

    I find that the Religion of the Adversarial Principle is the basis of the Church of Evil in the Form of the Cult of the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence.

    And I have studied the core methods of the Church of Evil, the methods strongly resemble the methods deacribed by Joe Girard, with Stanley H. Brown, in, “How to Sell Anything to Anybody, and, with Robert L Shook, “How to Close Every Sale”; with the sole possible exception that I find that Joe Girard was actually capable of being honest with self and others.

    From Johann Christoph Arnold, “Why Forgive?” copyright (c) 2000 by the Plough Publishing House of The Bruderhof Foundation, from page 7, “Believe in Miracles” (what follows is a book review):

    The chapter begins with a quote:

    “Hope for a great sea-change
    On the far side of revenge.
    Believe that a further shore
    is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells.
    –Seamus Heaney”

    “Gordon Wilson held his daughter’s hand as they lay trapped beneath a mountain of rubble. It was 1987, and he and Marie had been attending a peaceful memorial service in Enniskillen, Norther Ireland, when a terrorist bomb went off. By the end of the day, Marie and nine other civilians were dead, and sixty-three had been hospitalized for injuries.

    Amazingly Gordon refused to retaliate, saying that angry words could neither restore his daughter nor bring peace to Belfast. Only hours after the bombing, he told BBC reporters:

    ‘I have lost my daughter and we shall miss her. But I bear no ill will, I bear no grudge…That will not bring her back…Don’t ask me, please, for a purpose…I don’t have an answer. But I know there has to be a plan. If I didn’t think that, I would commit suicide. It’s part of a greater plan… and we shall meet again.’

    During the time, evidently from around 1:15 pm to 1:55 pm, on March 15, 1960, while my body was on the bottom of the Carleton College swimming pool, I found myself (not my body, which is not me) as though in the presence of all the power there ever be, in what might appropriately be named the eighth heaven, the one from which the previously known “seven heavens” and all else “below” were made. The Fundamental Error of Social Reality is as though of a mistake made within that eighth heaven, before the rest of existence was formed. I know that the Prophet Mohammad really did experience the Night Journey and the Night Ascension.

    I comment on this blawg, fully recognizing that much of what I write may be deemed absurdly psychotic by some people, and I welcome learning of their views as they write them in comments. I also welcome every other comment regarding my posted comments.

    Among my books is one by Carolyn Miller, Ph.D., “Creating Miracles: Understanding the Experience of Divine Intervention,” H J Kramer Inc, Tiburon, California, 1995.

    The publishers include the following note on the page facing the first page of the Contents:

    “To Our Readers

    The books we publish
    are our contribution to
    an emerging world based on
    cooperation rather than competition,
    on affirmation of the human spirit rather
    than on self-doubt, and on the certainty
    that all humanity is connected.
    Our goal is to touch as many
    lives as possible with a
    message of hope for
    a better world.

    Hal and Linda Kramer, Publishers”

    From page xi of said book,

    “What is the nature of the invitation that elicits divine intervention? My research suggests that it is a shift in consciousness into a peaceful, fearless, unconditionally loving state of mind in which one follows intuitive promptings without question.”

    In the world in which I actually live, I experience what is, to me, spiritual, as vividly more real than the physical world, and the physical world as vividly more real than the world of human society which it appears to me as though very many people regard as the only real world. To such extent as a person regards the physical world as more real than the spiritual and/or the world of human society as more real than the physical world, I do not share life experiences as such people may.

    Having been in what I guess may be told in English words as in the immediate presence of Almighty God, my body medically dead, and having been allowed to return with unbreakable faith in Almighty God, by what effort can anyone believe it possible that any sort of threat can ever reach my faith in the creative process of existence.

    I have been commenting here with the possibility in mind that it might be possible for me to learn something of the beliefs of the people of the “top tier” of contemporary society, and why “top tier” people, such as perhaps Bernie Madoff, are as though willing to destroy everyone else in the vain hope of keeping their illusory “top tier” notions intact.

    Tomorrow, I will be telephoning AFSCME, the better to learn when I can begin reporting my being a Union member.

    Union Solidarity Forever!

  85. “I find that the Religion of the Adversarial Principle is demonstrably responsible for every possible war and every possible form of child abuse.”

    You’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.

    “I comment on this blawg, fully recognizing that much of what I write may be deemed absurdly psychotic by some people, and I welcome learning of their views as they write them in comments. I also welcome every other comment regarding my posted comments.”

    There’s no “may” to it, sport.

    “I have been commenting here with the possibility in mind that it might be possible for me to learn something of the beliefs of the people of the “top tier” of contemporary society, and why “top tier” people, such as perhaps Bernie Madoff, are as though willing to destroy everyone else in the vain hope of keeping their illusory “top tier” notions intact.”

    No you haven’t. You’re a troll propagating an antisocial and irresponsible meme because you have a personal vendetta against the legal system. And you love false equivalences too. Bernie Madoff? Awwww. That’s so cute. Sorry, but if that’s what you mean by “top tier” then you are also in the wrong place. To a one, every regular poster here thinks Madoff is a criminal and got what’s coming to him. Because he’s a criminal. The “top tier” you find here – present company excluded – are in the top tier of intelligent critical thinkers but they come from all walks of life and range of socio-economic brackets.

    You still haven’t defended the valid logical criticisms of your postulate.

    Ergo, your sanity aside, your idea is still proven to be antisocial destructive crap.

  86. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 27, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    You still haven’t defended the valid logical criticisms of your postulate.

    #########################################

    In the logic system ruled by the Adversarial Principle, which I am guessing is the only logic system you, BiL, know, my work simply vanishes identically for the simple reason that my work is of an alternative logic system in which the logic system you seem to be commanding me to use is on in which my work identically vanishes because of the self-contradictory nature of the logic system which I am guessing you are using and this is so because I found the self-contradictory nature of any and every logic system which is based on the self-contradiction of the Adversarial Principle.

    It has long been perfectly obvious to me, that, within your foundationally defective self-contradictory Adversarial-Principle based logic system my work vanishes because I did all of my work entirely outside what I find to be your logic system.

    It is impossible to demonstrate an error by using a system of logic which erroneously defines the error as not error.

    Is anyone really as apparently obtusely deceived as to comment as I find you to be commenting?

    Deception deceives people into believing deception is not deception, else deception would be unable to deceive.

  87. Not a chance since you make up history and “facts” to suit your faulty premises which you “defend” with fallacious logic, evasion and obfuscation.

    Real science is based on empirical facts, valid logic and verifiable testable hypothesis. Other than providing a falsifiable hypothesis? You have met none of the other criteria.

    There are a couple of things you manifestly haven’t learned.

    Some people are going to demand proof because they are bullshit resistant and aren’t simply willing to take you at your word because you strap some alphabet soup on to the end of your name. Those same kinds of people also require logic that is valid. Those kinds of people are known as critical thinkers. Critical thinking is a requisite skill for both law and science.

    You have tried to peddle your bullshit in a forum replete with such critical thinkers.

    Too bad for you.

  88. Oooo.

    More “I know you are but what am I”.

    That’s cute.

    When you’re four.

    Come on now.

    Compare yourself to Galileo again.

    That too never ceases to be funny.

  89. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 27, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Null hypothesis: One or more mistakes actually made could have been avoided through some achievable neurological process such that the mistake made, upon having been avoided, never happened.

    Alternate hypothesis (dichotomous with respect to the null hypothesis): No mistake actually made could have been avoided through some achievable process such that the mistake made was not avoided because it was actually unavoidable.

    To validate the null hypothesis, and thereby invalidate the alternate hypothesis, simply do as the Adversarial Principle allows, describe a mistake actually made and describe the actually achievable process through which the mistake made could actually have been avoided, such that the mistake actually made was not actually made.

    Validate my null hypothesis, and I will allow that I do not understand the work I claim to have accomplished.

    You, BiL, have done me one real favor. You are demonstrating to me why defendants in court cases when the opposing attorney act and thinks as you apparently act and think sometimes go and get a piece and give an attorney who acts and thinks as you do acess to eternal peace.

    So, you have given me useful insight into why, after our son and daughter were killed when their car exploded, James O. Ebbeson, Esq. deemed it wise and proper to work to financially destroy my family.

    Unlike those who retaliate, James O. Ebbeson was safe from me because I do not retaliate regardless of harm done to me.

    I wonder why, with all your (hostile?) comments sent my way, you persist in the foolish belief that I will ever deem your beliefs about the adversarial system other than a tragic trauma response on your part.

    Every time you toss more of “your prejudice” my way, I learn a little more about the trauma I find has plausibly taken partial control of your life.

  90. The burden of proof rests with you, the one who posits the theory, to prove your theory valid.

    I’ve proven what you say is both formally illogical and antisocial nonsense based on made up history and no valid proof whatsoever.

    You’ve stipulated you are operating out of vendetta.

    I don’t have to do anything other than keep pointing out the flaws in your assertion and proof (or lack thereof) to accomplish my goal.

  91. The conundrum of having sufficiently internalized time-corrupted learning to such extent that it becomes an apparent personal and social asset is the manner in which it deceives those who sufficiently internalize it into seemingly nearly perfect oblivion with respect to the nature and function of deception as process?

    To such extent as I am operating out of “vendetta,” I am operating out of vendetta because the vendetta out of which I am operating is totally out-side me and my life?

    Deception deceives those it deceives, and deceives not those it deceives not?

    I am operating outside of vendetta?

    I observe any claim to the effect that I retaliate in any form to be a dishonest and deceptive claim?

    I am being as though “spoon fed” all anyone could ever hope to learn about how really good and decent people can be deceived into believing that atrocity is good?

    I am being as though “spoon fed” all anyone could ever hope to understand about how indoctrination of the Adversarial Principle makes those so indoctrinated their own adversaries?

    I am being given a clear view of the infant-child discontinuity and its proclivity to wreak havoc in the lives of those who survive the discontinuity-trauma into adulthood?

  92. What you are is dishonest.

    “So, you have given me useful insight into why, after our son and daughter were killed when their car exploded, James O. Ebbeson, Esq. deemed it wise and proper to work to financially destroy my family.

    Unlike those who retaliate, James O. Ebbeson was safe from me because I do not retaliate regardless of harm done to me.”

    You may not be retaliating directly against him, but your postulate is hostile to his profession. Your detrimental statements about the legal system are a projection of your animus towards this James O. Ebbeson person. The problem is that your clearly misplaced hatred of the legal system leads you to attempt to propagate an even bigger lie – that society would be better off without courts (i.e. legal dispute resolution in the adversarial mode).

    You’re also big on projecting and projection as the above demonstrates. In addition, because you allegedly suffered abuse as a child, you try to project that upon others and then accuse them of projecting that like hurt back on you if they disagree with your ridiculous idea. The fault with that when you make those claims about me or others is simply this fact: I was never abused as a child.

    The liar and the projector here are you, Brian. You lie to yourself about being vengeful. Your postulate and statement show you a most certainly trying to take your vengeance against one man out upon a necessary but imperfect social system – the courts and their role in law. You lie to yourself about what motivates others to make yourself, I don’t know, feel better about yourself? Quite frankly, I don’t care why you lie to yourself, but lying you are and to others as well.

    What I do care about is that you lie to others when you make your claims that legal dispute resolution in the adversarial mode is bad for society and that you cannot and have not disproven the logically valid criticism of your antisocial postulate.

    Your postulate is a Big Lie. The success in propaganda of the Big Lie rest upon unchallenged repetition. As long as you repeat your lie here, it will be challenged.

  93. My work is only “hostile” to the error regarding mistakes which is terribly corrupting the profession of law?

    I have mentioned the late Sidney M. Perlstadt, Esq., the husband of the late Bessie Lendrum with whom I worked for many years at Cook County Chilren’s Hospital? The concerns which are associatred with my biophysics-grounded inquiry into the nature of mistakes and the effects of unpreventable (while they remain unpreventable) mistakes stems from strong concerns Sidney M. Perlstadt shared with me, starting circa 1965 and extending into the late 1980s?

    The issues on which I focus my research efforts are those which Mr. Sidney M. Perlsadt told me about which were the most troubling to him in his professional work as a partner in the Sonnenschein, et. al. Law firm in Chicago? I was given the concerns of my research, as appurtenant to Law, by an Attorney-at Law, and did not concoct them of my (non-existent) anti-social value system; as such anti-social value system absolutely does exist and has never existed?

    From C. G. Jung, “The Undiscovered Self,” translated from the German by R. F. C. Hull, Little, Brown and Co., 1958, page 5:

    “Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotioanality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason’s having any effect ceases and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies. That is to say, a sort of collective possession results which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic. In this state, all those elements whose existence is merely tolerated as asocial under the rule of reason come to the top. Such individuals are by no means rare curiosities to be met only in prisons and insane asylums. For every manifest case of insanity there are, in my estimation, at least ten latent cases who seldom get to the point of breaking out openly but whose views and behavior, for all their appearance of normality, are influenced by unconsciously morbid and perverse factors. There are, of course, no medical statistics on the frequency of latent psychoses — for understandable reasons. But even if their number should amount to less than ten times that of the manifest psychoses and of manifest criminality, the relatively small percentage of the population figures they represent is more than compensated for by the peculiar dangerousness of these people. Their mental state is that of “collective possession” they are the adapted ones and consequently they feel quite at home in it. They know from their own experience the language of these conditions and they know how to handle them. Their chimerical ideas, upborne by fanatical resentment, appeal to the collective irrationality and find fruitful soil there, for they express all those motives and resentments which lurk in more normal people under the cloak of reason and insight. They are, therefore, despite their small number in comparison with the population as a whole, dangerous as sources of infection precisely because the so-called normal person possesses only a limited degree of self-knowledge.

    Most people confuse “self-knowledge” with knowledge of their conscious ego personalities. Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them. in this respect the psyche behaves like the body with its physiological and anatomical structure, of which the average person knows very little too. Although he lives in it and with it, most of it is totally unknown to the layman, and special scientific knowledge is needed to acquaint consciousness with what is known of the body, not to speak of all that is not known, which also exists.”

    Do you, BiL, have “The Undiscovered Self” as among the books close at hand and referred to as needed? Do you have Heinz Kohut, “Analysis of the Self,” and “How Does Analysis Cure,” and have you studied them diligently and critically? Have you studied, critically, the field of object-relations, such as in the work of W. R. D. Fairbairn?

    Or, is it possible that you are intent on proving beyond rational doubt that you are among those described by Jung, people who have latent psychosis which they use to dominate others?

    Sad to say, I find that you are weeding out, for me, virtually every practical alternative to the latent-psychosis, socially-very-well-adapted personality model Jung described with formidably terrible accuracy over fifty years ago?

    I have perused my library of case-study literature without finding any case even remotely similar to your overt conduct which hints at anything other than a form of innocent-child-socialization trauma of such nature as to have resulted in the sort of latent psychosis described by Jung?

    Because I observe that you refute every sort of “statement” I make which has any content posing a challenge to your world view, I have chosen to post all my comments with question marks at the end of every sentence I write? That way, I a neither claiming anything whatsoever?

    You will respond to this in one way if a latent psychosis resulted from socialization trauma when you were a small child and you will respond quite differently if you have within you no such latent psychosis? If your childhood experiences generated such a latent psychosis, you will tend to be unaware of it, because of its being latent?

    What will your response be? No response is also a response?

  94. The answer is simple, troll.

    I am quite self-aware, have no latent psychosis nor childhood trauma.

    And none of what you said is a cogent defense of your garbage idea.

    Just an attack on me, Mr. I Don’t Confront People.

    And a rather weak half-assed attack at that.

    If you should have figured out anything by now, it’s that this tactic makes me laugh.

    Again, your postulate about the a negative value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Defend your postulate from the above criticism.

    As to your theories about me? Again, a load of shit. If it makes you feel better to project your own child abuse upon others, be my guest, but the truth of the matter in my case is I had a perfectly happy childhood free from abuse and trauma.

    I’ve already told you my motive in exposing your nonsense.

    “I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius

    So far the truth is that you lie, make up history, make up definitions to words, obfuscate, evade, have no proof, rely upon religious based wishful thinking, and make multiple formal logic errors like circular logic, composition errors and false equivalences.

    And if you think you’re just going to “wear me down” with your perpetual string of crap and evasion?

    You’re a fool in addition to being a liar.

    I love to argue. Truly, it’s a gift. I live to expose lies. Truly, that is my natural disposition and motivation. You provide the opportunity to do both, windbag.

    So let’s have that non-existent proof you say “isn’t ready yet” or that “we’re not smart enough to understand”.

    I love a good laugh.

    Especially at the expense of a propaganda troll.

  95. Once in a while, a sleep-walking person wakes up in the midst of a sleep-walking episode?

    The joke is, have no intention of wearing you down?

    I find that I am winding you up?

    I find that you are powerless to give me more and more data regarding plausible socialization-induced-trauma forms of latent psychosis?

    For as long as you continue to improve my data collection effort, I will continue to facilitate your giving me ever more data, not all of which is redundant?

    One indicator of latent psychosis is a voracious appetite for countertransferences?

    You seem to me to be wolfing down countertransferences like a starving hyena might? I don’t know? Too soon for me to tell?

  96. Is there a bit bucket somewhere? Bits or binits sometimes seem to vanish?

    “The joke is, I have no intention of wearing you down?”

  97. “I find that you are powerless to give me more and more data regarding plausible socialization-induced-trauma forms of latent psychosis?”

    is better put

    “I find that you are powerless to avoid giving me more and more data regarding plausible socialization-induced-trauma forms of latent psychosis?”

    When I make a mistake and recognize it, I correct it and make amends as best I can?

    Sorry?

  98. And I have no intention of stopping in exposing the lies, illogic and antisocial damaging nature of what you suggest. So as long as you spout your bullshit without a defense? Well, a valid defense anyway, not your usual evasion and crap like “it’s not ready”, “it’s unethical to defend my postulate” or “you just wouldn’t understand”? I’m going to keep tearing down every thing you say.

    As to winding me up? That is funny. Actually, I find pointing out that you’re a liar propagating destructive memes out of a professed and demonstrable sense of vendetta both amusing and relaxing. I argue for sport, sport.

    Now . . .

    Your postulate about the a negative value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Defend your postulate from the above criticism.

    If you cannot, then the criticism is valid and your idea that doing away with dispute resolution in the adversarial mode is good for civilization is proven once again to be a load of antisocial propagandist crap. Refusing to, trying to obfuscate or attempting to evade or otherwise change the subject will constitute a stipulation that you cannot defend your postulate.

    Which as a matter of logic and proof, you can’t.

    I look forward to seeing how you try to avoid defending your idea this time, since you’ve about run out of tactics and have started to repeat yourself.

    Enjoy!

    I know I will.

  99. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    ######################################

    As I always use personal self-help to resolve disputes foisted upon me and as I never use adversarial ways to resolve such disputes, not even in this comedy we are scripting without any resultant prior script, I merely affirm your view as being in contrast with my view when such contrast appears to me to exist, and lo and behold, you seemingly misinterpret every such affirmation on my part as yet another dispute of whatever?

    The difficulty your despotic method contains, the one I keep finding you sharing more about with me, is of the absurdity sometimes named “theory of mind”?

    As I never use adversarial ways in the presence of dispute and as I always use self-help methodologies, any representation that the one and only alternative to “adversarial due process” is
    self-help adversarial dispute resolution is rendered an absolute falsehood by the mere fact of my not having an adversarial relationship, whether of dispute or else, with you?

    It is as though you know me as well as, or better, than you know yourself; an absurd notion if ever there were one?

  100. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., February 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    As I never use adversarial ways in the presence of dispute and as I always use self-help methodologies, any representation that the one and only alternative to “adversarial due process” is
    self-help adversarial dispute resolution is rendered an absolute falsehood by the mere fact of my not having an adversarial relationship, whether of dispute or else, with you?

    Was written, if it gets through correctly this time:

    As I never use adversarial ways in the presence of dispute and as I always use self-help methodologies, any representation that the one and only alternative to “adversarial due process” is
    rendered an absolute falsehood by the mere fact of my not having an adversarial relationship, whether of dispute or else, with you?

    Mistakes happen. We live a ways out in the country, and a cellular modem is our only useful Internet access, and It is coming to my mind that there are more packet errors at some times than at others, and words may be lost or repeated, depending on the damaged-packet repair process?

  101. Again, you have resorted to logical fallacy.

    The fallacy in question is the fallacy of composition – arguing from one to all.

    Also . . .

    Demonstrated ignorance of valid statistical methods.

    You are not a sufficient baseline for evaluating the behavior of 6.8 billion people.

    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

    Wrong answer.

    Try again without the logical deficiencies and poor understanding of statistics as they properly apply to science.

  102. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 28, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Someone once commented to me, in effect, “God has a sense of humor. God played a joke on himself. God won’t do that again.”?

    Are you, perchance, the joke God played on himself?

  103. Awwwwww.

    An attack from Mr. Passive-Aggressive.

    That’s just adorable.

    Now, enough about your projection of your life on to me. Or me at all for that matter. However, speaking of jokes, let’s talk about your idea.

    Your postulate about the a negative value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Defend your postulate from the above criticism.

    If you cannot, then the criticism is valid and your idea that doing away with dispute resolution in the adversarial mode is good for civilization is proven once again to be a load of antisocial propagandist crap. Refusing to, trying to obfuscate or attempting to evade or otherwise change the subject will constitute a stipulation that you cannot defend your postulate.

    Which as a matter of logic and proof, you can’t.

    Please try to come up with something new as an evasion.

    Your lack of creativity does not speak well for any defense you might make should you actually come anywhere near a logically valid cogent defense of your idea.

  104. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    It is manifestly obvious and apparent to me that there is nothing I can do to defend my work in terms of your belief system, for the simple reason that your belief system categorically excludes my life and work as ever being possible, which is the reason I have tapped key after key to map the boundaries of your belief? C. G. Jung rather accurately observed how folks similar to you in using psychological defenses are functionally incapable of tolerating the sort of work I do? I never made the slightest effort to convince you regarding my work for you are, in The Natural Step sense, the highest-hanging fruit I have ever come across. The Natural Step method is to pick the low-hanging fruit?

    Because it is people who have your form of personality structure, though not you as an individual person, who I have, during my life, experiences as among the most helpful of people when getting their way and the most temperamentally destructive when crossed, and as it appears to me that you interpret my work as crossing you, I have taken a while to study people who are nice when other people reciprocate as wanted and wrothful otherwise?

    The difficulty the “top tier” people have is being massively outnumbered by people below the top tier? The top tier people maintain their socioeconomic status, not by the value they contribute to society, but by freaking out those beneath then in socioeconomic status, doing so by effectively controlling the economy and having the power to destroy the economy to whatever extent may be required to keep their inferiors in their inferior place?

    I am of the “below untouchable” caste, if one models the United States population according to social caste model. Only, that is what allows me to do the work I am doing?

    Awwwwww.

    An attack from Mr. Passive-Aggressive.

    Diversion, such as that silly distortion of fact works with most people most of the time? It will never work with me?

    That’s just adorable.

    Thank you?

    Now, enough about your projection of your life on to me. Or me at all for that matter. However, speaking of jokes, let’s talk about your idea.

    I have never postulated about any negative value of legal dispute resolution; I have put forth my observation, made during some 25 years of working around children, that the finding of neurologist Robert Scaer, regarding trauma is apparently biophysically accurate? Dr Scaer wrote two books, one with a second edition, regarding his trauma research?

    Your postulate about the a negative value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    I do not offer any postulate, though I allow that your belief system rules out your being able to understand this? I understand that you have a Juris Doctor degree and presume you have some sort of undergraduate degree, only that remains a mystery to me?

    You seem, from your writings, to have some familiarity with the ways of “normal science” as simple extensions of settled work, and you seem, to me, to be utterly clueless as to the massive contrast between the ways of normal science and the possibly-massive-paradigm-shift science I am doing? That is reasonably to be expected, particularly as the methods I use are ones I have needed to invent/design/build/test along the way because the sort of science research I do is almost perfectly without precedent in the observable annals of science?

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny?

    I began with the view you appear to espouse and came upon some subtle forms of internal contradiction within said view, and these subtle forms of internal contradiction led me along the path my work has taken and continues to take?

    Defend your postulate from the above criticism.

    Your view of science is irrelevant to the work I have done and am doing?

    If you cannot, then the criticism is valid and your idea that doing away with dispute resolution in the adversarial mode is good for civilization is proven once again to be a load of antisocial propagandist crap. Refusing to, trying to obfuscate or attempting to evade or otherwise change the subject will constitute a stipulation that you cannot defend your postulate.

    Your exercise of the fallacy of assuming the consequent often appears to me to be of the form of your believing that I have a postulate, and it is this error on your part which may be the core of your incapacity to understand, in any way I note as being meaningful, how what I am doing is not at all defending a postulate but promoting the rejection of a null hypothesis which contains within it the postulate for which I seek refutation?

    The concern I find you raising is best addressed in Imre Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations, and I did not find my copy anywhere out in the open, so ordered one from Amazon a few moments ago? I do have immediate access to Karl Popper, “The Poverty of Historicism,” “Unended Quest,” “The Logic of Scientific Discovery,” “The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1,” The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol 2,” and “Conjectures and Refutations,” W. H. Werkmeister, “A Philosophy of Science,” and Paul Feyerabend, “Against Method.” Most of the rest of my philosophy of science library is in storage because we had to move from a very adequate house, in terms of my work, to a little house with nowhere the space arrangement necessary for my having full access to my library? After Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations, my new, not yet shipped copy, arrives, I will be better able to demonstrate with established philosophy of science references why what I believe you are asking is perfectly valid within normal science and utterly absurd within the work I am doing?

    What I am doing and how I am doing it is rather well described in the above-mentioned Popper books and in the work of Thomas Kuhn? If you do not have the background to understand my work and insist on understanding my work without your first acquiring the necessary background, it is only natural that you will plausibly reject my work because you find it not intelligible?

    Which as a matter of logic and proof, you can’t.

    Please try to come up with something new as an evasion.

    Your lack of creativity does not speak well for any defense you might make should you actually come anywhere near a logically valid cogent defense of your idea.

    Or, is it your lack of working experience with the methods of profound paradigm shift science methodologies?

    Methinks you are insisting that I defend my work using the prior notions of science of which my work is itself the refutation? It is for this reason, whether you can grasp it or not, that I have needed to use the null hypothesis refutation method, with a dichotomous alternate hypothesis, such that refutation of the null hypothesis establishes the alternate hypothesis?

    If any attorney ever attempted to use the methodology I am using in a court of law, I can almost perfectly guarantee the attorney would lose the case with catastrophic efficiency and effectiveness?

    I have never, ever heard a hint of any instance of profound-paradigm-shift-science ever having any trace of a chance to other than disastrously fail in any and every adversarial test?

    As a plausible prerequisite for your having actual competence to challenge my methods, I need a verifiable descriptor of such of your work for your science Ph.D. degree and demonstration of your having accomplished and defended work of plausibly very significant paradigm shift form? If you cannot verifiably demonstrate, as I have made abundantly verifiable, that you have done sufficiently original scientific research in a major research university, with unanimous committee approval, I am going to suspect that you are, for whatever personal purpose, inflating your sense of science research competence unduly?

    Within professional engineering, your method of being anonymous while critiquing the work of a Registered Professional Engineer is so unethical and dishonest as to be criminal in both form and content?

  105. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., February 28, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    was:

    as I have made abundantly verifiable,

    may be better as:

    as I have made abundantly verifiable regarding my work,

  106. “It is manifestly obvious and apparent to me that there is nothing I can do to defend my work in terms of your belief system, for the simple reason that your belief system categorically excludes my life and work as ever being possible, which is the reason I have tapped key after key to map the boundaries of your belief”

    That would be because my belief is in logic and proof.

    As to my beliefs being irrelevant to science?

    The scientific method is disagreeing with you also.

    To qualify as scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. These specific principles include formal logic. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, the scientific method is “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

    Your logic is demonstrably and repeatedly full of fallacies.
    Your observations are inconsistent with history and the realities of baseline human psychology.
    Your statistical methods are invalid in their application of sample spaces.
    You refuse to submit your testing for verification.

    In short, by definition, your “science” is crap.

    And you can talk “paradigm shift” all you want to, sport. Because despite what you think of yourself? You’re not an Einstein. Whether you think my version of science is relevant or not is not the question. Whether your “science” can withstand critical scrutiny is the question. It has not and can not. If your work in unintelligible, it is because it is based upon a faulty premise, faulty logic and no sufficient evidence.

    You again mistake being the object of address with being the object of message.

    So defend your work or don’t. Your choice. Until you do? I’m going to keep attacking it for the illogical, antisocial nonsense that it is. If this is not to your satisfaction?

    Too bad.

    You should have tried to sell you poison in a different forum if you didn’t want it challenged.

  107. Oh, and if I’ve committed a crime by challenging your work?

    Press charges.

    With proper subpoena powers, my identity would be easy enough to ascertain.

    I’ll be sitting over here waiting to hear the laughter of attorneys and prosecutors at your ridiculous requests.

  108. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Oh, and if I’ve committed a crime by challenging your work?

    I guess you simply do not notice unfamiliar details? Of course, you have not committed any crime in your (foolish nonsensical?) normal science notions of the work I have done and continue to do? For your silliness to be a crime, you would have to be capable and competent to understand my work well enough to have a clue as to what its significance and meaning may actually be? It would be of the nature of a crime, as I understand such laws as pertain in Wisconsin to professional engineers and professional engineering, only, I have not one whit of actual evidence that you have ever been even slightly capable of actually earning a B.S. (your choice of meaning?) degree in engineering, and I further have no evidence of your having any capacity whatsoever to really earn a bioengineerng Ph.D. from any real university?

    The views I find you espousing pose terrible danger to the engineering profession and to professional engineers, as was terribly demonstrated when those Morton Thiokol engineers were ordered by management to “think management, not engineering,” caved in to keep their jobs, and that teacher lost her teaching job by losing her life when the booster rocket O-rings failed much as the engineers thought they could before they became unethical engineers by command of management?

    I gave a talk some years ago at the Fox River Valley Chapter of the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers, “Engineering Respect for Engineers”? Engineers continue to encounter terrible disrespect from people who are not competent in engineering, and I find you making an effort to discredit me as an engineer and my work in engineering?

    Because of the sort of disrespect I have encountered from the law profession with respect to professional engineering and professional engineers, I have been collecting data regarding the way top tier people tend to hold in contempt those people who actually work in a profession the laws for which are intelligible to the members of the profession? Ask me to explain Hook’s Law or the Biot-Savart law, and allow me to gather my thoughts if it has been a while since I used them, and I will be able to explain the laws relevant to engineering in any useful amount of detail, and no law within engineering contradicts any other law unless there is something more to learn about scientific principles, and, once the scientific principles are learned, no engineering law will contradict any other engineering law? Kirchoff’s current law cannot contradict Kirchoff’s voltage law because those two laws are functionally orthogonal?

    Press charges.

    Because I find, based on your comments about my comments on this blawg, you to be perfectly incapable of now being a Registered Professional Engineer, there is no basis for my pressing charges? Absolute Incompetence is not a crime?

    With proper subpoena powers, my identity would be easy enough to ascertain.

    I’ll be sitting over here waiting to hear the laughter of attorneys and prosecutors at your ridiculous requests.

    I have been making no ridiculous requests? Because of your oft-evinced proclivity for playing entrapment games, if that be what they are, I am continuing to only ask questions through ending every sentence with a question mark, given that, if a sentence inadvertently happens in one of my comments through an editing or binit bucket error, all of my comments regarding any and all of your comments are implicitly questions all the way back to my first such comment? If the law can be functionally ex-post-facto while defining itself by law otherwise, and if this is a legal-focus blawg, then I assert my right to ex-post-facto declare everything I have ever written in posted comment form here as being of the form of questions and never, not ever, therefore, have I ever stipulated anything here?

    Truthfulness stands the test of time?

  109. I made a video tape of that talk, “Engineering Respect for Engineers, and, once I have the video editing system properly set up (a 2 terrabyte drive should be here this week) and I have been able t o complete the task, I plan to put that talk, in as large segments as is possible, on YouTube?

    The difficulty with sincere confabulation (which is not a form of lying as I understand biophysics) is that it eventually exposes itself for what it is?

    Not being your vassal, BiL, I work at the pace that makes viable, intelligent sense to me, and am very much immune to your silly shenanigans?

  110. Awwww.

    The incompetent would be lawyer and scientist called me an incompetent engineer.

    That’s adorable.

    Again, “I know you are but what am I is not a defense to your your ‘work'”. Nor is “it’s not ready yet”. You’ve tried those excuses before among others and they didn’t work then and they don’t work now.

    As to entrapment? Well if asking you to prove your postulate without resorting to logical fallacies, lies about history and making up meanings to terms and terms themselves, religious thinking, false equivalence and appeals to your inappropriate authority makes you feel trapped, Brian, it might be because you can’t defend your postulate in any logical and proof-backed way. You’ll be asked to prove your theory under peer review too, sport. If you can’t do it now, the dollars to donuts you won’t be able to do it then. My money is you won’t be able to do it ever as your postulate is fundamentally logically flawed – as demonstrated time and again. Whether or not you think it has been proven wrong is irrelevant.

    Like I said, I don’t give a damn what you think about me personally. “I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius. And the truth is that your indefensible postulate is antisocial destructive nonsense that invites tyranny and anarchy.

    Quit whining and prove me wrong. If I’m incompetent, that should be an easy task, sport. Remember! You must offer valid proof and sound logic for your defense to be acceptable.

    Otherwise, you’re still just blowing smoke, pardner.

  111. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 28, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Awwww.

    The incompetent would be lawyer and scientist called me an incompetent engineer.

    Pity that you do not recognize that I merely raised the question of your being competent in terms of actually being a Professional Engineer who is licensed as a Professional Engineer by one or more of the states of the United States of America, and you have not furnished your Professional Engineer registration number and State in which you hold registration? Note that the prior sentence ends with a question mark and therefore is, by definition, a question? I do not pretend to be a lawyer and am not a member of any State Bar Association, nor do I regard myself as being even slightly qualified to be a member of the Bar? There is a slight irony, alas, with respect to the Bar, for I find I am effectively barred from fully understanding the Law, in the sense of understanding the Laws of Engineering because I can find all Laws I need for proper engineering with scarcely any trouble (A Gaggle of them is found in Hick’s?) and cannot possible accomplish that with regard to the laws of the Adversarial System? As an engineer, I do not command lawyers to know or understand engineering laws?

    There is what I subjectively experience as an unspeakably dastardly asymmetry? In November of 2007, I showed some posters on which I printed some of my research findngs, and asked Mark Jinkins, of the Pinkert Law Firm in Sturgeon Bay to read them, and, when he had finished looking at them, I summarized my personal understanding of the total significance of the posters by saying, “I understand that ignorance of the law is an excuse.”? I continue to find that, however, Mark Jinkins spoke the standard Legal Maxim mantra, by saying, “No. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”?

    So, I asked Mark how many laws there are, he said, “I don’t know,” and I asked him if it is reasonable to expect a person to do what is impossible and he said, “I don’t know,” and I asked him if it is decent to require a person to do what is impossible and punish the person for the inescapable failure, and Mark said, “I don’t know,” and then I asked Mark, “What is the law,” and Mark Jinkins, Esq, Member of the Wisconsin Bar Association, said, “I don’t know.”?

    Thus, if I ask an attorney at law what the law is, so that I can, in accord with conscience, never be in violation of any law, the attorney cannot do, with respect to Adversarial Laws what I can easily do with respect to engineering laws?

    The entrapment comes because the Lawyers can concoct all the laws they can devise, without real concern whether anyone can actually avoid violating them, and such is never true in the laws of engineering. It would not pose a serious problem for me in my life, except that the Law Profession requires that I not violate their law while making it impossible for me to, in accord with conscience be able to avoid violations?

    That, to me, is the ultimate extreme maximum upper limit of evil, of which methinks no surpassing can ever be possible?

    Were the Law Profession honest as is the Engineering Profession, the Law Profession would not make impossible rules and punish some of those who demonstrate that the Law Profession makes impossible rules as is common law practice in my experience.

    That’s adorable.

    It is adorable to abuse people?

    Again, “I know you are but what am I is not a defense to your your ‘work’”. Nor is “it’s not ready yet”. You’ve tried those excuses before among others and they didn’t work then and they don’t work now.

    As to entrapment? Well if asking you to prove your postulate without resorting to logical fallacies, lies about history and making up meanings to terms and terms themselves, religious thinking, false equivalence and appeals to your inappropriate authority makes you feel trapped, Brian, it might be because you can’t defend your postulate in any logical and proof-backed way. You’ll be asked to prove your theory under peer review too, sport. If you can’t do it now, the dollars to donuts you won’t be able to do it then. My money is you won’t be able to do it ever as your postulate is fundamentally logically flawed – as demonstrated time and again. Whether or not you think it has been proven wrong is irrelevant.

    If you actually understood science as it is applicable to professional engineering, you surely would realize that I have put forth no postulate to be defended? I cannot imagine how any person with reasonable competence in science would write in the manner you have been writing, on in which a null hypothesis is tested and an alternate hypothesis (dichotomous with respect to the null hypothesis) is affirmed if the null hypothesis is rejected. In this method of doing real science, no hypothsis is either proved or defended, and a useful result only occurs if t he null hypothesis is rejected. If the null hypothesis is not rejected, nothing is learned of consequence regarding either the null hypothesis or its alternate hypothesis?

    Of course, I cannot defend my postulate, for the simple reason that there is no “my postulate” in the null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis method for me to defend? The method I use is of indirect proof by constructing null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis as a dichotomous pair?

    I am not such a perfectly incompetent scientist as to not understand the null hypothesis/alternate hypothesis approach and its correct usage? That j-operator question died a natural death, TonyC.? obviously recognized that I can do complex variables “in my sleep”?

    Like I said, I don’t give a damn what you think about me personally. “I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed.” – Marcus Aurelius. And the truth is that your indefensible postulate is antisocial destructive nonsense that invites tyranny and anarchy.

    <b.In my work, the Adversarial Premise and its associated Adversarial System ARE IDENTICALLY THE ANTISOCIAL DESTRUCTIVE NONSENSE OF TYRANNY AND ANARCHY

    Quit whining and prove me wrong. If I’m incompetent, that should be an easy task, sport. Remember! You must offer valid proof and sound logic for your defense to be acceptable.

    As far as I am concerned, you are a perfectly competent Attorney at Law? And what I observe you to deem sound logic is indeed sound logic; only it is a tiny figment of the vastly larger realm of sound logic with which I am familiar and which I understand?

    I use sound logic as applicable to professional engineering, and I can imagine no reason why you would ever have bothered to learn so much of the vast diversity of sound logic as I found it necessary for me to learn, as there is no use for most of what constitutes sound logic in the professional practice of law?

    Because I am a Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with the ethics of professional engineering, I set about to first validate the veracity of my work with a professional engineer, and with my thesis committee?

    Otherwise, you’re still just blowing smoke, pardner.

    Opinions may differ?
    Typographical errors may occur?

  112. That might be because I’m not an engineer, jackass.

    Never claimed to be one either.

    Now quit changing the subject.

    Your postulate about the negative value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Defend your postulate from the above criticism.

    If you cannot, then the criticism is valid and your idea that doing away with dispute resolution in the adversarial mode is good for civilization is proven once again to be a load of antisocial propagandist crap. Refusing to, trying to obfuscate or attempting to evade or otherwise change the subject will constitute a stipulation that you cannot defend your postulate.

    Saying that you have no postulate isn’t a valid defense of said postulate either. The above encapsulates the idea you attempted to assert as fact without proof and upon faulty logic. Especially when in one paragraph you deny making said postulate and then make it again in all caps within the same post.

    Defend it.

    Prove that courts are tyranny and anarchy and not as they are in reality checks and defenses against both.

    And you can claim to be a scientist all you want, sport. A real scientist can defend their assertions. Until you comport with the scientific method, you’re just a windbag, windbag.

    Valid formally conforming logic plus actual proof.

    That is what is required.

    Like I said, I’m going to attack your antisocial drivel as long as you try to sell it as valid. If you don’t like that? Tough. Because you have zero chance of stopping me from challenging your nonsense you try to clothe as science and pass off as fact. If you didn’t want to defend your ideas here and wanted to have only other engineers look at it? You should have kept to yourself instead of proclaiming it as fact in a blog full of critical thinkers.

    The challenge stands.

    Your inability to defend your idea stands.

    Put up or shut up, windbag. Or better yet? Move it to your own blog if you want to keep selling poison. As long as you try to spread that antisocial infection you call your “work” here, I’m going to keep on lancing it.

  113. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 1, 2011 at 1:40 am

    That might be because I’m not an engineer, jackass.

    Thank you. It is because you are not an engineer that disqualifies you to lawfully criticize my work, at least to the extent that I understand relevant Wisconsin law regarding who can lawfully criticize the work of a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer

    In these comments which I am writing for posting on the Jonathan Turley blawg, everything I post is of the form of a question in the ultimate sense because of what I find to be of the form of a law of biophysics, to wit, every message sent by one person and received by another is of the form of a “stimulus” the receiving of which inescapably produces some response in the message recipient, even if the response is as though the message is ignored. In this biophysical sense, every received stimulus is of the form of a question of the form, “How will the recipient of this message respond to this message?” and no actually received message can be other than a question in the biophysical sense here used in my writing this comment-intended-to-be-posted. I find that it is because my conscious awareness is at the level of interpretation of denotation and not connotation that I experience life only as a sequence of identical-in-basic-form; unique-in-details questions in which every apparent answer is of an oncoming question; hence all I ever actually experience are questions. In this context, I may restate why I cannot do as it appears to me that you, BiL are as though commanding me to do, for the reason of the simple fact that it appears to me that you are asking me to answer your questions with “answers” which are not themselves questions, and, in the world in which I actually live, what it appears to me that what you are asking of me simply cannot ever actually exist.

    I have collected the Internet links to the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing web pages which I find contain access references to Wisconsin laws and regulations which appertain to Professional Engineering, and I list them here because I am not an attorney-at-law and yet am required as a Professional Engineer to abide by laws not all made by Professional Engineers. The information I found on the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing pointing to statutes and regulations relevant to Professional Engineering in Wisconsin is as follows:

    http://drl.wi.gov/profession.asp?profid=92&locid=0

    Based on my experiences with other attorneys-at-law, it is my best guess that you, BiL, are among the top tenth of a percent of attorneys-at-law in terms of professional competence and performance. I truly respect what I experience as among the most formidable of “legal minds” I have ever heard of. Therefore, as you are, in my best estimation, a superbly qualified attorney-at-law, I leave to you and your professional expertise to peruse the data to be found through the above-listed Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing web page to determine in what, if any, ways what I have posted on the “Turley blawg” contravenes my being Registered as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer.

    About that delinquent taxes thing… Beginning in October of 2009, as best I now recall, my wife began to experience notable pain, which increased in intensity and severity. She went to the best physicians who were within her practical ability to be providers of care. Physician diagnosis and physician-prescribed treatment did not avert the pain, it increased and increased. Second and third opinions were obtained from other physicians,and the pain continued increasing.

    Beginning with the first physician consulted, I accompanied my wife to her “physician visits.” Based on my understanding of human biology, being a bioengineer, I began raising objections to the diagnoses being given and the treatments being prescribed, and my objections were very well ignored by the physicians. Rather early in 2010, a pelvic x-ray image revealed a pelvic fracture, which was the possibility to which my understanding of biomechanics had led me to raise the objections I had raised.

    My describing my concerns, as a bioengineer, about the treatment being given my wife was ignored by the physicians until the treatment she was being given had finally resulted in a total of three pelvic fractures, and the usual notion that a pelvic fracture is a stable fracture failed once one side of her pelvis had developed two fractures with an isolated section of pelvic bone between a pair of fractures. Finally, we were able to see an orthopedic surgeon, one who works with the Green Bay Packers, as I understand, and he was willing to listen to what I had to say as a bioengineer. He asked me for my “etiology” of the fractures, and when I had described it, this physician said to me, in effect, “You are certainly on top of your field.” My wife’s physician-prescribed treatment was changed so it conformed to the treatment plan I had developed as a bioengineer, and, now, not quite a year later, the pelvic fractures have healed decently and my wife is not experiencing the pain which, if not treated accurately, would plausibly have resulted in her being now unable to walk.

    During the time while my wife was being incorrectly (from a biophysical-bioengineering view) diagnosed and treated and her pelvic fracture predicament was worsening instead of improving, a few documents essential to my accurately filing my Wisconsin Sales and Use taxes apparently escaped my pragmatic ability to find them beginning last November, when I began setting about to prepare my 2010 Wisconsin Sales and Use Tax return.

    In Wisconsin, construction contractors have to deal with a set of tax laws and regulations which I find to be unintelligible in terms of their application to my bioengineerng business, Harris Electronic Service, a business I started in 1950, while a sixth grade student in the East Side School, in Sturgeon Bay. I corresponded with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue regarding what I find unintelligible until that Department stopped replying to my correspondence. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue was not able to resolve the predicament I presented to them regarding Wisconsin statutes and regulations relevant to construction contractors and Wisconsin Sales and Use taxes. Based on my finding that I cannot acquire an intelligible understanding of a particular aspect of Wisconsin Sales and Use taxes as pertains to my bioengineering business, as I transacted business, I made notes regarding my understanding of particularly troubling-to-me Sales and Use Tax concerns. It is these documents which escaped by grasp while I was focused almost entirely on doing my duty as husband and bioengineer to restore to my wife the ability to walk decently.

    Within the next day or so, I intend to file my 2010 Wieconsin Sales and Use Tax return, doing it in the best way I find achievable. I have a form of audit trail which now suggests to me than no more than $309.00 is questionable as to whether it is of Sales Tax or Use Tax nature and as to whether it is of that which the contractor absorbs while supposedly “keeping secret from the customer the taxes the customer is actually paying” (which I deem to be a form of deception prohibited by the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics), and I am going to report that amount, $309 as being both of Use Tax and Sales Tax categories, and so will be paying double the proper tax on that $309.00 to the State of Wisconsin because I can find no less ridiculous option available to me. Wisconsin has a form of expected income/budget disparity, and I will do my part, most likely today or tomorrow, to help increase the Wisconsin revenue flow. The reason for my delaying a long as possible the filing of my Wisconsin Sales and Use Tax Report is the imputed crime of my not filing an accurate return, and I have worked at the limit of my practicable effort to file a return I would know to be accurate. That has turned out to be impossible and impracticable and the proximate cause of that is the errors of diagnosis and treatment which as-though threatened to destroy my wife’s ability to walk, and I place a higher priority on her life than I did on lifeless laws; even though it is my sense that, by so doing, what I did was unlawful and illegal

    When I find the law to be life’s adversary, I choose life. I make no such choice for others.

    The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing has on its Internet site the Wisconsin definition of “Professional Engineer, which directly follows, copied and pasted from the drl.wi.gov web page, here not in italics as in the original on the web site:

    [begin Professional Engineer definition]
    Engineer, Professional

    A professional engineer is a person who by reason of his or her knowledge of mathematics, the physical sciences and the principles of engineering, acquired by professional education and practical experience, is qualified to engage in the practice of professional engineering.

    The practice of professional engineering includes any professional service requiring the application of engineering principles and data, in which the public welfare or the safeguarding of life, health or property is concerned and involved, such as consultation investigation, evaluation, planning, design, or responsible supervision of construction, alteration, or operation, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, projects, bridges, plants and buildings, machines, equipment, processes and works.

    A person offers to practice professional engineering if the person by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way represents himself or herself to be a professional engineer; or who holds himself or herself out as able to practice professional engineering.

    No person may practice professional engineering in Wisconsin unless the person has been duly registered as a professional engineer. In order to qualify as a professional engineer in Wisconsin, applicants must have the education and experience, and pass the examination or examinations, as indicated below. Further details regarding these criteria can be found in Chapter 443 of the Wisconsin Statutes and A-E 4 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
    [end Professional Engineer definition]

    I state as fact, without limitation on my part, that I am Registered with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing as a Professional Engineer.

    I state as fact, without limitation on my part, that I work as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer in accord with the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers.

    I state as fact, that, since January 31, 2011, I have been liable for delinquent taxes in Wisconsin, in violation of the meaning of Chapter RL-9, because I have been unable to locate a few documents needed to make certain that I have properly paid Wisconsin Sales and Use Taxes for the taxable year 2010, and I state as fact that this is the result of circumstances outside my locus of control.

    Never claimed to be one either.

    And I have never misrepresented myself as an Attorney-at-Law.

    Now quit changing the subject.

    My subject is of Professional Engineering, and I do not deviate from that subject, regardless of any contrary assertions on your part, BiL.

    Your postulate about the negative value of legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is both irrational and destructive as

    Your apparently repeated assertion that I have the postulate you appear to me to be describing is an error of interpretation totally outside my entire locus of control; I have no such postulate because I am using the process of null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis/null-hypothesis-refutation and am absolutely not promoting any postulate in the sense I find you may be using the word, “postulate.” I am now inclined to conjecture that the difficulty you are experiencing regarding my bioengineering research may stem from it being of fact that my grasp of science and science methods so vastly exceeds yours as to make it impossible for you to have a clue as to what I am doing and how and why I am doing it.

    1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    If you were actually, demonstrably capable of understanding my work in depth and detail, instead of summarily rejecting it with seeming absolute prejudice, a useful form of dialogue might ensue.

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    Is it really beyond your ken to accept the notion of scientific discovery of the “completely new paradigm” form?

    Defend your postulate from the above criticism.

    I find it absolutely and perfectly impossible to defend a postulate which absolutely and perfectly does not exist.

    If you cannot, then the criticism is valid and your idea that doing away with dispute resolution in the adversarial mode is good for civilization is proven once again to be a load of antisocial propagandist crap. Refusing to, trying to obfuscate or attempting to evade or otherwise change the subject will constitute a stipulation that you cannot defend your postulate.

    You, BiL, have never once criticized my work because its form, nature, and use appear to me to totally evade your knowledge and understanding in every practical and practicable way whatsoever. I cannot answer a criticism which, because of its internal errors, does not actually exist.

    Saying that you have no postulate isn’t a valid defense of said postulate either. The above encapsulates the idea you attempted to assert as fact without proof and upon faulty logic. Especially when in one paragraph you deny making said postulate and then make it again in all caps within the same post.

    Your being evidently deceived regarding my work as here expressed not containing any postulate I can defend does not create a defensible postulate merely through your personal “say-so.”
    Defend it.

    Prove that courts are tyranny and anarchy and not as they are in reality checks and defenses against both.

    With people demonstrably capable of understanding new scientific paradigms and the processes through which new scientific paradigms arise, to wit, the members of my thesis committee, my work has already passed as rigorous a form of real and valid peer review as has any new scientific paradigm which may be of the “completely new paradigm” class. The proof has already been achieved with people I sought out solely for their ability both understand and reject (if possible) my thesis and dissertation. At least my thesis committee members actually made the necessary effort to understand my thesis and dissertation before making decisions about its scientific merit, and I observe not a hint of a trace of a sign of your having even begun to make a comparable effort.

    And you can claim to be a scientist all you want, sport. A real scientist can defend their assertions. Until you comport with the scientific method, you’re just a windbag, windbag.

    To and with verifiably competent research-level scientists I did what you claim I did not do. All I find you to be doing is proving that you are incapable of understanding my research work and its findings. I ruled out every person comparable to you in that way from my thesis committee.

    Valid formally conforming logic plus actual proof.

    That is what is required.

    <That is what I have actually done, hence I have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that may be why you do not have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    That is what I have actually done, hence I am a Wisconsin Registered Professional engineer and that may be why you are not a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer.

    Like I said, I’m going to attack your antisocial drivel as long as you try to sell it as valid. If you don’t like that? Tough. Because you have zero chance of stopping me from challenging your nonsense you try to clothe as science and pass off as fact. If you didn’t want to defend your ideas here and wanted to have only other engineers look at it? You should have kept to yourself instead of proclaiming it as fact in a blog full of critical thinkers.

    I find your belief to the effect that my work is of antisocial drivel to be a profound error of classification on your part.

    The challenge stands.

    I observe that you have never challenged me or my work because, as best I can guess, some form of prejudice precludes your making the effort needed before any actual challenge can be possible.

    Your inability to defend your idea stands.

    Contrary to what I am beginning to have a hunch may be of delusion on your part, my ability to defend my thesis and dissertation stands irrefutably and irrebutably because I properly earned my Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago only because I really did defend both thesis and dissertation through proper peer review, and nothing you can assert can ever rebut that FACT! because it is a FACT!

    Put up or shut up, windbag. Or better yet? Move it to your own blog if you want to keep selling poison. As long as you try to spread that antisocial infection you call your “work” here, I’m going to keep on lancing it.

    What blocks you from recognizing the utter absurdness of your “Put up or shut up” admonition regarding my research and findings, and its profound validity for yourself?

  114. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., March 1, 2011 at 8:42 am

    I observe that people sometimes are mistaken. I am a person who makes mistakes, including typographical errors which I miss during proofreading efforts.

    was:

    <That is what I have actually done, hence I have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that may be why you do not have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    That is what I have actually done, hence I am a Wisconsin Registered Professional engineer and that may be why you are not a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer.

    was intended to be:

    That is what I have actually done, hence I have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that may be why you do not have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    That is what I have actually done, hence I am a Wisconsin Registered Professional engineer and that may be why you are not a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer.

    Sorry.

  115. “Thank you. It is because you are not an engineer that disqualifies you to lawfully criticize my work, at least to the extent that I understand relevant Wisconsin law regarding who can lawfully criticize the work of a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer”

    By that reasoning, since you’re not a lawyer, you’re not qualified to criticize the work of lawyers, namely the law.

    As to “lawfully criticize”? There is no law saying I can’t criticize anything I damn well please in this country. In fact, we have a law that guarantees I can criticize any damn thing I want, sparky. It’s called the 1st Amendment.

    Now, on to the postulate:

    “Your apparently repeated assertion that I have the postulate you appear to me to be describing is an error of interpretation totally outside my entire locus of control; I have no such postulate because I am using the process of null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis/null-hypothesis-refutation and am absolutely not promoting any postulate in the sense I find you may be using the word, “postulate.” I am now inclined to conjecture that the difficulty you are experiencing regarding my bioengineering research may stem from it being of fact that my grasp of science and science methods so vastly exceeds yours as to make it impossible for you to have a clue as to what I am doing and how and why I am doing it.”

    I don’t give a damn what you say you are doing, only what you are actually doing: attempting to undermine the role of courts and law in society.

    Your response to this: 1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    Was this:

    “If you were actually, demonstrably capable of understanding my work in depth and detail, instead of summarily rejecting it with seeming absolute prejudice, a useful form of dialogue might ensue.”

    So we are having a dialog that is meaningful in demonstrating that you cannot defend your “work”. And tell me I’m not capable of understanding it one more time. That never ceases to be funny. It’s not a defense of your work though. That’s because there is no defense to your “work” except more obfuscation, lies and bullshit.

    To the second key criticism:

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    You respond:

    “Is it really beyond your ken to accept the notion of scientific discovery of the “completely new paradigm” form?”

    That’s called “answering with a question” and is a form of evasion. Instead of making the blanket assertion that I, or indeed anyone else apparently, can understand your “work”, why don’t you explain it? Keep in mind, all explanations will be challenged if they don’t conform to formal logic and valid proof.

    “Contrary to what I am beginning to have a hunch may be of delusion on your part, my ability to defend my thesis and dissertation stands irrefutably and irrebutably because I properly earned my Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago only because I really did defend both thesis and dissertation through proper peer review, and nothing you can assert can ever rebut that FACT! because it is a FACT!”

    Ooooo. I love it when you call me delusional! It just reeks of your inability to defend your idea.

    A degree in bioengineering – bioengineering being the application of concepts and methods of physics, chemistry, and mathematics to solve problems in life sciences, using engineering’s own analytical and synthetic methodologies – is an inappropriate tool to apply to the analysis of law. That’s a fact. If you want to practice epidemiology or study interactions between pollutants and organisms within a given environ, it’s an appropriate tool. Applying it to law is like trying to hammer two pieces of wood together using a jigsaw. The subject of the study of law is the law. Unlike you, I would never try to use the law as a template for curing cancer. It’s the wrong tool for the job. Just like you’ve got the wrong tool for the job in putting forth your invalid assertions about the necessity of the role of courts and law in society.

    Valid formally conforming logic plus actual proof.

    That is what is required.

    To which you respond:

    “<That is what I have actually done, hence I have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that may be why you do not have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago."

    Again, you've done nothing of the sort. You've floating a bunch of obfuscation and attempts at misdirection. You've appealed once again to your inappropriate authority. Are you going to compare yourself to Galileo, Einstein or Hawking again too? Because that's just adorable.

    I can watch propagandists run in circles all day and it never ceases to be amusing.

    "I find your belief to the effect that my work is of antisocial drivel to be a profound error of classification on your part."

    Then you'd be once again wrong. Promoting the idea that society would be better off without laws and courts promotes both tyranny and anarchy. Since tyranny and anarchy and inherently antisocial, your idea is inherently antisocial.

    The challenge stands.

    "I observe that you have never challenged me or my work because, as best I can guess, some form of prejudice precludes your making the effort needed before any actual challenge can be possible."

    No. I have no prejudice. I read what you wrote and found it lacking in logic and proof. I challenged you on this basis and you have yet to provide an sufficient rebuttal to that challenge. Because you can't.

    Your inability to defend your idea stands.

    "Contrary to what I am beginning to have a hunch may be of delusion on your part, my ability to defend my thesis and dissertation stands irrefutably and irrebutably because I properly earned my Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago only because I really did defend both thesis and dissertation through proper peer review, and nothing you can assert can ever rebut that FACT! because it is a FACT!"

    And yet you cannot defend your postulate against a challenge to it based on commonly accepted principles of formal logic and standards of reasonable proof employed both in law and science.

    Sorry.

    The challenge and the criticism still stands as a matter of logic and proof no matter how much of a hissy fit you want to throw or appeal to your own authority.

    Or here's an idea –

    Put up or shut up.

    Not to validate me, but rather to validate your assertion and prove me wrong. Go on. Chase your tail some more. It's funny watching the propagators of socially destructive nonsense flounder in their own inability to confront logic.

  116. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 1, 2011 at 10:09 am

    “Thank you. It is because you are not an engineer that disqualifies you to lawfully criticize my work, at least to the extent that I understand relevant Wisconsin law regarding who can lawfully criticize the work of a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer”

    By that reasoning, since you’re not a lawyer, you’re not qualified to criticize the work of lawyers, namely the law.

    Absent some sort of magic I really doubt can ever exist, I am unable to make sense of how anyone can either know or understand anything except by having learned it.

    I observe that not all persons have perfectly identical sequences of experiences through which learning can happen, thus I expect people to have contrasting knowledge and contrasting understanding, thus I expect differences in knowledge and differences in understanding to happen because I cannot find any viable alternative to this experiential-learning-existential model of knowledge and understanding which I find I know or understand.

    Karl R. Popper, in “The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1, Plato, Fifth Edition (revised), Princeton University Press, 1966, may have useful notions regarding the seeming philosophical contrast between the weltanschauung of BiL and the weltanschauung I have developed over the course of my life.

    Methinks the core contrast may be associated with the nature of Ethical positivism. The relevant text is found on pages 71 and 71”

    [Begin Karl R. Popper text]
    (2) Ethical positivism shares with the biological form of ethical naturalism the belief that we must reduce norms to facts. but the facts this time are sociological facts, namely, the actually existing norms. Positivism maintains that there are no other norms but the laws which have actually been set up (or ‘posited’) and which have therefore a positive existence. Other standards are considered as unreal imaginations. The existing laws are the only possible standards of goodness : what is, is good. (Might is right.) According to some forms of this theory, it is a gross misunderstanding to believe that the individual can judge the norms of society ; rather, it is society which provides the code by which the individual must be judged.

    AS a matter of historical fact, ethical (or moral, or judicial) positivism has usually been conservative, or even authoritarian ; and it has often invoked the authority of God. Its arguments depend, I believe, upon the alleged arbitrariness of norms. We must believe in existing norms, it claims, because there are no better norms which we may find for ourselves. In reply to this it might be asked ; What about this norm ‘We must believe etc.”? If this is only an existing norm, then it does not count as an argument in favor of these norms ; but if it is an appeal to our insight, then it admits that we can, after all, find norms ourselves. And if we are told to accept norms on authority because we cannot judge them, the neither can we judge whether the claims of the authority are justified, or whether we may not follow a false prophet. And if it is held that there are no false prophets because laws are arbitrary anyhow, so that the main thing is to have some laws, then we may ask ourselves why it should be so important to have laws at all ; for if there are no further standards, why should we not choose to have no laws? (These remarks may perhaps indicate the reasons for my belief that authoritarian or conservative principle are usually an expression of ethical nihilism ; that is to say, of an extreme moral skepticism, of a distrust of man and of his possibilities
    [end Karl R. Popper text]

    As I find the view of BiL to be comparable to the view of ethical positivism, and as I reject ethical positivism in accord with my conscience, I find no common philosophy which we share which will allow intelligible communication between us.

    I am finding strong evidence that the mapping of object-denotation-connotation BiL is using is very nearly the dichotomous alternative to the object-denotation-connotation mapping which I have developed during the course of my life.

    This philosophical contrast, I have come to deem possibly without pragmatic remedy if whatever I write is taken to mean anything but what I expect my words to convey.

    Thus, it has been rather fascinating for a while, and I will begin to look for someone not, in my view, of the ethical positivism nihilist school of reiteration.

    On the theory that this sequence of words will assume meaning incomprehensible to me, shall write them, to convey or to not convey my view regarding symmetry, wherein I have no objection to the law profession making all the laws they can make, so long as none of their laws have any connection whatsoever with my life.

    As to “lawfully criticize”? There is no law saying I can’t criticize anything I damn well please in this country. In fact, we have a law that guarantees I can criticize any damn thing I want, sparky. It’s called the 1st Amendment.

    Now, on to the postulate:

    “Your apparently repeated assertion that I have the postulate you appear to me to be describing is an error of interpretation totally outside my entire locus of control; I have no such postulate because I am using the process of null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis/null-hypothesis-refutation and am absolutely not promoting any postulate in the sense I find you may be using the word, “postulate.” I am now inclined to conjecture that the difficulty you are experiencing regarding my bioengineering research may stem from it being of fact that my grasp of science and science methods so vastly exceeds yours as to make it impossible for you to have a clue as to what I am doing and how and why I am doing it.”

    I don’t give a damn what you say you are doing, only what you are actually doing: attempting to undermine the role of courts and law in society.

    Your response to this: 1) legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and

    Was this:

    “If you were actually, demonstrably capable of understanding my work in depth and detail, instead of summarily rejecting it with seeming absolute prejudice, a useful form of dialogue might ensue.”

    So we are having a dialog that is meaningful in demonstrating that you cannot defend your “work”. And tell me I’m not capable of understanding it one more time. That never ceases to be funny. It’s not a defense of your work though. That’s because there is no defense to your “work” except more obfuscation, lies and bullshit.

    To the second key criticism:

    2) that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny.

    You respond:

    “Is it really beyond your ken to accept the notion of scientific discovery of the “completely new paradigm” form?”

    That’s called “answering with a question” and is a form of evasion. Instead of making the blanket assertion that I, or indeed anyone else apparently, can understand your “work”, why don’t you explain it? Keep in mind, all explanations will be challenged if they don’t conform to formal logic and valid proof.

    “Contrary to what I am beginning to have a hunch may be of delusion on your part, my ability to defend my thesis and dissertation stands irrefutably and irrebutably because I properly earned my Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago only because I really did defend both thesis and dissertation through proper peer review, and nothing you can assert can ever rebut that FACT! because it is a FACT!”

    Ooooo. I love it when you call me delusional! It just reeks of your inability to defend your idea.

    A degree in bioengineering – bioengineering being the application of concepts and methods of physics, chemistry, and mathematics to solve problems in life sciences, using engineering’s own analytical and synthetic methodologies – is an inappropriate tool to apply to the analysis of law. That’s a fact. If you want to practice epidemiology or study interactions between pollutants and organisms within a given environ, it’s an appropriate tool. Applying it to law is like trying to hammer two pieces of wood together using a jigsaw. The subject of the study of law is the law. Unlike you, I would never try to use the law as a template for curing cancer. It’s the wrong tool for the job. Just like you’ve got the wrong tool for the job in putting forth your invalid assertions about the necessity of the role of courts and law in society.

    Valid formally conforming logic plus actual proof.

    That is what is required.

    To which you respond:

    “<That is what I have actually done, hence I have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and that may be why you do not have a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago."

    Again, you've done nothing of the sort. You've floating a bunch of obfuscation and attempts at misdirection. You've appealed once again to your inappropriate authority. Are you going to compare yourself to Galileo, Einstein or Hawking again too? Because that's just adorable.

    I can watch propagandists run in circles all day and it never ceases to be amusing.

    "I find your belief to the effect that my work is of antisocial drivel to be a profound error of classification on your part."

    Then you'd be once again wrong. Promoting the idea that society would be better off without laws and courts promotes both tyranny and anarchy. Since tyranny and anarchy and inherently antisocial, your idea is inherently antisocial.

    The challenge stands.

    "I observe that you have never challenged me or my work because, as best I can guess, some form of prejudice precludes your making the effort needed before any actual challenge can be possible."

    No. I have no prejudice. I read what you wrote and found it lacking in logic and proof. I challenged you on this basis and you have yet to provide an sufficient rebuttal to that challenge. Because you can't.

    Your inability to defend your idea stands.

    "Contrary to what I am beginning to have a hunch may be of delusion on your part, my ability to defend my thesis and dissertation stands irrefutably and irrebutably because I properly earned my Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago only because I really did defend both thesis and dissertation through proper peer review, and nothing you can assert can ever rebut that FACT! because it is a FACT!"

    And yet you cannot defend your postulate against a challenge to it based on commonly accepted principles of formal logic and standards of reasonable proof employed both in law and science.

    Sorry.

    The challenge and the criticism still stands as a matter of logic and proof no matter how much of a hissy fit you want to throw or appeal to your own authority.

    Or here's an idea –

    Put up or shut up.

    Not to validate me, but rather to validate your assertion and prove me wrong. Go on. Chase your tail some more. It's funny watching the propagators of socially destructive nonsense flounder in their own inability to confront logic.

  117. “I have no objection to the law profession making all the laws they can make, so long as none of their laws have any connection whatsoever with my life.”

    Still not a defense. An excuse maybe. A rationalization certainly. But not even close to a defense of your antisocial idea.

    You cannot abandon the rules of logic simply because you disagree with empirical positivism.

    Your assertion fails on simple logic alone.

    And you cannot falsify that which is backed by fact, observation and logic. Popper’s approach may for some branches of science, but you are attempting to falsify the fundamental state of human nature based on an improper sample space regarding the whole of humanity and relate it to falsifying the need for courts and laws out of your own personal bias and sense of vendetta. Just because you feel like you don’t need laws – since you’ve adopted the postpositivism stance – fails to take into account that postpositivism does not abandon the possibility and desirability of objective truth.

    The objective truth is that legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process is the alternative process to personal self-help adversarial dispute resolution which results in the tyranny of the strong over the weak and often violence and that such an alternative to self-help dispute resolution somehow creates adversity (adversity which in fact is caused simply by human nature, human interaction and circumstance) when what legal dispute resolution via adversarial due process does is remove the potential for violence from adversity and is thus a cornerstone of maintaining civilization over anarchy and tyranny. That the law comes to this conclusion via empirical positivism does not invalidate the objective truth of it simply because you don’t approve of empirical positivism.

    This is a great failing of Popper’s work – it easily descends into metaphysical conjecture. The necessity of laws and legal dispute resolution – in either the inquisitorial or the adversarial mode but preferably in the adversarial mode – as a check on the tyranny of the strong over the weak and against anarchy are not conjecture. They are lessons evidenced and borne out on the backs of every civilization since the dawn of recorded history. There is no more objective truth than one made in observation of the entire span of recorded history and a sample space of all mankind from the dawn of said recorded history to now.

    You are simply wrong, Brian.

  118. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 1, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    You are simply wrong, Brian.

    AND

    RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 1, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    “Popper’s approach may be acceptable for some branches of science”

    Perhaps, and I am unable to actually test this, I have begun to find a few words that could actually work. While I observe that you, BiL, have truly excellent communication skills, the way I am autistic denies, denies almost perfectly, to me the ability to communicate with any semblance of your skill.

    Because you have been helping me improve my communication skills by continuing to challenge what I write while almost everyone else on this blawg gave up “trying,” I am grateful for your continuing help.

    My writing that I am grateful for your help is not sarcastic, is not cynical, and is not of retaliation. For your continuing help I have only genuine, real appreciation.

    BiL, you wrote:

    “You are simply wrong, Brian.”

    I completely agree that I am simply wrong. I have known and understood that since rather early in my infancy, as the sounds I now name words began to collect in my brain and form patterns.

    “Having known and understood that I am simply wrong,” since early infancy is the foundational basis for how I endeavor to live my life. So very many people have worked at treating me in “nice” ways, and I have always found it very damaging to me when folks do that, for, in being “nice” to me, I find people only strengthen the ways in which I am simply wrong, and the ways in which I am wrong become complicated and even more challenging for me to recognize well enough to be able to seek effective correction of the errors of my life.

    It is because (and only because?) I am simply wrong that I interact with people in the ways I interact. I have never found any viable alternative to such.

    When I arrived at the age when very little children begin to talk, my parents observed that I was not talking. This, they later told me, greatly troubled them, as it tends to trouble all parents of children exceptionally profoundly autistic in the sense of autism described by Dr. Leo Kanner.

    There were some statistically unusual aspects of my parents’ lives. My dad’s mom, Rev. Emma Blanchard Harris, died when my dad was about two years of age. My mom’s mom, Amanda Julia Faust Lundquist, died when my mom was six months of age. My dad’s older brother, Addison, took up much of the parenting role for my dad, and my motheros older sister, Florence, took up much of the parenting role for my mom.

    In terms of critical personality formation factors, my parents were effectively and largely raised by siblings not all that much older than were my parents. Put another way, my parents were significantly parented by children, and, throughout their lives, predominantly saw the world through the eyes of children and heard the world through the ears of children.

    My parents were both autistic, my dad in the Dr. Hans Asperger sense, as his mom lived only until my dad was about two; my mom in the Dr. Leo Kanner sense as her mom lived only until my mom was about six months of age. However, the work of my mom’s and dad’s parents, and their approach to living in the world, is blatantly, as I have been able to review the family records I have inherited, that of people very much autistic in terms of brain biology indicators as available to me.

    In my connecting with other autistic people, in person and via the Internet, I have yet to find anyone whom I experience as being “more autistic” (if that be meaningful?) than I find myself to be.

    People have long observed that they experience me as being extremely “self-centered.” Alas, that is the essence of the way I am autistic, as best I can yet discern. I cannot give what I do not have. I cannot have what I have not been given. I am as I am as I am not as I am not.

    As I cannot not be who I am, so I cannot be who I am not.

    Such is the nature and form of the autistic prison of freedom in which I find myself condemned to live a stunningly very beautifully subjectively experienced personal inner life.

    For me, the alternative to being self-centered is being not-self-centered.

    For me being not-self-centered is having self displaced from itself, as I find self to be the center of persons.

    For me, self being displaced from itself is of the form of the psychological defense mechanism of “displacement.”

    For me, the psychological defense mechanism of displacement is the essence of the biophysics of addiction.

    Harvard psychiatrist, Lance Dodes, wrote extensively about “the heart of addiction” being the psychological defense mechanism of displacement in his book, “The Heart of Addiction: A New Approach to Understanding and Managing Alcoholism and Other Addictive Behaviors,” Harper Paperbacks, 2002. Between writing “2002” at the end of the prior sentence, I needed to take my wife’s car to Sturgeon Bay for replacement, new tires, and the rural mail carrier brought today’s post. In it was Lance Dodes’ new book, one I had pre-publication ordered, “”Breaking Addiction: A 7-Step Handbook for Ending Any Addiction,” HarperCollins 2011. So, it being here, next comes a short book review.

    Lance Dodes’ “Breaking Addiction” continues the work he described in him prior book, “The Heart of Addiction.” While The Heart of Addiction describes the mechanism of addiction very well in the view of this reviewer, Breaking Addiction carries Dr. Dodes’ addiction work into the realm of the process of resolving addiction, with methods this reviewer finds well grounded in biophysics, though Dodes describes his work within his field of addiction psychiatry.

    Two brief excerpts from Breaking Addiction may help the reader to recognize the importance of Dodes’ recent work:

    From page 7:
    [begin excerpt from page 7]
    Everyone knows that addictive behavior is not good for you. People who suffer with addictions may know this best of all, because they’ve lived it. But addiction persists. Strange as it may seem, it must serve some purpose. In fact, its purpose must be so great that it is even more essential than avoiding the bad consequences of addiction. It has to be more important than losing marriages, families, friends, jobs, and health. It has to be more important than losing your license to drive or to practice in a field that you care deeply about, more important than the pain of hurting people you love. What could possibly be worth all of that?

    In terms of the outside world, the world of careers, family, and success, there is, indeed, nothing worth losing at all. The purpose of addiction must lie in the inside world, where what is at stake are feelings central to emotional survival itself. If this is the case, then nobody would be surprised to find that it overrules even the most important of external causes.
    [end excerpt from page 7]

    Dodes defines addiction on page 12, bold in the original:

    [begin excerpt from page 12]
    Addiction is a behavior intended to reverse a profound, intolerable, sense of helplessness. This helplessness is always rooted in something deeply important to the individual.
    [end excerpt from page 12],

    On reading through Breaking Addiction, about 200 pages, in the ten or so minutes I could so far spare, I find no evidence yet that Dodes has grasped the the biophysical basis of addiction, yet his book by far the best I have yet read regarding what professional therapists can do in practical ways within the norms of recent psychology and psychiatry professional practice.

    This reviewer, Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer No. 34106-6, recommends, without reservation, Breaking Addiction to anyone interested in gaining access to what may well be a profoundly significant advance in addiction treatment methodologies. Addiction presents very serious issues for law and law enforcement, and the better informed are those who make and enforce laws, the greater becomes the opportunity to more than punish people who, as Dodes has written, have somehow found their lives confronted with, and often terribly damaged by, “a profound, intolerable, sense of helplessness.”

    In 1993, I made an effort, for the second time, to return to the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), to complete the work of my Ph.D. in Bioengineering. In contrast with my earlier effort, in 1990, which was rejected, I was readmitted to UIC to complete the Ph.D.

    However issues anticipated when I was readmitted arose after I had defended my dissertation with unanimous committee approval, and I was in the process of being dismissed as a Ph.D. candidate with a dissertation unanimously approved by my committee. That this happened may suggest its being an indicator of my dissertation being exceptionally unusual.

    This morning, March 2, 2011, I telephoned Dr. Irving F. Miller, UIC Professor Emeritus, and informed him of my desire to publish a letter he sent to me on December 12, 1997. I hold that this letter may have been decisive in my being allowed to attain Ph.D. standing.

    I emailed the text of that letter to Dr. Miller and he replied,

    Hi Brian:

    I have no problems or concerns with you making my letter public over the
    internet. I stand by what I wrote in 1997. Good luck.

    Irv

    The text of that letter follows:

    [begin text of letter from Dr. Miller]
    Office of the Dean
    College of Engineering
    Akron, OH 44235-3901
    (330) 972-7816 Office
    (330) 972-5162 Fax

    December 12, 1997

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am writing at the request of Mr. Brian Harris to describe the circumstances under which he returned to UIC in 1993 as a doctoral student in Bioengineering. At the time, I was Director of the Bioengineering Program, and it was my decision to readmit him.

    When I met Brian in 1993, he was recovering from mental illness, and he was ready to resume his studies. Since the work he had done prior to his illness was no longer available, he had to undertake a new dissertation topic. He presented me with an idea for a thesis dissertation that I found to be original and intriguing. I believed then, and I believe now, that it is worth pursuing. However, I warned Brian at the time that he would need to convince skeptical people of its validity. Whether the topic was appropriate for Bioengineering was not an issue because the idea of modeling mental illness clearly fits, as Brian’s doctoral committee agreed.

    My concern about Brian’s dissertation topic stemmed from the fact that it is such an original idea. Most dissertation topics are simple extensions of settled work, and would not arouse the concerns of the people who must judge the dissertation. In this case, success could be just as damaging as failure, because such success could undermine many established views.

    I believed in 1993, and I believe now, that Brian should be allowed to complete his dissertation work. Although it has taken considerable time, four years is not too long for a doctoral dissertation, particularly considering the fact that Brian has handicaps that need some accommodation.

    Sincerely yours,

    (Signed)

    Irving F. Miller
    Professor and Dean

    The University of Akron is an Equal Education and Employment Institution
    [end text of letter from Dr. Miller]

    Of penultimate importance may be the observation of Dr. Irving F. Miller, made in December of 1997, to the effect that my work being successful could be just as damaging as failure, for the reason of success possibly “undermining many established views.

    I have been vividly aware of the core conundrum my work may be understood as posing to human civilization and society. I find that Wally Byam, who founded Aristream and designed the original Airstream travel trailers, had a useful thought, “Let’s not make any changes, let’s make only improvements.’ I do not have the date for that quote, but it and the next Wally Byam quote are found in “Airstream: The History of the Land Yacht,” Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 2000. The following Wally Byam quote is dated 1960, and I find it terribly relevant to the world as it now is more than fifty years later (all caps in the original quote):

    “WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, ANY FOOL CAN SEE THAT THIS
    EARTH IS GRADUALLY BECOMING ONE WORLD.
    NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE FORM OF THAT ‘ONE’ WILL BE,
    BUT IT’S GOING TO BE ONE OR NONE.”

    On page 80 of the March, 2011, Scientific American, is a one page caution, “Death by Asteroid.”

    On pages 55-59 of the March, 2011, Scientific American is an article named (bold in the title), “DEMONS ENTROPY AND THE QUEST FOR ABSOLUTE ZERO” and it was in that sense of “demons,” that I had in mind in a posted comment some time ago, “Demons are make-believes that make people believe in demons.”

    On pages 29-33 in the March, 2011, Scientific American is an article about neurological resilience (caps in the original), “THE NEUROSCIENCE OF TRUE GRIT: When tragedy strikes, most of us ultimately rebound surprisingly well. Where does such resilience come from?”

    It is terribly clear to me that, if my work is correct and also sufficiently misunderstood, such that it is recognized that guilt is of the form of a delusion because no mistake ever made either could or should have been avoided, and all the now-labeled-violent-criminals are simply released because of not being guilty as charged, the future of human society surely will be “NONE,” as in that Wally Byam quote. That obviously would be disastrously worse than anything which could have preceded it.

    There is, however, a pathway to the future which is safer than the one I find humanity now is on, one which is already in place and working just fine, but not yet sufficiently well understood as to have become recognized as truly practical. That method is, from a Law Professor Emeritus standpoint, rather well written in Robert Benson, “The Interpretation Game: How Judges and Lawyers Make the Law,” Carolina Academic Press, 2008.

    I am going to type and include the whole of “P.S. for Law Students” from Chapter 8, “Post-Scripts” from Benson. Yes this may lean heavily on the boundary of fair use, yet I seek to make very clear the merit of Benson’s book and encourage every law student, law professor, lawyer and judge who has not studied it in depth and detail to do so, with urgency.

    [begin P.S for Law Students, pages 139-140]:
    P.S for Law Students

    As a law student, you’re one of a select group of academic achievers who surely know when you’re being indoctrinated. And yet, generation after generation, most law students fail to spot it. Your professors tell the Old Story with such a facile blend of confidence and mystery–and you are so dazzled and worn out–that you follow them over the brink and into the myth that law is found and not made.

    It’s not that the professors are out to deceive you deliberately. Many of them were indoctrinated themselves, never studied the Legal Realists or their successors, and idealistically believe that the Old Story is a noble one. Others are too busy keeping up with the mechanics of the Old Story as applied to some specialized field to worry about whether it’s all built upon false premises. Most of them also find it easier to follow orthodoxy as set out in casebooks and curricula. Even the modernists and postmodernists on the faculty can find it tough to know what to teach if they tear the Old Story out of their course materials.

    Unfortunately, the illuminati of your school are going to grade you on your ability to think inside the box of the Old Story, so you have little choice gut to learn it. The trick for you is to go in and out of the box without getting trapped inside. This can be done if you stay alert, and it’s very liberating. Once yu pierce through the Old Story indoctrination that is going on in most of your courses, law school becomes easier. Gone is the confusion about what the rule is or what a case really stands for: the answer is always “could be.” Gone is the control the professor has to make you seem foolish, because you can always reach into the Old Story’s bag of tricks yourself and make a plausible retort, or else shoot the professor a horse dose of Legal Realism: “Don’t you think the result would be different if the judge weren’t such a mossback conservative (or flaming liberal, or morally anesthetized fence-sitter, or …)? Or, Professor, since there is no official definition of what constitutes a holding of a case, the doesn’t that turn all holdings into possible dicta and all dicta into possible holdings, so that the whole notion of stare decisis is just a lot of applesauce? That sort of thing.

    In my own classes where I tell the story I’ve told in this book, I find students usually divide into three camps. Some feel the scales fell from their eyes, sense of a breath of fresh air blow across their stifling law books, and become skeptical critics of legal education and the law. They feel empowered as legal analysts. More, they feel the liberty, in fact the obligation, to re-engage their consciences that law school has suppressed. So, this insight actually enables hem to make law and life more value-based, not less.

    The second group is comprised of disappointed idealists. They acknowledge the reality of human subjectivity in interpreting the law, but hey still yearn for the ideal of the “rule of law” rather than rule by human beings. Candor about what’s really going on, hey fear, would just encourage more bias, ideology and politics, so we’d better keep it quiet. As a disappointed idealist myself, I share their yearning. But it is naive and dangerous to believe there will be less subjectivity if we cover it up. Since all interpretation is unavoidably subjective at some point, there is not less but merely different subjectivity and it is imposed by people who are obscure and manipulative about what they are doing rather than transparent and forthright. I myself cannot reconcile such a coverup with the values of egalitarianism and democratic government.

    The third group of students is unfazed. They see the notion that the law is made, not found, a blasé common sense already shared widely by the public. These students are content to be learning the tricks of the trade even if the tricks are something of a sham, because society accepts that as the way the legal system works. They will be only too glad to make a lucrative living by continuing the professional tradition of the Old Story.

    The choice is yours.
    [end P.S for Law Students, pages 139-140]

    As for that Karl Popper thing, the methods of orthodox science (aka normal science) depend on prior art upon which simple extensions and complicated extensions can be built.

    Given a sufficient punctuation mark in the punctuated equilibrium creatively evolving structure of human society, a sufficient punctuation mark punctures the balloons of the Old Story of science so decisively that there are not enough Old Story balloons left upon which to build the new paradigm effectively and the ways of Old Science need to be enhanced by things like null-hypothesis/alternative-hypothesis approaches because nothing else can even begin to work at all.

    The question of legal theory I endeavor to raise from beneath the muck of human error is whether there is a way to improve the law without changing it so much that the law is destroyed by yet another revolting revolution in which hordes of people become the dead victims of the murderous side of revolting hatred.

  119. Brian,

    Congratulations! You finally put up. The bad news is that you are still in error. The good news is you are close enough to being right that you can almost touch it. First, a brief digression about your “types of students”.

    Benson left out a fourth group of students. Those who are idealists, realize they are being indoctrinated yet resist indoctrination in favor of free thought to become skeptical critics of legal education and the law and feel an obligation to re-engage their consciences (or in my case, never abandon), understand that the law is a constructed tool and yet still through logic and reason come to the conclusion that it is a necessary tool for civilization to continue and that – while the tool can be reconfigured – there are some features that cannot be dispensed with. I will stipulate I was not a typical student. Having a strong sense of conscience that I got from my grandfather, the indoctrination did not have any effect other than to make me even more skeptical and critical.

    As a skeptical legal analyst, one who without fail questions authority for when you cease to question authority you invite tyranny, that your supposition about dispute resolution in the adversarial mode causing adversity and not being the best tool available for dispute resolution is still wrong.

    If your goal is to “endeavor to raise from beneath the muck of human error is whether there is a way to improve the law without changing it so much that the law is destroyed by yet another revolting revolution in which hordes of people become the dead victims of the murderous side of revolting hatred”, then doing away with adversarial courts is a step in the wrong direction. Their functions as checks against tyranny and anarchy are indeed just as I described. The problems, and I’ll get to this in the next paragraph, have less to do with the mode of dispute resolution than with the materials they are working with – namely the law. As an analogy, the courts are a saw and hammer, the dispute is the wood from which the item (resolution) is to be made, and the law is the blueprint from which the resolution is to be built. One cannot build a resolution without the proper tools and the courts are those tools. One cannot change the nature of adversity anymore than one can change the nature of the wood one has to work with – you have to deal with what you have. One can, however, use better blueprints to maximize the use of the materials and tools. And it is on the blueprints you should focus because 1) they are malleable and ergo easiest to change and 2) not indispensable from the goals of reaching a resolution.

    There are ways to improve the legal system. Undermining the function of adversarial courts is not one of them. If you want to look at areas that need improvement? I suggest you not waste your time on that and consider the following areas: equal enforcement, equity in formulation and drafting of laws and equal and open access to the courts.

    Adversity comes from disputes and no court system that does not reflect that reality is going to be efficient or stand a chance of being fair. If you truly understand the differences between inquisitional courts and adversarial courts, you’ll see that this is true because adversarial courts give every side a hearing and work to ensure that said hearing is impartial. If you want to make the law better (and by this I am assuming you mean “make outcomes and resolutions more equitable and just), making sure that laws are equally enforced regardless of social or economic status of individuals, that laws are just and equitable in their drafting and that everyone has full and fair access to the courts regardless of social or economic status? These are better places to start rather than try to undermine the role of courts in society. To be clear though, on the issue of better drafting of laws and equal enforcement, you’ll have to shift some if not all of your focus to the legislature and its various malfunctions (like the inequities created by campaign finance and lobbying) to address these issues. However, your fundamental assertions about courts creating adversity and encouraging tyranny and anarchy are still faulty. Bad laws do indeed encourage tyranny and anarchy though as well as encourage adversity where absent said bad laws there might not be any (for example our current outmoded patent law systems encourage litigation that better laws would avoid all together such as the various SCO/Linux lawsuits) and our outmoded copyright systems (such as the flood of RIAA litigation).

    If you want to build a more just and equitable world, you’ll need the tools of the court.

    You just need to find the better blueprints that achieve those results and still have the flexibility to deal with variations of materials that human interaction between themselves and the environment are going to create simply by their nature.

    Do you have any problems understanding this?

    If so, I’d be glad to answer any questions or address any concerns you might have.

  120. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 2, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    Brian,

    Congratulations! You finally put up. The bad news is that you are still in error. The good news is you are close enough to being right that you can almost touch it. First, a brief digression about your “types of students”.

    Of course, I am “still in error”! That is why I continue to strive for ever greater learning and understanding, and why I really do welcome your responses to my posted comments.

    When everyone else here as though “perhaps gave up on me,” you have had the decency to not disengage as almost everyone else during my life has done.

    BiL, methinks we share a concern about the future of humanity, yet have come to think may be our shared concern via quite contrasting paths. I truly would welcome learning if I really am in serious error regarding the possibility of learning usefully from you… My hope for the future remains intact for now.

    On August 12, 2010, which, as I recall, was before I began my serious effort to discover what of use I might be given on this blawg, I wrote a small “poster” with some words I deemed might help me to accept whatever might come my way through my posting comments. The text, as printed in a rather large font, is:

    Whenever I attempt to tell of
    the difficulty I encounter
    in the way some other
    people connect with me, I
    find some people are as
    though they demand that I
    play a game I cannot win.
    Some others are as though
    they demand that I win a
    game I cannot ever play.

    Perhaps that is, perhaps that is not, a useful window into my experience as a profoundly and normally autistic as though living in a society in which my mere existence is often reflected back to me as though my mere existence itself is perchance worse than horrible.

    I fully agree that “I am in error.” It is because of my both knowing and understanding such that I began posting comments here, after reading the blawg for quite some time, initially without “subscribing” to it by merely reading the archives.

    It took me months of effort to learn enough about how this blawg works to even fantasize that I would not be banned from posting comments because of being far to inappropriate in terms of the content of what I would be able to post.

    My interest here is about legal theory and is actually about nothing else. In 1961, while I was working at Allied Radio Corp., in Chicago as a repairman, an engineering student whose parents were acquainted with A. D. Davis, then president of Allied, came to work as a repairman as a summer job. After this engineering student returned to college in the fall, his dad’s stereo system quit working. The dad called his son for help and the engineering student told his dad to find a way to reach me directly for getting the stereo system repaired, and to not take ask anyone else to repair it.

    His dad did call, did bring the defective equipment to the apartment my brother and I shared at 3552 W. Congress Parkway, Chicago, and I did repair it. My brother and I were in a two and a half room apartment, bathroom shared with other apartments, and half our bedroom was an electronics shop.

    The dad was Murray Berg, a hospital administrator, he knew a city planner, Jerry Lubin, who had some stereo difficulties I fixed, Jerry Lubin knew Dr. Bessie Lendrum, a pediatric cardiologist whose undergraduate degree was Phi Beta Kappa physics from the University of Wisconsin – Madison, and Bessie had recently married a widower, Sidney M. Perlstadt, a senior partner of the Sonnenschein, et al. law firm in Chicago. Dr. Lendrum knew a teacher, Esther Bernstein who was born with a congenital heart condition which was uncorrectable until some time after Esther had attained adult age. Esther taught in Chicago and worked in a special education program in which my not yet wife worked.

    Repair radios, get a job at Allied Radio, meet someone who tells of me to someone who tell of me to someone…and I am the dad of an adopted boy whose life had met what the Illinois Department of Chidren and Family Services deemed intolerable neglect and/or abuse, and I am the dad of a daughter born to my wife and me, who gets labeled as of Asperger’s Syndrome, in spite of my protests that she is neither more nor less “normal” than is anyone else.

    The renowned Oak Park and River Forest High School decides to track my wife’s and my daughter so as she might never be able to get into a junior college, and that so raised my dander that I set about in search of a high school where my daughter would be treated as though she had the possibility of being an actual person. That high school turned out to be the Sturgeon Bay High School, in a much newer building than the one in which I was devastatingly molested by a classmate coerced by the gym teacher into effectively hating me.

    I have a hunch that the attitude of the folks at Oak Park and River Forest High School was in error, my daughter graduated from Carleton College cum laude.

    I may know something about error and about human error in particular. I have, and autistic members of my family have learned much about human error by being terribly abused by other humans who were in error not identical with the error of some of those of my close family.

    James Reason, in “Human Error,” Cambridge University Press, 1990, as I understand his book, observed that human error is a universal individual human trait. In that sense, I am in error as an individual, as everyone is in error as an individual.

    Given as foundational fact that I am in error, I work to ferret out and rectify error as I find practicable.

    As a “for instance” example of the ubiquity of human error, consider the following from your comment to which I am responding:

    First, a brief digression about your “types of students”.

    It is error to deem those types of students as it appears to me that you did, for they were never my students nor my types of students, in a sentence with the word sequence, “First, a brief digression about your “types of students”..” The typology schema was and is only of Robert Benson; I had nothing to do with it save for reporting it.

    Benson left out a fourth group of students. Those who are idealists, realize they are being indoctrinated yet resist indoctrination in favor of free thought to become skeptical critics of legal education and the law and feel an obligation to re-engage their consciences (or in my case, never abandon), understand that the law is a constructed tool and yet still through logic and reason come to the conclusion that it is a necessary tool for civilization to continue and that – while the tool can be reconfigured – there are some features that cannot be dispensed with. I will stipulate I was not a typical student. Having a strong sense of conscience that I got from my grandfather, the indoctrination did not have any effect other than to make me even more skeptical and critical.

    Were I to bother, I imagine I could come up with hundreds of groupings of students not including Bensons three or your four.

    As a skeptical legal analyst, one who without fail questions authority for when you cease to question authority you invite tyranny, that your supposition about dispute resolution in the adversarial mode causing adversity and not being the best tool available for dispute resolution is still wrong.

    I allow that, within your mental models of existence, all you state you state correctly. And yet, I do not identically share your life with you, because you and I are not a single individual person. I allow for the contrast between your life and life experiences for mentally modeling experience much as it is to me as though you allow only for your life and your life experiences as valid for mentally modeling existence.

    I continue to sense that your mental model of existence may tend to exclude me perhaps about as much as my mental model of existence tends to include you. That, however is a mere guess on my part.

    If your goal is to “endeavor to raise from beneath the muck of human error is whether there is a way to improve the law without changing it so much that the law is destroyed by yet another revolting revolution in which hordes of people become the dead victims of the murderous side of revolting hatred”, then doing away with adversarial courts is a step in the wrong direction. Their functions as checks against tyranny and anarchy are indeed just as I described. The problems, and I’ll get to this in the next paragraph, have less to do with the mode of dispute resolution than with the materials they are working with – namely the law. As an analogy, the courts are a saw and hammer, the dispute is the wood from which the item (resolution) is to be made, and the law is the blueprint from which the resolution is to be built. One cannot build a resolution without the proper tools and the courts are those tools. One cannot change the nature of adversity anymore than one can change the nature of the wood one has to work with – you have to deal with what you have. One can, however, use better blueprints to maximize the use of the materials and tools. And it is on the blueprints you should focus because 1) they are malleable and ergo easiest to change and 2) not indispensable from the goals of reaching a resolution.

    I continue to observe that my understanding, in terms of mental modeling includes your mental model as best I can make what is, to me, adequate sense of your mental model; whereas your mental model appears to not particularly include the mental model available to me. In that sense, it continues to be my view, which I fully allow may be very mistaken, the model I am able to use much transcends the model you are able to use. Tht makes me no more accurate than you and no less; to me it is simply an inescapable consequence of the quantum-mechanical aspect(s) of existence itself.

    The personal conundrum my thesis and dissertation present to me is quite simply that little thing about the possibility of undermining many established views as cited by Dr. Irving F. Miller in his 1997 letter about his view in 1993.

    If anyone has a sense of possible danger to human society and civilization with respect to the findings of my thesis and dissertation, please consider as possible my being far more concerned than anyone else may be. It has come to my mind that my work may act in the manner of checking the fuel level in a hundred gallon gasoline storage tank by using a lit stick of dynamite as a match and looking for the reflection from the surface of, say, 30 gallons of gasoline in the tank. Because gasoline in a storage tank is normally of vapor concentration far above the upper explosive limit, it is quite possible that dropping a lit stick of dynamite into such a tank will do nothing much until the dynamite explodes. If it were to work that way, my guess is that the shock wave from the exploding stick of dynamite would disperse the gasoline to well below the lower flammability limit so quickly that the gasoline would neither burn nor explode. The danger would not be from the gasoline, but from the dynamite.

    Similarly “dynamiting” society with a dreadfully explosive idea would be terrible beyond terrible, and that mere thought has ruled out my doing much of anything with my thesis and its associated dissertation.

    However, all the pieces of my work are lying about where someone is eventually likely to collect all of them and put them together. And that brings to my attention the core law theory issue of my posted comments here.

    Is it better to wait for someone to “show how the dots are connected” who is “socially normal” in the sense of not being profoundly autistic if such a person accepts the adversarial principle and uses the connected dots in a way actually adverse to the existence of humanity, or is it better for a social misfit who rejects the adversarial principle so well as to be awfully concerned about the future of humanity to such extent as to be willing to put the whole of one’s life into an effort to communicate the latent danger which may lurk hidden within the adverse nature of the adversarial principle?

    In rejecting the adversarial principle I reject the desirability of whatever may actually be adverse to the continuing existence of humanity, regardless of what established views, however sincerely held, appear to be as though of an unlit stick of dynamite near a box of strike-anywhere matches…

    There are ways to improve the legal system. Undermining the function of adversarial courts is not one of them. If you want to look at areas that need improvement? I suggest you not waste your time on that and consider the following areas: equal enforcement, equity in formulation and drafting of laws and equal and open access to the courts.

    Without courts, especially without the court of public opinion, I can see no future for humanity. However, a court system which financially destroys a family who only made a decent effort to provide a safe and decent home for an eleven-year-old boy said to be in need of a safe and decent home where the boy might become an adult well recovered from identified-as-severe neglect and/or abuse is hardly the way to build a decent and safe future…

    Adversity comes from disputes and no court system that does not reflect that reality is going to be efficient or stand a chance of being fair. If you truly understand the differences between inquisitional courts and adversarial courts, you’ll see that this is true because adversarial courts give every side a hearing and work to ensure that said hearing is impartial. If you want to make the law better (and by this I am assuming you mean “make outcomes and resolutions more equitable and just), making sure that laws are equally enforced regardless of social or economic status of individuals, that laws are just and equitable in their drafting and that everyone has full and fair access to the courts regardless of social or economic status? These are better places to start rather than try to undermine the role of courts in society. To be clear though, on the issue of better drafting of laws and equal enforcement, you’ll have to shift some if not all of your focus to the legislature and its various malfunctions (like the inequities created by campaign finance and lobbying) to address these issues. However, your fundamental assertions about courts creating adversity and encouraging tyranny and anarchy are still faulty. Bad laws do indeed encourage tyranny and anarchy though as well as encourage adversity where absent said bad laws there might not be any (for example our current outmoded patent law systems encourage litigation that better laws would avoid all together such as the various SCO/Linux lawsuits) and our outmoded copyright systems (such as the flood of RIAA litigation).

    I have, and have read, Jethro K. Lieberman, “The Litigious Society,” Basic Books / Harper Torchbooks, 1981, 1993.

    If you want to build a more just and equitable world, you’ll need the tools of the court.

    I merely seek to offer to the courts a tool I find sorely missing.

    You just need to find the better blueprints that achieve those results and still have the flexibility to deal with variations of materials that human interaction between themselves and the environment are going to create simply by their nature.

    I am not aware that I do not have better blueprints, only no one seems willing to adequately examine them.>/i>

    Do you have any problems understanding this?

    Perhaps yes, perhaps no, “could be.” Do you have any problems understanding the nature and plausible viable use of what is pictured in “the blueprints of my work, which is actually directed toward saving the courts from becoming so adversarial that the court of public opinion sets out to replicate in enhanced form every disaster of legalism of the past many time over.

    If so, I’d be glad to answer any questions or address any concerns you might have.

    If we can set aside epithets and such, I would rejoice in being given a real opportunity for you to demolish any and every aspect of my work, provided that you have first come to understand it well enough to understand that my actual purpose is veritably not as you have come to believe, this being, as best I can yet discern, only because the way I am autistic has prevented me from finding words adequate for what I seek to have tested by you and others.

    I have no fight with you, I really do respect you profoundly for what I find to be profound expertise in the field of law, expertise at a level previously not available to me in any useful form.

    Your relentless insistence that my view is wrong is what I need more than anything else from someone who really cares about people, in such manner as I observe you doing.

    I have found no significant “scientific revolution” in which the process we have been using is other than the best possible way to test a new scientific idea properly before it “gets loose and wreaks dastardly havoc.”

    If you are willing to put the test, no holds barred, the issues of my work regarding the future safety of humanity, while not actually hurting anyone in any physical sense, then there may be useful and decent work which we may yet accomplish.

    Scattered about in the scientific journals and books and people’s lives are all the elements of what my work is and is about. I learned most of what I know and understand by reading the works of others and by learning how to talk with thousands of people in depth and detail about the most hurtful experiences of their lives.

    In my work and findings to date, criminal behavior is actually the result of subjectively experienced abuse which has produced forms of schizophrenic dissociative catatonic stupor, such that all people convicted of crimes are, from a biophysical view, people having forms of mental illness which make them identifiably dangerous to self and others. All the laws we need are already in place.

    Anyone mistakenly convicted of a crime is likely to be someone falsely convicted or someone who is blatantly dangerous to self and others. Proper evaluation will determine who is falsely convicted and who is dangerous to self and others so as to need protective aslyum for their safety and the safety of others.

    Finding all criminals innocent and simply releasing them would be orders of magnitude worse, in my mind, than the present mess.

    We have all the laws really required, yet the actual problem I find is that there are not nearly enough laws, so laws which fit one past situation are applied to a present situation because of some similar aspects of the situations. That, reading many of the items which start the threads of this blawg, is a serious problem in my mind.

    Nevertheless, I do not find the human predicament to be about the law per se, but rather about how to interpret the law so that it becomes ever more helpful and ever less hurtful.

    Before some really violent person connects the dots and humanity is a tiny dot in the eventual history of the failures of existence…

    BiL, I find no fault with you. I have never found fault with you. Neither do I find fault with my being autistic and my having profound forms of language delay, which are manifestly obvious to me on reviewing some of our comment interactions.

    Because I apparently cannot be not autistic, and you cannot be as I am, that may be why there could be something useful to do, if you are willing to find that out…

    I am in search of someone who will “take no guff from me,” and who really cares about the future of humanity. If my work is wrong, someone needs to find a way for someone else in the future to go down the path I have taken if it really is the path of the destruction of humanity.

  121. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., March 3, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Something went astray during my posting this referenced comment, and the following is a mix of my writing before editing it and it as edited, and it makes no sense to me as it appeared on the blawg, and the ending was somehow truncated:

    I am in search of someone who will “take no guff from me,” and who really cares about the future of humanity. If my work is wrong, someone needs to find a way for someone else in the future to go down the path I have taken if it really is the path of the destruction of humanity.

    Reads better as:

    I am in search of someone who will “take no guff from me,” and who really cares about the future of humanity. If my work is wrong, someone needs to find a way for stopping someone else in the future to go down the path I have taken if it really is the path of the destruction of humanity.

    The word “stopping” somehow vanished; it is in the WordPad copy of the text before I posted it…

    What was truncated from the comment was to the effect that, if you can realize the very great difficulty I have in getting words to work as I tend to expect them to work, I would be truly grateful if you would be able to continue to help me to put my concerns into decent form, such that my concerns may be evaluated for their actual merit instead of being proof of my being autistic.

    The bits and pieces of the work I am doing are scattered about in various books, scientific journals, and elsewhere, and, although I did develop some rather original research methods, they are described in my doctoral dissertation, hence someone may come upon the dots and connect them, even if I fail to accomplish that.

    Someone who is very hate-filled and who otherwise understands what it appears to me I may have come to understand might turn out to be very terribly violent and destructive, for the danger to humanity is real, and I seek to avert the danger, not cause it, before someone else who is hateful causes truly terrible danger to people.

    I am of the view, BiL, that you profoundly care about people, that you decry destructive behavior, and that my word-finding limitations may have led you to very reasonably misunderstand my writing only because of the way in which I am actually autistic.

    Almost always, during my life, when I start to describe that which most deeply concerns me, people disconnect and I am left as though alone. That is not very helpful to me. You, BiL, are one of a very few people who has the courage and character to stand your ground, requiring satisfactory evidence instead of capitulating to real or imposed authoritarian bullying, who has the depth and breadth of law and law practice which I find I really need.

    Please, if you are able, continue…

  122. Brian,

    I’ll be glad to address further the problems with your foundation, but realize that they are problems with your foundation, not just the expression – which while often cumbersome were often clear to me. However, I will have to do so later as I am fighting the flu and a nap is calling. In the mean time, consider what I said about the other areas of focus if you really want to reduce undue adversity and violence and to improve the quality of justice in the world. Those three areas:

    1) equal enforcement of laws (which involves primarily the Judicial and Executive functions of government but is rooted in the Legislative functions),

    2) equity in formulation and drafting of laws and equal (which involves primarily the Legislative functions of government) and

    3) open access to the courts (which is a subject that touches upon all three functions of government as well as economics and sociology)

    are all far more productive areas of focus than attempting to do away with adversity ab initio (which is literally impossible for the sum of humankind) or undermining the role of the courts in dispute resolution (which is indispensable for a just and equitable legal system to operate).

    But now I have to sleep.

  123. Brian,

    Have you had time to think about those three areas I mentioned?

    I want to get an idea of your grasp on how those areas result in much of the injustices you perceive before continuing.

  124. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Brian,

    Have you had time to think about those three areas I mentioned?

    I want to get an idea of your grasp on how those areas result in much of the injustices you perceive before continuing.

    ###########################

    BiL,

    Yes, I have been working with all the practical effort I am able to make. I had to deal with some family health issues during much of today, and just finished doing enough reply, now.

    I will next quote your first post and interdigitate my comments therein, using italics much as I have been doing for a while.

    1) equal enforcement of laws (which involves primarily the Judicial and Executive functions of government but is rooted in the Legislative functions),

    I find it useful to regard the law as written as connotation and the conduct of people as denotation. In object relations theory, there is the object, and its most direct presence in the awareness of the mind is its denotation, and denotation does not involve words; therefore, acquiring denotation requires the immediate presence of the object. Connotation symbolizes denotation in such a way as to allow communication about the object without the object being present. Because denotation is not the object itself, but is the most direct and immediate mental model of the object, denotation tends to be much more accurate than connotation, even though, at significant distance, denotation tends to vanish and only connotation remains.

    Unequal law enforcement (whether of disparity through by ancestry or socio-economic status or educational achievement, or other factors) results in people becoming unable to trust the law, and such distrust leads to further disparity when those who seriously distrust the law act out their distrust.

    I regard disparity of law enforcement as the most severe of all factors I have yet identified in terms of the risk to the future of humanity.

    It is my view, one I welcome being able to test and challenge, that equality of enforcement of law is a function far more of how law is interpreted in specific contexts than a function of the written form of statutes and regulations.

    The way I observe law enforcement, as now constituted, to most often function is of the form of variable-ratio reinforcement (the most effective form of operant conditioning of which I am aware), with the result that willful violation of law may unnwittingly be increased through misunderstanding of how punishment as reduction of the future likelihood of an undesired behavior is compromised by punishments which, in being hurtful, actually reinforce the motives for hurtful behaviors.

    I will gladly explain this in whatever detail may be needed for others to be able to verify the mechanism themselves.

    The way I see to resolve unequal law enforcement is through adequately separating situational factors from those usefully deemed dispositional. This work has been going on in scientific psychloogy for decades, and there is now accumulated a very solid body of readily tested tools for sorting out situation from disposition.

    Happenstance assignment of situational factors to disposition is among the most damaging of the inequality mechanisms I have identified within the structure of law and law enforcement.

    I find a desperate need for laws, more than we have now, yet the the structure and implementation of law and law enforcement sabotages itself when people discover that no effort possibly achievable allows avoiding being found in violation of a law. Alas, finding law as though in contempt of life enough times with enough intensity may take some people into being both in contempt of life and law.

    2) equity in formulation and drafting of laws and equal (which involves primarily the Legislative functions of government) and

    To me, equity in administration of law is far more significant in terms of the application of law than in the formulation of law, in the sense that it is denotation which is most closely connected with conduct, because people respond to how the law and law enforcement directly affects then far more than to the words of the law without direct effect.

    The question of equity of law and equity of law enforcement is the most difficult of these three questions, and the one into which I have put the majority of my research effort.

    3) open access to the courts (which is a subject that touches upon all three functions of government as well as economics and sociology)

    Open access is the only means I can find to allay even totally unintended judicial tyranny as some may find their experiences suggest may have happened with unfortunate outcomes.

    In the sense of open access, if Professor Turley and you do not object, I prefer that we communicate, using various thread topics, to explore the core issues and what may resolve them decently while not unleashing unprecedented violence through not attending adequately to what is needed to safely improve the law before another revolution puts humanity into a terrible setback of violence.

    I would add another item, 4) to the list you made, and that item is of doing the work of sorting out how best to improve the system of law so people will increasingly find the law to be fully worthy of respect in an open way, such as this sort of Internet communication allows. While tradition may suggest that all-out-winner-take-all battle is the easiest way to prevail, those who survive being losers-take-none may become very resentful, thereby setting off another round of winner-take-all/losers-take-none inequity (and iniquity?).

    Were I asked about my sense of the difficulty of improving the law in the public safety interest, I would tend to state my view that no more difficult, yet worthy problem may ever exist. Whatever else I may state as an observation, I have found making biophysical sense of law and law violation by far the most profoundly difficult problem ever to come my way.

    What does it take for someone to be willing to fly an airplane into a building because of hateful revenge? What is actually possible that has a chance of making whatever happens to such people vanish into the annals of history such that the day when no none will ever consider doing such a thing ever again?

    BiL, that you are as concerned as I find you to be, that you challenged me and my work with fierce resolve is, to me, rather exactly what I was hoping might happen here.

    When laws are misused, bad things tend to happen. Physical laws were broken in the design of that first Tacoma Narrows bridge (Galloping Gertie), that Hyat-Regency Skywalk, the Challenger booster O-rings, and the list is very long.

    The core difficulty with doing what may turn out to be as though ahead of the cutting edge research is finding someone who is really willing to learn whether it is junk or whether it may be of some real use. For myself the answer is quite clear, for I have tested the ideas through my own life experiences. If I were working to prove my notions correct, my life would have been nowhere near to a reasonable form of evaluation. However, the null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis approach, with proper hypothesis construction can be plausibly valid as a way to support the alternate hypothesis if it takes but a single, seemingly very common, exception to a well-established general principle to rule out rejection of the null hypothesis.

    My concern is a sense of human society, worldwide, as being like a gunpowder magazine in the midst of a raging wild fire. While my word use may be characteristic of someone who is autistic, and my word use may be difficult for many people, I have been able to get words work fairly well if I am allowed what i need to learn to use words better.

    The possible merit of my concern about public safety factors and the ways of law and law enforcement has been strongly validated for me by many of the topics which have started many of these blawg threads.

  125. Brian,

    I’ll get back to you later in the day when I have time to compose a longer answers. I’m going to be in and out a lot today playing catch up from having the flu this week and will only be doing “drive by” shorter postings until I get caught up.

  126. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Brian,

    Have you had time to think about those three areas I mentioned?

    I want to get an idea of your grasp on how those areas result in much of the injustices you perceive before continuing.

    ########################

    I was rather tired last evening when I made an effort to usefully reply, and now seek to simplify and improve my response.

    The three questions of your posting of March 3, 2011 at 1:54 pm are so significant to my work as to lead me to write a short preface to my replies.

    My work is of a bioengineering approach, using the scientific methods of biophysics, to the most serious social enigmas I have been able to identify; ones of intractable resistance to the grasp of prior science and methods of science.

    Before I became of teen age, my family library included Pierre Lecomte du Noüy, “Human Destiny,” Longman Green, 1947 (my parents having the first 1949 paperback edition which I now have). Lecomte du Noüy (who died in 1947) was a biophysicist whose writing encouraged me to look for ways to unriddle problems of seemingly impossible difficulty. Lecomte du Noüy’s work led me to the hunch that, if I worked with unbreakable resolve against an impossibly difficult problem, there might be a tiny chance of my learning something useful.

    Because the intense violence of World War II, starting with the invasion of Poland, came to my attention as I was beginning to make sense of the sounds of words, and because of my parents strongly expressed concerns about the carnage of war, I became willing to put my whole life into an effort to unriddle war, even though I saw no obvious way to ever do that.

    The difficult may take forever, the impossible may need countless forevers. But what is a forever? My spell checker in use is as though unwilling to allow forever to be plural. Wonder why?

    There is a property of being autistic as I find I am. My brain appears to be unable to stop; so that I work at least as hard when asleep as when awake, and I am absolutely unable to slow down or otherwise abate my thought processes.

    The way I experience life has not changed since before I was born. What I experience changes beyond anything I can yet imagine as really being real. An event happens and I respond to the event in whatever way I am able to respond, and every response I make is itself an event to which I respond as I am able to respond. In this manner, I never experience even the slightest discrepancy between my response to an event and my ability to respond to the event.

    Instead of finding myself having responsibilities, I have only response abilities and I only learn of my response abilities as I respond to the events which make manifest my ability to respond to each individual event and collections of individual events as events themselves.

    In my life experience, I have the past only as a form of imagination for which “memory” is a useful word. In my life experience, I have the future only as a form of imagination for which “planning” is a useful word. In my life experience, I have the present only as a form of imagination for which “awareness” is a useful word. Indeed, I experience my own existence only as imaginary, in the sense of imagination in which “existence” is a useful word.

    Perhaps I can put that more simply yet. Within my life and life experiences, even my life and its experiences are at best only imagined. All of reality is a proper subset of what is imaginary.

    There is some very traditional mathematical basis for my regarding all reality as a proper subset of what is imaginary, and that proper subset is as though itself of vanishing reality.

    I recall that TonyC. decided to find out what I know of “e raised to the (i times pi) power,” and the “answer,” put one way, is the ordered pair (real, imaginary) in the complex plane of (-1,0).

    I is done did study some maths. I done learnt that complex variable stuff in grade school, the better to do the work of applied quantum mechanics commonly known as electronics engineering.

    Albert Einstein described reality as a four dimensional space-time continuum, but could not attain that “Unified Field Theory” which allegedly is as though the holy quale of physics.
    My dad, in the late 1940s, a scientist having majored in philosophy and minored, so he said, in biology and, by doing independent research in astronomy which evidently never appeared on his transcript.

    My dad worked on the idea of a Unified Field Theory and concluded while I was in grade school, that Einstein had gotten the dimensions of the problem wrong. My dad did not have the mathematics background to figure out what the dimensions of a viable Unified Field Theory need to be. I do have the needed mathematics background.

    The Unified Field Theory is minimally of eight dimensions; any less and any odd number of dimensions necessarily excludes from possibility any useful form of Unified Field Theory.

    Some simple mathematics stuff I now provide. TonyC. pointed to the issue with his “e raised to the (i times pi) power” question. The mathematics of the actual world is of complex variables as commonly expressed as ordered pairs of real and imaginary orthogonal components.

    For the Unified Field Theory to unify, the four dimensions of the space-time continuum are all mutually orthogonal complex variable planes.

    In the ordinary complex plane as typically used in doing routine contour integrals, the abcissa is the horizontal, or real, axis, and the ordinate is the vertical, or imaginary, axis.

    In the complex plane the total area of all of the real numbers is identically zero. The volume of the intersection of the real axes of the four space-time complex variable planes is also identically zero.

    Therefore, the “real” world does not actually exist — except as a dimensionless singularity that has been named, The Eternal Now!

    Of course, I am no Einstein or Galileo. I am a Wisconsin Certified Master Electrician, No. 660912. Galileo and Einstein were not Wisconsin Certified Master Electricians, and I am; therefore I am absolutely not a Galileo or an Einstein.

    However me is perchance done gotten thet thar Unified Field Theory before any other Certified Master Electrician has?

    Silly Unified Field Theory, it is so simple that it took a really stupid autistic person to look where it was waiting to be found? Or, I may be really wrong about this; being really wrong is inherent within and intrinsic to, a world in which quantum mechanics is the defining observable physical basis of said world being even infinitesimally possible?

    I plan to be in Madison, Wisconsin, tomorrow, weather and other factors permitting. I plan to talk with people as I find talking possible. I will do nothing in any way of violence. I expect to learn and I will not know what I will learn until after I have learned it.

    I find, as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a victim of severe child abuse which likely occurred during his transition from infancy to conventional childhood, said abuse having taken the form of a very severe and dangerous form of mental illness, the same sort of condition as led Jared Loughner to act as he did; that condition being rather well described in Nick Cumming’s “Focused Psychotherapy,” (Brunner Mazel, 1995) as schizophrenic catatonic stupor and in Lance Dodes, “Breaking Addiction” (Harper, 2011) as an Addiction. I further find that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is mentally ill in such a way as to present serious risk of danger to himself and others and especially to pose a threat of serious to severe child abuse through projecting his innocently-acquired child abuse onto children not yet abused through his intended, abusive fiscal policies. I put my license as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer “on the line” in stating this, and I so state within my established professional competence within the lawful status of my being licensed as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, and do so without deception and do so only in the public safety interest, especially with respect to child abuse.

    The answers to your three questions, BiL, I plan to live out to their end, to actually learn through experience and not only as theory merely espoused.

    Please excuse any overlooked typographical blunders on my part.

  127. Buddha Is Laughing 1, March 4, 2011 at 7:40 am

    Brian,

    I’ll get back to you later in the day when I have time to compose a longer answers. I’m going to be in and out a lot today playing catch up from having the flu this week and will only be doing “drive by” shorter postings until I get caught up.

    ###########################################

    BiL,

    You have been beautifully helpful to me, and in a way better than I ever hoped would happen. Please rest as needed. I am going to be rather busy getting ready to head to Madison early tomorrow morning, and may not have much time to be on this blawg.

    I could never have considered doing what I may do tomorrow, to be utterly peaceful with myself and others while learning if I have indeed plausibly found a way to take my work to the public such that it can safely be evaluated without setting off quite exactly the sort of civilization disaster which most concerned me before you profoundly validated the need for caution regarding that “undermining many established views” thing Dr. Irving F. Miller recognized in 1993 and wrote of in 1997.

    I find society to be at a metastable “tipping point” whether or not I do anything. Therefore, I choose to that which I believe will best promote the public safety, doing so in full accord with the gentle guidance of my conscience.

    There is neither need to make wasteful haste nor to dilly-dally until ruination overcomes humanity. There is a path between tyranny and apathy, and I am resolved to put my whole life toward its practical realization in an imaginary world and in such of the world as is also actually real.

    Thanks, and be well.

  128. Brian,

    In this message, I am going to address some general issues about your presentation. I’m going to save the “3 Points” until tomorrow. Mainly because it has been a long and rainy day and I’m beat. Before I get into the general issues though, I’d let to address your above digressions into metaphysics and quantum mechanics.

    First, let’s dispense with the metaphysics. I have no issue with the concept of reality as illusion. Indeed, it is an underpinning of my philosophical system of choice. That the dichotomy between self and all is false presents no issue to our communication. This is reflected in my firm belief that the world is what we make it . . . to a point. There are always things outside human control. The best we can do is the best we can do with the any given situation. A more accurate statement would be the human social world is what we make it. Much of the rest is left to the vagaries of chance, randomness built in to the universe at the quantum level. I also believe most, if not all, outcomes are attainable as I’m a proponent of Everett’s Many Worlds Theory to reconcile how we can perceive non-deterministic events with the deterministic equations of quantum mechanics. The proper path at a branch holds the key to optimal outcomes, even if that path is not always predictable or controllable by human action. It has a more fractal appeal to it than seeing the universe as linear and bound by the collapse of the wave function. But I digress. Back to reality as an illusion. Although self and other are a false dichotomy, this does not negate that many, many others, indeed most, of humanity are trapped withing the cage of ego and self. This is not only the root of much suffering, it is also the root of much crime.

    What is murder but the ego of one extinguishing the perception of existence of another? And for what? Revenge? Simple greed? The pure love of killing for the sake of killing? It doesn’t matter the specific motivation in the end as all of these motivations are related to ego. Illusory or not, the existence of others as unique points of perception and their insistence that they are distinct from the rest of the universe is key to understanding the problems of social justice.

    That being given, in order to maximize social justice, we must deal with the fact that others are bound to self and see no duty beyond self. Sometimes this manifests as simple blindness to the suffering of others. Sometimes this manifests as pathological sociopathy or psychopathy. Regardless, any solution must be presented in the “language of the self”.

    Now a more direct address to your presentation.

    Do you want to know why I cut you no slack for not defending your position? It wasn’t that you threatened my paradigm as the value of law and courts to society is a net positive and this is backed by linear logic that is applicable to a situation where all people think they are distinct from the universe. The true reason was three-fold.

    First, I needed to know what kind of defense you’d put up to ascertain if you were truly autistic or simply a troll plant. We have had professional trolls here before, your identity as presented was a little too perfect a foil to be trustworthy given the nature of your anti-legalism message and I’m a naturally suspicious person. I needed to be sure and your reactions told me what I needed to know. If that caused you stress, I do apologize most sincerely. Like I told you before, not all who attack your ideas are your enemy. However, your idea would have merited challenge on the merits alone. It has inherent flaws that I hope you’ll see better as we discuss the “3 Points” later.

    Second, there are those in this world who would treat some of your assertions much more harshly than I have. You may dismiss parts of Aristotle’s work, but he was right when he said, “Learning is not child’s play; we cannot learn without pain.” This is true for the majority of humankind. As a species, learning is a difficult and often painful experience. Most people don’t like to be disabused of their illusions, delusions, bias and prejudices. Personally, even when unpleasant truths are revealed, I have always felt learning as pleasure. In this, I suspect we have more in common that in difference. But you need to understand you (and I as far as learning goes) are different than most people and takes those differences into account even if you do not rationally understand them. Realizing that most people are brought to understanding kicking and screaming will help you realize there are more persuasive ways to present your information to make it “more easily digestible” to your audience.

    The thrid was that, because social justice is a cooperative effort, you must bring others to view any solution proposed as viable and desirable for the benefit of all. This will meet with resistance. Resistance exactly like that which I gave you. If you are to be successful in your work, you need to realize two things about stating your case. You are trying to address fundamental baseline human behaviors, behaviors that you man not share or even properly understand, so to minimize resistance, you need to make some basic changes in the way you present your idea(s).

    As to the mechanics of your presentation, first, you must – I repeat must – conform to the rules of logic in your presentation. Circular logic, false equivalences, misrepresentation of accepted history and resorting to religiosity will not help you. It will in fact harm you. Logicians will tear your fallacies apart, as they will with false equivalences and misrepresentation of accepted history. There is a simple list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them so that you can avoid them in your presentation at all cost.

    As far as history goes? You should look into the the Code of Justinian – the Corpus Juris Civilis – as it is both the model upon which modern civil law (as used in most of Europe and Louisiana) and regulations are built and it also accomplished something I think is in line with your goals of making the law more “knowable”. The Corpus Juris Civilis was complied by Justinian by looking at all the previous body of Roman law and distilling it. He reduced the volume of laws in Rome thirty-fold by codification. Also familiarize yourself with the history of English common law as it – not ecclesiastical courts – are the true root of American jurisprudence as used in the majority of jurisdictions and also the the basis of our adversarial court system (as contrasted to inquisitorial courts like those found in ancient civil law and ecclesiastical canon).

    Speaking of ecclesiastical courts, religiosity should be avoided as well. It will harm you because simply not everyone shares the same beliefs as you do. Phrasing your case in standard logical terms and in religiously neutral language will help you. Belief, no matter how transcendentally perfect in an illusory world, will not help you win as many hearts and minds as neutral logic. One reason is logic is verifiable and has checks. Despite your desire to unify science and religion (which I still think unattainable), you must resist the urge to do so in the analysis of the law. Stick to standard logic and empirical proofs. To change the way people think about something, you must be using the “same language” as they are, even if your personal preference is for postpositivism.

    Another reason is that by omitting religious language – no matter how well read you are in other traditions – will not lead others to think either rightly or by mistake that you are attacking their religious beliefs either directly or by omission. This is one of the reasons I am very careful to note repeatedly that I am a philosophical Buddhist and not a religious Buddhist. However, I couple this with my naturally skeptical nature and treat all religions with a critical eye. This is NOT an approach I suggest for you. Stick to religiously neutral language to present your case and you’ll fare far better. Also, keep the metaphysics to a minimum. The social construct you are addressing – law – is inherently distant from metaphysics. Philosophy may be a basis of law, but it is more a pragmatic exercise than speculation. Sticking to the pragmatic aspects of measurable cause and effect will serve you better. In addition, metaphysics is a bit like religion in that some people read it and their brain switches off. Minimal digressions into metaphysics will help keep your audience focused.

    That is all I can offer for now as I’m tired and I need a drink.

    I hope this has been helpful.

    Ask if you have questions.

  129. BIL:

    “I hope this has been helpful.”

    *****************************
    As good a rule book for rational argument as I’ve seen. Kudos, my friend.

  130. I am getting ready to head to Madison early in the morning, to see, hear, and learn as I find I am able to do. The comments here about my work are minor compared to how I was treated by come classmates and teachers during my grade, junior high, and high school days.

    Perhaps I will garner some sort of notice in Madison; I am a mandatory child abuse reporter in Wisconsin, and have yet to find a police department that has much of a clue as to what child abuse really is. Sad. Especially for children being abused in ways to which law enforcement is blind…

    I will be elsewhere for tomorrow, and expect to be back on Sunday. Funny thing, though, I know a retired physicist who worked at one of the premier national physics laboratories who has been unable to find where my notions of a Unified Field Theory might be in error.

    Then there is that little book by Alan M. Dershowitz, The Genesis of Justice. I first got the 9 hours or so read by Dershwitz at a rummage sale, and later got the book.

    The problem with scientific paradigm shifts is, they seem to happen whether some particular people wanted them or not…

  131. Brian,

    Let’s try to stay focused on ways to improve the legal system. Unified field theory would revolutionize physics and electrical engineering – possibly a few other hard sciences like nuclear medicine, but in the end, it will have zero impact on the law. If you want to talk UFT, I suggest the following blog as a more appropriate venue:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/

  132. Buddha Is Laughing 1, March 5, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    Brian,

    Let’s try to stay focused on ways to improve the legal system. Unified field theory would revolutionize physics and electrical engineering – possibly a few other hard sciences like nuclear medicine, but in the end, it will have zero impact on the law. If you want to talk UFT, I suggest the following blog as a more appropriate venue:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/

    #################################

    My reason, and my only reason, for posting comments here is my doing that which I find I am able to do which I observe has the highest a-priori probability estimate I can devise of actually improving the legal system and the pragmatic implementation of law with regard to what I, in accord with conscience, find to be the ultimate identifiable root cause of disrespect for law stemming from people finding it not feasible to be in fully conscience-based law violation avoidance.

    In accord with my conscience and my understanding of biophysics as relevant to the structure(s) of human society, I find what is, to me, as-yet-unshakable biophysical evidence of something predating recorded human history which drives people into a system and structure of law(s) which is such as to preclude humans being able, in accord with conscience, to be truly law-abiding in the sense of not being violators of law(s).

    Using the methodologies of biological pattern recognition of my thesis adviser and his colleagues, and my own enhancements of this aspect of biophysics, I find no possibility of any system of law and law enforcement which defies known and well-observed laws of biophysics which can include the possibility of actual human individuals being permitted to not be in violation of law(s).

    That which a system excludes is not included in any system which excludes that which is excluded from the system.

    I put in somewhat over five hours walking around the Wisconsin Capitol Building yesterday. There are at least two contrasting “kinds of walkers.” Perhaps 25,000 walkers walking around the State Capitol Building, and one Scott Walker not obviously present as I was able to observer, and therefore, while I was a talking, walking person, as were many others, there is also one Walker Talker whose talking troubles my sense of conscience, and does so in formidable depth and detail.

    There appears to me to be a significant disparity of viewpoint separating the walkers from The Walker. That apparent disparity has piqued my conscience into gentle, peaceful, deliberate, diligent action.

    I talked with a few hundred people who are, like me, rank and file union members. Towrd mid-afternoon, from a stage slightly to the northwest of the State Capitol Building, a woman sang a collection of union songs. Beautiful, inspiring, motivating…

    She commented that she was not a union member. I found myself in disagreement with her view. If she is not a Union member, what is she?

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”

    I went to Madison, Wisconsin, yesterday, as an AFSCME Illinois Retiree Chapter 31 member and as a Wisconsin Resident, because I have terrible conscience pangs of alarm that “top tier people in power” are as though blindly and unwittingly striving to the limit of possibility to form a more perfect DIS-UNION, and that phenomenon-as-apparent-to-me is intensely troubling within my conscience and its gently resolute guidance (gently resolute guidance is my personal interpretation of “according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed” as found in Article I, Section 19, of the Wisconsin Constitution).

    What I do and how I go about doing it is in conformity with the Wisconsin Constitution, in that, according to the Wisconsin Constitution as the framework of law in Wisconsin, I categorically and unequivocally disallow infringement by law upon the dictates of my conscience.

    To the limit permitted by the existence of existence, I do not ever actually hurt people, and I bring to such attention is is attainable my observations regarding what does actually hurt people, so I do in accord with the dictates of my conscience.

    Tell me of a higher pro-social standard by which any individual person can live in any achievable way as a member of human society, and I will put all of my available effort into mending my ways.

  133. RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., March 6, 2011 at 4:29 am

    Oops… Left out what I intended to include. Got chased into a small room with a water closet facility because of being alive because of having no colon since 1986, and no colon cancer for want of a colon that could be terminally cancerous.

    I use the principles of biophysics in my work in bioengineering, and the Unified Field Theory toward which I put effort is a biophysical unified field theory, and not anything nearly so inconsequentially trivial as the simple unification of electromagnetism with gravity.

    Perhaps some operational-like definitions may be useful:

    “Engineering is the solving of practical problems, efficiently, economically, and effectively, using scientific principles.”

    “Bioengineering is engineering applied to the phenomenon of life.”

    “The phenomenon of life is comprised of that deemed alive and its substrate.”

    “Biophysics is a name for the entire collection of scientific principles useful in doing the work of bioengineering.”

    The classification system deemed appropriate to the profession of law may contrast with the classification system deemed appropriate by one particular member of the profession of bioengineering…

    It is because I find that the classification system I observe to be deemed appropriate by the profession of law infringes on the classification system I, personally and professionally, deem appropriate to my professional practice of bioengineering, that I also find, in accord with the gentle guidance of my conscience, a clarion call to bring to the attention of members of the bar the infringement of conscience which strongly concerns me.

  134. Brian,

    Trying to talk about the law in the language of bioengineering is like trying to dance about architecture. You will not change any inequity you see in the law by talking about dissolving it. Because talking of dis-union? Is simply more anti-legal antisocial bullshit, Brian, and your “dictates of conscience” are merely looking to create tyranny and/or anarchy. If you want to discuss ways to improve the law? Great. If you just want to bitch and whine about the inequities and suggest solutions that all involve dis-union or removing the role of courts in society or dispensing with the need to laws altogether or some other such antisocial nonsense? You are either 1) insane, 2) a troll or 3) an insane troll. Take your pick. But the rambling about bioengineering and physics and all that shit has come to an end. None of that is applicable to law. Either stay on point or continue to be dismissed as a crank.

  135. If my being dismissed “as a crank” is the price of my attending to my conscience, then I rejoice at being given to pay that price. The future of the children of the world is worth impossibly more than I, as an ordinary person, can ever pay.

    I am a member of Hope United Church of Christ, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. I may have mis-struck a computer keyboard key, the relevant section of the Wisconsin Constitution is Article I, Section 18, which, copied and pasted from the State of Wisconsin web site, reads:

    Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state
    religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982]
    The right of every person to worship Almighty God according
    to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall
    any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of
    worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall
    any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be
    permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious
    establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be
    drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982]

    I live in the State of Wisconsin and I find that the Anglo-Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence infringes on my right, in accord with the Wisconsin Constitution, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience. Further more, I find that any attempt to compel me to believe other than according to the dictates of my conscience, in my worship of Almighty God is an unconstitutional infringement of my Wisconsin Constitutional right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience.

    That, dear folks, simply is not negotiable as I may be affected by the beliefs of others when the beliefs of others are as to require of me that I not worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience.

    To the law, I do not give or grant the right to “have it both ways,” such that the law defines me as not worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience by complying with coercion in such ways as violate the dictates of my conscience.

    According to the dictates of my conscience, it for the law to serve humankind and not for humankind to serve the law. Thus, in my worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience, my conscience dictates that the law of mankind is unconscionably abusive whenever the law, as connotative constructs, is placed above any human person.

    As I do not submit my conscience to other than Almighty God in accord with my understanding of Almighty God, so I do not seek that anyone else submit their conscience to me, anything I believe or disbelieve, or to my understanding of Almighty God.

    The words of the hymns used at Hope United Church of Christ this mourning are all in the public domain:

    O Master, Let Me Walk With Thee

    O Master, let me walk with thee in lowly paths of service free; teach me thy secret, help me bear the strain of toil, the fret of care.
    Help me t he slow of heart to move with some clear, winning word of love; teach me the wayward feet to stay, and guide them in the homeward way.
    Teach me thy patience; still with thee, in closer, dearer company, in work that keeps faith sure and strong, in trust that triumphs over wrong.
    In hope that sends a shining ray fr down the future’s broadening way, in peace that only thou canst give, with thee O Master, let me live.
    Washington Gladden, 1897, alt.

    Breathe on Me, Breath of God

    Breathe on me, breath of God, fill me with life anew, that I may love what thou dost love, and do what thou wouldst do.
    Breathe on me, breath of God, until my heart is pure, until my will is one with thine, to do and to endure.
    Breathe on me, breath of God, till I am wholly thine, until this earthly part of me glows with thy fire divine.
    Breathe on me, breath of God, so I shall never die, but live with thee the perfect life of thine eternity.
    Edwin Hatch, 1878

    Let Us Break Bread Together, (with the original “on our knees” changed by J. Brian Harris to “on our feet,” and the original “fall down on our knees” to “stand tall on our feet” and “sun” changed to “son”…)

    Let us break bread together on our feet, let us break bread together on our feet.
    (Refrain)
    Let us drink wine together on our feet, let us drink wine together on our feet.
    (Refrain)
    Let us praise God together on our feet, let us praise God together on our feet.
    (Refrain): When I stand tall on my feet with my face to the rising son, Oh, Lord, have mercy on me.
    African-American Spiritual, 19th century, with some words altered by Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., 2011

    The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (of America) does not allow the rule of law to establish or disestablish my religion or my right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of my conscience.

    All the lawyers of the world may jump up and down with raging fury at my defiance of the demand of the rule of law, to such extent as such demand may exist, that I act in discord with my conscience in my worship of Almighty God; and my conscience shall stand resolute except as demonstrably shown to me to be misleading me through reproducible scientific methodologies.

    The following will suffice very nicely to inform me that my conscience has misled me:

    1. Truthfully describe some mistake actually and demonstrably made.
    2. Truthfully and reproducibly describe and demonstrate an achievable process through which the mistake actually and demonstrably made could actually and demonstrably have been avoided such that it actually and demonstrably was not made.
    3 If 1. and 2. have been reproducibly and truthfully demonstrated, I shall allow my having been misled by my conscience, as truthfully and reproducibly demonstrating 1. and 2. will be the scientific invalidation of the law of non-contradiction (aka, the law of contradiction).

    In the presence of a new scientific paradigm which replaces part of all of a prior scientific paradigm, citing those parts of the old paradigm which the new paradigm replaces as disproof of the new paradigm is (what is a good word? how about :-) ) hogwash.

  136. Sometimes, in my old age, I briefly forget something. Come to think of that, that also happened in my young age, also.

    At Hope United Church of Christ, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, the wine for communion is unfermented. Some people call unfermented grape wine, “grape juice.” Ethanol is present only in trace amounts at the very most.

    If there were altar boys or altar girls at Hope Church, they could chug-a-lug the whole supply of communion wine and never be caught, as in the movie, Doubt, with alcohol on the breath.

    It appears to me that Hope United Church of Christ is a vastly safer place for children than is any church in which fermented (significantly ethanol-containing) grape wine is used for communion services.

    Hope United Church of Christ (then known as Hope Congregational Church) was a very safe place for me during that of my childhood and early church membership when I attended Hope Church…

    Would that every child could know, experience, and understand such profound and authentic safety…

  137. Well, so much for being reasonable and that indeed tells me everything I need to know.

    Crank with a dose of propaganda troll.

    Feel free to blather all you like, Brian.

    Just learn to realize I’m still going to expose it for the Big Lie that it is when you stray into Big Lie territory.

    But since you’re not really serious about ways to improve the law, only attempts to discredit its value to society, I’m not going to address you anymore on that topic seriously and will only deconstruct your nonsense.

  138. BiL, What I want you to do more than anything is to expose me for the fraud that I am, only I understand the word “fraud” to be the exact opposite of what I am guessing you mean by using it.

    There is a curious aspect of the way I do human subject research. I tell of myself and my life with such direct honesty that people who do not meet me in person, and many who do meet me in person, know with as-though absolute certainty that I cannot be who I am.

    That always turns to the advantage of the actual purpose and function of my life, which is to so completely unriddle child abuse as to bring about such changes in the structure of human society as to relegate child abuse in all forms to historical studies.

    When, as a toddler, I learned of little children being killed in war, I asked all the power there will ever be to give to me a life which, to the greatest extent possible, would help humanity to understand child abuse and to bring the epoch of child abuse to a decent end.

    What I do is working in the manner in which I had hoped it would, though I never know in advance what form that manner will take.

    I am indeed a student of the Big Lie. The Big Lie is the Adversarial Principle as an aspect of existence which was formed and in place long before the existence of animal life itself.

    The more ways you attack me and my work the more you teach me about The Big Lie. And I am grateful for your help, truly grateful.

    I continue to pose a legal theory question which may be of significant concern to people who are sufficiently aware of the nature and form of child abuse, such as people well familiar with the work of Alice Miller, and the list of scientists who have studied child abuse and childhood trauma is extensive.

    The irony for those who may believe that I can be threatened or coerced into any form of capitulation of my conscience is that i have been bullied and otherwise abused so very many times without ever capitulating that I doubt that there is anyone who can persuade me to capitulate or concede against the will of my conscience.

    Thus, I comment here because I continue to have a concern regarding a foundational aspect of legal theory, and I continue to find no regular or irregular commenter here who will fully engage with me in an authentic dialogue regarding the merit, or lack thereof, regarding the work I do. This is neither something I expect nor something I do not expect.

    Furthermore, as I work in accord with the guidance of my conscience, I will not be persuaded to do anything which goes “against the grain” of my conscience.

    If bullying words were able to persuade me to abandon my conscience, surely the coercive murder(ers?) I have known would have so coerced me.

    The legal theory question, which has not here been addressed save by what I find to be categorical, prejudicial rejection without any actual dialogue on its detailed merits (or lack thereof) is within the parameter range I had deemed possible, though not at all what I had, before beginning to comment on this blawg, deemed what I would prefer.

    I have a few minutes of video from the Wisconsin State Capitol demonstration at which I was yesterday, Saturday, March 5, 2011. When I get the video processing computer suitably set up, I expect to put the video, edited to remove portions when the camera was not usefully aimed, and plug the stuff into YouTube. I found someone who was willing to take a short video of me and my four-sided placard…

    Nothing has yet happened which demonstrates to me that the legal theory concern of my bioengineering research is other than a valid concern.

    From pages 40 and 41 of Clare Sainsbury, “Martian in the Playground, Second Edition,” A Lucky Ducky Book, Sage Publications, London, 2009:

    “Because the e-mail list I run focuses on university issues, the hundreds of people with autistic spectrum conditions with whom I am in touch include people who are probably among the most high-functioning and successful autistic people in the world — people with degrees, people with PhDs, people holding down jobs, even two people who are married. Not one of these people result from any of the supposed “miracle cure” treatments or educational programmes and not one of them is in any way “cured”.”

    I was a member of that e-mail list. Reading that book by Clare Sainsbury might help those who reject my actual existence to better understand that autistic people may differ from non-autistic people in ways that are bewildering to some non-autistic people…

    For me, primacy of conscience beats beating other people verbally and in every other way I can imagine.

    One of the most fascinating characteristics I have noticed among the non-autistic is a proclivity among a few non-autistic people to claim that I am abusing them by declining their invitation of allowing them to abuse me.

    That is remarkable, to me, for sure.

    And tragic.

  139. I don’t care about your alleged autism. I don’t care about validating or invalidating your person. Your validation of self is your business.

    But since you mentioned “fraud” . . .

    I do care about your antisocial and tyranny promoting ideas. I will be invalidating them and by the same method I’ve used heretofore, namely pointing out the logical fallacies and when you are lying about facts and pointing out when you are being evasive or purposefully obfuscating. Like right now when you are trying to characterize adversarial process as the Big Lie when the true Big Lie is that society cannot exist without legal dispute resolution and that the adversarial court system is the best possible system as it provides for all sides to present their arguments and case before an impartial judge and jury. Far from your assertion that this creates adversity and tyranny, this due process eliminates the violence often inherent in self-help “justice” and provides a check against the tyranny of the strong over the weak.

    To be perfectly clear.

    If you find this personally insulting and/or invalidating?

    I don’t give a damn.

    Your reactions are your problem.

    Because when I am addressing you and your bad ideas, you are not the object of my message.

  140. Personally insulting or invalidating? What in the whole universe gives to you the notion that anything you could ever do would insult me in any way at all? What gives to you the notion that anything you could ever do would even begin to hint at invalidating me?

    My work is subject to evaluation, as is any and all work of any and all kinds, only naming something not valid is not demonstrating its invalidity.

    While I am willing to accept on face value that you “don’t give a damn,” I have a little hunch that you and may have veritably opposite meaning ascribed to not giving “a damn.”

    While I may have the personal integrity to withstand every sort of non-lethal abuse anyone can send my way, I happen to have known a few more people who committed suicide in response to the values I find you here espousing.

    A curious feature of the Scott Walker-Tea Party thing in Wisconsin may be their believing that, Wisconsin being a hotbed of Progressivism, by knocking Wisconsin out, the rest of the states would be easy pickings.

    Alas Tea Party people, taken as a bunch, which is never an accurate way to do anything, may tend to be prejudiced against the way of The Natural Step, in first picking the low-hanging fruit.

    I am much familiar with The Natural Step, and it would never occur to me to start out by picking the highest-hanging fruit. However, if the high-hanging fruit is blocking needed sunlight from reaching the low-hanging fruit, so that the low-hanging fruit cannot grow properly to maturity, then it may be worthwhile to study the high-hanging fruit enough to get it to stop blocking the light from the more important low-hanging fruit.

    The problem the high-hanging fruit may have with The Natural Step is that The Natural Step just might really be the natural step that nature is actually taking.

    For my work, rather to my surprise, you, BiL, just keep on being a veritable data “platinum mine.” You give me data, I process the data you give to me.

    So far, I find you giving me what may be the best window into the top tier that I may ever find.

    Even as I write, children are experiencing abuse stemming from from the adversarial principle. That grieves me deeply.

  141. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 7, 2011 at 12:57 am

    And you give me antisocial trollery to shoot down.

    So I guess that makes us even, windbag.

    ############################

    Sometimes a quote from a book, used within fair use notions, is usefully used repeatedly, because it is as though unnoticed for several times.

    Chapter 2 of Albert Einstein, “Out of My Later Years,” Philosophical Library, New York, 1950:

    [begin quote from Out of My Later Years]
    SELF-PORTRAIT

    Of what is significant in one’s own existence one is hardly aware, and it certainly should not bother the other fellow. What does a fish know about the water in which he swims all his life?

    The bitter and the sweet come from the outside, the hard from within, from one’s own efforts. For the most part I do the thing which my nature drives me to do. It is embarrassing to earn so much respect and love for it. Arrows of hate have been shot at me too; but they never hit me, because somehow they belonged to another world, with which I have no connection whatsoever.

    I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity.
    [end quote from Out of My Later Years}

    It has been brilliantly and correctly pointed out by some commentators here that I am “not an Einstein.” That is absolutely true. It is no less nor more true that Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize recipient) was no J. Brian Harris.

    Of what is significant in the life of J. Brian Harris, J. Brian Harris is profoundly and deeply aware. By all I have been able to learn, Albert Einstein did not have parents who were autistic, high-functioning, and very greatly self-aware to such an extent as to accept their profoundly autistic younger son, J. Brian Harris, as being neither more nor less “normal” than anyone else, for the parents of J. Brian Harris, being autistic, had come to regard their being autistic, though they never used that word in describing themselves to me, J. Brian Harris, their younger, profoundly autistic son.

    Self-awareness is perhaps a central issue for existence. By what process does existence itself develop self-awareness such that the progeny of existence in human form can be given self-awareness from existence itself? Wherefrom comes existence, such that existence takes upon itself the form whereby existence exists as it exists, observable moment by moment, observable place by place?

    Albert Einstein was not a Registered Professional Engineer, Albert Einstein never solved that “unified field theory” problem, Albert Einstein never resided in Door County, Wisconsin. There are plausibly millions and minions of ways in which Albert Einstein never accomplished things which J. Brian Harris has accomplished, just as there are countless things J. Brian Harris has accomplished which Albert Einstein never accomplished.

    Were I to guess (and what is a guess?), I would guess that the greatest contrast of significance between Albert Einstein and J. Brian Harris is quite simply that J. Brian Harris is intensively and extensively aware of “the water in which he has been swimming.”

    Firstly, I was very aware of the “water” (amniotic fluid) in which I swam as a fetus. Secondly, I was very aware of the water in the swimming pool in the basement of Sayles-Hill Gymnasium, at Carleton College, where it was as though J. Brian Harris swam into that eighth heaven from which could be seen as though below the seven heavens of Biblical-Koranic telling, replete with all that the Prophet Mohammad reported from his night ascension and more. Words are merely connotations and are never what they connote.

    The original version of the movie, “Twelve Angry Men” did not come out the year Albert Einstein began college or university studies and did not frame Albert Einstein’s freshman year class in Sociology at Carleton College because, unlike J. Brian Harris, Albert Einstein never attended Carleton as a student. Albert Einstein did not use Thorstein Veblen as an exemplar and drop out of Carleton after collecting the useful knowledge he found Carleton had to offer, as J. Brian Harris did.

    Albert Einstein lacked the severity of autism which led to it taking until J. Brian Harris was of age 59 before J. Brian Harris was able to finish his Ph.D. degree.

    Albert Einstein was no J. Brian Harris.

    J. Brian Harris was no Albert Einstein.

    Life is like that.

    No person is another person, when a person is taken in total.

    What useful wisdom may those who live the Twelve Steps have to offer?

    How about, “Don’t compare!”

    I guess “windbag” is a single word for a longer phrase, perhaps, “profoundly autistic person making an effort to learn more about how words work and how words do not work, doing so in a characteristically profoundly autistic way.”

    “Windbag” is certainly more compact. Only, might it be a tad pejorative?

    I do not fault people for being profoundly lacking in autism.

    I do have little pangs of sadness as I learn more and more about the seeming (to me) poverty of the inner lives of those who appear to me to be seriously to profoundly lacking in the sort of self-awareness which I observe is possible only for those who have retained almost all to all of the infantile autism condition in which it appears to J. Brian Harris to be that with which every fetus is born.

    The study of imago projection is interesting, tragically interesting. The study of idealized parent imago projection is only tragically interesting at best, as it is observed by J. Brian Harris.

    The bottom tier muck is stirring itself. Is it finally awakening?

    The muck sits upon the bedrock, the top tier laid its foundation upon the muck and the muck is stirring itself.

    What will become of the edifice the top tier built for itself upon the muck, for the muck unwittingly hid the bedrock from the top tier?

    How does that line go from Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”?

    “Blessed are the cheese makers”?

    I sure do like Renard’s cheese, made in Door County.

    Yummy. Feels good in the tummy. Go, Door County.

    Door County? Named for the strait between Gills Rock and Washington Island?

    “Portes des Mortes”?

    From Patricia Schultz, “1000 Places to See in the USA and Canada Before You Die,” Workman Publishing, 2007. from Google Books:

    “You’ll find greater solitude when you venture on Door County’s “lake side” or its northern reaches, where low-key resorts lie hidden along sand beaches and rocky bays. You won’t reach the end of the county until you’ve hopped a ferry across the Portes des Mortes Passage (“Death’s Door”) to Washington Island, then another to Rock Island State Park.”

    Rock Island was the “summer estate” of electrical inventor, Chester Thordarson, who, among other items of significance, invented the “E-I” lamination system for electrical transformer cores. The company he founded, now Thordarson Magnetics, continues in business, having been founded in 1895. I have some early Thordarson transformers, including a very large plate transformer that I may yet use to make a homebrew HF band Amateur Radio “linear amplifier.”

    Death’s Door? What is death? What is life? Is there a meaningful difference? If so, why the will of one human to commit another human to death, through the adversarial process of international warfare?

    The world in peace or the world in pieces?

    Which shall we choose, or will we only lose?

    To me, the adversarial way is the way of death.

    Give me liberty or give me death?

    Living a bicycle ride from Death’s Door, I prefer life and liberty, thank you.

    Adversarial Way of Death? Adversarial Portes des Mortes?

    Methinks I have a wiser plan, if I can.

    In Madison, the chant was “Kill the Bill”

    In Green Bay, at the earlier rally I attended, the one where former Congressman, Dr. Steve Kagen spoke, the chant was “Can the Bill”

    Can the Bill? Yes, we Can!

    Can the Adversarial Portes des Mortes Kill our Will?

    Yes, it Can!

    Can we stop it?

    Yes, we Can!

    Can the Adversarial Portes des Mortes? Yes we Can!

    Door County is among the 1000 Places to See in the USA and Canada Before You Die — read the book for yourself.

    La Kayim!

    Yes, we Can!

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…

    Yes, we Can!

    Union Solidarity Forever!

    Yes, we Can!

    A system of law that is truthful and decent?

    Yes, we Can!

    A system of law that is truthful and decent because it is not adverse to truthfulness and decency?

    Yes, we Can!

    La Kayim?

    Yes, we Can!

    Without fleeing to Canada as some did during the War in Vietnam?

    Yes, we Can!

    La Kayim?

    Yes, we Can, if we work together to form a more perfect Union!

    Union Solidarity Forever!

    Yes, we Can!

    Politics is the science of public policy, why has the public no say in the public policy of law?

    Can the adversarial system?

    Yes, we Can!

    Can the adversarial system to build a more perfect Union?

    Yes, we Can!

    Why wait?

    Does the Portes des Mortes await if we delay til its too late?

    The only adversary we need to learn to not fear is adversary itself!

    Can we Can the Adversarial System?

    Yes, we Can!

    If I Can, I prefer to stay in the USA, and not flee to Canada.

    Can I stay in the USA?

    I Can if, and only if we Can the adversarial system!

    I Can not stay without a Portes des Mortes adversarial system stay of execution!

    Can I stay in the USA?

    Can we Can the adversarial system to form a more perfect Union?

    Yes, we Can.

    Is the Shill of the People the Adversarial System?

    Is the Will of the People the more perfect Union?

    Which is better, the Shill of the People, or the Will of the People?

    How about a system of law that is kind, instead of out of its mind?

    Can we Can the adversarial way?

    It may be merely child’s play!

    Suffer the little children to come unto us?

    Yes, we Can!

    Is it a valid theory of law, that the law is a law only unto itself?

    I have doubts.

    Can we Can the Adversarial System to form a more perfect Union?

    I have no doubt!

    Yes, we can!

    We, The People!

    Yes, We Can!

    Let’s Went!

    Why wait for Lent?

    Yes, we Can!

  142. blather \ˈbla-thər\

    intransitive verb
    : to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

    noun
    : voluble nonsensical or inconsequential talk or writing

  143. RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 7, 2011 at 10:24 am

    blather \ˈbla-thər\

    intransitive verb
    : to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

    noun
    : voluble nonsensical or inconsequential talk or writing

    ##############################

    Perhaps you, BiL, are an expert on blather. I am not such an expert.

    Are you an expert because you throw blather at anything you cannot trouble yourself to actually understand?

    Not being competent in blather, I have no way to know or understand that.

    Perhaps you can enlighten me with more of your blather?

    If that is what your profoundly bioengineering-ignorant comments regarding my work really are…

    I really do not know, for I know not how to speak, write, read, or understand blather.

    Perhaps you will be willing to help me. I can really use more help.

    If I were not profoundly autistic, if I could think in words, then I might be able to tell blather from non-blather.

    But it is all the same to me, connotation bereft if meaningful denotation when words are used to score competitive points, pointlessly.

Comments are closed.