| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="OldPapers" |
|---|
| | | “This is a business in which everyone relies on representations,” Judge Day says. “Lawyers are the ones who invented spin.” She distinguishes this form of sometimes somewhat 'lying' truth/perception skew/management, however, from outright misrepresentation. Of the less objectionable variety, or at least the variety with more difficult grounds of objection, which can be frustrating and even more subject to vulnerability or effective difference, she says, “Lawyers know too much. If you know too much, how don’t you lie?” I might interpret some sense of "how don't you preferably angle/manipulate?" | |
<
< | There’s “too much meaning”—in the context of contents, people, positions, facts, possibilities, interests, statutes, cases, procedures, definitions, references, awarenesses, interpretations, certainties and uncertainties, knowledge, sense, “everything you say has another meaning.” Since “a real lawyer has an ethical obligation to defend his or her client,” there's some typicality of lawyers approaching meaning with partisan opportunism. On one hand, “the posturing, the playacting, arguing over the smallest things, the narcissism, the beyond-belief egomania—it’s all part of that.” But on the other hand, “it’s inherent in the process.” | >
> | There’s “too much meaning”—in the context of contents, people, positions, facts, aspects (how bout them timestamps?), possibilities, interests/wills, jurisdictions, statutes, cases, procedures, definitions, references, awarenesses, records, interpretations, implications, certainties and uncertainties, knowledge, sense, accuracy/precision/alternativity, “everything you say has another meaning.” Since “a real lawyer has an ethical obligation to defend his or her client,” there's some typicality of lawyers approaching meaning with partisan opportunism. On one hand, “the posturing, the playacting, arguing over the smallest things, the narcissism, the beyond-belief egomania—it’s all part of that.” But on the other hand, “it’s inherent in the process.” | | | There are intentions/facilities/procedures/protections to get at true/good/right/fair, and in the end a judge or jury adjudicates meaning by “discerning,” which is possible with reasonable effectiveness, but can still be fallible or flawed in objective/subjective reality/awareness/interpretation/preference/capacity or otherwise sort of untrue or difficult for the situated/judged. And there are kind/degree analogies in life outside of lawyering and the courtroom, in the kitchen space of content/people. |
|