Law is Not Determinative

[determinatio]

One would think that a self proclaimed intellect could actually spell correctly.


From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

rapport noun


rap·​port | \ ra-ˈpȯr

Definition of rapport
: a friendly, harmonious relationship
especially : a relationship characterized by agreement, mutual understanding, or empathy that makes communication possible or easy

It also does not appear that you have developed a harmonious relationship with anyone here.

You are absolutely correct. I was too lazy to look the spelling up, and did doubt the accuracy of my spelling right when I used the term. Just because I am of superior intellect and a highly well-read quasi-deity, does not mean that I am a perfect person incapable of misspelling. After going through a spot of bother, RJR and I are cool; as with budwad; Taxing Matters, and others, (at this very instant I am in process of ameliorating matters with you).

Nonetheless, it does not matter in the least what I, personally, am or am not; it matters whether or not you can dismantle my critique of law by employing rational reasoning against my ratiocination. Your are correct up to a point, there is a sense wherein it can justly be said that I should not be here rattling the cages of lesser educated persons, however, it is to jurisprudentially oriented persons which my critical thinking is directed, (they are not as erudite as they pretend to be as per their great legal sapientalities), hence it is my Socratic responsibility to act the part of a horsefly, biting the views of the predominant weltanschauung, to bring that predominant world view to a reflective awareness of the incorrectness of primal presupposition entailed within the jurisprudential intellectual instrumentation. The weakest and most vulnerable portions of any theoretical position is the presupposition(s) contained therein; and, law is a theoretical construct, not an absolute and final, indubitable, approach to doing civilizational civility. You have not been purely civil with me llworking, what's with that!?

[RJR]

I prefer the stylistic brilliant diction of Emily Dickinson. Some consider her too far out of their literature league to understand what she is actually trying to say, and at times found it uneasy to converse with her.

In a letter of response to Thomas Wentworth Higginson (who was one of the Secret Six) where he hinted she delay her desire to publish, she responded as such.

I smile when you suggest that I delay "to publish"-that being foreign to my thought, as Firmament to Fin- If fame belonged to me, I could not escape her- if she did not, the longest day would pass me on the chase-and the approbation of my Dog, would forsake me-then-My Barefoot-Rank is better- You think my gait "spasmodic" -I am in danger-Sir-

She found the "outside world" not really absorbing to her individual preference, thus her seclusive life mostly.

[llworking]

You are absolutely correct. I was too lazy to look the spelling up, and did doubt the accuracy of my spelling right when I used the term. Just because I am of superior intellect and a highly well-read quasi-deity, does not mean that I am a perfect person incapable of misspelling. After going through a spot of bother, RJR and I are cool; as with budwad; Taxing Matters, and others, (at this very instant I am in process of ameliorating matters with you).

Nonetheless, it does not matter in the least what I, personally, am or am not; it matters whether or not you can dismantle my critique of law by employing rational reasoning against my ratiocination. Your are correct up to a point, there is a sense wherein it can justly be said that I should not be here rattling the cages of lesser educated persons, however, it is to jurisprudentially oriented persons which my critical thinking is directed, (they are not as erudite as they pretend to be as per their great legal sapientalities), hence it is my Socratic responsibility to act the part of a horsefly, biting the views of the predominant weltanschauung, to bring that predominant world view to a reflective awareness of the incorrectness of primal presupposition entailed within the jurisprudential intellectual instrumentation. The weakest and most vulnerable portions of any theoretical position is the presupposition(s) contained therein; and, law is a theoretical construct, not an absolute and final, indubitable, approach to doing civilizational civility. You have not been purely civil with me llworking, what's with that!?

I have not been purely civil to you, because you have not been purely civil to others. I am also quite well educated, very well read, and have a quite high IQ. I do not deliberately use the type of verbiage you are deliberately employing even though I could. I find your choice to do so to be arrogant and a bit insufferable. You have already demonstrated that you are capable of discussing matters using standard English therefore it is your deliberate choice not to do so.

[determinatio]

I have not been purely civil to you, because you have not been purely civil to others. I am also quite well educated, very well read, and have a quite high IQ. I do not deliberately use the type of verbiage you are deliberately employing even though I could. I find your choice to do so to be arrogant and a bit insufferable. You have already demonstrated that you are capable of discussing matters using standard English therefore it is your deliberate choice not to do so.

The others you deem me having been uncivil to got what they repeatedly gave to me first, incivility in the way of brutal insult and abuse. You do not need to be a knight in shining armor against me on account of the misconduct of savage others. It is radically fun to write freely employing terms perfectly tailored to speak efficiently, too bad for persons too limited to follow, due to their own intellectual weakness. I grew up reading, not playing computer games, and, my employment of wording wholly unfamiliar to dummies, is a resultant of growing up in the 1950's/60's. What other possible way can one speak of mistaken presupposition without employing the term 'presupposition'!? No way. What other possible way 'ontological'; 'theoretical'; 'jurisprudential'; 'unintelligible'!? It borders on flippant absurdity to insist one continually employ baby talk in the course of doing/discussing viable theoretical critique of law per se, a nut not to be cracked via softly cooing. It is okay if you are experiencing a bit of nausea via reading my absolutely arrogant destruction of jurisprudential illusion. I condescend from my sphere of superior ratiocination, to address a jurisprudential rabble, in the inscrutably intelligible fashion of a quasi-deity; only the most toughminded can follow, though, bit by bit, allowance is being contemplated for the dullards, in language fashioned for children...
Jurisprudentially-oriented persons, who deem me verbose and insufferable by employing language too high-minded, and, mediate, by profession, an infinitely vast language of law, absolutely unintelligible/inscrutable to the grassroots, are, in this instance, the pot calling the kettle black! If language of law were written in plain common English, which, if you are to be consistent with your argument against my writing, should plainly be done for the sake of your common man, jurisprudents would be far fewer and under-employed, thus, language of law remains generally unintelligible!

[darwinrules]

I grew up reading, not playing computer games, and, my employment of wording wholly unfamiliar to dummies, is a resultant of growing up in the 1950's/60's.

Are you being serious?

[determinatio]

Are you being serious?

A great deal of my vocabulary was learned from exposure to literature by Defoe; Emerson; Thoreau; Kipling; Poe; Goethe; Bowditch; Hugo; Nietzsche; Captain Cook; London; Blackstone; Spencer; Darwin, et.al., whom I read in 50's/60's, while those auteurs wrote before and during the nineteenth and, very early twentieth centuries, using flowery sophisticated vocabularies. The 70's; 80's;90's; 2000's, brought ingrained fluency gleaned via studying dozens of other scholarly writers of every ilk.

[darwinrules]

A great deal of my vocabulary was learned from exposure to literature by Defoe; Emerson; Thoreau; Kipling; Poe; Goethe; Bowditch; Hugo; Nietzsche; Captain Cook; London; Blackstone; Spencer; Darwin, et.al., whom I read in 50's/60's, while those auteurs wrote before and during the nineteenth and, very early twentieth centuries, using flowery sophisticated vocabularies. The 70's; 80's;90's; 2000's, brought ingrained fluency gleaned via studying dozens of other scholarly writers of every ilk.

It's interesting what's happened here. You made a statement that attributed your particular style of communication to the decades in which you "grew up." But, what you meant to say, I think, was:

"In the 50s and 60s, I spent my time reading books written by people who used flowerly sophisticated vocabularies, such as [list a few, but not 14.] Those authors had a significant impact on how I use language today."

(As an aside, having read all of the authors you listed, I strongly disagree that all of them relied on "flowery sophisticated vocabularies.")

What continues to fascinate me about your interactions is that you are, as I've said before, clearly intelligent. You are communicating, via this forum, with other people who are also intelligent. That said, your particular style of communication is not representative of anything the majority (if not all) of us are used to. Because most people who are on the higher end of intelligence have learned how to communicate in a way that makes them easy to understand.

Regarding the language of the law, you might be interested in this. You're assessment that law, historically, tended to be written in a way that made it accessible for the general public to read.

The irony is that you are talking about that fact using language that's rejected by highly intelligent people...... mostly because I think they think you should know better.

[RJR]

A great deal of my vocabulary was learned from exposure to literature by (snip) Poe.

When I acquired his collected stories years ago, reading the "Pit and the Pendulum" actually made me wish to become more acquainted with his wit. IMO, no author since has equalled his style, and at times he was even too hard to read like Sir Thomas Browne was. No author since, IMO, has equalled his wordsmithing.

I have the book The EVERYTHING guide to Edgar Allan Poe (subtitled: The life, times, and work of a tormented genius) by Shelley Costa Bloomfield, Ph.D.

One example of his writing in the book.

After reading all that has been written, and after thinking all that can be thought, on the topics of God and the soul, the man has a right to say that he thinks at all, will find himself face to face with the conclusion that, on these topics, the most profound thought is that which can be the least easily distinguished from the most superficial sentiment.

--- Poe on the Divine

After the death of his bride Virginia Clemm, his cousin, who he married when she was 13, he collapsed and later attempted suicide. Being brilliant does not relieve someone of being human.

Oh, I will add, the regular posters here are not without a life span of knowledge, however I do not believe anyone has engaged in the sole sought after academic discipline of Philosophy for 40 years except you.

I do not wish too, could I, no doubt, but it serves no purpose to be any more intellectual than I am or try to be,
and I have no desire, and I think I can speak for most here, to live a lifestyle of only Intellect and not engage in just plain human "fun"!

[determinatio]

It's interesting what's happened here. You made a statement that attributed your particular style of communication to the decades in which you "grew up." But, what you meant to say, I think, was:

"In the 50s and 60s, I spent my time reading books written by people who used flowerly sophisticated vocabularies, such as [list a few, but not 14.] Those authors had a significant impact on how I use language today."

(As an aside, having read all of the authors you listed, I strongly disagree that all of them relied on "flowery sophisticated vocabularies.")

What continues to fascinate me about your interactions is that you are, as I've said before, clearly intelligent. You are communicating, via this forum, with other people who are also intelligent. That said, your particular style of communication is not representative of anything the majority (if not all) of us are used to. Because most people who are on the higher end of intelligence have learned how to communicate in a way that makes them easy to understand.

Regarding the language of the law, you might be interested in this. You're assessment that law, historically, tended to be written in a way that made it accessible for the general public to read.

The irony is that you are talking about that fact using language that's rejected by highly intelligent people...... mostly because I think they think you should know better.

darwinrules;
I am saying the 50's and 60's in themselves were characterizable as being peopled by persons who employed a vocabulary more sophisticated than persons commonly do in this day, i.e. a general atmosphere of articulate erudition being prevalent among adults and teachers; and, that authors I encountered minimally partially conditioned the oldest portion of my vocabulary, which I can still draw upon now; the remainder of my historicity entails a forty three year period of matriculation in colleges and universities, which has had a stupendous influence upon the intellectual instruments I possess and wield, and, proffered me a further vocabulary.
What are you, the thought/writing police, who would limit the number of authors I recall reading and demandingly prescribe that I should think and write alike everyone else you know, unacceptably being myself!? This rut members make wherein my thread is about my person and not my position is ill advised/incorrect/misdirected. The gov't employee plain language movement regarding publications is great, however, it does not appear to be addressed to legislators who write law or judges who write opinion.

When I acquired his collected stories years ago, reading the "Pit and the Pendulum" actually made me wish to become more acquainted with his wit. IMO, no author since has equalled his style, and at times he was even too hard to read like Sir Thomas Browne was. No author since, IMO, has equalled his wordsmithing.

I have the book The EVERYTHING guide to Edgar Allan Poe (subtitled: The life, times, and work of a tormented genius) by Shelley Costa Bloomfield, Ph.D.

One example of his writing in the book.

--- Poe on the Divine

After the death of his bride Virginia Clemm, his cousin, who he married when she was 13, he collapsed and later attempted suicide. Being brilliant does not relieve someone of being human.

Oh, I will add, the regular posters here are not without a life span of knowledge, however I do not believe anyone has engaged in the sole sought after academic discipline of Philosophy for 40 years except you.

I do not wish too, could I, no doubt, but it serves no purpose to be any more intellectual than I am or try to be,
and I have no desire, and I think I can speak for most here, to live a lifestyle of only Intellect and not engage in just plain human "fun"!

Beautiful RJR. I had a copy of one of Poe's books entitled "Marginalia", really incredible, bet you've never seen or heard of it. I have tons of fun among friends so funny one laughs for days after seeing them!

[llworking]

The others you deem me having been uncivil to got what they repeatedly gave to me first, incivility in the way of brutal insult and abuse. You do not need to be a knight in shining armor against me on account of the misconduct of savage others. It is radically fun to write freely employing terms perfectly tailored to speak efficiently, too bad for persons too limited to follow, due to their own intellectual weakness. I grew up reading, not playing computer games, and, my employment of wording wholly unfamiliar to dummies, is a resultant of growing up in the 1950's/60's. What other possible way can one speak of mistaken presupposition without employing the term 'presupposition'!? No way. What other possible way 'ontological'; 'theoretical'; 'jurisprudential'; 'unintelligible'!? It borders on flippant absurdity to insist one continually employ baby talk in the course of doing/discussing viable theoretical critique of law per se, a nut not to be cracked via softly cooing. It is okay if you are experiencing a bit of nausea via reading my absolutely arrogant destruction of jurisprudential illusion. I condescend from my sphere of superior ratiocination, to address a jurisprudential rabble, in the inscrutably intelligible fashion of a quasi-deity; only the most toughminded can follow, though, bit by bit, allowance is being contemplated for the dullards, in language fashioned for children...
Jurisprudentially-oriented persons, who deem me verbose and insufferable by employing language too high-minded, and, mediate, by profession, an infinitely vast language of law, absolutely unintelligible/inscrutable to the grassroots, are, in this instance, the pot calling the kettle black! If language of law were written in plain common English, which, if you are to be consistent with your argument against my writing, should plainly be done for the sake of your common man, jurisprudents would be far fewer and under-employed, thus, language of law remains generally unintelligible!

Perfect example of your incredibly arrogant belief that you are superior to everyone else. Only those who are complete jerks or have incredibly low self esteem behave in such a manner. You are behaving like a bully, but in a different way than other bullies.