[lit-ideas] Re: smith
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:23:50 +0000 (UTC)
We have not yet finished exploring the implications (not mentioning the
implicatures) of Smith vs. Jones, it is too early to introduce another topic.>
The case of Roberts v Gill Solicitors was not introduced to finetune the list's
legal knowledge, but as a way to bring out the reality of World 3.
That reality is brought out somewhat 'indirectly' - as W3 cannot be directly
observed. Yet W3 is not proposed as a useful phantom or metaphor - we
'experience' its reality everyday e.g. when we use language to convey W3
'content' or have W3-based mental processes.
However, as already indicated, the character of that 'experience' can only be
shown by (philosophical) argument and not by scientific test.
How can we best bring it out? My suggestion is that it may be brought out by
examining World 2 mental processes in relation to (somewhat difficult)
technical or scientific matters - as opposed to mental processes involved in
putting the kettle on, or asking someone to pass the salt (where the role of W3
may be very submerged).
We might bring it out, indirectly, by examining a form of knowledge (e.g. legal
knowledge) where the W3-theory offers a more plausible account of how we arrive
at understanding than does a theory that our knowledge is built up from
sense-experience (e.g. sense data) or intuitionism or a priorism - for how
could sense data, mere intuition, or a priori valid knowledge answer the kinds
of questions thrown up by the case of Roberts? Take, for example, the question
whether differences in "capacity" are so fundamental that amendment of
"capacity" amounts to bringing a new case? What sense data, pure intuition or a
priori category could provide a rational answer? Yet in Roberts we find a
rational answer, or attempts at one, by a form of critical reasoning based on
the relevant W3 'content' or 'material'.
Consider also how I am dredging up 'material' for my posts. The argument here
is that I am not doing this by recalling 'sense data' or havng 'sense data', or
by applying pure 'intuition' or some a priori categories.
What has happened is that months ago I have grasped certain relevant W3 content
from studying the Roberts case. Having had and 'internalised' that grasp in my
W2, my mind can then rework that W3 'material' for the purposes of the present
discussion. Because there is a W3 'structure' to the 'material' I can write by
casting my mind to that 'structure' and interacting with that 'structure' in a
reasoned way. Remarkably this can done effectively without having to reread the
case (of course there are points at which my grasp runs out and it might
further my understanding if I reread the case; but, equally, there are points
that the case does not address or answer but which may be validly raised by
reflection on the available W3 material). The key thing is this: the 'dredging
up' is not being done 'from memory' in the sense in which I recall that Roman
was ill on Friday, but is being done by a process of 'reworking' W3 material
that I have (somehow) 'internalised' in my W2.
How is this done? The full explanation is way beyond what we presently
understand about how the mind works. So we might ask a more modest question:
how plausible are the alternatives to the view that it is done in the way
sketched above - by grasping W3 'content', its 'structure', inter-relations
etc.?
Here it is up to opponents to sketch and defends their non-W3 alternatives -
but I think it is obvious how it seems a very great stretch on credulity to
think that discussion of Roberts is somehow the upshot of flotillas of 'sense
data', or untutored intuition, or validly set a priori knowledge (instead we
really need to understand the specifics of certain problems, in order to
rationally anchor our discussion, and these specifics must be a posteriori).
It also seems clear enough that discussion of Roberts may (at least in the
right hands) be a form of rational discussion - even if not quite as 'rational'
as the most rational of scientific discussions. It seems right to say that we
understand the differences of opinion between the various Law Lords by
examining their reasoning in relation to the relevant W3 content - we would be
straying off-piste if we sought an explanation in terms of what they had for
breakfast, their psychology (aside the W3 content confronting them), their
general political or social views etc.
How did I 'internalise' my grasp of Roberts? My posts are based on a reading
(really several readings) of Roberts several months ago. I was bringing much
W3-based 'background knowledge' to bear on this reading (though I was largely
unconscious of this and its role in my understanding). I was also reading with
quite specific purposes in mind:- reading to achieve (a) sufficient overall
understanding of the case to be able to answer any questions thrown at me by a
judge (b) specific detailed understanding of how the case establishes two
propositions of law important to the case I was presenting viz. (1) that a
person can only take legal action on behalf of the estate in a "representative
capacity" (never in their "personal capacity") (2) that when a person is in
such a "representative capacity" by virtue of being the estate's "personal
representative", then they are "trustee" [e.g. see Lord Collins on "trustee" at
para 70: "trustee" equals "personal representative"]. [N.b. (2) and (1) are
distinct, because in a 'derivative action' the plaintiff must be in a
"representative capacity", as per (1), but does not become "trustee" for the
estate, instead the "personal representative" as "trustee" must be joined as
co-defendant).
So, do we 'experience' World 3? Yes, W3 affects our experience. But how to show
this? Perhaps engage with rational discussion of purported W3-based material,
and then consider whether there is a non-W3 theory more plausible than the
W3-based account - more plausible, that is, as an account for the terms of this
discussion and its ins-and-outs.
To suggest we are discussing Roberts simply to finetune its legal
"implications" is missing the point - Roberts was introduced for epistemic
purposes. The development of the technical legal issues is to further bring out
how difficult it is to explain their discussion in terms of 'sense-data' (which
don't exist btw) or mere 'intuition' or a priorism - that is, to indicate why
we should accept such discussion involves W2 minds operating on relevant W3
contents in a problem-solving exercise.
DL
From: adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 9 December 2017, 18:29
Subject: [lit-ideas] smith
oh that is the problem of the conceptual anal ysis of diverse ways in which
capacity impinges on the lords view, yes.... I noted the couple of speranza and
his wife debating the virtues of the ability and capacity to cut and paste in
wordperfect, a problem that was considered in a long lost letter of grice, now
kept in berkelry near the box of the safety razor of urmsnon, who sent a
postcard to another dude in oxford to implicate that wilkinson is better than
gillette
palma, apgs
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We have not yet finished exploring the implications (not mentioning the
implicatures) of Smith vs. Jones, it is too early to introduce another topic.
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:18 PM, adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
an interesting view to explore is the idea of authors as tarzanelli
beg quote
a senior lecturer in English literature at the University of Edinburgh, where
his research interests include eco-criticism, postcolonial studies, and asylum
and refugee contexts. He is currently working on a book about deep time in
contemporary poetry.
palma, apgs
Other related posts:
