Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA14064 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:09:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c0c021$404e4920$8d08bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <E14j0vU-000GsE-00@gaea> <002901c0bbb0$f2000660$b902bed4@default><3AC8E1B1.33BCD878@clara.co.uk> <001101c0bc77$1fa65b20$0307bed4@default><3ACA3B58.F9D77350@clara.co.uk> <002101c0bd40$443d5280$820abed4@default><001101c0be06$a97a0000$1908bed4@default> <3ACEC8A4.5444C707@clara.co.uk> Subject: Re: taboos Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:43:44 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Douglas, I wrote, you wrote,
> > << I wish to come back on this issue, because in a way I do the same
> > research as you do. But, like you started off in the field of law, I
like to
> > work on a more philosophical/ psychological level.
> > Are you also interested in contradictions tout court !?
>
> This interest started with neglected areas of law and this has led me into
the
> areas of abeyances and contradiction. (A good book on abeyances in
Michael Foley's "The Silence of Constitutions.") Maybe it is controversial
to say this, but I argue there are legal rules - rules that are obeyed, that
are not
> acknowledged to exist. There is a very basic proposition in western legal
> systems, both common law and Civilian I think, that the law must be
knowable. A rule cannot be a rule unless those subject to it know exists.
Usually this test is met by formal manner and form requirements specifying
how statutes and regulations should be published, and when these are met all
society is deemed to have knowledge. Sometimes common law courts will
determine that a statute is too vague to be knowable but this is rare.
<< I think you are right saying that some rules which are obeyed are not
acknowledgeable to exist.
To explain this I usally work with very extreme cases.
Like, the rule " do not commit murder " or the rule " you will not have
sex with children ". Both cases/ rules are obeyed, but on the other hand
some people do not or are not willing to acknowledge them to exist.
In those cases, memetics IMO and it is therefore my interest in the concept,
can share a light on those issues.
In those extreme cases, we can explain people 's behavior by their gene-
tic and memetic make- up. People, and I do agree on their motives for
that matter, call upon their genetic/ memetic make- up to not acknowledge
the rule to exist. Their inner needs, denying someone free reign over their
impulses, like Aaron Agassi puts it so well, stands above the rule and
therefore above the law.
And IMO, denying someone to give in at their inner needs and feelings
is more perversive than specifying rules for everyone. In general you
don 't ' hurt ' with those rules, but not everybody is the same.
Denying someone's individuality ( genetical and memetical) for the sake
of some dark concept like society or the peace and quiet in that society
is IMO neglecting what lives in the society and therefore are bad rules or
is a society not playing at its standards.
IMO, civil and common law are both ' collective ' systems, where at
least for extreme cases we have to come up with more ' individual '
forms of requirements. Therefore also my interest in Holodeck technology and
cyber- puppets like Lara Croft and Kyoto Date.
Also, I do agree with your argument that a rule cannot be a rule unless
those subject to it know it exists.
Here in Belgium, a few years back, since than we all lost count, we have
to know, it is written in the law as such, at least 800.000 rules, laws and
regulations. How on earth we will ever come up to those exeptations I do
not know. But it is written in the law that we the people must ' know ' the
laws, rules and regulations of the state we live in.
One consequence of course, is that people do not know their " rights "
and do not know what they can receive from the state, like as an
example in order to get premies for structural alterations on your house.
Or to get additional help/ money if someone in the family gets sick or dies.
As a consequence of such bizar/ absurd ruling people, like I did mention
before, think there is a twist, that the gouvernement has something to hide.
In such an environment I like to say that we Belgiums are hyper- individua-
lists. In a sense we all try, for our own benefit, to bend the rules, to
shape
precedents " to rule out the rules".
A consequence is the arrear in common and civil law courts, because
the lawyers of the defence ( most of them) will try to determine that a
statute is (too) vague in order to deal with their client's problem.
By for now, my wife called that my dinner is ready, don 't want her
waiting...
Best
Kenneth
( I am, because we are) what happened
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 08 2001 - 12:12:13 BST