Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA14437 (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 16:37:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c0c046$a16701a0$b906bed4@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 18:11:17 +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, back again,
You wrote,
> I'd want to read the regulations involved and better understand the exact
> details of what each side said. A difficult issue is whether a legal
text can
> lead to certain outcome in a mechanical way - is their meaning
self-announcing,
> or do the parties and the court impute meaning to a legal text. Another
issue
> is whether the person or body charged with enforcing the rules have
discretion
> that is wide enough for them to use the rules for their own agendas. Was
the
> Board of Lawyers in your example simply trying to enforce the law or was
it
> pursuing a more personal agenda. Exercise of legal discretion in common
law
> system usually cannot be 'capricious.'
<< Maybe you can link on the websites of the newspapers De Morgen or
De Standard or to the name Anke Vandermeersch where you can link
further. I just tried it to check it out, and IMO it will be a task to find
any-
thing, I think there will be less to nothing avaible in French or English,
both
papers are Dutch written.
And for what I got as information is just that what both papers wrote on
the matters proposed and is just what I came across on different TV
channels.
But I can say that the Board of Lawyers, and in this matter it was only
the Chairman of the Board who made up the fuss and therefore used
the rules for his, and for the Board for that matter ( in his words), own
agenda.
IMO, the Chairman was simply trying to expell miss Vandermeersch due to
the fact that posing in Playboy was not approiate for a lawyer, what she
was not at the time because she was still studiyng the stuff.
And I agree that the exercise of legal discretion cannot be ' capricious '
as you said but isn 't it even more ' capricious ' in trying to get a
murderer
of the hook with any legal means possible !? I wonder...
Public support for his actions, no on the contrary, Belgium in its thinnest
way to show itself to the world, that it. Oh boy !!
Even more, Miss Vandermeersch was so upset with the attitude of the
Board that she first went to the court to fight it out, and won, than joined
the Liberal Party to get support for her claims according sexual freedom and
free expression of hers and his individuality, and than joined Vlaams Blok,
a racist right winged Flemish National movement where she, in her own
opinion, got more support for her more or less provocative claims after
she was trown out of the Liberal Party.
Quiet a lady, by the way she is 1.80 m....
Did the Board of lawyers enjoy wide public support for their action? The
> specific question I was hoping memetics might shed some light on is how
courts
> 'read' the values of a society so as to reach judgements that are
acceptable
> and, as Luhmann say, find an 'echo' with the people. Theoretically a
court has
> the power to reach any decision it pleases. But common law courts must
give
> reasons and in these reasons they are implicitly seeking approval from
society,
> and the immediate parties. Courts have power by law but law cannot confer
> legitimacy. They must earn this and maintain it, judgement by judgement.
<< One of the biggest problems we face here concerning law and order is
that the Law don 't find any echo with the people.
One, there are too many laws and the jargon they use is quite understanda-
ble for the common folks.
Secondly, the Law itself makes a difference between the Law as the Rules
which everybody must follow and what you called so nicely the echo, the
spirit of the law.
In the second case, noone still understands why in cases like Dutroux or
X1 they insist on using the law as Law and not the spirit of the law.
The famous Spaghetti- arrest must ring a bell I suppose. If not, let me
know.
Like you write it down in the last para, the Belgium courthouses are not
willing to seek approval from society. In some cases, and by the arguments
and comments I here and read, in all cases, they do just the opposite...
Memetics might shed a light on the issue how courts ' read ' the values of
a society because IMO and that is a personal conviction, memetics can be
used as a tool to understand the thinking processes of the judges and of
those close the Law...decision makers.
IMO, as we / I take memetics as a tool to understand people thinking
abilities
and therefore their neurobiology, I think that for example judges are bound
to a certain way of thinking, a certain way of behavior where they cannot
be seperated from. Therefore, in memetical terms they evolve in just their
own ways and cannot find any echo with the society in order to reach
judgements that were acceptable.
On the other hand, common people are as bound to their ways of thinking
as the judges are and therefore cannot in their turn see the echo by which
the Law reaches judgements by which they are bound to live.
Here you see a great contradiction which IMO is a very interesting area
to explore.
In a way, the Law or what is called in Moq- terms Intellect ignores what-
ever echoes in society.
Moq = Metaphysics of Quality, based on a book by Pirsig, Zen and the
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance , ZAMM.
> How would memetics explain how the competing values in your example become
> resolved through a court's decision? How much of the competition is
actually
> resolved by a judgement and how much of it just goes uncover, waiting for
> another opportunity to express itself?
<< Memetics would explain this in the manner as described as above.
In a way memetics cannot solve the problem as such but can shed a light
on what processes do evolve and get transmitted in order to come to the
level of not- understanding eachother as we see today.
A court ' s decision cannot resolve anything because there is always the
people 's notion that there is something to hide.
In order to really solve the problem we have as memetisists the ability to
show to both parties how their brain functions and therefore their thinking-
ways work. A solution lies somewhere in the middle where, we as meme-
tisists play an arbitrary role, both parties will meet and work out a mutual
solution. A solution, not a consensus because than both parties have one
more reason to start a new competition.
Less to nothing is actually resolved by a judgement because, like I said,
on the one hand the people don 't understand and on the other hand the
Intellect ignores society.
For more detail on that subject I have to check my writings....
Best and enjoy,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are) maintained
===============================================================
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 - 16:39:47 BST