Young rocks impersonating old rocks. My favorite program was the hike to the base of the falls. Layers of rock are like chapters in a history book and this canyon, carved so deeply, told an ancient story. Standing at the bottom, calling out over the roar of the falls, I…
Many professionals (including many lawyers) believe that the careful use of “reason” cannot involve the use of one’s imagination. This is absolutely untrue. The belief in “pure reason” has always and everywhere proven to be the source of great confusion among those who strive to use langage precisely.
Responding to the Enlightenment claim that Reason itself is “rigorous, linear, cool, and unemotional” Steven L. Winter points out that such a claim actually proclaims the metaphorical quality of reason: “reason is cold; it is rigorous; it is linear; it is clear; it is felt. Indeed, in its dependence on embodied experiences like temperature and rigor, the metaphorical quality of reason is anything but detached and impersonal.” Steven L. Winter, “Death is the Mother of Metaphor,” 105 HARV. L. REV., 745, 749 (1991).
Winter gives numerous examples of metaphors connecting our immediate experience even high-level legal concepts. One of these metaphors is of law as a “person.” For instance, we speak of the body of law, we ask what laws say “on their face.” We refer to “seminal” cases, as well as their “progeny.” We “strike down” statutes, and sometimes recall “dead” legal concepts. Winter, Mark Johnson and George Lakoff each argue that these uses of metaphors constitute far more than poetry. Their use is essential to bridging the gap between the high level principles of every profession and the real world.
I hereby propose a new version of the Ten Commandments.
1 Choose and follow a version of the golden rule. Note in your heart that golden rules have appeared in the writings of many cultures, including Jewish, Buddhist, Confucian and Ancient Egyptian.
2. Never publicly advocate that one’s own version of a supernatural God is truer than the Gods of others; always apply the same degree of skepticism one uses regarding the Gods and sacred writings of others to one’s own God(s) and sacred writings. Don’t build expensive or ostentatious worship places in honor of your God. Never scare any child with stories of great suffering in order to cause that child to believe in the existence of any particular supernatural being. Thou shalt not blasphemy the unfolding mysteries of the universe by claiming to know the thoughts or plans of any God. Thou shalt always approach the mysteries of life with humility, awe and unbridled curiosity.
3. Do not honor any God who you believe prohibits you from honoring any other God or who, in your opinion, threatens to eternally torture any person or animal for any reason. Constantly remind yourself that you have a serious obligation to take good care of all of the children of the world, not just your own children. Regularly breathe deeply and remember to keep a sense of humor, especially when considering spirituality, sex and death. Whenever you speak of God, don’t get that look like you’re about to be smacked with a …
You’ve just noticed several people carrying signs that say “Down with Ice Cream.” You approach them to ask what is so bad about ice cream. After listening to them for a few minutes, it becomes clear to you that there is a misunderstanding. To them, the phrase “ice cream” actually means kicking dogs. They are against kicking dogs.
“Oh, you mean that you’re against kicking dogs?” you ask.
“Down with ice cream!” they nod.
It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation without a common understanding of the words being used. “Evolution” is a good example. When I hear someone speaking disparagingly about evolution I can trigger the following exchange:
Q: What’s so bad about evolution?
A: It’s just a theory (#1) that says that everything here is just an accident (#2) and that people came from monkeys (#3).
Zero for three, every time. In short, most people who “oppose” evolution are against something other than the scientific theory of evolution. Further, most anti-evolutionists I’ve encountered don’t know what scientists say about evolution and don’t care [Good places to learn what scientists think would be here and here.]
The irony is that most people who oppose evolution are not opposed to any of the major facts upon which evolution is based (e.g., that random mutations occur, that some of these mutations make organisms more likely to survive long enough to bear offspring, or that a parent’s traits tend to be passed on to its children). In fact, opponents don’t usually …
What more can one say? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/an-evening-with-ann-coult_b_18529.html http://midwestvaluespac.org/blog/156/an-evening-with-ann-coulter-with-full-speech