jessica amber murray
the issue of free will has come up a lot lately, specifically this question of whether certain types of behaviour are free or coerced. it's a very difficult point. you can't even really rely on what people say, as they may not be fully aware of how they're being coerced. so, how do you figure this out?
as an anarchist, i tend to lean towards the idea that most behaviour - and by that i mean most behaviour, in general - is deeply coerced by the structures of power that exist around us. that runs the spectrum from where or if you go to work to what kind of cereal you had this morning. that position has as many pitfalls as it's liberal anti-thesis, which is that we're always free to do whatever we choose (and tend to make well thought-out, rational decisions).
the error i think we all make, and i'm as guilty of this as everybody else, is that we tend to generalize one way or the other. this is a particularly egregious error due to the immense subtlety of the question.
what i think we all need to do when the question comes up is realize that every presentation of the question is unique. two similar people making similar choices could be the result of a free choice on one hand and deep coercion on the other. we can talk about coercive, systemic pressures, and seek to abolish them as much as possible, but we can't always make the assumption that similar acts - even with similar contexts! - are similarly derived.
that's a struggle for everybody, coming at the question from every perspective.
norman dee
Have you read any Camus in regards to freedom/free will?
jessica amber murray
no. people have been telling me for years i should read some camus, and i agree i should. i think i get the idea, though, through other sources. and i think he's been backed up through some experiments in psychology.
norman dee
Well, im not going to tell u to read him then. Just that he's had a huge impact on my life and my outlook and is someone who i keep going back too.
jessica amber murray
i've repeatedly been told i'm practically quoting him...i have this suspicion that, when i finally get around to it, it's going to seem like i'm reading my own writing. which is maybe why it's not at the top of the list.
i am making getting through the stack of books i have here a priority, though. got through a large pynchon text (mason & dixon) the other day, and have jumped to a gibson text (pattern recognition). there's a ton of classics i've picked up at garage sales for $0.50 each to get through (i'm thinking i'm going to go with some thoreau, next).
norman dee
I've only ever read civil disobedience and some of walden. I really really want to read gravitys rainbow.. I think thats pynchon if im not mistaken? If u are seriously going to get into camus, i would really recommend looking into what sartre was writing/doing at the time of said camus book. From 39 onwards they had a thing going
... A competing thing. If u can find it theres a book out by oxford press called... Yup.. Sartre & camus. Its really interesting and enlightening.
jessica amber murray
that is pynchon. probably my favourite book, ever.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
elsipogtog
i'm still learning about this. a single course in aboriginal law does not an expert in the topic make. of the courses i took in my time formally studying constitutional law, though, it set off the deepest interest.
debates over how to approach these treaties and/or resist imperial authority are pretty similar to activist debates, in general. so, diversity of tactics. ok. but i've noticed a serious problem: those that want to work within the system of british law tend to want to bring in these analyses that make little sense within it's framework, and then get upset when the court dismisses them. if you're going to try and work through the british legal system, it's necessary to recognize that the historical understanding that it presents to this whole thing is drastically different than that that is presented by activists. activists can't just show up in court with a completely different concept of history and expect the court to side with them. so, we should have a debate about which is more correct, one may suggest. unfortunately, the british legal system doesn't give people at our level that kind of authority - the british legal historical context is defined by decisions that are made in parliaments, or, in the case of aboriginal law, often even by monarchs. and don't forget case law. arguing a case at this level is about interpreting the laws that the aristocrats make, not rewriting them; that interpretation then becomes put aside for future use.
so, fuck the system? well, ok. but for those that want to work in it, that contradiction sort of needs to be addressed to prevent themselves from wasting their time.
regarding the new brunswick dispute, there was, in fact, a treaty signed in 1760 by the group in question. now, you have to get the context of this right to understand the way the law is going to interpret this. france and britain had just ended a war that would give britain control of what would become eastern canada. the indigenous populations of the region had supported france in this war. that means that, from a british legal perspective, the indigenous people of eastern canada were *conquered* at the end of the "french and indian" war. why conquered? because they were aligned with the french, and the french were conquered. the treaties that followed were written within this context of being conquered.
the conquering part is huge within a british legal context. british imperial law in this context is rooted in roman imperial law. how far-reaching is the influence of the monarch (and then later of parliament)? the rule is that if a population is composed of "settlers" (like the american colonies, or australia) then they take british law with them, but if a population is composed of "conquered people" (like india or canada) then they keep their own laws, so long as those laws didn't interfere with the imperial administration. and, so quebec retained a roman civil law system rather than a british case law system, just as the romans allowed their conquered peoples to worship their own gods.
the particular treaty was not a land treaty, it was a friendship treaty. there are two reasons for this.
the first is that the indigenous signatories did not accept euro-centric concepts of land ownership. please decrypt that sentence carefully and purposefully. there were concepts of communal land ownership, and of land use, and of land sharing, but the idea of kicking the europeans out of "their" land would have been foreign to the indigenous peoples of the region, at the time. there were isolated exceptions (the six nations apparently had more european concepts of land ownership), but none in the maritime area. the view was more or less along the lines that nations could migrate through the land as they desired so long as they didn't prevent other nations from using it. (you'd end up with multiple tribes and nations *sharing* "hunting areas"). so, they sought no land treaty because they themselves would have rejected the concept of land ownership.
the other is that the land issue was already dealt with - the indigenous people, of course, being conquered in the seven years war, from the british perspective, and thus coming under their rule (but allowed to keep their laws and customs, which ironically included this rejection of land ownership). what was there to discuss on that point? what land treaty would a conquered people sign off on?
the treaty was about trade. on the indigenous side, the populations needed access to certain types of european goods - most importantly ammunition, for hunting. on the british side, they wanted to prevent uprisings, which they considered bothersome in the sense that they disrupted trade routes.
now, these treaties are in a perilous legal position. trudeau once claimed they weren't worth the paper they were written on, and he was right - legally. some of them weren't even written on paper, they were passed down orally. we've since had a constitutional overhaul. in theory, the contents of these treaties are legally binding (up to a set of convoluted caveats i'm going to ignore for right now), but they haven't been upheld in court yet. given past precedent, it's likely that the court will uphold individual rights while ignoring communal ones. yes, those fucking liberals...
that's not to say that a modern treaty isn't something that should happen. personally, i think that's along the right line of thinking, at least, although i don't like the xenophobia of ethnic nationalism. however, the legal position of the maritime groups is starkly different than those in british columbia or in the far north, or even in ontario. this claim of sovereignty has little chance of success within our court system.
here's something else to read:
http://etc.lib.unb.ca/acva/contestedterrain/sites/default/files/patterson_nsr_2009.pdf
debates over how to approach these treaties and/or resist imperial authority are pretty similar to activist debates, in general. so, diversity of tactics. ok. but i've noticed a serious problem: those that want to work within the system of british law tend to want to bring in these analyses that make little sense within it's framework, and then get upset when the court dismisses them. if you're going to try and work through the british legal system, it's necessary to recognize that the historical understanding that it presents to this whole thing is drastically different than that that is presented by activists. activists can't just show up in court with a completely different concept of history and expect the court to side with them. so, we should have a debate about which is more correct, one may suggest. unfortunately, the british legal system doesn't give people at our level that kind of authority - the british legal historical context is defined by decisions that are made in parliaments, or, in the case of aboriginal law, often even by monarchs. and don't forget case law. arguing a case at this level is about interpreting the laws that the aristocrats make, not rewriting them; that interpretation then becomes put aside for future use.
so, fuck the system? well, ok. but for those that want to work in it, that contradiction sort of needs to be addressed to prevent themselves from wasting their time.
regarding the new brunswick dispute, there was, in fact, a treaty signed in 1760 by the group in question. now, you have to get the context of this right to understand the way the law is going to interpret this. france and britain had just ended a war that would give britain control of what would become eastern canada. the indigenous populations of the region had supported france in this war. that means that, from a british legal perspective, the indigenous people of eastern canada were *conquered* at the end of the "french and indian" war. why conquered? because they were aligned with the french, and the french were conquered. the treaties that followed were written within this context of being conquered.
the conquering part is huge within a british legal context. british imperial law in this context is rooted in roman imperial law. how far-reaching is the influence of the monarch (and then later of parliament)? the rule is that if a population is composed of "settlers" (like the american colonies, or australia) then they take british law with them, but if a population is composed of "conquered people" (like india or canada) then they keep their own laws, so long as those laws didn't interfere with the imperial administration. and, so quebec retained a roman civil law system rather than a british case law system, just as the romans allowed their conquered peoples to worship their own gods.
the particular treaty was not a land treaty, it was a friendship treaty. there are two reasons for this.
the first is that the indigenous signatories did not accept euro-centric concepts of land ownership. please decrypt that sentence carefully and purposefully. there were concepts of communal land ownership, and of land use, and of land sharing, but the idea of kicking the europeans out of "their" land would have been foreign to the indigenous peoples of the region, at the time. there were isolated exceptions (the six nations apparently had more european concepts of land ownership), but none in the maritime area. the view was more or less along the lines that nations could migrate through the land as they desired so long as they didn't prevent other nations from using it. (you'd end up with multiple tribes and nations *sharing* "hunting areas"). so, they sought no land treaty because they themselves would have rejected the concept of land ownership.
the other is that the land issue was already dealt with - the indigenous people, of course, being conquered in the seven years war, from the british perspective, and thus coming under their rule (but allowed to keep their laws and customs, which ironically included this rejection of land ownership). what was there to discuss on that point? what land treaty would a conquered people sign off on?
the treaty was about trade. on the indigenous side, the populations needed access to certain types of european goods - most importantly ammunition, for hunting. on the british side, they wanted to prevent uprisings, which they considered bothersome in the sense that they disrupted trade routes.
now, these treaties are in a perilous legal position. trudeau once claimed they weren't worth the paper they were written on, and he was right - legally. some of them weren't even written on paper, they were passed down orally. we've since had a constitutional overhaul. in theory, the contents of these treaties are legally binding (up to a set of convoluted caveats i'm going to ignore for right now), but they haven't been upheld in court yet. given past precedent, it's likely that the court will uphold individual rights while ignoring communal ones. yes, those fucking liberals...
that's not to say that a modern treaty isn't something that should happen. personally, i think that's along the right line of thinking, at least, although i don't like the xenophobia of ethnic nationalism. however, the legal position of the maritime groups is starkly different than those in british columbia or in the far north, or even in ontario. this claim of sovereignty has little chance of success within our court system.
here's something else to read:
http://etc.lib.unb.ca/acva/contestedterrain/sites/default/files/patterson_nsr_2009.pdf
at
22:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
RE: shower again, and check
From: the initial landlord
To: "'Jessica Murray'" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Jessica, there is a black rubber seal that fits around the outside of the black drain pipe that is about 3" in diameter. If we have sealed all the seams so that water is not getting down below the pan, we then have to look at the drain one more time before we pull the shower out to investigate below the pan. I will look at other fittings that could replace the existing drain with new parts that will create a seal. If that does not work the fitting below could be cracked or the glue that holds the fittings together may have let go. After that I will pull the shower out to investigate.
As for the direct deposit let me know how it will need to be set up and we explore that option.
To: "'Jessica Murray'" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Jessica, there is a black rubber seal that fits around the outside of the black drain pipe that is about 3" in diameter. If we have sealed all the seams so that water is not getting down below the pan, we then have to look at the drain one more time before we pull the shower out to investigate below the pan. I will look at other fittings that could replace the existing drain with new parts that will create a seal. If that does not work the fitting below could be cracked or the glue that holds the fittings together may have let go. After that I will pull the shower out to investigate.
As for the direct deposit let me know how it will need to be set up and we explore that option.
at
09:57
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)