Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I was always under the impression this treaty consisted only of five lines. The new King is "Orange," we find, Though the name of that color won't rhyme. But let's have a feast And then live at peace, For a day if ya really don't mind. Turns out the history was more complicated than my verse. Which is bad but in an uncomplicated sort of way. 

Just thinking aloud here. There are several theories extant about how what we think of as the universe, the totality of spaces you could in principle get to from here, and of moments in time that came before or will come after this one, is only one of many. A multiplicity of multiverse theories, so to speak. I'll still to three (I'm sure there are more). 1) A multiverse exists because every black hole is also a big bang . I'm told that mathematical modeling of a black hole leads to the inference that a mass of any size may somehowishly be reduced to a single infinitesimal point (meaning: infinite density). Also, that this makes the formation of a black hole look like the big bang postulated as the start of our universe in reverse. From such premises, the italicized inference above seems possible. If every black hole you can get to from here is a big bang, though, then it is the big bang of another universe, one you can't get to from here, one with its own space an...

Continuing my line of posts creating an arbitrary list of THE landmark case for each year. This time, we'll work our way from the moment of the lip syncing of Milli Vanilli to that of the sexual orality of Monica Lewinsky. I've posted one of them as the image for this entry. 1990,  Cruzan v.Missouri -- States may require "clear and convincing evidence" of patient's end-of-life wishes (living wills). 1991, Harmelin v. Michigan --  life sentence without possibility of parole for possession of cocaine held not to be cruel and unusual punishment. 1992, Casey v. Planned Parenthood -- re-affirmation of right to an abortion as part of privacy right. 1993, Daubert v. Merrill Dow -- creation of the Daubert standard for the testimony of expert witnesses. 1994, Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet -- Satmar Hasidic Jews can't get their own public school district. 1995, Adarand Construction v. Pena -- affirmative action as race-based set asides....

I'm thinking about The Light Between Oceans, a movie in the historical romance genre. It opened on September 2, which is called a "fall release" in Hollywood marketing terms, though sticklers will point to the calendar and say it was released in the summer. It was not a huge commercial success. I saw it, in a less-than-packed theater, that first weekend. It was sixth at the box office that weekend. SPOILER ALERT. Don't read further if you plan to see the movie and may want to be surprised by the plot twists, such as they are. But commercial success isn't what I'm thinking about this morning. I'm thinking about the "compare and contrast" the movie makers set up between their story and the classic Bible story about Solomon and a baby. Much of the film takes place on a small island off the coast of northwestern Australia, where the protagonist couple tend a lighthouse. There is talk about how critical the lighthouse is, as the Indian and ...

If you have any sense of the recent history of the US presidency, the above sentence, applied TO that institution, will seem insane. It appears to seem sane, though, to William G. Howell and Terry M. Moe, authors of RELIC, a new book about the presidency and related constitutional issues. Excessive suspicion of executive power is the late 18th century "relic" that they would like to excise from the US Constitution by amendment, on behalf of "effective government." I haven't read the book, and am relying here on a review in the September issue of THE FEDERAL LAWYER. Unless the reviewer, Louis Fisher, is doing the authors an injustice, though, Howell and Moe seem headed down a dangerous road. Whether the next President is named Clinton or Trump, my own response to the suggestion at the top of this blog post is, "hell no!"

Avishai Margalit formerly of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, has written a book on THE ETHICS OF MEMORY. The very title evokes a number of thoughts. We are often told that we have an obligation to remember this or that. "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot ...Camelot...." and other such sentiments. But is that really meant literally? is it even coherent as literally understood? Galen Strawson has reviewed Margalit's book, here: https://www.academia.edu/28409721/review_of_Avishai_Margalit_The_Ethics_of_Memory_Strawson.pdf Strawson thinks it a fine book, but the point he wishes to make is that one of Margalit's points seems to him too selective. Margalit treats it as a near-universal point that humans don't want to be forgotten, they/we want fame that will live on after our death, and this is one reason our friends and family want to help us with that, and thus feel an ethical obligation to our memory. Strawson...

I'm continuing my list of most-important-decisions from the US Supreme Court, year by year. Today I'll cover the 80s. Again, each choice is extremely subjective. If you don't care about SCOTUS, you might at least enjoy the photo of Molly Ringwald. Proceeding.... 1980, Pruneyard Shopping v. Robins -- free speech, property rights, state sovereignty, shopping malls 1981, Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery -- bottle bills survive constitutional challenge 1982, Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty Medl Society -- antitrust price fixing, physicians 1983, INS v. Chadha -- separation of powers, legislative veto 1984, Chevron v. NRDC -- deference to administrative discretion 1985, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises -- "fair use" of copyrighted material 1986, Batson v. Kentucky -- jury composition, racial bias 1987, Edwards v. Aguillard -- creationism and establishment of religion 1988, Morrison v. Olson -- separation of powers & special prosecutors...

Finishing up a thought of yesterday's. Though recent North Korean rocket launches have sent projectiles in the general direction of Japan, and though Japan is the "former colonial power," I very much doubt that there is any close connection between those two facts. Why? Because I ask myself, Where else could they have directed those missiles? Southward? Only when they're ready to resume the war paused more than 60 years ago. North? Siberia, a/k/a Russia. They wouldn't dare.   West? The People's Republic of China. Again, they wouldn't dare. They send the missiles over the open seas, even though that makes Japan nervous, because that is the only testing range they dare employ. Mystery solved. You're welcome.

North Korea has been lobbing missiles in the direction of Japan, as a deliberate act of provocation and bravado. Commentators on television can't mention this fact without at once saying "Japan is the country's former colonial overlord." And so it is, but I don't think the pertinent history has anything to do with the choice of missile-test target, or whatever 'this' is. Just so no one will say I ignored it, though, let's say a few words about that history, even though we're just taking this stuff from wikipedia. Korea was never colonized by one of the usual suspects, one of the western European powers one thinks of when the subject comes up. The Russo-Japanese War was fought at the start of the 20th century largely over the issue of in whose sphere of influence did Korea fall. The Japanese won. Not long thereafter, in 1910, the Japanese forced on the Koreans a Treaty of Annexation. This begins the period referenced when the news talkin...

It was J.R.R. Tolkien who first wrote, in a reminiscence of his childhood and of an early effort at fantasy writing, that one cannot refer in English to a "green great dragon." Size must come before color. It must be a great green dragon. He also expressed his continuing puzzlement, as boy and man, about this philological fact. Recently, someone among my FB friends posted a photo of a book, author unspecified and unknown to me, which addresses the point more comprehensively. According to this unsourced book, the proper list is: opinion, size, age, shape, color,  origin, material, purpose Noun. So one could encounter a terrifying great ancient smooth-lined green demon-sired flesh-and-blood gold-guarding dragon. Then presumably edit down the adjectives to just two, keeping the order. Is this a Chomskyan thing or a Skinnerian thing? If different languages have different preferred adjective orders then we might describe this as a Skinnerian discovery. The 'proper...

Is there a "most important" decision of the Supreme Court in a given year? Such a question depends, of course, on what one means by "importance." Just to satisfy my own obscure sense of fun, I'll run through the 70s, beginning then as my own political awareness began, and defining importance by my own nonappealable subjectivity. Maybe some time next week I'll move on to the '80s, if I can bear the excitement.    1970, Goldberg v. Kelly -- procedural due process rights and welfare entitlements.    1971,  New York Times v. United States -- Pentagon Papers case.    1972,   Gottschalk v. Benson -- software and patentability.    1973, Roe v. Wade -- abortion rights.    1974, U.S. v. Nixon -- executive privilege.    1975, Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores -- securities fraud.    1976, Gregg v. Georgia -- capital punishment    1977, Moore v. City of E...

I remember taking a Corporate Finance course in law school. I retained a few things therefrom, for example, a sense of the sharp legal distinction between the rights of debtors on the one hand and the rights of owners of equity on the other. There was some material too about friendly versus unfriendly takeovers, and the ways in which the latter might be resisted by the target company's board. But what I remember most vividly about the course was a discussion of the Miller-Modigliani theorem. This is the hypothesis proposed by the two named economists, Merton H. Miller and Franco Modigliani, that a rational corporate management will be indifferent as to whether it raises money by issuing debt or by issuing new stock. The debt/equity distinction, as important as it was in law, was trivial in economics. Or so the economists said. [ Investopedia contains a fine article explaining the basics.]  I was very struck by this M/M theorem, and not just be...