Not cryptic as a recollection as a coming after a revision the second time around
Revolving around reversibility
And that depends on the power of the will, not willing something, say, insubstantial
Ichthus77 (formerly She™)Ichthus77Regular
“What if there is only one time/recollection, but all the revisions are included a priori?
Withdrawn, your honor. Stricken from the record. Jury, make your decision as if you never heard that.
Let’s take a recess.
Censored as fake
This is blanked out by reason of procidural error…
Blockquote
Ichthus77 (formerly She™)Ichthus77Regular
“What if there is only one time/recollection, but all the revisions are included a priori?
Withdrawn, your honor. Stricken from the record. Jury, make your decision as if you never heard that.“
Objection .
It has not been established that a review of the record indicate a prior distinction between heresay(recall) and and the recalled testimony.
(in a possible appeal and possible plea deal, the identifiable omitted facts in the case may be shifted to a trial by judge, so as to avoid opinionated statements to function in a pro-scripted manner.)
.
In the Halloween spirit, this blogpost is going to focus on Stephen Vincent Benét’s classic 1936 tale “The Devil and Daniel Webster”- a little story that tells of how an American legal legend beat the Devil himself in a trial for a man’s soul.
For context, Webster died in 1852, so–unless you’re from New England, or a scholar of American history–his name may not be immediately recognizable. But he was a respected courtroom litigator in his time, and when Stephen Vincent Benét sat down to write a story about an American lawyer taking the Devil to court, Webster became his proxy to fill that role.
Stories about deals with the Devil go back centuries (the legend of Faust comes to mind) and continue into modern times, for instance on shows like The Twilight Zone, and in songs such as “The Devil Went Down to Georgia”, presumably because this trope has struck a chord for many readers and media-consumers. This simple tale has become well-known in pop culture as seen for instance in The Simpsons’ Halloween special “Treehouse of Horror IV” (segment “The Devil and Homer Simpson”), and more recently on Netflix’s The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina.
Sometimes, the Devil gets the soul; sometimes, he’s outsmarted…. But Benét’s story may be the first to subject the Prince of Darkness to the venue of American jurisprudence.
The story kicks off with farmer Jabez Stone making a hasty deal with a stranger who announces himself as ‘Mr. Scratch’, and promises the man seven years of good luck and prosperity in exchange for his soul. When Stone tries to bargain for an extension, the Devil gives him the typical retort of ‘You have until midnight!’.
At which point, he runs to retain the services of Daniel Webster.
Webster begins his negotiation by saying that “Mr. Stone is an American citizen, and no American citizen may be forced into the service of a foreign prince.”, but the Devil points out that he’s been in America since before the colonial era and persists (“Am I not spoken of, still, in every church in New England?”) as a vital character in the American milieu.
So Webster demands a trial, with an American judge and jury. The Devil chooses (of course) twelve notoriously evil Americans to serve on the jury, including the pirate Blackbeard; unfortunately, Benedict Arnold had a scheduling conflict. In any case, Benét makes the point that this trial is unfairly stacked against Webster.
However, the whole drama is based around Webster’s legendary eloquence. So although he faces the Devil himself, a heavily biased jury, and a judge who presided over the Salem witch trials, our brave Advocate Webster artfully proclaims that Jabez Stone is an American like any other man working to scratch out a living from this land. He argues that Jabez was taken advantage of by the Devil, but his soul is an essentially American soul and therefore presumably, a pure and innocent one.
In the end, Webster’s passionate oration about American freedoms is enough to sway the hearts of even this blackest-hearted jury, and they find in favor of the defendant.
The phrase ‘zealous advocate’ conjures up an image of a dedicated defender who will go to any lengths to defend their client. This story, when you get right down to it, is about a lawyer who’s ready to defy Hell and the Devil himself to win his case. And perhaps it doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.
A lawyer has two duties in representing their client: to serve as a “zealous advocate” and as a “wise counselor”; however, it has often seemed to me that both in law school and in our American culture, a stronger emphasis is placed on zealous advocacy. Perhaps it is simply easier to teach the rules of Court and how to employ them, than it is to teach “wisdom”.
Unlike more traditional lawyering, Consilium’s model requires lawyers to envision outcomes prior to choosing and engaging with a legal process, whether that process is litigation, mediation, arbitration, or collaborative law.
That having been said, Stephen Vincent Benét’s mission was taking on the devil! And this story is a powerful example of zealous advocacy at its best.
Has another thread lapsed into incoherence? As I see it Dogbert, a panpsychist, was wondering why he in particular was transformed from low level conscious matter what he considers to to be the highest level of conscious being-the human. Karma, the anthropic principle, and grace and the devil have been proposed as answers. May I add that it only seems like you are human under apriori categories of your finite mind. What you essentially are is categorically irreducible.
How can you know that? Maybe nothing is possible outside the categories? Maybe when we encounter the unknown we discover more about the categories? Reality is reality. All creativity is an attempt to talk about it. To express what is already there. Or to make a happy accident to see what is already there.
Kant: “space and time are mere “forms of intuition” that structure all experience and that the objects of experience are mere “appearances”. The nature of things as they are in themselves is unknowable to us.” Include your true self among the “things” unknowable.
And him thinks he got the whole thing up, or aware that he merely is trying to give that impression (Kant) that is.
Essentially, yes, but more often likely than not, it is the politics of eyeballing identifiable missing pieces, like finding in a hayfield haystack, that drives the sustainably body politic (of experience)
It is a comfort to have both revolving doors, augment the so so intricate machine,
Like: when renting or leasing the machine so delicately and sublimely constructed, so as to boggle the latest prototype as in a car 
lease, and so on , and the whirring of the pre(per) formance taking off even before it can be reverse- engineered is so so comforting. to know, that the paradoxical race between turtle(where is she now?) and hare, has assumed a noteable significance.
That considered the almost absolute proximity of the fire 
of doubtless diversion to show excess fallibility, of the smoked out flammability where the smoke house emitted such grey tones, signaling far into the future, passed, that still, offers a fabulous charm.
So there, with IT, meknow, you’all pitifully loaded and secured by it, guess what, if is anything but.
Will the court come down with a verdict or the need of appeal absolved and reverse judgement.
Just because we cannot have all of the information it is possible to have does not mean we do not have access to the essentials.
Thanks for both: that tech is progressing ahead by leaps and bounds is an undeniable fact and that that it’s reactive approach to the reflected inversely growing doubt , caused by the melange or conflation of both senses of recollection and recall: is clearing the air, while
Political expediency necessitates the significance of mythic undertow, as analogically certain when crosswired, / example commutative limits become indistinct as super computers can be fitted to Chanel the heroic with the antihero,
Whereby do the synch down into a neurality of affect, without delimiting the outstanding hierarchy of triangulated effect of synthetic results ( without becoming plastic/fantastic.
(Note: we need one more comment then decide, cause while it appears 50-50, … a51-51 reduced to 6-6and 6+6 is 12, consequently 1+2=3
Fitting into the ur paradigmn.
And, admittedly, I am not the one into that premise above mentioned but rescripted in case it invisibles:
.
Yes , but does not or can not the anthropic principle meet the test that an anthropomorphic challenge mirrors/simulates ? ( or reversely)
