Deem: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Deem (view source)

Revision as of 10:29, 8 April 2022

2,177 bytes added , 8 April 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{g}}To [[deem]] is the anti-[[Bob Cunis|Cunis]]; it is to treat one thing ''as'' the other.
+{{a|plainenglish|[[File:eagle over grand canyon.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[legal eagle]] soars over the magnificent legacy of the River Pedantry, yesterday.]]}}{{quote|
+{{triago deemery}}
+:—{{buchstein}}, {{dsh}}}}{{d|Deem|/diːm/|v|]}}<br>(See also [[Deemery|'''~ery''']] ''/diːməri/'' (''n''.))
-It is of a piece with the [[equivalent]] the asset you return under a [[stock loan]] that ''is'', but simultaneously ''is not'', the same as the one you borrowed, the [[fungible]] security of the same type and class and forming part of the same series. The same sort of Heath Robinson logic applies to a liability in “[[an amount equal to]] the amount that you borrowed”, and these apocalyptic horsemen line up on the ridge and gaze across a deep ontological chasm at all that which [[amend]]s, [[supplement]]s or modifies. Between these high points, deep in the [[abyss]] below, flows the great River Pedantry which, over millennia, has carved these magnificent cliffs, canyons, craggy edifices of legal idiom.
+To be ''anti''-[[cunisian]]; to treat the one thing ''as'' the other. [[Demnation]] enfolds all a [[legal eagle]]’s intents and every one of her purposes. It is of a piece with the [[equivalence]] we crave when, under a [[stock loan]], we return an asset that ''is'', but simultaneously ''is not'', the one we borrowed. It is the means by which we [[get comfortable]] saying that a [[eurobond]], being [[Fungible|of the same type and class, and forming part of the same series as]] but, all the same, [[ontologically]], distinct from, another one  is, nonetheless, “the same” thing. We “[[deem]]” it to be so.
-For where to “[[amend]]” is to assert the identity over a period of time — the continued legal existence, even — of something that is in some way ''[[Change|changed]]'', to [[deem]] is to assert the momentary ''non''-identity of something that, in every way, has not. It is to take Theseus’ ship to a whole other realm of [[Ontology|ontological]] [[redundancy]].
+We apply the same sort of [[The farmer and the sheep|Heath Robinson logic]] to a liability we say is “''in [[an amount equal to]]'' the amount borrowed” — as if the sum you pay back is, in some ineffable way, different from the one you borrowed.<ref>This seems intuitively right, but (on the [[JC]]’s idiosyncratic theory of the game, at least) isn’t: you can’t ''own'' money, it is its own, inviolate, anti-proprietary thing — it can only be ''held'', never ''possessed''. [[Money]] is a pure ethereal spirit in our grubby material world, its transfer cannot leave a physical trace but, its gravity ''curves'' our legal space-time continuum into something we can only recognise as [[indebtedness]].</ref>
-This essential subjunctivity - the hypothetical state of being one would be in were it not for the inconvenient state one actually ''is'' in, is a fundamental part of the [[legal eagle]]’s torturous psyche.
+These [[Apocalypse|apocalyptic horsemen]] line up on the ridge and gaze across the ontological chasm. Lined up and marshaled against them are all those that ''[[amend]]'', ''[[supplement]]'' or ''modify''. Deep in the [[abyss]] below flows the monstrous [[Pedantry|River Pedantry]] whose [[Tedium|tedial]] silted washings have, over millennia, carved out this canyon and left as their legacy these magnificent edifices of legal idiom: [[deeming]]; [[fungibility]]; [[equivalence]]; the ''[[hypothetical]]''.
+For where to “[[amend]]” is to assert the ''identity'' of a unitary something that may ''[[change]]'' over a period of time but, all the same, has existential ''continuity''; to “[[deem]]” is to assert the momentary ''non''-identity of two things; to draw a ''legally'' material distinction notwithstanding their failure to have any differentiating form, feature or function. It is to say, “these things ''are'' the same, but they are ''not''”; or “these things are ''not'' the same, but yet they ''are''”.
+It is to take Theseus’ ship to a whole other realm of [[Ontology|ontological]] [[redundancy]].
+You might wonder why we bother. The [[JC]] certainly does. Why ''do'' we [[legal eagles]] talk in such convoluted ways?
+Because it was ever so. So much water has passed before us that it has become not how we ''speak'' but how we ''think''. These are our gods and monsters. This is the fabric from which our legal world is woven. This essential [[Subjunctive|subjunctivity]]; this fixation with a [[hypothetical]] state of being one ''would be in'' were it not for the inconvenient state one actually ''is in'', is foundational to the [[legal eagle]]’s torturous psyche.
+Fun fact: The [[noun]] form of deem; the act of ''deeming'' something, is “demption”.<ref>This is not true.</ref>
 {{sa}}
+*{{buchstein}}’s {{dsh}}
+*The common law doctrine of [[demption]]
 *[[Amend]]
 *[[Fungible]]
-*[[]Bob Cunis]]
+*[[Hypothetical]]
+*[[Bob Cunis]]
+{{ref}}
+{{egg}}