Deem: Difference between revisions

Deem (view source)

Revision as of 14:00, 20 July 2020

804 bytes added , 20 July 2020

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.
+{{g}}To [[deem]] is the anti-[[Bob Cunis|Cunis]]; it is to treat one thing ''as'' the other. It enfolds all a [[legal eagle]]’s intents and every one of her purposes.
-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.
+It is of a piece with the [[equivalence]] we craves 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 the [[eurobond]] we hold, being [[Fungible|of the same type and class, that forming part of the same series as]] but all the same, [[ontologically]], distinct from, the one we have in mind security is, nonetheless, “the same”. We [[deem]] it the same.
-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 Heath Robinson logic to a liability we say is in “[[an amount equal to]] the amount borrowed” — as if in some ineffable way that is different from a liability ''being'' the amount borrowed.
-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 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 River Pedantry whose [[Tedium|tedial]] silted washings have, over millennia, carved out this canyon leaving as their legacy these magnificent craggy edifices of legal idiom.
+For where to “[[amend]]” is to assert the ''identity'' — the continuing legal existence, even — of a unitary something that is in a way ''[[Change|changed]]'' over a period of time, to “[[deem]]” is to assert the momentary ''non''-identity of something that, in every legally material way, has not. It is to take Theseus’ ship to a whole other realm of [[Ontology|ontological]] [[redundancy]].
+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 beconme not how we ''sepak'' 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.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Amend]]
 *[[Fungible]]
-*[[]Bob Cunis]]
+*[[Bob Cunis]]