82,891
edits
Deem: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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> | 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> | ||
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 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]]''. | 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''”. | 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''”. | ||