82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}To [[deem]] is the anti-[[Bob Cunis|Cunis]]; it is to treat one thing ''as'' the other. It is of a piece with the [[equivalent]] the asset you return under a [[stock loan]] that is, but simultaneously | {{g}}To [[deem]] is the anti-[[Bob Cunis|Cunis]]; it is to treat one thing ''as'' the other. | ||
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. | |||
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]]. | 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]]. |