CIII - fuck me, what am i doin' here

song of the week: stevie ray vaughan, pride and joy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keQaz5iYeV4

i think i repeat this question three times a day. in my head it sounds like a clint eastwood kinda mutter. or maybe a kurt russell kinda growl. hell, i can see little stevie ray saying it with a smile.

bum ba-bum ba-bum ba-bar-bum - that's basically how the song goes.

well ya heard about lovin' givin' sight to the blind,
my baby's lovin cause the sun to shine,
she's my sweet little thing,
she's my pride and joy.
she's my sweet little baby,
i'm her little lover boy.

i was thinking today on the train, in an uninspired, neutral sort of way, that you know, it really doesn't matter how i feel. it just doesn't matter, not a little bit. the way i feel means nothing besides how i feel it.

for that little moment i felt one with existence, just a little human being in a bigger space. it's like how you used to press the reset button on your computer. there's that brief pause between the com being shut off and the thing rebooting. that moment of just nothing. beeeummmm ... ...  ... whrrrrrrrr. if you closed your eyes at that shortest of moments, it was easy to believe nothing would happen.

well i love my lady she's long and lean,
you mess with her you see a man get mean,
she's my sweet little thing,
she's my pride and etc.

bum ba-bum ba-bum ba-bar-bum.

CII - the kizuki effect

song of the week: 蕭敬騰, 新不了情
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDLSpIw6Qvw

the general problem with trying to write a juris paper is that there is so much to read. but the thing is that each of these authors are trying to tell a complete and coherent story. and each of these guys are really, incredibly meticulous, structurally sound and persuasive. the tricky part is to consider which account you prefer to which other account. but that's when the magic stops. literally. you're reading to refute and not to believe, you're reading to catch only the relevant portions. you miss the forest for the trees, the elephant for the trophy tusks. and that is when the sum of the story is less than its individual parts. and really, that's tragic. because each of these guys had spent years of their lives considering meta-stories of life and the philosophy of society, politics and law. and to meet them halfway is horrible. how many authors can you think of who dare to write head-to-tail accounts of something fundamental to life, social arrangement and belief, from their own perspective? can you even think of one of your beloved authors who poured out their lives in magnum opuses, not least in response to such other masterpieces written by their most esteemed colleagues, scholars of the highest order, and we dare pick their bones and call them out for theoretical trivialities? oh for shame!

but each of these guys knew what they were in for, conceptually, analytically, substantively and normatively. it was not cut and thrust to them, no mere squabble, no linguistic sparring, no, this was the real stuff. as for us, we are more than lawyers. i always say that. i once told my friend, when she was seriously working (well, being worked) too much, that she was more than a doctor. we are more than lawyers, to us words are more than skills. words are the overflow not just of our minds, but also our hearts. and taking juris has taught me that i am more than a lawyer, maybe more than a legal scholar. i don't take it as an elitist feeling. to me everyone should take juris. i know many don't like it. i guess if justifying your beliefs and actions aren't important to you, then you'll find your own paths in life. i don't mean this as reproach, i mean this as a call-out. maybe there are more important things to worry about, practical things, defending the innocent. but juris for me is about stories and meta-stories. and stories are the stuff of human existence.

Morgan Freeman (from the movie Se7en, 1996): "Gentlemen, gentlemen... All these books, a world of knowledge at your fingertips, and you play poker all night."

Library Guard: "We've got culture! We've got culture comin' out our asses!

i was thinking just now about how i relate really well with children, i open up to 'em and listen to 'em and treat them as people. they find it funny. i don't know why i don't relate to people like that. part of me is worried about being too effusive or charming. part of me knows that some people will put some kind of label on me, kind or unkind, and i'm kinda against that sort of thing. i guess really, i don't want to show my weak side to people, and when i'm around children i can show my strong and good and cheerful side all the time, and that puts me at ease. it's the... kizuki effect (norwegian wood - the part where naoko knows about kizuki's strong and weak side, the latter of which he tries to hide). not wanting to appear vulnerable, not wanting to show my weak side, and then my independence, has made me withdrawn in a way. maybe that's why i'm so good at entertaining people. maybe that's why they think i'm weirdly withdrawn. it's a dynamic (well there's nothing dynamic about it) that i think some people manage to understand. but i'm sure it's, or i'm, puzzling to others.

either way, i don't really care, because i'm such a genuine person. haha. what a terrible thing to say.

anyway, at the moment things are neither here nor there. i don't really mind things as they are. of course it's not easy seeing her once a week. i stand by what i say, things could go well or things could go badly. they haven't come to a head, but again i'm not in a hurry. that's not accurate, i mean that things beyond my control aren't in a hurry and i don't really mind. it's very norwegian wood. oh! my life has been written out in a wonderful little book.

CI - a little green light

song of the week: gregg allman, melissa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWtLkSlfWRQ

"something in his leisurely movements and the secure position of his feet suggested that it was mr. gatsby himself, come out to determine what share was his of our local heavens.

i decided to call to him. miss baker had mentioned him at dinner, and that would do for an introduction. but i didn't call to him, for he gave a sudden intimation that he was content to be alone - he stretched out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way, and, far as i was from him, i could have sworn he was trembling. involuntarily i glanced seaward - and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and faraway, that might have been the end of a dock. when i looked once more for gatsby he had vanished, and i was alone again in the unquiet darkness."

no one knows the gypsy's name
and no one hears his lonely sigh 
there are no blankets where he lies
in all his deepest dreams the gypsy flies
with sweet melissa

C - to trifles

song of the week: nicholas chim, as long as you come first
http://nicholaschim.bandcamp.com/track/as-long-as-you-come-first

the title of this post, and its earlier reference, comes from the dear fictitious character of Aramis, of the three musketeers' fame. oh pardon me it was Athos! dear nonetheless.

D'Artagnan related his adventure with Madame Bonacieux. Athos listened to him with perfect immobility of countenance; and when he had finished, -

"Trifles, all that;" said Athos, "nothing but trifles!" That was Athos' expression.

"You always say trifles, my dear Athos!" said D'Artagnan, "and that comes very ill from you, who have never been in love."

The drink-deadened eye of Athos flashed, but it was only for a moment - it became dull and vacant as before.

"That's true," he said quietly, "for my part I have never loved."

let's talk about Hart and Dworkin.

Hart thinks that you can describe a social practice by exclusive reference to social fact, in particular, that law is a set of rules which legal officials regard as binding. Dworkin thinks that social practices cannot be described by analyses which purport to find substantively neutral criteria such as these; he thinks that what law is must be interpreted based on grounds of law which are best justified by the political context of that society. in other words, notwithstanding what is posited law, what is "the law" must be re-interpreted in each context.

let's talk about love. is love a social practice? haha, whatever, right? anyway, it used to be i thought that love was basically something describable. you could identify key features, necessary criteria, of love, and whether or not something was love depended on the extent to which these criteria were fulfilled. you'd know when you were in love with someone, it just was, amazingly. like going through the looking glass. you knew it because it was special. you knew it because, and i love this quote, all the love songs made sense. you knew it because of that dreamy feeling thinking about the person you loved. you knew it because of the very awful and tense feeling of unease and selfish envy. so on and so forth. there's probably out there a large body of opinion what other criteria of love there is, or what the central concept of love is, e.g. sacrifice, but let's not go there.

the point is that until recently, and maybe still, i thought that love was something you intuitively knew was true about the way you felt about a person, and the implication of a positive identification was that you stuck to it, never changed your mind, stuff like that. if you found love, then you had to die trying. but maybe what is love is a continuing interpretive exercise, something which is posited love may not be love in a particular context that subsequently develops. in other words, if you thought you were in love, and you didn't think you were wrong to feel that way, or in continuing to do so, i guess there's no absolute obligation to that love is what i mean (to be conceptually correct, because the grounds of love have changed; note that obligation is a different question from identification). and i feel that's sad because what's love if that's it?

what would i say this is, interpretive relativism? haha, whatever. i guess the short reply to relativism would be that the concept of a social practice, and the grounds which justify an interpretation in central cases of that social practice, have a certain enduring sustainability, i.e. they do not sway with the times. this may be a substantive answer which does not meet the present categorisation challenge, but as Dworkin would say, substantive argument is really where it's at.

you know, i keep thinking, it's funny how i'm still alone. i don't feel the loneliness, and i really think that i'm happy to be alone. but it's funny how i'm still alone. considering all the things i am, it's preposterous, it doesn't make sense. a lot of times i feel conflicted about things like these, really. i'm the kind of guy that is probably pretty charming, but i'm afraid to be that way most of the time, and i feel deep down in my being that my talents, for want of a better word, are not for selfish gratification. and when it comes to liking girls, you could say i'm a choosy person, but i would say i know what i'm doing. anyway it just strikes me (strangely, more each day) as incredible, bemusing, that i'm still alone.

at the heart of it is the constant belief that i'm doing the right thing, that whatever it is i want to find, i will find it, or if not, then it must have been ordained as not. but sometimes at night lying down in bed i wonder if there's not a simpler answer to life and love; to let go of the things i believe in and to understand that i can find love and be happy in the normal way.

but the truth is that i'm afraid of being with the wrong girl. i'm afraid of a dawning realisation such as that, i think it would be terrible. i'm sure one can say, you can choose to love someone, come what may, but one could nonetheless say the reverse. don't you think life has too many examples of couples who weren't meant to be together? i can't think about it without having to wince. and i don't think i'm afraid for me, i think i'm afraid of making a girl like that sad. in other words, i don't want to screw it up. and where does that leave me? with this very conviction of mine that what i'm doing is right. i think i could see the circularity in it, but that wouldn't be fatal to the belief, i don't think. the cost of this general fear is some of my natural charm, but i guess this is no great loss.

anyway, i know when feelings tell me things, or when they start to hint. maybe i'm sensitive to the interpretive attitude. maybe being sure of something like love is too naive, insufficient, or incomplete. but thinking about things like this is sobering in a very dismal way. i guess i don't want the paradigm i believe in to change. but then, who would?


no sweeping exits, or off-stage lines,
could make me feel bitter, or treat you unkind.
wild horses, couldn't drag me away.