Has the reader heard the idea that a fish doesn’t know that it is in water because it has never had the contrasting experience of being out of the water? To me it seems that a fish must know that it is in water because it can swim and uses gills to breath, but what do i know about what a fish knows. Anyway it is a cool concept, probably very true in many regards. That idea has been offered most likely to point out to us so called humans that we too must have something going on in our environment that we simply ignore because it is always such a pervasive experience, an unchanging background. I want to talk about ideas that we all seem to know about, ideas that some might say are so obvious that they don’t need to be talked about. I want to talk about some of these ideas. To start with the idea that there are at least two of types of knowledge. One, I want to call first hand knowledge and the other could be called hearsay. When someone tells another about what they know, would it might be good to recognize if the someone is testifying, saying that they have first hand knowledge of the so called facts being offered or if the someone is retelling what she had heard or read. First hand knowledge would be the reporting of so called facts that
In court if a witness says that a wall was white and nobody rebuts it, it becomes a fact on the record, I believe. In court, on the record, or even off the record, evidence is admitted or denied. Once presented, evidence becomes fact when unrebutted. Lady justice in her scales weights these so-called facts and uses them to make a decision, to come to a judgement. The facts don’t necessarily need to be true (what ever that means), they just need to be admitted and unrebutted and that is what in the eyes of the court makes them facts. They just need to be assumed as true, as far as judgement goes.
This brings to mind the idea of honorable rebuts and dis honorable rebuts. Later, I might talk about the how this relates to contract law.
When we are talking to a brother or sister, a fellow so called human being would it be best to be honorable? If you said that you would be at a place at a certain time, would it be best to honor that as best you can? If you borrowed what another thought was money, would it be best to return it in a timely way?in all this peaceful inhabitant stuff , we want to remain “honorable” with our fellows, is how I see it. And so when the so called man comes after you, the way I see it they also have to be socalled honorable. Why does the “man” have to be honorable? Because the way I see it there is a law in this universe and you will get what you give and also that no being can do to another what they have not consented to on some level. This is not a law because it is a rule, as I see it, but just an observation of the way things are. This noted I guess I have to be ready to have a discussion about blaming of victims and such, and I want to let you know that I believe I have compassion for others and the trials, tribulation, and traumas of life. It is a difficult idea to defend and I will refrain from doing so. I offer it as an idea that you might explore. Hopefully I can clarify it more.
So the idea is like how dracula can’t come into the house unless you invite him in. I think i can find many expressions in folklore and literature of this idea. Or like if you dance with the devil, the devil starts to dance with you. He makes an offer as if he is offeingr for you to lead in a dance and before you know it, he is leading. Now you may not want to dance anymore, but you find it hard to stop. The “man” is like these characters, in that one will never meet the man. The “man” will always be a concept, a character like santa clause.
A maxim, consent gets rid of a mistake or error, means to me that in the rules of the universe, if the “man” can get your consent to dance then he cannot be held accountable for the results of the dance. If he gets one’s consent, he is not accountable for the so called bad consequences as he had only given one an offer to dance, he cannot force one to dance as I see it. If one consents consiously or unconsiously, then one is responsible for the consequences of the interaction. So, if say the devil (an archtype), fucks with you and you haven’t consented, he will get in big trouble. Actually, the way I see it, he just can’t do anything at all unless one consents. It isn’t that he will get in trouble, it is just that he becomes powerless to influence those who do not consent. Of course there seems to be a difference between not consenting and resisting. The consent that the “man” or the “devil” is looking for is the consent to be in a controversy.
So in the battle for the record it often becomes a fact that the so called state is the plaintif. Could this be an example of unrebutted hearsay that becomes assumed as fact. Was the state in there (santa clause) to testify that he or she was a plaintif? Or did some lawyer, some so called representitive of the state offer hearsay evidence and say something like “the fact is that the state has charged you with jaywalking”. In this statement notice how if one tries to rebut the fact that he jaywalked, he is accepting the assumtion in the question that there is such a real thing as an entity called the state, because he has remained silent to the admission of such a so called fact. When we remain silent, we agree is a so called maxim, i have been told and also noticed.