#'people ought to consider situation and context when expressing their opinions' | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lawrenceop · 4 years

Text

HOMILY for 4th Sun after Octave of Easter (Dominican rite)

James 1:22-27; John 16:23-30

If we’re to believe what we read online – something to be done with caution, I know – then there has reportedly been a recent upsurge of interest in prayer. According to Google, more people have been searching for ‘prayer’ online. Also, according to a survey published at the end of April, one in twenty adults in this country have started to pray during the lockdown, despite not having prayed before, and a similar percentage had watched an online prayer service. Anecdotally, even according to regular church-goers, a good number have said online that they’ve been praying more than ever before. Certainly, I have noticed an upsurge of interest in the Rosary, and there have been websites and YouTube channels (including my own for the Dominican Order) launched to promote and link up groups who are praying the Rosary. Here in the Rosary Shrine in London, for example, we started to livestream the Rosary at 8pm every week day. All this has been a wonderful effect of these difficult days of uncertainty.

The Lord says in today’s Gospel: “Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.” (Jn 16:23) So, given the crisis that we’re facing, it seems fitting that we should respond with prayer, and indeed, more prayer. We turn to God and ask him to stop this pandemic and take away its ill effects, as the Holy Father has done every day since the crisis overwhelmed Italy. And yet, what will happen with our newfound enthusiasm for prayer if we do not get what we ask for, or at least not in accordance with our particular timetables? Didn’t Jesus say that the Father will give us anything we ask for? But, while we’re at it, what about all those other things we wanted? That new job, or that new house, or even, that new girlfriend? Shouldn’t we ask the Father for these things too because Jesus says we will get what we ask for?

But is prayer really about simply getting what we want? Is prayer like making a purchase from a vending machine: we put prayers in, and out comes the thing we asked for? Is this what Jesus says in the Gospel?

In the short passage from St John that we hear in today’s Liturgy, Jesus in fact uses one phrase repeatedly: “in nomine meo”, ‘in my name’. We are to pray in his name, so that we will receive in his name. What does this mean? Firstly, to give someone your name, at least in the Biblical context, is to entrust yourself to them; it is to enter into a relationship with him. Hence, we have been baptised into the name of the Holy Trinity, for baptism places us in an intimate relationship with God: we belong to God, and God dwells within us. To pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus, therefore, means to pray to God as the Son prays to his Father.

Therefore, in genuine Christian prayer, we ourselves enter into a relationship with God the Father, and not just any relationship, but the relationship of God the Son to God the Father. In fact, Jesus says that when we pray and ask in his name, he no longer will need to pray to the Father for us, on our behalf. Why not? Because, as we heard last Sunday, the Holy Spirit has been given to us, and the Holy Spirit dwelling and active in us has made us truly, by grace, the adopted sons and daughters of God the Father. Therefore, it is the Spirit active within us who moves us to pray to the Father; it is the Spirit who causes in us a relationship of filial love for the Father; it is the Spirit who empowers us and enables us to pray to the Father in the name of the Son. As St Paul says: “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God… [for] you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry [in our prayers], "Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God”.

True prayer, therefore, is deeply relational. Indeed, prayer is an expression of the relationship of the Son with God the Father. This is a relationship of deep trust in God’s goodness, in his wisdom and love, and therefore, the Son obeys the will of the Father and he understands that God, in his providence, will wisely give his children whatever is good, whatever is necessary for their final good, namely, for their salvation. For salvation is that which God desires above all for his children, since, as I said two Sundays ago, salvation is nothing less than an eternal relationship of love and friendship in union with God. This is what we mean when we speak of ‘heaven’ – it is relational and not locational.

However, there is another way of praying, and I fear that oftentimes beginners in prayer, especially those who might have decided to try it out during this time of pandemic, will conceive of prayer in this manner. This is the prayer of the consumer, of the kind who sees God as essentially a benevolent Santa Claus type figure; a vending machine, basically. This was the kind of prayer which pagans and non-Christians commonly practised, and which sadly, Christians sometimes lapse into when they don’t consider carefully what Jesus has shown us, and what he has taught us about prayer. In the consumerist type of prayer, there is no intimate relationship of love and trust. Rather, the relationship, if there is any at all, is that of a client and a patron – it is merely transactional, or can even be an exploitative relationship: give me what I ask for and I will give you my attention, or this monetary offering, or some other thing.

But Jesus reveals that the Father desires much more. He desires our love. And so, Jesus teaches us, through his own example, that prayer is about trusting God, obeying God, conforming our will to God’s, and surrendering to the grace of the present moment. Jesus therefore taught us to pray to our Father, saying, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” In other words, let what we want be conformed to your will, let us be conformed to you and shaped by you, who are all Good and all Loving. Thus Jesus himself prayed in the moment of his agony: “Not my will but yours be done” (Lk 22:42), and at the Cross, he surrendered himself into the hands of his Father. This, therefore, is what it means to ask and to pray to the Father “in nomine meo”, in my name, in Jesus’s name.

Hence St Thomas Aquinas says that “The starting point of prayer is desire for eternal life… and this persists in all the other works we do in due order, because all of them should be ordered towards obtaining eternal life, and so the desire for eternal life persists virtually in all the good deeds we do”. In a similar way, St James in today’s epistle, says that we must persevere in good deeds, for our faith is relational, and so what we believe is enacted in what we do for God and for one another – there is an in-breaking of heaven into our lives now.

If we read the whole letter of St James – something I highly recommend – why does St James stress the danger of words and caution us to “bridle the tongue”? We live in an age when everyone believe he’s entitled to his opinion, and indeed, many broadcast their thoughts and opinions – often ill-informed ones – quite freely and candidly. In the course of doing so, under the mistaken idea that they have a right to say whatever they want, people have fallen into the sins of calumny, detraction, and slander. That is to say, they have attributed malicious intent to others, they have gossiped about them and assassinated their characters, and they have thus prevented good from being done. I am sorry to say that this kind of activity is in evidence on Twitter and other forms of social media, and it is prevalent even among Catholics. And many have failed to hold their tongues and restrain their judgements, particularly when the Pope or a bishop or a priest does not say what they want them to say, or do as they think they should do. Indeed, they think that they are speaking out in the name of religion; they cite St Catherine of Siena to justify what they think is a good and needful deed. Clearly, the relationship here has broken down, and there is no filial trust, but rather, the relationship has tragically become transactional, consumerist, and even exploitative at times.

This situation can be healed, of course, but only if we each examine our own prayer lives first, and then we ask God to heal our relationship with him, and we allow him to also heal our relationships with other people. For as St James warns: “the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God… If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain.” (Jm 1:20, 26) Therefore we begin my bridling the tongue, that is to say, we turn, in silence, to God and pray. Pray for the situations that have hurt us or concern us, pray for those involved, and especially, pray for your enemies and for their conversion. As St Augustine says, we should pray that our enemies should die to sin and error, and so become our friends, and we should pray for a “good will that makes you good”. The unbridled tongue, and so much of the twittering online that this entails, does not lead to a good will but in fact damages relationships.

Conversely, true religion, St James says therefore, heals relationships and indeed, builds a relationship of love where it has been diminished. As he says: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (Jm 1:27) Orphans are those who have lost their fathers; widows have lost their husbands. In both cases, a relationship that ought to be there, although it survives beyond the grave, has been lost in some sense. There are also countless spiritual orphans and widows in our world and within the Church - many are lonely and looking for love, for genuine community.

True religion, therefore, is found in works of compassion that seeks to mend and heal the broken and wounded relationships of our sinful world. True religion flows out of a life of true prayer, prayer which heals and strengthens our relationship of loving trust in God our good and wise Father. For if we pray in the name of Christ, then we shall believe that all things are held in God’s providence and wisdom, and it seems to me that much of the bickering we observe online flows from a lack of faith in the Father’s gracious and inscrutable governance of all things. And, finally, true religion is caused by the power of the Holy Spirit whom the Risen Christ has sent into our hearts – true religion is found in love; and prayer leads to an increase in love.

Therefore, as a 7th-century Christian antiphon put it: “Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est”, ‘Where true charity is dwelling, God is present there… Let us strive to keep our minds free of division; may there be an end to malice, strife and quarrels, and let Christ our God be dwelling here among us.” Amen.

#prayer #charity #relationships #love #Christian #discipleship #Twitter #true religion #communion

12 notes · View notes

paradife-loft · 5 years

Text

Brain dump...

...on the topic of fasting. Specifically, my ambivalence about fasting.

(This post brought to you by low-blood-sugar navel-gazing on Tisha b’Av. Because why observe holidays when you could instead observe metaholidays?! Ahem. Regular holiday observation will re-commence... at some point. Maybe.)

I guess first, the idea of fasting as a spiritual/psychological technology (doing something to the body in order to create a specific sort of psychological state as a result) -- does this imply one should only fast when in a particular environment (e.g. at shul during services), bc otherwise you’re not in a place that will provide the other necessary tools contributing to the desired result? Is it assumed that even if there’s a “main” effect, there’s still other potential effects that can be uncovered while fasting in nontraditional circumstances (e.g. at home sitting around on your computer)?

Fasting (or any sorts of restrictions) in order to put yourself in a mournful/repentant/humble/etc. mood as befits the holiday -- again I guess sort of a question about the point/efficacy using one piece of tech without the others. Because yeah, I really don’t find this particular idea borne out for myself - having intellectual material to chew on is a much better way to get me engaging with these ideas than my physical condition. (Which just gets… distracting, almost, from anything else? I get caught up in trying to monitor my physical state to make sure I’m not overdoing anything, and also in *having a fucking headache all day*. Is that itself potentially a cognitive state that’s beneficial to sit in for purposes of these holidays, thus justifying fasting? I don’t know. What is the ultimate purpose of the mindsets you want to instill on fast days? If it’s empathy… hmm, idk, I question how relevant fucking up your own meat suit is to engendering empathy for others in bad situations. Especially for myself; YMMV. But adversity narrowing focus to the more selfish is definitely a thing.)

I will personally fight people over the “gotta get a doctor’s opinion to not fast” thing. I appreciate that, perhaps it’s a good idea to talk over your rationale for not fasting with another person you trust to have an honest, thoughtful conversation with, if you’re in a context where the Done Thing *is* to fast, or if you would generally want to or feel like you should. Because after all, I don’t think people are always the best at being able to tell if their judgement on something like this is skewed one way or another, when there’s so many cultural pressures around telling you what is the “better” thing to do? >> But in general I’m not into “must concentrate permissions for doing things with your body in the hands of a few specific people who Know Better”, in any circumstance. Logistical problems, for one, and “please reveal specific details about mental health to someone who may or may not have specialist knowledge about your concerns, and may not understand what you’re conveying”, for another; and “yes hello I think I’m ultimately the best judge on what is best for me to do with the meat suit I live in, thx”.

I honestly think I find the rather tautological “do this because it’s what The Jews do for this day” argument much more compelling than rationales that tie to broader holiday themes and try to make “inflict a miniature suffering on yourself bc it mirrors historical suffering, or bc it expresses penitence, etc.” feel justifiable? Like, I don’t find “you ought to experience hardship bc others who went before you also experienced hardship” persuasive - is not the goal to make all things less unpleasant for people, unless there’s a proportional, clearly defined purpose and benefit to the temporary hardship? (Here, return to earlier paragraphs about purpose.) - Whereas continuity of peoplehood and tradition is, for me, about maintaining something unique that we have now and into the future. It’s about, we’ve been given this toolbox through our history, and that’s what we’re using to make our future - and ignoring or swapping out bits of the toolbox is something that ought to be done cautiously & with rationale? Bc otherwise, what exactly is the continuity? At what point is it not Theseus’s ship? (Ofc, I also think that trying to wall out any sort of syncretism is destructive, ahistorical, and futile - the point isn’t to keep out any changes, but rather to adapt things thoughtfully and with a purpose.)

Food and eating is so, so central to all sorts of human cultural expressions and neuroses. And in (the west/the US/etc.), we have such a fucked up culture of moralism surrounding all sorts of food; diet culture restrictions & thought processes and the way they pop up all over the place even when you’re trying to not think about food in terms of “good” and “bad”? How responsible are either permanent or temporary dietary restrictions to even use, in the kind of food culture we have? Is having some set of food rules psychologically necessary for cultures overall, considering how much they crop up and reinvent themselves? In a culture that trains us so well to accept various reasons for not eating [something], and in the hands of people disposed to circumscribe good/acceptable lists of foods and expand suggestions about it being better to not eat a certain food or under certain circumstances - what costs and benefits do we need to culturally and individually analyse before picking up, or continuing to use, a tool of the form “don’t eat (this food/at this time)”? Is that just, ultimately, reinforcing that yes, sometimes there are acceptable non-immediate-material-harm rationales for restricting eating, and make people more susceptible to other rationales for restriction? (Or in general, the idea of “harm yourself for a bit right now because this other principle is more important than your discomfort”.) Also applicable to things like Pesach, kashrut. Overall I’m inclined to think it’s a pretty big YMMV thing, but still definitely worth taking a look at communally, in terms of how we talk about these things, how we make space for differing needs, etc.

#rambling #religionblobbing #op #Jewish #semi-relevant background context of my brain including disability theory #& also various movements countering EDs and fatphobia #(oh and also hella reconstructionism & social sciences)

7 notes · View notes

trinuviel · 6 years

Text

Winterfell’s Daughter. On Sansa Stark (part 9)

This is the 9th installment in my analysis of Sansa Stark’s narrative arc in Game of Thrones (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8). Season 2 is hard to watch because Sansa suffers so much abuse from the Lannisters. The most obvious is the physical abuse that Joffrey subjects her to. However, his mother Cersei is the architect behind the emotional abuse that Sansa suffers - she employs a more sophisticated approach but the wounds she inflicts are no less painful.

THE LITTLE DOVE AND THE LIONESS

As Joffrey’s betrothed, Sansa is the future daughter-in-law of Cersei - and Cersei pretty much embodies the mother-in-law from hell. In many respects, Cersei plays the part of the Wicked Stepmother in the twisted fairy tale that Sansa’s story has become. Cersei is subtle in her abuse of Sansa and we witness the first instance of this abuse at an uncomfortable dinner that Sansa has with Cersei and her two youngest children Tommen and Myrcella in ep02 where Cersei makes a point of reminding Sansa of her place as the hostage of a rebel king.

youtube

The scene starts with everyone dining in silence until Myrcella asks when Joffrey and Sansa are to be married. Myrcella beings to chatter about the new gowns she’s going to have for the wedding festivities and then she brings up Sansa’s wedding gown.

Mycella is much like Sansa before her world shattered, innocent and without malice but she is also completely oblivious chatters to Sansa’s feelings. Sansa just sits in silence with an agonized expression on her face whilst her future wedding is discussed, an event that she most definitely doesn’t look forward to.

Cersei, of course, immediately notices Sansa’s akward silence and starts prodding her to enter into the conversation:

Cersei: The princess just spoke to you.

Once again Sansa has to deliver her dishonest little spiel about how she cannot wait to wed the boy who is responsible for her father’s death and who has his guards abuse her physically.

Both Tommen and Myrcella are aware of Sansa’s situation: that her father was executed and that her brother is a rebel. However, they don’t seem to consider that Sansa might be unhappy. They don’t seem to take Sansa’s feelings into account at all during this dinner party. Their attitude doesn’t stem from malice but rather from thoughtlessness and a certain level of innocence (I don’t think they know that Joffrey has Sansa physically abused).

Cersei, however, is fully aware of Sansa’s grief and torment - and when Tommen asks an innocent question, Cersei uses this as an opportunity to remind Sansa of her status as the sister of a rebel king and as a political hostage:

Tommen: Is Joffrey going to kill Sansa’s brother?

Cersei: He might. Would you like that?

(Sansa drinks deeply)

Tommen: No. I don’t think so.

Cersei: Even if he does, Sansa will do her duty. Won’t you, Little Dove?

Cersei is subtly needling Sansa, reminding her that she is powerless and taking a fair bit of pleasure in the poor girl’s misery as Sansa fights to keep back her tears. Sansa has to suppress her grief over her father’s death. She cannot speak her mind and she is forced to repeatedly denounce her beloved mother and brother as traitors. Cersei is very aware of this and she seems to take a kind of twisted pleasure in Sansa’s misery. Throughout this season Sansa is extremely subdued in her reactions and careful when she speaks. This sometimes makes it a bit difficult to write about her because she’s a very internal character during the time she’s a hostage in King’s Landing. It is a credit to Sophie Turner’s talent as an actress that she is able to silently convey Sansa’s feelings solely through her body language and her facial expressions. Watching this scene, you do not doubt that she’s miserable and that she has to exert an enormous will power not to cry in front of her captors.

AN UNLIKELY FRIEND

The dinner scene with Cersei transitions into a scene in Sansa’s chambers where she gazes sadly at her own face in a blurry mirror, accompanied by a melancholy piece of music. Her sad musings are interrupted by Shae, Tyrion’s lover, who presents herself as Sansa’s new chambermaid.

Sansa is understandably suspicious - she has not been informed that she’ll get a new chambermaid and she also quickly deduces that Shae is not Westerosi. Furthermore, Shae obviously doesn’t know anything about the job and is kind of insolent. Sansa the berates Shae because Shae ought to know what her job entails. On the surface Sansa’s might appear a bit bratty but take a closer look at her face. Her eyes are wet. Her emotions are rubbed raw after that dinner, which was emotional torture for her with Cersei bringing up both the possibility of Robb’s death and the fact that Sansa has to marry Joffrey.

Sansa is close to tears at this point and she lashes out at the only available target – Shae, who not only acts suspiciously (from Sansa’s POV) but who also is a social inferior. However, the scene takes a surprising turn after this.

Shae: Do you want me to leave?

Minutes earlier Sansa said she didn’t want her hair brushed – but she is so lonely that a insolent stranger brushing her hair is better than being alone. In this context, it is worth emphasizing that having her hair brushed has special meaning for Sansa. It was something that her mother used to do for her as an act of affection and intimacy - and Sansa misses her mother desperately.

Sansa’s hair doesn’t really need brushing but she’s sad, alone and tired – and having her hair brushed is soothing. This act also marks the beginning of Sansa and Shae’s relationship, a relationship that deepens into genuine affection. This may not be the most auspicious beginning to their relationship but Sansa and Shae develop a friendship to the extent that Sansa trusts Shae enough to express her opinions freely, which I noted in my previous post.

However, it is in ep07 that we see how much Shae actually has come to care for Sansa. The scene in question is the one where Sansa gets her first period. This is a deeply traumatic experience for Sansa, especially since it comes right after a nightmare about the sexual assault she suffered during the Bread Riot. I have previously criticized the fact that the show didn’t bring up Sansa’s assault during her conversation with Shae in the aftermath of the violent events in King’s Landing. However, by including Sansa’s nightmare, the show does hint that Sansa has an unprocessed trauma regarding the assault she suffered. The fact that Sansa discovers that she’s gotten her period right after this nightmare links the onset of her physical maturation with the sexual trauma that she’s been subjected to.

Sansa reacts with despair and absolute panic - and Sophie really delivers a wonderful performance in this scene. Sansa is in a state of panic because she knows that she’s now eligible for marriage to Joffrey by Lannister standards. Theoretically, she is not able to become pregnant and a royal consort’s first duty is to produce heirs to the throne. However, the prospect of marriage to Joffrey has become a nightmare for Sansa. That is why she desperately tries to conceal the evidence by attempting to cut away the bloodied portion from her bed sheet.

When Shae enters the room and sees what has happened, she immediately goes to help Sansa - suggesting that they flip the mattress to hide the evidence of her period.

Sadly, their attempt is foiled when another chambermaid arrives, sees what they’re doing and then immediately leaves to inform Cersei what has happened. This is where we get to see exactly how fierce Shae can be in her defense of Sansa. Shae follows the other chambermaid, puts knife to her throat and threatens her into silence.

Sadly, Shae’s efforts are in vain because when she returns to Sansa’s chamber, she’s confronted by the fact that Sansa has been found out - by Sandor Clegane of all people! The presence of the Hound is rather odd - and we never get any explanation of how exactly he came to be in Sansa’s chambers.

However, the end result is that Cersei is informed that Sansa is now a woman, physiologically at least, which is all that the Lannisters really care about: that she has become fertile.

A PIECE OF WOMANLY “WISDOM”

The following scene takes place in Cersei’s chambers where she takes on a maternal role, educating Sansa about the messy realities of a woman’s life when it comes to childbirth. Interestingly, Cersei appears somewhat sympathetic to Sansa here, which is a stark contrast to how she acted towards Sansa in the previous dinner scene.

Cersei actually does what Catelyn would have done if the situation had been normal, which the show actually alludes to in the dialogue:

Cersei: Your mother might have prepared you. You flowered, my dear. Nothing more.

Sansa: My mother told me, but I thought it would be different.

Cersei: In what way?

Sansa: I thought it would be less… less messy.

Cersei: Wait until you birth a child. You’re a woman now. Do you have any idea of what that means?

Sansa: I’m fit to bear children for the king.

Cersei: A prospect that once delighted you, bringing little princes and princesses into the world, the greatest honour for a queen.

Despite her sympathetic attitude Cersei can’t help to make a little jab at Sansa, mocking her for her youthful infatuation with Joffrey before he had her father killed. At this point Sansa lowers her gaze, not giving Cersei the opportunity to read her face - and when Cersei mentions that birthing children is the greatest honour for a queen, Sansa quietly nods whilst she visibly swallows. As the previous scene showed us, the thought of having to sleep with and give Joffrey children has now become a nightmare.

After a short silence where the camera switches between medium close-ups of Cersei and Sansa, Cersei is surprisingly honest with Sansa about Joffrey:

Cersei: Joffrey has always been difficult. Even his birth, I labored a day and a half to bring him into this world. You cannot imagine the pain.

Cersei reminisces about how her husband would flee to the Kingswood whenever she was in labour whilst Jaime wouldn’t be kept away from her birthing bed - and then she warns Sansa:

Cersei: Joffrey will show you no such devotion. You may never love the king, but you will love his children.

Sansa: I love His Grace with all my heart.

Cersei: That’s so very touching to hear.

Once again we see Sansa delivering her little spiel about how much she loves Joffrey. She doesn’t let down her guard, even if Cersei appears somewhat sympathetic. This is also the reason why Sansa is so subdued in this scene. She doesn’t trust Cersei, she knows that just a slip of the tongue can get her into trouble because even though Cersei is no Joffrey, she is still one of Sansa’s tormentors.

Cersei: Permit me to share some womanly wisdom with you on this very special day. The more people you love, the weaker you are. You’ll do things for them that you know you shouldn’t do. You’ll act the fool to make them happy, to keep them safe. Love no one but your children. On that front, a mother has no choice.

Sansa: Shouldn’t I love Joffrey, Your Grace?

Cersei: You can try, Little Dove.

That last exchange is different from the rest of the scene. So far Sansa has been very subdued, she doesn’t trust Cersei but I think that she’s confused and unsure how to respond to this “womanly wisdom” that Cersei shares with her. Cersei’s acknowlegding that Joffrey is “difficult” (an understatement!) throws Sansa because she never expected Cersei admitting that her precious son is not a perfect prince.

I find this scene rather interesting because, unlike the dinner scene, Cersei doesn’t torment Sansa here. Rather she thinks that she giving out sound advice to her future daughter-in-law. However, Cersei’s advice about not loving anyone but your children reflects her toxic world view. Loving people is not a weakness, it is the repudiation of love and compassion that is the weakness.

IN THE ABSENCE OF HER MOTHER

An interesting thing about Sansa’s season 2 arc is the fact that the show places her scenes with Cersei and Shae in close proximity to each other. In fact, her scenes with both women always directly follow one another. This narrative structure invites the audience to compare and contrast how the two women interact with Sansa and this is incredibly important since these are the only women that Sansa has significant relationships with in season 2.

Cersei is a source of torment for Sansa but also a kind of toxic mentor who “educates” Sansa about the reality of a woman’s life in the patriarchal order of Westeros. Shae is a woman who becomes an ally, a source of comfort but also someone who educates Sansa about aspects of life that Sansa has been blind to: mainly the plight of the common folk (after the bread riot in ep06). Cersei plays the role of an evil step-mother in Sansa’s life whereas Shae becomes a confidante and a friend.

However, I also think that there’s a maternal subtext to Shae’s relationship with Sansa. This maternal aspect to Shae’s interactions with Sansa begins with her brushing Sansa’s hair - something that the show (and the books) explicitly connects to Sansa’s relationship with her mother Catelyn. Furthermore, the fierceness with which Shae tries to protect Sansa also subtly evokes Catelyn’s fierceness when it comes to the safety of her children.

On the show Shae is very different from her book incarnation, where she’s portrayed as petty and avaricious. Personally, I rather like this change. GRRM has a couple of blindspots and one of those is the complete lack of positive female relationships! I cannot think of a single relationship between two women that is depicted in positive terms in the entire series - so I am perfectly fine with the showrunners creating a positive and caring relationship between Sansa and Shae. Sansa may be Shae’s social superior but Shae provides Sansa with emotional comfort and a kind of maternal care that she sorely lacks. As previously said, the narrative structuring of Sansa’s scenes with both Cersei and Shae highlights how the two women acts as stand-ins for Sansa’s absent mother Catelyn. Cersei takes the role of the evil step-mother whereas Shae provides some of the emotional comfort that Sansa so desperately needs.

To be continued...

(GIFs not mine)

#game of thrones #sansa stark #character analysis #cersei lannister #shae #winterfell's daughter

192 notes · View notes

logothanatos · 7 years

Text

The Insufferably Simplistic Scientistic Harris v. The Philosophically Clueless and Politically Confused Peterson

youtube

Introductory Evaluation of Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson as People

After my New Atheist days, I pretty much saw Sam Harris as largely, intellectually irrelevant. On the other hand, I have a rather more complicated opinion on Jordan Peterson because he sometimes seems well-meaning but at the same time philosophically and politically naive. That being said, the Zeitgeist seems to be signaling that Peterson has acquired a relevance, even if in a small cadre, and that some people still take Sam Harris seriously (which seems to in turn indicate that mass deconversion is still an ongoing process). I can only imagine Harris still being relevant to budding atheists who still hold on to aspects of conservative thinking and libidinal attachment as well as the Christian rights' historically muddled and confused political categories. Or alternatively to insecure right-wing evangelicals fearful of the recent church exodus of a good number of Americans (whether due to being SBNR or atheists), and thereby politically emboldened into repackaging purely intellectual issues of Christianity into a secular moral quest of maintaining the hegemony or integrity of white identity (white folks as "meritous" representatives of Western civilization and values and tasked with "saving" it). Admittedly that's about the same demographic I could imagine Jordan Peterson appealing to.

Granted that would make sense, as the atheist budding out of theism, especially if having a background in Southern U.S. culture and white, is likely to implicitly run with this politics of identity that incorporates an apocalyptic or "rapture" vision of the clash with Islam as a greater evil than Christianity. In addition they are likely stuck, within their performance of Americanism, in the historical mangle of highly simplified Cold War political categories, just like these evangelicals, leading to politically confused criticisms (it's no wonder many of them get confused when a Facebook meme page that frequently criticizes liberals and has some critical takes on identity politics turns out to be highly left-wing). In fact, there is a temptation amongst some of these atheists, I suspect, to reaffirm the social function of religion as a strategy in this perceived cosmic struggle, hence why some of them side with Peterson and betray the anti-theistic sentiments of the majority of the New Atheist crowd (especially those influenced by Dawkins in particular). It's a Hitchens-esque move.

In sum, both Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are cheap supermarket preprepared packaged ramen noodles for evangelicals or atheists who just discovered philosophy as politics. As you can tell, these sociological aspects are a lot more interesting than the debate itself--I am not here using them as a counter-argument contra Harris and Peterson (that would be an ad hominem), but it is certainly something to consider given my assessment of them as persons already suggests a larger normative framework that potentially does clash with both Harris' and Peterson's assumptions. In other words, this can function as entry point. In any case, it at least justifies, sociologically, why I'd be wasting any time on these two people, although especially on Sam Harris at this point in my life (at least Peterson is a newcomer into the public intellectual scene).

Onto the Meat and Bones of this Lame Debate

But here's what I think of the (insufferable) debate here, which assesses both Harris and Peterson as debaters as well as philosophers, in addition to both their rhetoric and argument--keep in mind this is an original Youtube comment I made on the video, but all redacted and divided into sections:

Basically this video could've been renamed to "largely unworkable implicit logical positivism / pure correspondence theory of truth v. poorly argued and inconsistent pragmatism from philosophical novice," the former being Harris and the latter being Peterson.

On Peterson's Egregious Failings

A lot of pro-Peterson Youtube commenters seem to agree with Peterson's conclusion and are reconstructing Peterson's argument to sound better than it is. Guess what--even if Peterson's main claim and conclusion were right, it doesn't mean he argued it well. He did not. Sam Harris made some PHIL101 points that made Peterson look out of his element due to Peterson's elementary missteps in building a conceptually precise and consistent argument (whether or not Harris' conclusion is wrong). Peterson instead made a suggestive, appeal to intuition, which is not the same thing (which is fine if this were merely a discussion, and not a debate, and if Peterson had admitted as much). Saying that, given Darwinism, it may be expedient to treat truth in terms of usefulness, and this seems to be what conceptions of truth would be selected for, goes against the very rules of rationality intuited by people which makes Darwinism conceivable as demonstrable--Sam Harris makes this same point. Consequently, while Peterson shows its a suggestive possibility, an obvious flaw is there that Jordan Peterson does not address, instead wasting time on clarifying what he is trying to get at as if the issue were Harris not understanding what he quite literally said rather than his weak argument. To be clear, Peterson does have a problem with clarity or at least transparency of purpose in the rest of the debate, but on this particular point I'd say that was not at issue.

I also think it would've been more helpful if Peterson had just accepted Harris' definitions of truth, but tried to demonstrate how truth and usefulness are nonetheless related in the way he thinks they are as opposed to how Harris thinks they are. (This can be done through internal critique, or simply convincingly pointing out that there is a non-accidental correlation between truth, whatever it might separately or differently mean, and usefulness, whatever it might separately or differently mean.) This would've lead to some clarity or, if not clarity, some nonetheless straight-forward argumentation on Peterson's part. Instead he fumbles around trying to avoid using the word 'truth' inconsistently given he conflated another idea with it that isn't always interchangeable. It's like Peterson can't tell the difference between a definition (that meaning of a term according to its general usage) and a meaning (the many associations and possible directions the term can take) as well as the difference between an abstraction ('truth' emptied of any of the different meanings or uses the term might have, and just in its general potential for use or signification, or 'truth' in all its possible senses) and a concept ('truth' understood through a synthetic, consistent system of relations amongst ideas or propositions). This is why he unproductively, and, in fact, counter-productively resists Harris' initial, basic point. In fact, out of desperation, Peterson shifts the goalpost to showing that truth and the good are the same. This is an age-old position that Peterson could've drawn on for his arguments, but he can't manage to even at least problematize the is/ought dichotomy Harris is drawing. Peterson just reiterates his intuition that there is some special relationship between truth and the good not found between the good and anything else without really defending why the relationships he sees between the good and the true are suggestively special compared to the relationship between the good and other things.

On Harris' Rhetorical Banality and Lack of Nuance as well as the Laughable Accusations Harris, but especially Peterson, throw at Each Other

On the other hand, Harris' responses were uninspired and extremely limited, failing to provide nuance where opportunities were available (not surprising, since Harris sucks at that). His own position is also, while common-sensical, philosophically uninteresting, insufficiently systematic and too scientistic. In addition, Peterson's ignorance is on full display when he accuses Harris of postmodernism--Harris may or may not be wrong, but a lot of what Harris says would be heavily criticized by the archetypal postmodernists if there ever were any (e.g., Lyotard & Baudrillard).

What is Postmodernism? Neither Sam Harris nor Jordan Peterson Really Seem to Know

One of the major points of the archetypal postmodernists is that the very fragmentation and isolation of identities and disciplines create contradictory normative contexts that constrict rationality in such a way that rational discussion cannot fully penetrate or resolve disagreements. Basically, for a lot of postmodernists, intellectual disagreement are often expressions of social power struggle, desire, etc., that are not rationally resolvable. (Notice that rationality here is just constricted; this means its still conceivable some truths are still objectively decidable, even if largely context-sensitive. The rules of logic still apply.) There are some postmodernists one can argue go the full length into pure relativism (i.e., the position that, not only is nothing or most nothing rationally resolvable and fully accountable, but nothing is rationally decidable), but this is over-all a strawman. One can also argue this particular [aforementioned point] leads to relativism, but that's not the same as to say that postmodernists deliberately endorse relativism. Not to mention that requires more leg work from Peterson, for example, beyond using "postmodern" as a pejorative stand-in for relativism (which he never conclusively demonstrates to be present in the argument being made).

Situating Sam Harris in Relation to Actual Postmodernism

In any case, the point is Sam Harris seems to be committed to an entirely opposite claim than the postmodernists, since he basically puts a lot of stock on conversation, on language, for finding the truth. I feel his inability to take critiques of this position to be his most serious flaw, and it bleeds into his more minor flaws (its his prerogative to try and naturalize morality, but he fumbles in his attempts because of this invulnerable epistemological approach he takes). This is why Harris might seem "close minded" to people--it has nothing to do with his argument itself being somehow unwilling to entertain possibilities. Harris actually entertains possibilities all the time (just witness his unbound use of hypotheticals in the debate!)--the problem is that he is unimaginative when he tries to do it.

Situating Jordan Peterson in Relation to Actual Postmodernism

In addition, its ironic for Peterson to accuse Harris of being postmodernist because the pragmatist epistemologists (e.g., Richard Rorty) were the philosophers most famously and controversially heavily influenced by writers I'd think Peterson would often consider (albeit sometimes incorrectly) postmodernists or proto-postmodernists (e.g., Heidegger [more of a phenomenologist that was a precursor to post-structuralism as well as postmodernism] & Derrida [actually more of a post-structuralist than a postmodernist]). In fact, Nietzsche's Darwinian critique of rationality looks like an early version of aspects of the postmodernist critique of rationality. Yes, Nietzsche was critiquing rationality, not creating a theory of truth. The only thing close to a theory of truth given his critique of rationality was his concept of Will to Power, which is a concept Nietzsche created as an alternative to Darwin's idea of survival instinct/drive. The fact that Peterson endorses Nietzsche but subscribes to conventional Darwinism while applying this to the topic of truth is a sophomoric mistake. Indeed, Peterson is so ignorant that he frequently pairs Marxism with postmodernism as if there aren't disagreements or potentially conflicting implications in the positions and critiques of the two traditions (for example, postmodernism tends to challenge the Marxist notion of historical determinism and the proletariat as universalizing [therefore revolutionary] subject).

Conclusion

Harris is an absolutely terrible philosopher, but Peterson gives the impression of a fucking novice that can't grasp basic distinctions and is mired in the scientific world where data precision and gathering as well as inductive reasoning tends to matter a bit more than argumentative competence and deductive reasoning (scientists distribute this last task into a division of labor, whereas a philosopher is at least supposed to be competent in a holistic way when it comes to argumentation). It is embarrassing Harris sweeps the floor with him when his credentials as a scientist give him an initial advantage in terms of public perception and when Harris himself doesn't hold significant status within the larger philosophical community. It's interesting to point out (and I'm saying this as someone interested in sociology, a socially exemplar soft science for a lot of people), that his area of science isn't even as quantitatively heavy as physics and other sciences. In fact, the replication crises in science seems to be most glaring in psychology. The reason these observations are interesting is that Peterson likes to present himself as having a hard-on for science while making incompetent but confident forays into philosophy, the latter likely for the sake of validating his religious longing. This doesn't put him that far away from Harris' more secular philosophically boring scientism, and also may suggest insecurities about his own field. At the same time, he lampoons and tries to discredit the field closest to his own by psychologizing them in unwarranted ways as a replacement for actually criticizing and engaging sociological methodology. Here I'm psychologizing Jordan Peterson, but only after I've already assessed his debate performance.

The fact that anybody finds either of these two people in the context of this debate worth their while is laughable considering how fucking limited not only the positions presented here are, but how fucking limited either of their arguments for their positions were. The mistakes I pointed out here are the most egregious and most frequent, but there are others such as their oversimplification of the issue of identity politics. I suggest budding atheists and self-doubting evangelicals actually read books, and I mean primary source accounts about a representative array of a tradition or world-view rather than relying on secondary source discussion as if they were unbiased simply because they conform to popular folk notions of things and present and argue against positions within the narrow political spectrum that has prominent mainstream representation. In other words, I hope these sincere Christians leave the bad Biblical hermeneutics and deferral to a messianic figure behind for once for fuck's sake. Their concerns about religion are legitimate, but they'd get much more out of directly, critically reading Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, etc., as well as the philosophers of modernity (both French and English) without force-fitting them into their monolithic and hegemonic preconceived boxes.

2 notes · View notes

argyrocratie · 7 years

Text

A makhnovist program

exerpt from a Draft Declaration of the (Maknovist) revolutionary insurgent army of the Ukraine adopted on October 20, 1919 at a session of the Military Revolutionary Soviet.

We declare that our Makhnovist insurgent army is merely the fighting core of this Ukrainian people’s revolutionary movement, a core whose task consists everywhere of organizing insurgent forces and helping insurgent toilers in their struggle against all abuse of power and capital. TheUkraine is on the brink of a genuine peasant social revolution. That is the import of the situation. We Makhnovist insurgents are the children of that revolution, here to serve and protect it. Whenever it spreads like a mighty bushfire through the whole of the toilers of Ukraine, freeing it of all aggressors and all powers, we faithful fighters will mingle with the millions of people’s insurgents. Then, shoulder to shoulder, we will partake in the free building of a new life.

As regards our thinking on the essential issues of economic and social reconstruction, we regard it as essential that the following be stressed: once toilers have the freedom required to determine their fate for themselves, they will naturally and inevitably, the vast majority of them, move towards realization of genuinely communist social principles. We reckon that only the toiling masses have the capacity to enact these principles, provided that they have access to the completest freedom of socio-economic creation. Thus we consider imposition of our ideal by force as quite irrational and out of place. We think, likewise, that it would be wrong to seek to trail the masses along in our wake, by means of leadership from above. We mean to restrict our role to simple theoretical and organizational assistance, in the form of proposals, advice, suggestions or guidance. Our thinking is that whereas the people should have the opportunity to listen to all opinion and advice, they alone should decide to act upon them with absolute independence and freedom, without interference from parties, dictators or governments of any sort.

We make every effort to communicate these views to the toiling masses, whilst focusing their attention upon their own autonomous role in free soviet construction.

The soviet system.

Our conception of an authentic system of free soviets we express as follows. In order to introduce a new economic and social life, the peasants and workers naturally and freely set up their social and economic organizations: village committees or soviets, cooperatives, factory and workshop committees, mine committees, railroad, Post and Telegraphs organizations and every other union and organization imaginable. In order to establish natural liaison between all these unions and associations, they set up agencies federated from the bottom up, in the shape of economic soviets whose technical task is to regulate social and economic life on a large scale. These soviets may be district soviets, town soviets, regional soviets, etc …. organized as the need arises on a basis of free principles. In no case would these be political institutions led by this or that politician or political party, who would dictate their wishes (as happens behind the mask of"soviet power"). These soviets are only the executive arms of the assemblies from which they emanate.

Such a soviet arrangement is a true reflection of the organization of the peasants and workers. If this creation is indeed the free handiwork of the peasant and worker masses themselves, if the bracing economic work of all the grassroots agencies and federative soviet organizations begins to attract more and more toilers, without any interference or arbitrary meddling by any party or authorities whatever, then, by our reckoning, it will be possible speedily to introduce an economic and social system based on the principles of social equality, justice and fraternity and thereby put paid to the existence of class differences, political parties and States, as well as the domination of one nationality over others. Gradually and naturally the backward and non-toiler strata of the population will be absorbed into this system. All “political activity” which leads inescapably to creation of privilege and a mechanism for economic and political enslavement of the toiling masses will be proved redundant in practice, and “political” organizations will tend to wither away of themselves.

Our answer to the questions that will be put regarding “official” agencies and sundry social pursuits relating to education, medicine, statistics, registration of marriages, deaths and births, etc. is that maximum scope will be afforded to the priceless and prolific initiative of the individual, within the framework of the soviet. All of this will be no problem and will be best resolved by local agencies of self-governance.

Judicial and administrative machinery.

As far as the depiction of chis machinery as necessity goes, we muse first of all reaffirm our position in principle: we are against all rigid judicial and police machinery, against any legislative code prescribed once and for all time, for these involve gross violations of genuine justice and of the real protections of the population. These ought not to be organized but should be instead the living, free and creative act of the community. Which is why all obsolete forms of justice - court administration, revolutionary tribunals, repressive laws, police or militia, Chekas, prisons and all other sterile and useless anachronisms - must disappear of themselves or be abolished from the very first breath of the free life, right from the very first steps of the free and living organization of society and the economy.

The free organizations, associations and soviets of workers and peasants must themselves prescribe this or that form of justice. Such justice should nor be enforced by specialist officials, bur rather by trustees who enjoy the confidence of the local population, by arrangement with it and utterly repudiating sanctions prescribed in the past. Likewise, popular self-defense must be based on free organization, and nor left to specialist militias. Nor only does formal organization of justice and defense by the State nor achieve its aims, but it is a betrayal of all true justice and defense.

The question of supplies.

At present this question could not be posed any more acutely. Resolution of it is of the utmost urgency, for the whole fate of the revolution hinges upon it right now. The major flaw in the previous revolution [the Bolsheviks’ -A.S.] proceeded from the complete disorganization of supplies, which led to a dichotomy between town and countryside.The toilers must pay the utmost attention to it. This issue was particularly easy to resolve at the beginning of the revolution, when life was nor yet in complete disarray and when food was available everywhere in more or less adequate supply. At that point, the contest between socialist parties for control of political power and then the Bolshevik party’s struggle to hold on to it, monopolized the attention of the workers and peasants who left the question unresolved and failed ,to display sufficient vigilance. As for the Bolshevik authorities, they proved quire naturally incapable of resolving the matter.

Here too we reckon that a just resolution of this matter and restoration to order of everything relating to it can only be devised by the toilers themselves through their free organizations. None but they will be able to settle the matter viably. In this regard, the toilers must fight shy of disunity, and close unity between workers and peasants has to be achieved. This will not be hard if they dispense with political organizations and verbose politicians. Released from all political authority, the towns will convene a comprehensive congress of workers and peasants and this will establish among its priorities the supply question and the re-establishment of economic links between towns and countryside, setting in train an equitable exchange of basic necessities. It will be up to trades organizations, cooperatives and transport agencies to take this further. Suitable agencies will be set up to seek out, consolidate and relaunch industrial and agricultural production: these will introduce a system for trade and fair distribution of goods. In this context, the workers’ and peasants’ cooperatives and free associations will have to play a crucial role. Only in this way, we reckon, can this particularly important issue of supply be resolved.

The land question.

The process of rebuilding and rapidly improving our agrarian economy which is at present in ruins and very limited, requires reorganization of the working of the land through absolutely free and voluntary decision-making by the toiling agricultural population in its entirety (obviously help from experts can be assumed). The village traders will have to be removed from this process quickly. We are persuaded that the solution to this problem of land will emerge unaided through communist organization of the peasant economy. Everyone will quickly be persuaded that growth of output and the meeting of all needs can only be ensured by the community and not by private individuals. However, any imposition of communism through constraint or top-down administration must be rejected.

The Bolsheviks’ decree regarding “nationalization of the land,” which is to say the placing of all lands in the hands of the State (in fact the hands of the government, its agencies and functionaries) must be disregarded. A State take-over of land will inescapably lead, not to fair and free agricultural structures, but to the reappearance of a new exploiter and master in the shape of the State, which wll have recourse -as bosses do - to wage slavery and will impose all manner of corvees, levies, etc. upon the peasantry by force, just as its pomieschiki predecessors did. The peasantry will reap no advantage from being faced by just one master - the State - even more powerful and cruel than the thousands of little bosses, masters and pomieschikis. Lands seized from great estate owners should not be at the disposal of the State but placed in the hands of those who actually work them: the peasant organizations, free communes and other unions.

The manner in which the land, equipment and very organization of the agricultural economy are to be handled should be worked out freely at peasant congresses, after discussion and passed as resolutions, without any interference by any authority whatsoever.

We consider that solution of all these matters by the peasants· themselves will usher in a natural process of expansion of the social organizations of the peasant economy, beginning, say, with egalitarian and commensurate division of the land, farm equipment and livestock: with social organization of labor and of the distribution of produce on a basis of cooperation: with social usage of the land and equipment, etc.: that is to say, according to a more or less avowedly communist formula. The manual and mental exertions of experienced and capable villagers, in dose concert with workers’ organizations, will complement this process and speed its development. Meanwhile, private holdings will be speedily and easily whittled down. The active peasant population will readily gain the upper hand over representatives of the large proprietor olass by first of all confiscating their estates for the benefit of the community and then integrating them naturally into the social organization.

Let us draw the attention of the peasant population to expanded cooperative organizations (artels) and production for distribution. Our reckoning is that cooperative organization is, as an initial phase, the most appropriate and natural step along the road to constructing the agricultural economy on new foundations.

What is called the “soviet economy,” where, inevitably, wage-slavery and arbitrariness and violence from Bolshevik-Communist functionaries prevail, must be wholly eradicated. The issue of the role of capable and specialist agronomists, as well as sundry other problems can be settled through discussion, as will decisions taken by peasant organizations and peasant congresses. Wage-slavery in all its manifestations must be eradicated beyond recovery.

It is all too apparent that a fair solution and further evolution of the land question are largely and closely dependent upon an equitable solution of the labor question. It is also up to the workers’ organizations to establish a number of links with the villages … enough such links to be in a position to barter all sorts of industrially produced materials and items for agricultural produce. Only a close; brotherly union of worker and peasant in organizations for mutual aid in production and in economic exchange, will be able to devise a natural, well-planned and fair solution to the agrarian question.

The labour question.

Having witnessed many attempt mounted by various political parties, “businessmen” or “erudite personages” to resolve the labor issue: and having scrupulously examined the idea and the results of state take-over (nationalization) of the means and instruments of worker production (the mines, communications, workshops, factories, etc) as well as of the workers’ organizations themselves (trades unions, factory and workshop committees, cooperatives, etc.), we can announce with certainty that there is one genuine and fair solution to the workers’ question: the transfer of all the means, instruments and materials of labor, production and transportation, not to the complete disposal of the State - this new boss and exploiter which uses wage-slavery and is no less oppressive of the workers than private entrepreneurs - but to the workers’ organizations and unions in natural and free association with one another and in liaison with peasant organizations through the good offices of their economic soviets.

It is our conviction that only such a resolution of the labor issue will release the energy and activity of the worker masses, give a fresh boost to repair of the devastated industrial economy, render exploitation and oppression impossible, and put paid to speculation and swindling and bring to an end the artificial escalation of prices and runaway rise in the cost of living.

We have come to the belief that only the workers, with the help of their free organizations and unions, will be able to secure their release from the yoke of State and Capital (private and state alike), take over the working of mineral and coal reserves, get workshops and factories back into operation, establish equitable exchanges of products between different regions, towns and countryside, get rail trafic moving again, in short, breathe life back into the moribund shell of our economic organization.

No State authorities, no party, no system for direction and supervision of workers, commissars, officials, political activists and others can, we are thoroughly persuaded, meet the target set. The organization of work, production, transportation, distribution and exchange should be the task of free workers’ unions, abetted by experienced and competent individuals, in a context of free labor in factories and workshops.

In order to ensure that such organization is active and its development fruitful it is vital that, above all else, genuine worker congresses and conferences be prepared on free foundations, without pressures or dictatorship from parties or individuals. Only those free congresses and conferences will have the capacity to arrive at an effective resolution of all the urgent issues of worker life and of worker construction along necessary and purposeful lines.

Needless to say, just resolution of and further progress on the worker question are largely dependent on an equitable solution to the supply issue and the division of the land; as well as the financial question which is also closely bound up with the worker question

The housing issue is part and parcel of this and so we are offering only the essence of our position on this matter: one of the primary tasks of the free worker organizations is to see to equitable allocation of available accommodation and thereby pursue the construction of requisite housing and this is achievable only in collaboration with those in charge of housing management (the house and district commitee).

The financial question.

The financial system cannot be divorced from the capitalist system. The latter will soon be replaced by free communist organization of the economy, which will incontrovertibly lead to the disappearance of the finance system and its replacement by direct exchange of produce through the social organization of production, transportation and distribution.

However this transformation will not be effected in a day. Although the monetary system today may be in complete disarray it must of necessity continue to operate for a time. For the moment, it is vital that it be organized on new foundations.

Thus it is not a matter of retaining or re-establishing it, but only of adapting it on a temporary basis to fairer ground rules. Up until the October coup d'etat, the people’s wealth was concentrated either in the State’s hands or in those of the capitalists and their agencies. Compulsory taxation and growing exploitation were at the root of this concentration. The Bolshevik-Communist authorities set themselves above the toilers as a boss-exploiter-State. They see themselves as the rulers and organizers of the country’s monetary system. In fact the Bolshevik State and its officials have sole disposition of the people’s wealth. In our view, this situation has to change radically.

In keeping with the introduction and expansion of the system “of free toilers’ soviets, ushering in a new and free life, all compulsory taxation should be discontinued and replaced by free and voluntary contributions from toilers. In a context of free and independent construction, these contributions will undoubtedly produce the best results.

By implication, the State’s centralized public treasury, in whatever form it may appear {even-in the guise of "People’s Bank”) should be wound up and replaced by the decentralized system of genuine people’s banks established along cooperative lines. The founders and depositors of these banks should be workers and peasants only, that is to say their associations, unions and organizations, on the basis of a freely agreed levy.

In the case of unavoidable outlay on this or that undertaking or service at a regional or even national level (take Posts and Telegraphs, for instance), the general congress or soviet of that agency should receive the required sum from the people’s banks. These latter may be communal, soviet or social, etc. as the case may be. The amount of these voluntary contributions will be determined by reckoning social needs and outlays. Not one single kopeck of the people’s money may be spent without the express permission of the organization {be it congress, commune, soviet or union). At the appointed time, the different social services and agencies· submit their projected expenditure to their respective agencies which, if need be, endorse the projected budget.

Such, in broad outline, is the financial system which we think should be employed during the time when currency and money circulation are still extant. Only that sort of an arrangement is going to be fully compatible with an authentic soviet system.

As regards currency as such, at the outset there may be more of this in circulation than needed. Thus, as the new organization of labor is reinforced and develops, workers and peasants will move from the money system towards the system of simply recording social labor performed. Such recording will afford the bearer the right to draw from social stores and markets those items and articles of which he has need, and which will begin to be in plentiful supply thanks to the organization of the new need-centered economic machinery.

The day is not far off when every toiler, thanks to his labors on society’s behalf {and thus on his own behalf as a member of society) will upon producing the necessary proof, be able to obtain those products and goods he cannot do without.

The national question.

Clearly, each national group has a natural and indisputable entitlement to speak its language freely, live in accordance with its customs, retain its beliefs and rituals, draw up its school books and have its own managerial establishments and agencies: in short, to maintain and develop its national culture in every sphere. It is obvious that this clear and specific stance has absolutely nothing to do with narrow nationalism of the “separatist” variety which pits nation against nation and substitutes an artificial and harmful separation for the struggle to achieve a natural social union of toilers in one shared social communion.

In our view, national aspirations of a natural, wholesome character {language, customs, culture, etc.) can achieve full and fruirful satisfaction only in the union of nationalities rather than in their antagonism. One people’s struggle for liberation leads naturally to the same chauvinistic struggle on the part of other peoples and the upshot, inevitably, is isolation and animosity between the different nations. Of necessity, this appreciation of the national question, a profoundly bourgeois and negative one, leads on to absurd and bloody national conflicts.

The speedy construction of a new life on socialist foundations will ineluctably lead to development of the culture peculiar to each nationality. Whenever we Makhnovist, insurgents speak of independence of the Ukraine, we ground it in the social and economic plarie of the toilers. We proclaim the right of the Ukrainian people (and every other nation) to self-determination, not in the narrow, nationalist sense of a Petliura, but in the sense of the toilers’ right to self-determination. We declare that the toiling folk of the Ukraine’s towns and countryside have shown everyone through their heroic fight that they do not wish any longer to suffer political power and have no use for it, and that they consciously aspire to a libertarian society. We thus declare ,that all political power of whatever provenance, that seeks , to rule and direct by means of constraint and arbitrariness, is to be regarded by the toiling Ukrainian masses as an enemy and counter-revolutionary. To the very last drop of their blood they will wage a ferocious struggle against it, in defense of their entitlement to self-organization.

Needless to say, in the society founded on truly soviet foundations, such as we have spelled them out, the question of proportional representation and other political procedures do not arise.

Culture and education.

In a free society, culture and education cannot be the monopoly of the State, nor of government. They can only be the concern of individuals and organizations freely and naturally united with one another. The living and free creation of the cultural values to which the spirit of the toiling masses will cling can only come about in those conditions.

Civil liberties.

It must be self-evident that the free organization of society affords every practical opportunity for realization of what are called “civil liberties:” freedom of speech, of the press, of conscience, of worship, of assembly, of union, of organization, etc.

The defense of society.

For as long as the free society may need to look to its defenses against outside attack, it will have to organize its self-defenses, its army. We see this as a free contingent, founded on the principle of election to positions of responsibility, and closely tied to the populace. It should be placed under the authority of the toilers’ organizations of the towns and countryside, so as to protect them against any violent trespass on the part of any State or capitalist power, and to guarantee them freedom of social construction.

Relations with foreign states.

The expanded congresses that represent all the organizations from the towns and villages - which make up the free society - will appoint a commission whose task it is to maintain regular relations with foreign states. This activity ought to be public and free of ambiguousness: no “secret diplomacy” can be countenanced. Issues that the commission cannot resolve will be left for extraordinary congresses to debate and determine.

Such, as we see it, are the bases upon which the free, just and wholesome society for which we are fighting, should be founded.

It is not for us to impose these ideas upon the toiling populace through coercion: our reckoning is that our duty is merely to make our view known and to offer workers and peasants the chance to debate this viewpoint freely - this and others as well, so that they may have absolute freedom to opt for this or that path to the economic and social reconstruction of society.

We are convinced of it: it is only by appealing to the most comprehensive freedom of inquiry and experiment in matters of reconstruction that the toiling population will be able to devise the natural route that leads on to an authentic and wholesome socialism. This freedom of inquiry and experimentation in construction we shall maintain and defend with all our might: it will no doubt be defended in the same way by all the toilers of the Ukraine whom we call upon to take a hand in our great common fight, amending as the need arises the inevitable mistakes and shortcomings, by displaying their sympathy and bolstering it through the continual recruitment of new fighters and defenders of freedom. It is through the concerted efforts of the broader community of toilers that the shape of the new society will be freely molded, and by defending this entitlement to creative freedom with armed force that we shall win.

#makhnovist #anarchism #communism #socialism #revolution #russian revolution #ukraine #freedom #liberty

8 notes · View notes

rorykillmore · 7 years

Text

so i had a “thomas interprets a situation disastrously” joke in my head i’ve been wanting to write out for @ravenswood and in building up to it i kind of just developed an entire future!denny-slash-au verse in which everyone is at least (moderately) more chill, lucille and edith manage to be cute dorks, and victor possibly has a plot to sabotage them both. enjoy???

“Is this your latest hobby, then?”

Lucille purses her lips just slightly, but doesn’t look away from her work: presently consisting of an only-partially-blank easel sitting before her. She considers for a moment, dips the brush in her hand into one of the many paints at her disposal, paints another stroke. “It’s therapeutic. Supposedly.”

“I think that may depend on what it is you’re painting,” Edith teases her mildly, stooping to unhook Victor’s lead. The little dog runs over to sniff at Lucille’s feet, and she barely flinches -- which, really, is the least strange of the developments that have taken place within the last year.

Had Lucille bothered to organize her thoughts enough to rank those, the greatest among them would no doubt be that these visits even happen. That she’s living in some quiet California coastal town instead of Silent Hill, that Edith expresses any desire to freely spend any time with her, that Victor has taken such a liking to one of her cats. The two animals have become practically inseparable. It is, in her own opinion, something of a problem.

But certainly not the worst she’s ever had to deal with.

“Hmm,” Lucille hums noncommittally, mostly focused on her work - a relatively inoffensive take on the view of the beach visible from her back porch at sunset, thank you - and there was another oddity, if she had cared at all to reflect upon it. That she and Edith can exist in the same relative space without Lucille feeling the wary need to so much as glance at her.

“Thomas is here somewhere,” she finally thinks to remark -- he’s another semi-frequent visitor. “I thought you might like to know.”

She half-sees Edith still out of the corner of her eye, and supposes warning her was the proper thing to do. They aren’t -- hostile towards one another, Edith and Thomas, but nor has their relationship become quite as absurdly amicable as this one. It’s understandable, Lucille supposes (though she does try not to think on any of it much). In some ways, the depth of what the two of them have to repair is much deeper.

“Thank you. That’s alright.” Edith recovers smoothly enough, but she also doesn’t go drifting around to say hello to the cats or look at some of Lucille’s books like she might on another day. Lucille doesn’t say anything, frowning slightly at her easel, until she hears Edith approach and continue, “When did you pick this up?”

“It’s a momentary fancy, really,” Lucille tells her offhandedly. She’s had a lot of those. It helps, keeping herself busy, trying to discern just what sorts of things in this world she enjoys. “I don’t think I really have the patience for it.”

“A pity. It suits you better than -- what was the last thing? Kayaking?”

“That was Maria’s idea, and it was only sailing. Of course you would try to make it sound even more ridiculous,” Lucille huffs at her, not so much because she’s offended as because she can tell Edith’s trying to distract herself.

Edith hums in understanding - Maria is, if anything, worse than Lucille is with these ‘hobbies of the moment’; she supposes it must have something to do with trying to define herself - and falls silent. Perhaps she’s interpreted Lucille’s retort as impatience, rather than what it actually was. Lucille has never been especially good at making other people feel better.

Well. She owes it to Edith to try again, at the very least.

“Speaking of patience -- or the lack of it. I think I’m about finished.” She draws back, paintbrush still in hand, dipped in the darkish sort of red she’d just been using for the deeper points of the sky.

Edith raises her eyebrows slightly. “You’ve left the bottom third of the page almost completely blank.”

“Hence the initial part of my statement.”

“Lucille,” Edith almost chides her, predictably catching on rather quickly. “Don’t be silly.”

In response, Lucille does her very best to give her a nonplussed, unimpressed look, both deflecting and communicative of her own personal opinion, which is that she’s never once been silly in her life.

Edith’s lips twitch slightly. “If you do want to distract me, I suppose...” She trails off, contemplating for a moment -- and then, much to Lucille’s horror, she pulls out her phone.

“What are you doing?”

Feigning obliviousness, Edith indicates the painting with a slight nod. “Don’t you think we ought to see what Instagram thinks?”

This again.

“You know, I don’t. Not even remotely,” Lucille retorts faux-sweetly, now well-aware that she’s being teased. If Edith’s idea of comeuppance is her recent favored form of entertainment - which seems to often involve uploading entirely irrelevant photos of Lucille to social media - well. She supposes that’s fair. Still, Edith can hardly expect her not to fight her on it.

“Finish the painting, then,” Edith challenges. Lucille subconsciously feels rather than purposefully enacts the stubborn set of her own shoulders, and settles for glowering at her.

A moment or two passes. And then, with the slightest of shrugs, Edith reaches to turn the easel more towards her.

And in a show of impulsive and astounding maturity, Lucille takes a swipe at her hand with the paintbrush, successfully splattering it with bright red color.

“Lucille.” Edith can’t quite seem to stifle an incredulous laugh through her indignation

“Keep your hands to yourself, next time,” Lucille tells her, perhaps a bit too smugly as she turns back to her work.

Evidently, she oughtn’t to have gloated -- perhaps she might have gotten away with it, had she refrained. As it is, there’s really only a beat of hesitation before Edith dips her already-sullied hand into the same shade of red, and before Lucille can even really process what she’s doing --

-- there’s paint smeared all over her cheek.

She scowls. Edith simply gives her a smile that’s almost mockingly polite.

“Very well, then.” Rather haughtily, she rises from her seat, half-convincing herself for a moment that perhaps she has the dignity to remove herself from this increasingly childish situation.

It’s not a very reinforced lie. She grabs the paintbrush again, and Edith takes a slight step back.

“I was only evening us out,” she protests exasperatedly. “There’s no need to--”

Lucille dips the brush, flicks paint at her again, and Edith flinches back with a sound that’s half a yelp and half a laugh. Lucille half-expects her to flee -- but instead, she goes straight for the tray of paints.

Both of them have forgotten Victor, who - provoked by the sudden excitement and interpreting it as a game of chase - tears after Edith with a flying leap to meet her. Lucille thinks they both only really sense what’s about to happen before it’s too late, before they’re both in too close proximity to get out of the way of the sudden splash of color that results from the entire thing overturning as Victor crashes into it.

For a long, stunned moment, they only stare at one another.

And then comes a sudden, mortified voice from the doorway -- “Good God. What have you done?”

Slowly, Lucille turns an awkward look on Thomas, who is staring back at her in what is (in her opinion) a disproportionately mortified fashion. Edith clears her throat slightly, and he pales even further.

And then Lucille suddenly becomes aware of how the situation must look out of context. The paints and easel now on the floor and out of immediate sight. She and Edith and Victor all splattered in bright red. All of this being directly preceded by a rather violent sounding crash and the sounds of a struggle.

“Ah,” Lucille starts, even more awkwardly. “Thomas --”

Victor cuts her off with a happy bark, starting towards him. She watches his face change slowly as he crouches down, feels the texture of the dog’s paint-splattered fur. Realization finally dawns on him, and then only the most fleeting moment of relief.

By the time he straightens up again, he’s eyeing them both far more judgmentally.

“I’m going home. To rest,” he reports wearily at last. He doesn’t wait for an answer.

Lucille can’t decide whether to feel amused or remorseful as she stares after him -- mostly, she’s still reeling on the brink of accepting the reality of the scenario that just happened.

“Well,” Edith says slowly, finally. Lucille turns to look at her, and finds her fighting a smile. “That was your fault, technically.”

She rolls her eyes goodnaturedly. “You’re the one who brought up Instagram.”

Edith doesn’t argue any further, busying herself with an effort to right the easel and its tray, in spite of the fact that most of the paint has now spilled out onto the floor -- but she seems, if anything, in better spirits. Lucille isn’t certain she’ll ever really be able to correctly predict what will and won’t elevate her mood.

But perhaps this utter ridiculousness was worth it, after all. She suppresses a faint sigh at the realization, her only option to accept, once again, that this is her life now. “I’d better find us a mop.”

#feat. lucille probably going through 14 different hobbies per week #also those 'edith shitposts on instagram' jokes brought to life #this is the wackiest thing ive written since the sh4 fic but it was a lot of fun #please save thomas though #cuts dennys lvad wire

4 notes · View notes

professorwillynilly · 7 years

Text

if i cannot bend heaven, i will raise hell

OOC Notes: friends, comrades, countrymen. i’m so sorry for the disappointment posted below. it is neither very spicy nor very exciting. but it is a thing, and i wrote it, and i finished it, and that’s what matters!

for context: the scene starts immediately after Tunon tries to banish Bleden Mark to the naughty corner for taking the Fatebinder’s side during the trial in Act III.

i listen to a lot of music while writing but i think this is best read with Castle by Halsey as mood music, rofl. pls be gentle i have not written seriously in a long time and my beta is myself.

He is vaguely aware of a number of things -- the polished marble floor beneath him, the smell of singed flesh, the searing pain behind his eyeballs. In fact, everything is quite painful at present, but not nearly as much as it should, and he can’t quite parse out why that is until it strikes him that this is most certainly not the plane of Illumination. Which, last he checked, is where he ought to be.

No, this is not the Archon of Shadows’ own personal hell, because he is, for some reason, still in Tunon’s Court. And even as his mind struggles to make sense of this revelation, further details of the current situation continue to flood his senses - the ugly screeching sound of metal rending metal, a heavy, coppery scent in the air that he is quite sure does not originate from himself, and the drone of a decidedly familiar voice nearby. That last part is what pushes him to raise himself onto his elbows and finally see what’s going on for himself.

“Didn’t your mother teach you that it’s rude to break other peoples’ toys, Tunon?”

Fatebinder -- no, Archon -- Inkar stands where Mark was just a few seconds ago, facing down the Adjudicator with practiced poise and her usual cool composure. Tunon, on the other hand, is struggling to regain his footing, and it seems that-- yes-- the heady scent of blood is most definitely originating from an ugly gash in the Adjudicator's left shoulder. Inkar shifts her weight, and Mark catches sight of the familiar bronze glint of Dauntless’ blade. If breathing wasn’t so difficult right now, he’d laugh at Tunon’s poor fortune; that sword is going to be a bitch to parry, even for an Archon as powerful as him.

And it is, but the Adjudicator soon finds that the enchanted blade is hardly his most pressing concern when facing down Inkar. The former Fatebinder’s martial prowess -- while exceptional -- is far from her most formidable trait, and it is her mastery of the arcane that really does Tunon in. As it happens, Mark is barely back on his feet by the time the battle is all but finished, with comparably minor injuries on the side of the victor. A fine crack runs the length of Tunon’s mask, and he has fallen to his knees, using his Gavel for support in order to maintain some form of upright posture.

Inkar’s companions have made their way up from the lower dias to the upper chambers, and it is only now that it hits Mark that they did not join her during the stand-off. The Archon of Shadows allows himself to feel something like pride towards his former student at having defeated one of the most powerful Archons in Teratus in single combat. He tries not to think too hard about what that says in regards his own skills when compared to the Adjudicator. It wasn’t a fair fight, anyways. Tunon totally cheated.

Mark snaps out of his own musings to the realization that the two Archons have apparently just concluded some private conversation, because Tunon finally seems to be giving up his feeble grasp on life. And it is to everyone’s surprise that Inkar abruptly reaches out to catch the dying Archon by the front of his robe and steady him. The corners of her mouth twist into a cold smile.

“I did not give you permission to die, Adjudicator.”

When Lantry has at last assured her of Tunon’s stable condition, and Kills-in-Shadow has at last been convinced that sparing the Adjudicator was a necessary move in the greater game, and Verse has at last stopped bitching about not being able to add another tick-mark to her ‘number of Archons killed’ list - only then does Inkar turn her attention to the rest of the Court. Her fellow Fatebinders seem to regard her with a mixture of fear and awe -- as well they should -- but at least they address her in much the same manner they did when she was the student and they the teachers. She briefly considers giving Calio shit about butting in during the trial, despite previous assurances at Vendrien’s Well, but decides against it. Better that the Fatebinders think they owe her in some way. That could be useful in the future.

The newly appointed Archon of the Tiers makes it almost as far as the exit before Bleden Mark makes his suitably theatrical appearance. The shadows directly in her path shift and shudder and coalesce into a familiar figure, and Inkar obediently halts her retreat to allow the Archon of Shadows to materialize in front of her. She doesn’t quite have the energy to plaster on another fake smile, and since she knows him to despise sycophants anyways, settles for a small smirk. She’s allowed a bit of smugness right now, in her own humble opinion.

“So, was that all just for my benefit or did you actually have a reason for putting on your little show?” He’s flashing her one of those smiles that’s more akin to a hound baring its teeth than any human show of amiability. Once upon a time, the expression made her nervous. Right now, all it does is amuse her.

“Don’t be silly,” she replies, smoothing out the frayed edges of the Binding of Shadows wrapped around her wrist. Mark’s eyes narrow, just a hair, and she barely suppresses the urge to outright cackle with glee. My, how the tables have turned. “I’m sure your ego will heal.”

They’ve always had a bit of a rapport going between them - ever since she passed his training as the sole survivor of the course, anyways. But trading wit with the Archon of Shadows is a bit like walking blindly into a lion’s den and hoping you won’t get mauled; it requires equal measures of caution and recklessness, and there’s still no guarantee that you’ll survive the encounter. Somewhere in the last few hours, however, their dynamic has shifted dramatically. He’s still liable to try eviscerating her just for kicks, but at least now he knows that it’s unlikely he’d escape that encounter with his life intact.

None of this shows in either of their manners, of course. That would be giving one too much power over the other. So Mark only snorts, as if she’d attempted to appeal to his humor and fallen flat, though his predatory smile never fades. “You never intended to kill Tunon in the first place.” It’s a statement, not a question.

“Contrary to popular belief, I have a great deal of respect for Tunon, and I think he’s quite good at his job. So, no, this was never going to be an execution for the Adjudicator. So sorry to disappoint.”

He knows the answer to the question he’s about to voice before he asks it. She can see it in his eyes. “So why provoke a fight? Even after he declared you innocent?”

“Well,” she drawls, and now it’s her turn to smile - the sharp kind, a mirror of his own slightly threatening expression. “I wanted to see what you’d do, of course.”

She doesn’t wait to see his reaction before moving forward to eventually brush past him and out the door. Only when they are nearly abreast of each other does he finally say, “Hope I didn’t disappoint,” in a tone of wry amusement.

She stops just short of passing him, stepping just a little closer than necessary so that their arms purposely brush against one another. They’re almost the same height, and when their eyes meet - vibrant green boring into molten gold - neither seems willing to back down from the unspoken challenge. So Inkar just keeps smiling and says, “Never, darling.”

She knows he’s still scrutinizing her when she finally makes her exit, even if those golden eyes have long since dissolved with the rest of him into a murky haze that seeps into the corners of the Court with the last dying rays of the sun. Beware the shadows, the common folk say, their voices hushed in fearful reverence, Bleden Mark might be watching.

The Archon of the Tiers laughs softly to herself. Oh, I’m counting on it.

#writing #tyranny game #bleden mark #fatebinder #this is super lame i know i'm sorry #but look at how cute they are together #hashtag MURDER-SOULMATES #inkar's just like haha can't wait to make you my BITCH #oc: teylos inkar

19 notes · View notes

asafeatherwould · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

Seek the assistance of an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer if you have decided to divorce your spouse. Once you decide to divorce your spouse, “be prepared for a fight”. You shouldn’t be surprised if your spouse becomes angry about the divorce because dissolving a marriage can bring out the worst in people. Some pre-divorce financial planning can ensure that your interests, and those of your children, are well-protected. For starters, get copies of the statements of all of your joint financial obligations, including those accounts with brokerage houses, credit card companies and other debtors. Also, secure insurance policies, bank and loan statements, pension plan documents, mortgage payments, recent tax returns and estate planning information.

youtube

Depending on how you believe your spouse will react, it may be best to keep your plans for divorce under wraps until you have all of the information you need to support your case. If you fear your spouse will try to take money from your accounts or hide important papers, you can ask a judge to intervene on your behalf. On the other hand, you don’t want to be antagonistic either. A divorce fight means that “both of you will be living your lives by your lawyers’ rules and that’s not a good thing. When you’re compiling information, take inventory. Early on, you’ll need to determine what things you want to take with you when you leave the marriage, unless it’s already been predetermined in a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. The two basic legal terms for dividing property are equitable distribution and community property. Under equitable distribution, assets, earnings and debts are divided “fairly”–although this doesn’t necessarily mean a 50-50 split. Two-thirds of the assets are often given to the spouse with the higher earnings and the remaining one-third to the other spouse

“Courts always give the children to mothers” is a belief expressed by many fathers. At one time, courts did show a preference for maternal custody. However, most, if not all, states including Utah now have gender-neutral custody laws in which mothers and fathers are equal before the law. The criterion now used by courts is “the best interest of the child” and custody is determined on a case-by-case basis.

youtube

The primary caretaker criterion explains why mothers are still more likely to be granted custody than are fathers. Despite the prevalence of two working parents in the home, studies are continuing to find that mothers assume most of these parenting responsibilities, and fathers usually play a secondary role.

Although primary caretaking was the most common factor stated in judicial custody decisions in the nineties, it is certainly not the only criterion courts use. The broader criterion, the best interest of the child, considers what a particular child needs at this time, given the totality of the current circumstances. The primary caretaker is usually only one consideration, albeit a very important one. Other considerations are likely to include a child’s individual needs, attachments, and emotional ties; parents’ emotional stability, parenting competence, and life style; parents’ willingness to share the child; parents’ ability to provide continuity with school and community; domestic violence and abuse issues; and substance abuse issues. In Utah the courts tend to consider the best interest of the child when deciding a custody application.

The special context of divorce raises other interesting questions. Decisions to be made in the best interests of children are highly subjective in such situations and require complex reasoning skills to conceptualize, let alone resolve. In some custody cases, you may need the services of an expert mental health professional to provide expert testimony. Speak to your Provo Utah divorce lawyer to know more. The mental health professional as a skilled investigator or evaluator is especially valuable to the courts when abuse or neglect has been charged. Mental health professionals can also assist the court by pointing out what is known or not known about psychological factors in the effects of various custody arrangements. Before beginning evaluation of a child custody matter, it is critical that all parties involved understand the ground rules with respect to privacy and confidentiality.

youtube

A competent mental health professional will recognize the potential ethical problem of the parent who arrives for evaluation and during the sessions says, “Don’t tell my spouse, but . . .,” then proceeds to disclose some significant material point on which a decision might turn. In anticipation of such problems, some clinicians ask all parties to sign reciprocating waivers prior to the start of the evaluation. The waivers specify from the outset that both parents and their attorneys will have access to any information disclosed to the evaluator. A matter of great importance and great controversy for clinicians who function as evaluators in child custody disputes is whether they should address or testify to “the ultimate legal issue” in their work. That is to say, should the evaluator make an actual custody recommendation to the court or simply provide a listing of facts and opinions for the judge to consider? Child custody cases rarely involve questions of actual “parental fitness” in the sense that one or the other is grossly unfit to care for the child. Rather, the more usual issue is that of which parenting arrangement will serve the best interests of the developing child. In such instances, the term best interests is a moral or legal concept, as defined by state law, not a psychological concept. There is general agreement that mental health professionals in this role should conduct thorough and wide-ranging evaluations, point out strengths and weaknesses to the court, and help the court understand what is known or not known in the existing research or clinical literature.

Evaluation in such cases can become quite complex. Cases may involve a request for consultative input by parents in an amicable divorce, state intervention in cases of abuse or neglect, termination of parents’ rights, contested adoptions, or charges and counter charges regarding alleged sexual abuse. It is critical that the clinician who agrees to take on the evaluation of such a case be knowledgeable regarding both legal and clinical aspects of these types of cases. In addition, it is important to be mindful of the appropriate role boundaries. In particular, one should take care not to slip from the role of evaluator to that of intervenor (i.e., therapist). What factors ought to be considered in making child custody decisions? Are race, religion, or parents’ sexual conduct valid factors to consider in making a custody decision? The fact is that such decisions vary widely both regionally and according to local preference. In some cases, psychological factors have been cited as bases for such decisions, and mental health professionals are likely to be called as expert witnesses in future cases on similar issues. In general, however, religion and parents’ sexual preferences have not been deemed proper bases for making such decisions.

Utah has mandatory mediations requirements. Parties to a divorce proceeding in Utah must pay for and attend a mediation conducted by a court appointed mediator. Mediation is rapidly growing in popularity as an alternative to adversarial contests in divorce and child custody disputes. Divorce mediation was essentially the starting point for the mediation movement in the early 1970s. Divorce mediation confronts one of the most difficult conflicts that exist on earth, the breakdown and ending of the intimate, complex marriage relationship. Mediation is not really new. It is as old as the new testament and perhaps older. The Greek word for mediate means to stand between. People have always known that standing between two people in conflict can be helpful. What is new is that mediation has been rediscovered as a replacement for many of the present methods of addressing adversarial conflict. The mediation method encourages cooperating with and helping your adversary.

youtube

This new way of thinking is gaining a foothold, not only in conflict resolution theory, but also in business. Traditional beliefs about how divorce should occur are also rapidly changing, giving rise to the increased use of divorce and family mediation. Fault (i.e., who caused the marital breakdown) is no longer a factor to consider in most states. In almost all states, there is an increase in the number of couples experimenting with equal time sharing of the children. The traditional divorce, which awarded custody to mothers and made dads visitors to their own children, is no longer the status quo. Instead, couples are sharing their parenting responsibilities equally after the divorce and competition for physical and legal custody has become less important. How each parent can get assistance and support from the other parent is more important than who will have custody. Because both parents usually work full time to survive financially, they realize that they need to cooperate to cover all the emotional, physical, and financial needs of their children. Consult with an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer to know how you can get visitation rights.

Never assume that because you are the non-custodial parent, the court will automatically grant you full custody rights. Even when there is joint physical custody, visitation is an important issue. The key to a continued parental relationship and to a separation that is less stressful for the children is advance planning. Emergency restraining or protective orders often deal with visitation in a general way, and what seems temporary often has a way of becoming permanent under law. Judges do not like to force children through too many changes in residence or lifestyle.

Shared parenting or joint custody would be the most equitable solution for divorcing couples. Both parents should contribute to the emotional and financial welfare of the child. The court will generally adhere to any agreement the two parties reach, provided it won’t harm the child. Aside from custody and visitation issues, your arrangement should also stipulate which parent can claim the children as tax deductions. Once child custody issues are resolved, start planning for a brighter future.

When you are fighting a divorce case, you need an expert to assist you with your legal battle. Don’t hire the first divorce lawyer you come across. Hire the best. Hire an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer. Diligence is an obligation of lawyers demanded by the general law. Divorce lawyers must both be skilful and must exercise the skill they have. The law reports contain many examples of lawyers being liable to clients for lack of competence, and there are also cases where they have been held to be liable to third parties where a client’s instructions have been negligently effected. Indeed, lack of competence might be raised collaterally as in the very exceptional cases where a conviction will be quashed because of the failure of the lawyer adequately to advise or act.

youtube

Lawyers may be liable for wrongful advice, albeit that the questions are obscure and difficult. Clients must be advised of the legal consequences of any step which they propose to take, about the alternative remedies available, and that any particular step ought to be taken without delay. As with others providing services, lawyers must act with reasonable competence and skill. Diligence also arises in the general law in other ways. Lawyers must not misrepresent their competence. When handling moneys they must account and not make improper investments. Lawyers must not stray beyond the task their client has authorised; if a lawyer acts without authority he or she may not only be liable to the client but to third parties for breach of warranty of authority.

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

An experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a superior learning and knowledge of legal processes which clients cannot hope to acquire (without a substantial investment), even if they had the inclination. Lawyer control has an additional, functional justification, in suppressing antisocial behavior. To use a sociological term, lawyers are gate-keepers. They advise clients about how to behave lawfully, they screen out unjustified claims, they encourage the settlement of disputes, and they damp down abuses of the legal process.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help with a divorce in Provo Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We can help you with legal separation. Divorce. Contested Divorce. Divorce Mediation. Modifications of Divorce Decrees. Motions To Set Aside Divorce Decrees. Child Custody Evaluations. DCFS Issues. Child Custody. Child Support. Alimony. Prenups. Post nuptial agreements. And Much More. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

0 notes

mayarosa47 · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah

0 notes

melissawalker01 · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

youtube

A competent mental health professional will recognize the potential ethical problem of the parent who arrives for evaluation and during the sessions says, “Don’t tell my spouse, but …,” then proceeds to disclose some significant material point on which a decision might turn. In anticipation of such problems, some clinicians ask all parties to sign reciprocating waivers prior to the start of the evaluation. The waivers specify from the outset that both parents and their attorneys will have access to any information disclosed to the evaluator. A matter of great importance and great controversy for clinicians who function as evaluators in child custody disputes is whether they should address or testify to “the ultimate legal issue” in their work. That is to say, should the evaluator make an actual custody recommendation to the court or simply provide a listing of facts and opinions for the judge to consider? Child custody cases rarely involve questions of actual “parental fitness” in the sense that one or the other is grossly unfit to care for the child. Rather, the more usual issue is that of which parenting arrangement will serve the best interests of the developing child. In such instances, the term best interests is a moral or legal concept, as defined by state law, not a psychological concept. There is general agreement that mental health professionals in this role should conduct thorough and wide-ranging evaluations, point out strengths and weaknesses to the court, and help the court understand what is known or not known in the existing research or clinical literature.

youtube

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/190548759915

0 notes

advertphoto · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

youtube

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

0 notes

michaeljames1221 · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

youtube

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2020/01/30/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

0 notes

gonnagoandrunwiththehorses · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

youtube

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

0 notes

aretia · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

youtube

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

0 notes

divorcelawyergunnisonutah · 4 years

Text

Divorce Lawyer Provo Utah

youtube

It goes without saying that an experienced Provo Utah divorce lawyer has a sound knowledge of the law.

Provo Utah Divorce Lawyer Free Consultation

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Is Utah A Community Property State?

Real Estate Lawyer South Salt Lake

Probate Lawyer Lehi Utah

Child Support In Utah

Real Estate Nuisance In Utah

Do Salaried Employees Get Paid Prevailing Wage Rates?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-provo-utah/

0 notes