What were the external factors that crippled him and especially his childhood experiences that led him to fear love and intimacy even though he longs for them?
His unconscious troubles began early on with his traumatic childhood. This dilemma foreshadows his difficulty connecting with Lisa. A basic element of a successful society is a functioning family unit. Children need to have love. Can a society progress without a strong family unit.
Norms encourage men and women to produce children and develop a stable environment to raise those children. This is a common theme throughout the novel and the total lack of connection with others stems from his broken childhood. The text shows a good example of this problem. “If I’d had a family in my childhood, I wouldn’t be the same as I am now” and “I grew up without a family: that must be why I turned out this way . . . unfeeling.” This is a powerful statement. His inability to connect with others is at the root of his contempt.
Another problem is his economic status within his society. He believes that poverty is at the root of many social evils in Russia. When he tells Lisa that “you’re one of the truly unfortunate ones. Hm . . . It all comes mainly from poverty” is truly on the money. Progress and rationalism are linked together, but Dostoevsky takes issue with this statement. I think correctly. The economic system is supported by efficiency and science, however, in reality that system has completely broken down. The masses are left only a small amount of capital while the middle classes and petit bourgeois are sitting pretty. Family life is destroyed by poverty in his eyes. Does poverty destroy a person’s happiness? Family, money, love are all connected and missing any one of those elements creates a loss in a person’s ego.
He begins by satirizing the ideals of the Enlightment thinkers who thought that if people only acted out of enlightened self-interest they would become “good and noble”? What problems does Dostoevsky have with this theory? Why does the notion of automatic moral reform make him so angry?
He provides some illuminating examples of why a system based upon self-interested motives is counterproductive. First, he critiques the belief that “man” gets softer from civilization and becomes less bloodthirsty. Empirical evidence provides substantial evidence that this is not the case. Dostoevsky has seen the duality of man in Napoleon and the rein of terror that developed from the Wars in France, Prussia and United States.
Morality seems to be corrupted by conformity and the belief in blind optimism. The masses become passive in dissent and consciously accept that bloodshed is going to happen. The question must be asked: why do people ignore reason? It is easier to join the ranks of the masses and forget larger questions of right and wrong.
The supremacy of science is a problem. People use nature and science as a catchall genre of solving moral dilemmas. This idea limits individual thought. He uses the symbol of “piano keys or a sprig in an organ” to bring to light this moral quagmire. Are people just robots or machines? This is a substitute for free thinking and in return tells people that every answer must be found within a narrow classification. This is a method to stun freedom of choice. He comments that “all human actions will then be calculated according to these laws” and presumably going outside these lines would be adverse to the idea of individual self-interest.
In addition, this idea of reform could lead to new capitalist economy. The current context marginalizes people to the outskirts of the community and now people will just have to accept the inequality of civilization. Limiting the answers and choices people can turn to is the start of fascism.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Captains of the Sands
What were the experiences that shaped Legless and his personality?
Legless entered this world alone. He never had the benefit of a mother or a father. Never had the benefit of kind words or the security of love. If this was not enough, Legless also had the misfortune of a physical defect. He had a lame leg and, because of that, he walked with a limb. His godfather raised him for a short time, but the only attention he received was punishment. Punishment that was not deserved, the worst kind of punishment. Love and the attachment to warmth and affection were nonexistent. The cruelty that was practiced upon Legless formulated his despair. He ran away as soon as he was able to understand that running way would set him free. But, freedom never came. He was caught in a continuing cycle of poverty and hatred. The city and societal loathing for abandoned children only increased his misery.
Street life was no better for Legless. The one event that shaped his hate more than others was the brutality inflicted upon him by the police. The shame of being abused and laughed at would trouble him for the rest of his life. His nightmares and sleepless nights were the effects of this abuse. His psyche was fractured. Legless was only a child and the feelings of weakness and helplessness would never cease to influence and haunt his existence. The men in the police station were strong and Legless weak. The horrors inflicted here would create the baseline of his hatred.
Legless could not turn to religion to ease his pain. He “did not believe in anything” and especially a religion that allowed his pain to continue without any recourse. He was skeptical of Lollipop’s faith and the power of idols. Legless saw the world for what it was: survival of the fittest. People treated the abandoned children like animals and wanted at all costs to hide them from their eyes. The belief that heaven would provide the warmth and equality that “real” life failed in providing did not alleviate the pain and, therefore, religion was no use to him. He did not have the patience to wait for justice. Legless wanted immediate love. Why, should he have to wait until death to seek equality? This permeated his thinking.
Legless was a spy. This job helped him carry out his revenge on the rich. He saw that people only helped him out of a sense of duty. There was no warmth or compassion in there actions. People did this out of a sense of remorse. This fact made Legless even hate society more. The people living in upper city had food, comfort, love, and money all of the things the children lacked. Stealing from the rich provided a way of recourse and a sense of satisfaction. Hate filled his body and soul. Revenge provided great joy and happiness. However, when he entered the home of Dona Ester his feeling of revenge changed somewhat. For the first time he had the love of a mother. The “soft caress of the kiss” a mother’s caress brought warmth into his soul. The family treated him like a son and provided the needed affection that was missing during his entire life. But, his hate prevented him from staying. He reflected upon the injustice living this way. The gang was still in rags and living in utter poverty. The children were all victims and he could not abandon them. The scene when he breaks down and sobs holding Dona Ester asking for forgiveness was touching but sad at the same time. This tension between a mother’s love and the love of the gang provided an illuminating example of his loyalty. But also shows how deep his hatred influenced his decision-making.
Legless informs the reader right before his suicide his worldview. He hates the police chasing him the way he hates the whole world, because he was never able to have any love. “And the day he had it, he was obliged to leave it, because life had already marked him too much. He’d never had the happiness of a child. He’d become a man before he was ten years old in order to struggle for the most miserable of loves: the life of an abandoned child.”
I felt the deepest sympathy towards Legless’s character. His life never had a chance. His experiences and environment shaped his personality and created the hatred that drove his existence. Being just a child and seeing first hand the cruelty of poverty and exploitation of humanity is unbearable for a child. The question that needs to be asked is would Legless been different if he had a family and the love that engulfs such a relationship. I think the answer would be yes. This character sheds light on the importance of family, but more importantly the love that is provided by a mother. All of the children had the longing for love and especially from a woman. The norms and values that arise from such a relationship are so important for a child in forming a personality.
He turned to stealing because of the injustices of the city. His loyalty to the gang was influenced by the love the gang showed him. This was the only sense of comfort he had in his life. In the darkest hours of the night the sounds of weakness and longing for love instilled the hatred in his soul. Legless was a prisoner of this world.
Legless entered this world alone. He never had the benefit of a mother or a father. Never had the benefit of kind words or the security of love. If this was not enough, Legless also had the misfortune of a physical defect. He had a lame leg and, because of that, he walked with a limb. His godfather raised him for a short time, but the only attention he received was punishment. Punishment that was not deserved, the worst kind of punishment. Love and the attachment to warmth and affection were nonexistent. The cruelty that was practiced upon Legless formulated his despair. He ran away as soon as he was able to understand that running way would set him free. But, freedom never came. He was caught in a continuing cycle of poverty and hatred. The city and societal loathing for abandoned children only increased his misery.
Street life was no better for Legless. The one event that shaped his hate more than others was the brutality inflicted upon him by the police. The shame of being abused and laughed at would trouble him for the rest of his life. His nightmares and sleepless nights were the effects of this abuse. His psyche was fractured. Legless was only a child and the feelings of weakness and helplessness would never cease to influence and haunt his existence. The men in the police station were strong and Legless weak. The horrors inflicted here would create the baseline of his hatred.
Legless could not turn to religion to ease his pain. He “did not believe in anything” and especially a religion that allowed his pain to continue without any recourse. He was skeptical of Lollipop’s faith and the power of idols. Legless saw the world for what it was: survival of the fittest. People treated the abandoned children like animals and wanted at all costs to hide them from their eyes. The belief that heaven would provide the warmth and equality that “real” life failed in providing did not alleviate the pain and, therefore, religion was no use to him. He did not have the patience to wait for justice. Legless wanted immediate love. Why, should he have to wait until death to seek equality? This permeated his thinking.
Legless was a spy. This job helped him carry out his revenge on the rich. He saw that people only helped him out of a sense of duty. There was no warmth or compassion in there actions. People did this out of a sense of remorse. This fact made Legless even hate society more. The people living in upper city had food, comfort, love, and money all of the things the children lacked. Stealing from the rich provided a way of recourse and a sense of satisfaction. Hate filled his body and soul. Revenge provided great joy and happiness. However, when he entered the home of Dona Ester his feeling of revenge changed somewhat. For the first time he had the love of a mother. The “soft caress of the kiss” a mother’s caress brought warmth into his soul. The family treated him like a son and provided the needed affection that was missing during his entire life. But, his hate prevented him from staying. He reflected upon the injustice living this way. The gang was still in rags and living in utter poverty. The children were all victims and he could not abandon them. The scene when he breaks down and sobs holding Dona Ester asking for forgiveness was touching but sad at the same time. This tension between a mother’s love and the love of the gang provided an illuminating example of his loyalty. But also shows how deep his hatred influenced his decision-making.
Legless informs the reader right before his suicide his worldview. He hates the police chasing him the way he hates the whole world, because he was never able to have any love. “And the day he had it, he was obliged to leave it, because life had already marked him too much. He’d never had the happiness of a child. He’d become a man before he was ten years old in order to struggle for the most miserable of loves: the life of an abandoned child.”
I felt the deepest sympathy towards Legless’s character. His life never had a chance. His experiences and environment shaped his personality and created the hatred that drove his existence. Being just a child and seeing first hand the cruelty of poverty and exploitation of humanity is unbearable for a child. The question that needs to be asked is would Legless been different if he had a family and the love that engulfs such a relationship. I think the answer would be yes. This character sheds light on the importance of family, but more importantly the love that is provided by a mother. All of the children had the longing for love and especially from a woman. The norms and values that arise from such a relationship are so important for a child in forming a personality.
He turned to stealing because of the injustices of the city. His loyalty to the gang was influenced by the love the gang showed him. This was the only sense of comfort he had in his life. In the darkest hours of the night the sounds of weakness and longing for love instilled the hatred in his soul. Legless was a prisoner of this world.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
My Name is Red
Why was it that depicting the world through the eyes of the artist seen as a terrible act and a violation against the Koran?
I think the overriding norm, in one sense, was the concept of being humble. For instance, Master Osman tells the reader that accepting the fate of never reaching the sublime of the old masters makes life easier. This rationale is directly connected to the concept of “modesty.” We learn that modesty is “such a highly prized virtue in our part of the world.” On the other hand, we have the norm that a genuine artist has an instinctive desire to draw what’s forbidden. Therefore, I observed many conflicting normative universes at work.
There was a binary battle between the Frankish infidels and the miniaturists in Istanbul. Master Osman and the traditionalist believed that making use of the methods of the Franks would take away from the focus on “ornamentation and intricate design and more on straightforward representation.” This is what the Glorious Koran forbids. In the Chapter called “We Two Dervishes” I found the sin of the Frank. “He was committing the error of looking at the world with his naked eye and rendering what he saw.”
Conversely, Master Osman asks the question to Black “what can we learn from the fact that two miniaturists had created the same picture without having seen each other’s work?” The answer was “to paint is to remember.” If Allah gave all the uniqueness to the world and its beauty the duty of illustrators is to remember the magnificence that Allah beheld and left to us and depict life through Allah’s pureness. “The greatest masters in each generation of painters, expending their lives and toiling until blind, strove with great effort and inspiration to attain and record the wondrous dream that Allah commanded us to see.” In addition, Butterfly and Stork debate the dilemma whether a “true” painter draws what he sees or what Allah sees. Butterfly notes that Allah certainly sees everything we see, but Allah does not perceive it the way we do. However, I think Stork comes out with the better of the argument when he states that “If falls to us to believe in Allah and to depict only what He reveals to us, not what He conceals.”
Olive tells us that his paintings reveal what the mind, not the eye, sees. But, painting is a feast for the eyes. Therefore, Olive combines both of these observations and comments that: (1) Painting brings to life what the mind sees, as a feast for the eyes; (2) What the eye sees in the world enters the painting to the degree that it serves the mind; and (3) Consequently, beauty is the eye discovering in our world what the mind already knows. Olive was desperate to find his own personal characteristics’ or style in his paintings. When Black informs Olive that Master Osman told him that “there among the great works of the old masters he showed me how you had a style.” “He taught me how the hidden fault of style isn’t something the artist selects of his own volition, but is determined by the artist’s past and his forgotten memories.”
The final picture in the Secret Book revealed the transgressions and the depiction of reality through the eyes of Olive. Objects weren’t depicted according to their importance in Allah’s mind, but as they appeared to the naked eye. Additionally, the biggest sin of all was the depiction of Our Sultan’s picture as large as life and his face in all its detail. A portrait of ones self is seen as a direction violation of the virtue of modesty. Especially, with ones picture as the center of the world is in direct violation of the principles of the Koran and the norms Master Osman.
I think the overriding norm, in one sense, was the concept of being humble. For instance, Master Osman tells the reader that accepting the fate of never reaching the sublime of the old masters makes life easier. This rationale is directly connected to the concept of “modesty.” We learn that modesty is “such a highly prized virtue in our part of the world.” On the other hand, we have the norm that a genuine artist has an instinctive desire to draw what’s forbidden. Therefore, I observed many conflicting normative universes at work.
There was a binary battle between the Frankish infidels and the miniaturists in Istanbul. Master Osman and the traditionalist believed that making use of the methods of the Franks would take away from the focus on “ornamentation and intricate design and more on straightforward representation.” This is what the Glorious Koran forbids. In the Chapter called “We Two Dervishes” I found the sin of the Frank. “He was committing the error of looking at the world with his naked eye and rendering what he saw.”
Conversely, Master Osman asks the question to Black “what can we learn from the fact that two miniaturists had created the same picture without having seen each other’s work?” The answer was “to paint is to remember.” If Allah gave all the uniqueness to the world and its beauty the duty of illustrators is to remember the magnificence that Allah beheld and left to us and depict life through Allah’s pureness. “The greatest masters in each generation of painters, expending their lives and toiling until blind, strove with great effort and inspiration to attain and record the wondrous dream that Allah commanded us to see.” In addition, Butterfly and Stork debate the dilemma whether a “true” painter draws what he sees or what Allah sees. Butterfly notes that Allah certainly sees everything we see, but Allah does not perceive it the way we do. However, I think Stork comes out with the better of the argument when he states that “If falls to us to believe in Allah and to depict only what He reveals to us, not what He conceals.”
Olive tells us that his paintings reveal what the mind, not the eye, sees. But, painting is a feast for the eyes. Therefore, Olive combines both of these observations and comments that: (1) Painting brings to life what the mind sees, as a feast for the eyes; (2) What the eye sees in the world enters the painting to the degree that it serves the mind; and (3) Consequently, beauty is the eye discovering in our world what the mind already knows. Olive was desperate to find his own personal characteristics’ or style in his paintings. When Black informs Olive that Master Osman told him that “there among the great works of the old masters he showed me how you had a style.” “He taught me how the hidden fault of style isn’t something the artist selects of his own volition, but is determined by the artist’s past and his forgotten memories.”
The final picture in the Secret Book revealed the transgressions and the depiction of reality through the eyes of Olive. Objects weren’t depicted according to their importance in Allah’s mind, but as they appeared to the naked eye. Additionally, the biggest sin of all was the depiction of Our Sultan’s picture as large as life and his face in all its detail. A portrait of ones self is seen as a direction violation of the virtue of modesty. Especially, with ones picture as the center of the world is in direct violation of the principles of the Koran and the norms Master Osman.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Waiting
The larger question that needs to be addressed is whether intimacy as a value was diminished by cultural obligations?
Shuyu’s values are directly connected to the norms of her culture. The small rural village is a major factor in her normative world. She informs the reader “I’m like an old tree that can’t be moved to another place.” Throughout the novel there is a binary division between rural and city life. Her persona invites the reader to believe that her values revolved around the axis of nurturance, community, responsibility and care. She believed that the order of the world was rooted in every family. Family life overrides individual accomplishments. To illustrate this point, the reader can look to her ability to care for Lin’s parental family. She took care of Lin’s mother and father when they both became sick. She was the one who cleaned up and decorated Lin’s family grave stones with flowers and bouquets. In addition, during the divorce proceedings Shuyu’s personality was completely detached from reality. She was blind to outside matters. Even though Lin showed no intimacy towards her she broke down and began to cry and show deep emotions towards Lin.
Shuyu was not a shrew woman. She is the complete opposite of Shakespeare’s Kate in “Taming of the Shrew.” However, her independence is finally a reality when Lin shows up outside her apartment, in the City, and he realizes that she does not need him to survive. This is the classical example of her ability to overcome and adapt to difficulties in her life. A great example of Shuyu and her world view is illustrated by her mention of Lin’s new twins. She informs Lin that I am “very pleased” to hear about them and this will make “our” family larger. Even after divorce and re-marriage she sees Lin and his extended family as one. The central component of her morality arises from the family.
Fear and the concept of sham were huge cultural factors throughout the novel. Shuyu concept of harm was directly linked to the dissolution of her family. However, even if the law recognized a formal divorce, in her mind, her family was beyond any legal conception. The family bond is universal and cannot be broken by some man made decision. I think her belief in the family was a spiritual belief as well. Her morality was linked to improving her family and making sure that their lives were improved. Her capacity of nurturance and care dictated her existence. In that sense, Shuyu was the strongest character and possessed conviction in her virtues.
Shuyu’s values are directly connected to the norms of her culture. The small rural village is a major factor in her normative world. She informs the reader “I’m like an old tree that can’t be moved to another place.” Throughout the novel there is a binary division between rural and city life. Her persona invites the reader to believe that her values revolved around the axis of nurturance, community, responsibility and care. She believed that the order of the world was rooted in every family. Family life overrides individual accomplishments. To illustrate this point, the reader can look to her ability to care for Lin’s parental family. She took care of Lin’s mother and father when they both became sick. She was the one who cleaned up and decorated Lin’s family grave stones with flowers and bouquets. In addition, during the divorce proceedings Shuyu’s personality was completely detached from reality. She was blind to outside matters. Even though Lin showed no intimacy towards her she broke down and began to cry and show deep emotions towards Lin.
Shuyu was not a shrew woman. She is the complete opposite of Shakespeare’s Kate in “Taming of the Shrew.” However, her independence is finally a reality when Lin shows up outside her apartment, in the City, and he realizes that she does not need him to survive. This is the classical example of her ability to overcome and adapt to difficulties in her life. A great example of Shuyu and her world view is illustrated by her mention of Lin’s new twins. She informs Lin that I am “very pleased” to hear about them and this will make “our” family larger. Even after divorce and re-marriage she sees Lin and his extended family as one. The central component of her morality arises from the family.
Fear and the concept of sham were huge cultural factors throughout the novel. Shuyu concept of harm was directly linked to the dissolution of her family. However, even if the law recognized a formal divorce, in her mind, her family was beyond any legal conception. The family bond is universal and cannot be broken by some man made decision. I think her belief in the family was a spiritual belief as well. Her morality was linked to improving her family and making sure that their lives were improved. Her capacity of nurturance and care dictated her existence. In that sense, Shuyu was the strongest character and possessed conviction in her virtues.
The Reader
Why did Michael Berg engulf himself in the legal seminar?
Berg felt the shame of German history. This idea of a generational gap between his parents and himself was a major factor in his reasoning process. Berg was left with “revulsion, shame and guilt.” This was not only felt by himself, but a common trait throughout post-war Germany. For instance, when Hanna directly asks the Chief Judge “what would you have done” under the same circumstances brings to light the difficulty of the times. The judge’s answer was vague. “There are matters one simply cannot get drawn into, that one must distance oneself from, if the price is not life and limb.” Each person involved in the trial was left to this dilemma.
Why was this detachment from reality common to all present in the courtroom? Coming to terms with the self-realization that humanity can be so cruel and immoral strikes at the cord of Berg’s sadness. This battle was fought in Berg’s inner conscious. He withdrew from everyday life and sought refugee in legal history. Berg was a special case. Berg had a love affair with Hanna who turned out to be a guard at concentration camps. This realization turned his psyche upside down. He loved Hanna who inflicted pain and suffering upon so many. How to come to terms with that realization was a life long battle for Berg. What to do when your society at large has committed grave violations of basic humanitarian concepts of morality? This question haunted Berg.
The professor in charge of the seminar was concerned with retrospective law. The special importance of these cases is that the persons accused of these crimes claimed that what they had done was not illegal under the laws of the regime in force at the time these actions were performed. This plea was met with the reply that the laws upon which they relied were invalid as contravening the fundamental principles of morality. A choice had to be made between two evils, that of leaving the defendants unpunished and that of sacrificing a very precious principle of morality endorsed by most legal systems.
The professor’s concern with the separation of law and morality is a key distinction. Basically, what the law is compared to what the law ought to be is the major question. Berg believed for a long time that legal history is striving for beauty and truth. However, this belief as his studies continued began to be questioned and its validity curtailed by empirical facts. Berg makes a key point when he states that law is in motion. Law’s and societal norms change as individuals within that culture change. Temporal concerns are very important to take into account when examining the political morality of that society. Germany is a unique situation because of the political philosophy of Nazism.
This dilemma brings to light the problems of positivism and how much fidelity should a legal system give to written laws. Nazism violated basic principles of justice. During the reign of the Third Reich the principle of equal consideration was nonexistent. Berg believed in rationality and that similar cases should be treated similarly. Berg was touched by the passion of the trials and believed that punishment was a necessary outcome even if the law was retrospective. I think the link for Berg was in his idea that law is in motion and during certain times in history the beauty of the law was absent. However, it is up to individuals within that society to transform the legal apparatus and seek justice.
Berg felt the shame of German history. This idea of a generational gap between his parents and himself was a major factor in his reasoning process. Berg was left with “revulsion, shame and guilt.” This was not only felt by himself, but a common trait throughout post-war Germany. For instance, when Hanna directly asks the Chief Judge “what would you have done” under the same circumstances brings to light the difficulty of the times. The judge’s answer was vague. “There are matters one simply cannot get drawn into, that one must distance oneself from, if the price is not life and limb.” Each person involved in the trial was left to this dilemma.
Why was this detachment from reality common to all present in the courtroom? Coming to terms with the self-realization that humanity can be so cruel and immoral strikes at the cord of Berg’s sadness. This battle was fought in Berg’s inner conscious. He withdrew from everyday life and sought refugee in legal history. Berg was a special case. Berg had a love affair with Hanna who turned out to be a guard at concentration camps. This realization turned his psyche upside down. He loved Hanna who inflicted pain and suffering upon so many. How to come to terms with that realization was a life long battle for Berg. What to do when your society at large has committed grave violations of basic humanitarian concepts of morality? This question haunted Berg.
The professor in charge of the seminar was concerned with retrospective law. The special importance of these cases is that the persons accused of these crimes claimed that what they had done was not illegal under the laws of the regime in force at the time these actions were performed. This plea was met with the reply that the laws upon which they relied were invalid as contravening the fundamental principles of morality. A choice had to be made between two evils, that of leaving the defendants unpunished and that of sacrificing a very precious principle of morality endorsed by most legal systems.
The professor’s concern with the separation of law and morality is a key distinction. Basically, what the law is compared to what the law ought to be is the major question. Berg believed for a long time that legal history is striving for beauty and truth. However, this belief as his studies continued began to be questioned and its validity curtailed by empirical facts. Berg makes a key point when he states that law is in motion. Law’s and societal norms change as individuals within that culture change. Temporal concerns are very important to take into account when examining the political morality of that society. Germany is a unique situation because of the political philosophy of Nazism.
This dilemma brings to light the problems of positivism and how much fidelity should a legal system give to written laws. Nazism violated basic principles of justice. During the reign of the Third Reich the principle of equal consideration was nonexistent. Berg believed in rationality and that similar cases should be treated similarly. Berg was touched by the passion of the trials and believed that punishment was a necessary outcome even if the law was retrospective. I think the link for Berg was in his idea that law is in motion and during certain times in history the beauty of the law was absent. However, it is up to individuals within that society to transform the legal apparatus and seek justice.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Two passion have followed me throughout my life, books and law.
I have had a love for books since I was a child. Books are like fine art you keep coming back to them throughout your life, experiencing them differently with all your new insight.
The process of law has always fascinated me by our continual effort to contain and categorize the complexity of the human condition with a structured system.
Telling a good story is all a lawyer does, just like a good book. I plan to chronicle my experiences with the law and the books that gave me insight on the human condition.
I have had a love for books since I was a child. Books are like fine art you keep coming back to them throughout your life, experiencing them differently with all your new insight.
The process of law has always fascinated me by our continual effort to contain and categorize the complexity of the human condition with a structured system.
Telling a good story is all a lawyer does, just like a good book. I plan to chronicle my experiences with the law and the books that gave me insight on the human condition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)