Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

18709A Rose By Any Other "Name"...

Expand Messages
  • Michael
    Nov 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Saturday  26 November 2011

      What matters is what something IS, not what
      something is called.  [Shades of Clinton stating,
      "It depends on what the definition if is, is."]

      The genius of Shakespeare knows no bounds.

      Juilet:

      "'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
      Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
      What is a Montague?  It is nor hand, nor foot,
      nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
      belonging to a man.  O, be some other name!
      What's in a name?  That which we call a rose
      by any other name would smell as sweet;
      So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
      retain that dear perfection which he owes
      without that title.  Romeo, doff thy name
      and for that name which is no part of thee,
      take all myself."

      Ancient Egyptians associated the name with
      the soul.  It was believed that knowledge of a
      god or spirit's name gave one complete power
      over that deity, and knowledge of a man's name
      provided the power to do that man good or ill.
      A person could not exist without his name.

      In ancient China, a name was considered to
      have enormous power, and for that reason, it
      was forbidden to speak the name of the emperor.

      Judge:  "What is your name?'

      There must be a reason why this is the very first
      question asked in any administrative/court
      proceding.  If you give your name, one has to
      wonder if you are giving the "judge" assent for
      him/her to assert power over the fictional
      entity, spelled in all-capitalized letters.

      Otherwise, there is no other way for a legal
      fiction to exist if it has no name, hence the
      likely purpose of that very first question.

      When I went before an administrative "judge"
      to contest an administrative law "judge's"
      decision over a parking ticket, that was the
      first order of business.  The insistance in
      asking the question spoke to its importance,
      but I had no prepared response, at that time.

      It would be informative to know if any "judge"
      can proceed without stating one's  name.  If
      anyone has some first-hand experience or
      direct knowledge on this issue, it would be
      great to have it shared.

      I am guessing it may be good to ask a question
      instead of responding, such as, "I do not understand
      what you mean by the word name.  No disrespect
      to you, [must avoid giving a reason for spending
      time in jail for disrespecting the court], but can you
      explain what the word name means to this court?"

      None of us are a name, as Shakespeare has Juliet
      explain.  Rather, each of us is who we say we are,
      as in  "one of the people," or " a flesh and blood man
      or woman."  [In other words, on the land and not
      in a political fictional plane.]

      Open for duscussion...

    • Show all 2 messages in this topic