07-23-2010, 10:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2010, 10:18 AM by Questioner.)
Look up the history of the word ignoramus: http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistory/Ignoramus.html. It comes from a grand jury that said "we do not know" (in Latin) when they did not see enough evidence to go to trial.
"If they (the grand jury) do not find it (the indictment) true, they write on the back-side Ignoramus ("We known nothing of it"), and so deliver it to the Justices."
If that's what's happening, then it's not the jury's job to go get some better evidence!
The term became a put-down with a satirical comedy play that had a foolishly arrogant simpleton lawyer - NOT a simpleton jury. The play was a hit with audience who didn't care for pretentious nincompoop lawyers - that's not changed in 400 years since the play.
But the King also liked it very much, and not just because it poked fun at fools. The lawyer Ignoramus in the play worked with the common law. The common law was in part a historical tool of defense for the rights of the common man, against the monarch's attempts to deprive those rights. If the common law was something associated with simpletons and fools, then who would be so dumb, naive, easily duped, carelessly indifferent as to honor the common law's limits on the king's power?
How the failure to think somehow got transferred to the jury, as though it was their responsibility to be smart enough to make up for a stupid lawyer, is a mystery to me. There is a reference to one novelist who misused the word to mean "someone who can't be bothered to learn anything," and my guess is that her work was assigned to generations of English students who didn't get an explanation of the history.
But had it been perverted before then?
This switch of the word is consistent with the way service-to-self manipulation tries to redefine the very tools of thought. Ignoramus was the reasonable opinion of a group of people protecting freedom by thoughtfully noting when justice is not served by continuing a prosecution. At some point it got changed to mean the unreasonable opinion of a single individual making problems for him or her self and others by negligently discarding important information.
Now who would best be served by redefining the word? How about prosecutors and politicians misusing the justice system against their political enemies, and any jury that said "NO" to that abuse must be full of naive fools?
As in the animated magic sci-fi martial arts TV series Samurai Jack. The ultimate evil demon Aku says "now the fool comes forth to oppose!" It's not that the noble samurai is a fool. It's that Aku is terrified of Jack's righteousness that might destroy Aku!
http://www.auntiemomo.com/samuraijack/
This reversal of value isn't quite the same thing that happens when type 9 goes bad. As with everything in type 9 the switch there is far more subtle and looks peaceful, even if it isn't really at peace. I'll post that essay next, once there's another post from someone else to prevent the forum software from merging my posts. I hope to have the subsequent one, on lines of integration, ready later today.
"If they (the grand jury) do not find it (the indictment) true, they write on the back-side Ignoramus ("We known nothing of it"), and so deliver it to the Justices."
If that's what's happening, then it's not the jury's job to go get some better evidence!
The term became a put-down with a satirical comedy play that had a foolishly arrogant simpleton lawyer - NOT a simpleton jury. The play was a hit with audience who didn't care for pretentious nincompoop lawyers - that's not changed in 400 years since the play.
But the King also liked it very much, and not just because it poked fun at fools. The lawyer Ignoramus in the play worked with the common law. The common law was in part a historical tool of defense for the rights of the common man, against the monarch's attempts to deprive those rights. If the common law was something associated with simpletons and fools, then who would be so dumb, naive, easily duped, carelessly indifferent as to honor the common law's limits on the king's power?
How the failure to think somehow got transferred to the jury, as though it was their responsibility to be smart enough to make up for a stupid lawyer, is a mystery to me. There is a reference to one novelist who misused the word to mean "someone who can't be bothered to learn anything," and my guess is that her work was assigned to generations of English students who didn't get an explanation of the history.
But had it been perverted before then?
This switch of the word is consistent with the way service-to-self manipulation tries to redefine the very tools of thought. Ignoramus was the reasonable opinion of a group of people protecting freedom by thoughtfully noting when justice is not served by continuing a prosecution. At some point it got changed to mean the unreasonable opinion of a single individual making problems for him or her self and others by negligently discarding important information.
Now who would best be served by redefining the word? How about prosecutors and politicians misusing the justice system against their political enemies, and any jury that said "NO" to that abuse must be full of naive fools?
As in the animated magic sci-fi martial arts TV series Samurai Jack. The ultimate evil demon Aku says "now the fool comes forth to oppose!" It's not that the noble samurai is a fool. It's that Aku is terrified of Jack's righteousness that might destroy Aku!
http://www.auntiemomo.com/samuraijack/
This reversal of value isn't quite the same thing that happens when type 9 goes bad. As with everything in type 9 the switch there is far more subtle and looks peaceful, even if it isn't really at peace. I'll post that essay next, once there's another post from someone else to prevent the forum software from merging my posts. I hope to have the subsequent one, on lines of integration, ready later today.