Chapter Twenty Five: Philosophy on Its Own Terms by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Chapter Twenty Five – Philosophy on Its Own Terms by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Philosophy begins in wonder. Philosophy ends in wonder. Philosophers can question any proposition or claim. Philosophers can consider all principles, patterns, and propositions presented. A philosophy itself requires persistent inquiry, propositional development, and a system for their inclusion in order to further understanding of experience, human endeavors, and fundamental principles, probing the reality’s richness, evidenced in nature and humanity.

Engaging in philosophy may not answer all the questions raised by reflecting on one’s experience with intellectual, emotional, and perceptual advances. It should clarify the questions, eliminate bad ideas, and educate those engaged in new insights, possibilities, systematic relationships. Personal growth, fulfilment, often enjoyment are achieved in implicit, explicit, reflective immersion. Philosophy, as a domain of thought or an academic area examines philosophies, mainly classics and contemporary. The individual philosophies therein studied, offering insights, visions, and usually systems, explore philosophical scope, elements, and challenges. What is accepted as true or “given” faces degrees of doubt, hopefully properly designed to be appropriate, illuminating, and suggestive. Individual developing experience, cultural patterns and principles, the achievements in all intellectual, artistic, and creative enterprises furnish relevant factors necessarily included for progress. Our own experience with observation and perception through the senses and intuition contributes, participates, and gains with the development and articulation of philosophical positions and answers proffered to challenges. Emotional influences clarified may contribute. Although not confined by any of these contributory elements, or an aggregate of them, a philosophy, with its own interior rationale, includes those aspects systematically into a unity for contemplation, immersion, suggestion, development, and guidance relevant to deeper connections and understanding of human experience in nature, with other humans, our perception (with implicit perspective), intellectual endeavors and human behavior as exhibited -with values for an intrinsic Ethics. Basic truths are sought.

Operating by exploring presuppositions and implications of our experience and its generated understandings (we urge best also pursued by dialectical speculation) a philosophy ideally then develops connected propositions systematized. Principles for analysis and systematic construction are employed and must be justified, in part with reference to what we experience (immediately, reflectively, intellectually, aesthetically, consciously – and unconsciously perhaps). Philosophical inquiry, systems and propositions presented, may attempt to begin with nothing held as conceptually essential or free from critical examination, to proceed by an expanding justified methodology with inclusion of justified concepts and propositions. to arrive at coherent organized principles for everything experienced or possibly related, underlying, or generating experience in order to explore and then explain experience and reality in all its richness – using engagement with penetration into reality, others, and the self. Thus it confronts the intersection of what we believe we know and what we recognize (and identify) in the world outside. that would justify our principles, recognition of patterns, with both predictability and limited uncertainty, in that world we experience, interact, learn, explore, and try to explain in many ways. Randomness and ambiguity are integral in this continuing changing contingent world implying their accommodation in proceeding. As presented, the ambiguity and richness demands analysis, concentration, and comparison to other systems, our own beliefs inchoate or articulated, human experience personal and communicated, and abstraction for principles, beginning, and development.

Unique in human endeavors, philosophy interacts both with all other intellectual endeavors (defined and confined by their subject matter), our changing experience of the world and others, what is thereby disclosed, and inferences, abstractions, and ascriptions structured to help order, understand, and penetrate both nature in many forms and human achievements (not necessarily purely “positive”, including its own possibilities, all requiring means of communication.. A philosophy proffered seeks assent. Persuasion by invoking grounds of agreement, or presuppositions in common. is also accomplished by “proof” employing agreed presuppositions and procedures. Demonstration (based on common controlled observation) also accomplishes some of this same end.

Communication displays human commonality, with individual self insistence, so that a dialectic with others can ensues as a dialectic with what is accepted (with degrees of doubt) as perception, principles, and concepts develops a philosophical system., As an inquiry requiring speculation enabled by the pursuit of implication and association, its ideas are tested with contrast with others.  But, the argument that past proffered philosophical systems and movements have serious, sometimes claimed fatal flaws, does not demonstrate that philosophy must accept any conditions for prepeceptionn since well done philosophical systems can indicate where progress would lie, and defects remedied.  The richness of human experience and the ideal of understanding observable phenomena and the nature of underlying reality generates new ideas to explore and formulate. In its formulation, a system should assemble its claims of truth and acceptance in mutual dialectical support.  The great achievements in mathematics and science does not justify science as the main or only source of “truth” as human experience contains more than perceptions, abstractions, and connections because their presuppositions, methodology, and principles must be justified philosophically and present something coherent Technology is a practical use not a proof of truth. Historically, one could claim that Plato and Aristotle developed enduring terms and questions with suggestive conclusions, still with some continuing validity. The “one and many problem”, the proposition that a unity is often different in nature than all its elements aggregated, appears in all areas of thought. Both Greeks showed respect and even relied on “pre-Socratics” and “sophists” whose insights offer suggestive perspectives, positions, and philosophical possibilities., Plato with his dialogues featured some as characters, particularly the brilliant Parmenides: Aristotle reviewed them in the Metaphysics. But much was left unexamined from presuppositions to human nature, observation, perception, and formulation and does not fully explicate future progress in the arts, sciences, and psychology. Other great philosophers have attempted, with varying success, after examining these issues, to propose persuasive systems without necessarily foreclosing further philosophical exploration in our contingent world and connected philosophical propositions. We must also consider a common key to human endeavors which should further offer the exploration of philosophical possibilities explored.

One paradigm of philosophy starts with the principle of critical examination of presuppositions of any description or analysis of experience, reality reflected, and the interaction and communication about these between individuals, collectively or in dialogue and in the thinking self itself. This approach uncovers more presuppositions and suggests the importance of the contribution of experience, reality, reflection, perception, observation, understanding, and communication involving them.

This paradigm leads to the doctrine of philosophy as dialectical, speculative, and systematic. A dialectical critical examination of presuppositions in all endeavors leads both not only to new formulations but also to experiential and humanly generated contributions. That further suggests that philosophical propositions also be tested again what is considered “knowledge” in other fields of inquiry such as science and creative enterprises to require compatible speculation in order to complete what is left unanswered in this dialectical process, itself to enter into the dialectic.

Not all philosophers fully accept this paradigm. Kant went straight to the presuppositional area to justify, in epistemology, his categories (which require the schematism to relate to reality while relying on Aristotle). In the second Critique, he relied on an exposition of a “self legislating” kingdom of ends” to induce a generalized principle of universal application – the Categorical Imperative, in both cases designed to avoid the need for dialectic suggested. Hegel, almost telling a story in the Phenomenology, proceeded by a speculative “labor of the negative” to create a dialectical triadic driven system to explain and encompass knowledge, nature, civilization, mankind, and relationships. He built that system from “thisness” to encompassing known arrangements and phenomena. Descartes went to the heart of presuppositions (of the self), telling a metaphysical meditation in a story like mode, but could not extricate himself to deal with philosophical content except by invoking God. In his Ethics, he suggested a more elegant procedure, using a principle of least doubt and clarity to establish a system. The pragmatists, phenomenologists, and existentialists focus on the dialectic itself and how we are thereby involved in the world(s) beyond us. Read sympathetically, however, the noteworthy thinkers all move beyond a simple description of what we confront experientially (including our accumulated “knowledge”) to an abstract level where what is presupposed is dealt with implicitly or explicitly in a system built to encompass human endeavors as well as human experience, observations, and perceptions. Even Leibniz with his abstract account of “monads” makes reference to its connection with knowing and understanding selves.

Historically, stories have been used by many great philosophers. Plato not only had his dialogues but metaphors (although the “later” dialogues are often didactic and the Parmenides (split in half from a storied account to a series of propositions probably expressible in a symbolic logic.) Too often, Plato’s “early” dialogues, developing ideas and relationship veiled the “Socratic” developing of a thesis to a chorus of assent. Aristotle who described in many fields of human activity and interest not only used metaphors but also his abstractly inferred four causes may be read as working together to tell the story. He also created new ways of creating presuppositions with induction and abduction (an army regrouping after being routed) as well as Logic. (Note, he wrote the Rhetoric to deal with persuasion involving the structure of argument, its bases, and the nature of communication.) Descartes not only describes his meditations as told over days but presents it as a discovery, descending with doubt and expansion with God, reason, and mathematics. Kant tells the story of how the mind works in the First Critique (particularly in the crucial schematism and transcendental mediation) and in the second he narrates how obligation follow necessarily from human nature and abilities. Leibniz has his own world of monads as characters acting out a plot. Nietsche presents “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” with stories. Pragmatists view enterprises as adventures expressible as narratives without final resolutions. Many other examples can be proffered. Logicians, of course, would have none of this although their propositions and resulting structures use elements, rules like a plot, and meet certain aesthetic criteria for presentation. On the other hand, since ontology per se seems an unlikely place for stories to pop up, philosophy deals with the presuppositions involved in creating and communicating stories, and use of stories does not require that they are necessary constituents of any philosophical system or even presentation but suggests an analogy with the principles exhibited in stories and the similarity, even identity, with the principles inherent in both.


It may not appear that philosophy, as a field itself, can be reduced to a story or to requiring story elements. It does not appear either that it is simply a description or elementary explanation of what we confront or must assume to explain what we experience and suddenly or continually confront. Paul Weiss has pointed out that there are no predetermined rules on how to do philosophy in an obdurate complex (and evolving?) reality. Inquiries into presuppositions and unanswered questions and inspirations from other human endeavors open up vistas of possible explanations of various depths which remain, no matter how arts, mathematics and sciences develop. These human endeavors, we have tried to demonstrate, all have story components (and contain stories) which help us understand them.

Ideally, philosophies present a complex of concepts which explain the nature of reality in experience, and in itself, with all its constituents, the conceptual scope and principles of all human endeavors at all levels accessible to perception, creativity, conceptualization and the human interinvolvement with each other, the immediate world, an evolving environment and the universe itself. The ambitions revealed suggest that thinking in philosophy is an adventure in thought, self-education, and speculation, therefore ,never completed by one philosopher or by the state of philosophy at any time. Perhaps the philosophical enterprise presents a human dialogue with the universe which imposes on us and which we form a part, but tells us nothing definitive about its possible range of inquiry, speculation, and description.

We judge a philosophical presentation, in part, by how much it explains in and by its systematic formulation (while recognizing that some philosophical thinkers deny the possibility of such an achievement to offer alternative philosophies about understanding, perceiving, and communicating). Not only does philosophy proceed from presuppositions and implications to logical (rule instancing) dialectal and speculative formulation but also it is intended to advance our knowledge of experience. Such knowledge must include humanity and nature both. (Kant separated them but dealt with both and aesthetics – which may be urged as an operative principle in intellectual and personal pursuits). We therefore look to a philosophical formulation to explain particular observations, perceptions, entities, occurrences, and forces in illuminating new ways. A first rate teacher of philosophy applies the abstract propositions (of a philosopher) to concrete situations to illuminate both. Achieved explanations create insights reflecting a systematic presentation which may affect the assumptions and practices of those in the arts and sciences.

A particular philosophy, narrative or not, deals with “necessary” and actual presuppositions. One special next move is to check creatively (analogous to developing a story) the implications of those presuppositions against those “truths” in experience, personal, and communicated to humans, then generalised and generating, while still compatible with current received knowledge with its related perceptions and concepts accepted (to fulfill the paradigm we proffered.) In the course of this process, questions may arise about either the validity of the presuppositions, the extrapolations (reflecting and representing patterns describable as “rules” from them)), or the solidity of the received knowledge. Its abstract system with ascription and description should connect coherently with our understandings of experience and explanations offered of it in sciences and invocations and presentations in the art. Mathematics offers a particular challenge while applicable to understanding in many fields. (Music, visual arts, and sciences) It also has to speak to our daily lives, unconscious, emotions, moods, perceptions, and reflections (including dreams perhaps – which may be both vivid and not retained as experience but sometimes as a memory as if they were based on actual experience.)

Based on presuppositions, a philosopher starts with particular knowledge accepted and available for communication. The other side of the coin of critical examination of what is accepted as persuasive (or universal) is the implications to be drawn. Descartes, who wished to start with the undeniable and minimum, has to ask for God’s assistance to draw out the implications in a coherent fashion. Most important, philosophers do not start with the minimum but rather what is accepted as knowledge operating in human understanding and acting referencing science, common sense, described human interactions (when specialized, relying on expert practitioners.) What is then implied and constructed from the implications becomes an essential element in a philosophy.

Some go further to take philosophical reasoning as a paradigm or an example to be emulated. Logicians think that they can extract relevant rules to create language which defines ideas and even observations (ignoring the implication of Godel’s and Heisenberg’s proof as well as their own experiences of morality, randomness, and enjoyment of our common world. Relying on mathematics, they are generally ignored by mathematicians. Philosophical reasoning, however, is valuable in many fields from law to history to love.

This exploration has led to particular examinations of space and time for most philosophers (then to propose or suggest how their nature is implicitly expressed and explored in human endeavors). I urge that any philosophical study of time, such as that attempted by I.C. Lieb must account for different times, and, in particular, the novel’s elastic freedom with it. (My own position is that time contexts events as it creates possibilities for them; that space contexts objects as it create possibilities for those). Philosophy should, at the minimum, illuminate what we “know” and experience. Properly presented, it should persuade us of “deeper” and abstract truths than those immediately obvious from perception and various formulations of its instances. A clear form of persuasion is “proof” which is what makes logic and mathematics so attractive for some philosophers. (The experimental – observational extension into astronomy and astrophysics with assumptions about what effects imply about nature of causes and courses – with use and verification of current physic’s formulations may be most satisfying particularly leading to further work for both the experimental and theoretical physicist separately and cooperatively).

Kant, in some distinction from this account, attacks philosophical problem directly as particular issues to be resolved. Rather than dealing with the contents of our knowledge and ethics he deals with the conditions, unfortunately accepting Aristotelian categories in the first Critique to propose rules of perception rather than the roots of reality. He then argues brilliantly for the self legislating kingdom of ends in the second to create a deontological ethics seemingly without reference to human nature or purpose. By this focus on the conditions of knowledge and ethical principles. he attempts to persuade by an implicit included universality in both fields. (In his also brilliant and challenging third Critique, he employs the same methodology – the only concrete reference is to wall paper. Aristotle too eschews conventional stories and accounts (in what we have extant) to reject the previous philosophers with their stories (poetry and myths) to offer philosophical descriptions detailed although he appeared to believe it important to exposit the history of philosophy (without Plato, his mentor) up to then.. Both Aristotle and Kant, therefore, seem to choose to face and resolve the abstract problems they suggest are disclosed by past formulations and what is required as conditions for description, experience, and action to then produce expositions. Aristotle, completely contrary to Kant, offers his philosophy as descriptive of reality. Hegel, in his turn, provides an abstract methodology where component propositions have concrete actual or possible referents.

It is interesting to note that Physics, in its search for more and more precision and more and more basic elements has become more and more abstract, mathematical, and complicated – even often counter to what we daily experience. When applied in astrophysics it produces a story about the origin, changes, and even future of this universe, its time and space, mathematically described. Currently, not bothered by what preceded it, the “universe” is supposed to “begin” with a “big bang” sending gravitational waves as that universe expands. Quite a story. Quite some characters: black holes, quarks (with colors, types and sub-atomic components), dwarf stars, comets, time, space, heat, magnetism, and gravitation. etc. Quite some subplots, in quantum mechanics, with quantum objects affecting each other at large distance with no substantiative connection, jumps, waves, suupperpositions and even string theory and multiple universes.

Conceptual Constituents

We must know something to survive, let alone thrive. We do make errors. We do learn. We create. Nature and chance are well beyond our control. Yet we have many ways of understanding and internalizing aspects we know well enough and matters we know somewhat. Our experience is also of depth, richness, ambiguity, and ambivalence towards that which we experience (but we may enjoy, reject, incorporate emotionally/conceptually, changing and/or fulfilling ourselves some times.) We operate with habits and predilections, reveal an unconscious, participate in a society with institutions, function in an environment, deal with each other in a moral and emotional world, and are able to be individually, constructive (and destructive), creative, think, act, and love. Philosophy examines presuppositions as employed with their implications in our struggles for more knowledge, probing into what is accepted as true in order to try to understand better what we do know somewhat, develop uniquely human creativity (with sensitivity), Ethics (in action as morality), while expanding knowledge and personal fulfillment. Philosophy probes how all our knowledge relates and relates both to our experience and the world beyond. There are many ways and means for the enterprise of doing philosophy. Philosophy requires creativity since it is not comprised of direct observation with set rules following linear extrapolation but rather establishes the conditions (including forces, space and time) for perception, examines nature, and deals with the related matters of ethics, morality, and creativity itself. The purpose and meaning of life are not tangible even if its pleasures, pains and some rewards may be. The world we experience is susceptible to understanding and necessary for creativity.

Philosophy examines the presuppositions of all human enterprises as it accounts for function and form. A proper methodology, analogous the what is used in other endeavors developed from presuppositions, demands critical attention both to other human achievements including other philosophies and also its generation from its own starting points and propositions., At the same time, philosophy needs to accept what can not be denied in experience while recognizing the tools of doubt and challenges of ambiguity and randomness (recognizable in contrast to normal consistent patterns.). We affirm immediacy in our experience, with a range of its recognition, ranging from enjoyment or even to horror. We do assert out identities, we must handle (and accommodate) physical objects and forces, move in space and time; we must reckon with our emotions, we must accept the assertion of others’ identities who possesses these same characteristics and potentialities. Our curiosity implicitly drives not only observation, reflection, and formulation (all possibly influenced, to some degree by culture and civilization(s), but also our efforts in all human enterprises. Paul Weiss said all men have philosophies in Reality. Perhaps it might be better to say that all men think and act based on presuppositions which are philosophical, are coherent and consistent in varying degrees, communicate and act based on a coherent, if not necessarily consistent, world view and set of values. A philosopher should be more systematic and open to criticism and dialectic.

Philosophy gains substance from what is revealed by human enterprises. A number of great philosophers have also been mathematicians: Descartes, Leibniz, Whitehead, Pascal. What was gained in the mastery of the discipline allowed construction and speculation in philosophy. The Greek playwrights and Dostoyevsky raised ethical questions that a philosophy must be able to answer. Coleridge used his poetic insights in philosophy. Any philosopher is helped by mastering the principles of one of the great human enterprises.

Human enterprises utilize information from each other. Emotion clearly molds arts. ethics, and even enters into science. We further suggest that there are even aesthetic principles at work not only in the art but in science and mathematics. We affirm that abstractions and derivative concepts and emotions can take on a life of their own forming entities, institutions, cultures, laws, and language.

These characteristics establish that there is such a dialectic between human enterprises, the external world (both replete with stories and story considerations) and philosophical systems. The world as we experience it is both ambiguous and multiply layered, if irrefutably there (and often frustrating); the world as we live it is often a source of ambivalence for us. As human enterprises progress coherently they produce knowledge possible valuable for the philosopher. can work. Any history of science reveals how what is “known” may turn out to be either “presupposed” – dependent or derivative upon such – or subsumed in a later broader theory so that we approach the “real nature” rather than reach it completely in description and evocation – in spite of any claims that we are just at the point where we will soon find the final “scientific” explanation,  Intellectual pursuit and pleasure take place over time and in personal immediacy.

A dialectic commences when the presuppositions are contrasted and found not totally harmonious or totally justified by observation, abstraction, extrapolation, other accepted knowledge or even experience.  What is “known” in another field may be helpful in an enterprise and supply a new presuppositional basis. These bases also open up philosophical vistas. Curiosity thrives from reflection on experience, from mastering a discipline including those which predict what will be observable in some mode (chemistry, physics) what can be correlated (neurology, biology) to exploration of apparent consequences and analogies, systems comprehensive and partial. Probings arise necessarily in the course of an attempted comprehensive philosophical description of beliefs, humanity, and nature (including the universe(s)), purported persuasive presentation, real reflection, and actual human experience. Mathematics freed from empirical constraints follows a logical coherence of its own requiring creativity, supplying systems, and correlating with science sometimes and then “useful” in addition to the creation of new abstract fields and thoughts.

“What is the stars?” asks the Captain in Juno and the Paycock. What indeed are time and space? Are there such things as truth, beauty, justice, proof, love, evil, good, obligation? Is there a case to be made for “God(s)” ? Is there a domain comprised of humanity and reality? What is perception? Observation? What is there in perception beyond immediate use of the senses? What are the domains of science and art? What is the meaning of life? All ask but may never be completely satisfied…but may be inspired to think philosophically seeking answers or a ray of enlightenment.

There are those that think our sense of justice is immediate. We humans “know” that we should stop someone from hitting a baby over the head with a hammer. Common law arose (with its handmaiden “equity”) from an accumulation of dispute resolutions theoretically based on common practical and psychological knowledge reflecting basic and societal values and practices and justice (fairness at least) in decisions. Other systems seem to codify common political, policy, and societal values. The analogy to “truth” would suggest that “justice” as an ideal can be glimpsed from these systems. On the other hand, the first section of Plato’s Republic features a lively debate on the nature of justice, albeit with storied examples. One could, it can be argued, arrive at a concept of justice from an analysis of human nature and/or the function of society. (Communism, capitalism, and other utopian visions seem to do this.)

We therefore can distinguish “truth” and “justice” as concepts related to human activities from “space” and “time” as not so related but subject to human thought. (“Good” “Evil” “Beauty” can also be so treated with denying that they are absolutes.) Both categories pose philosophical questions, if differently, than the human endeavors we have explored with the claim the story provides a necessary key.

There seems to be a pull upon the reflective acting person of the ideals of beauty, truth, love, justice, and self-fulfillment. We feel a lack in their absence. Most philosophers take this pull to infer to ideals as having an ontological status with concrete consequences for how else could we explain life without these ideals having an effect? This offers a particular philosophical challenge to complement questions life and we ask ourselves.

Second rate thinkers claim answers then specialize in their defense. Great philosophers always raise questions which they creatively try to satisfy. Descartes demonstrated, by rigorous doubting, that philosophy could start with “nothing”. Great philosophers have generally presented their systems as answering everything challenging, offering objections to others’ positions while indicating basic questions.. In Adjuncts and Other Gatherings, Paul Weiss argues that philosophical systems will always be somewhat incomplete although he offered his own complete system in Being and Other Realities.

Is it possible develop from Cartesian nothing to philosophical perspectives that are persuasive and useful? We must first recognise that the world itself and understanding developed often produces ambiguity. Zeno’s paradoxes prove the calculus that physics uses is not precise. (I suspect that astrophysicists will continue to come up with new stories about the history and future of our universe). This is further supported by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and suggested by Godel’s proof of mathematical incompleteness.

The second step is to realise that we do know things if not always completely. We are frustrated and exhilarated, etc. by objects and events in the world beyond us. They become part of our experience, emotions and memory, pleasurable or miserable. We learn about and from them. Enterprises develop to explain or utilise them; institutions both reflect and create them. We share them with others.

We would be foolish to deny emotions and even the fact that they are affected by unconscious and our body – which seems separate as well as joined by the self. No one walks into a chair deliberately when they are trying to get somewhere while it is in the way (except in self destruction so prominent is so much fiction). There are proofs that work in mathematics. Predictions, based on theories and suggested by hypotheses, often produce accurate predictions. Practically all of us have empathy and sympathy for others and love for our children, families and many others. Moments, art, and sights are remembered in their beauty. Our enjoyment arises from some of what we experience and do.

Mathematics is a rock where the ship of pragmatism founders. It appears impossible to avoid its certainty and universality in elementary arithmetic and geometry. 2+2=4 (no matter how much the Underground Man rages). Pi is a constant and a transcendtal number whose arithmetical equivalent is infinite. Richard Bernstein pointed out to me that Plato could accommodate alternate geometries on the third level of the divided line with the absolute geometry on the fourth level. Mathematics, as we have indicated, creates useful propositions for physics and practical application (e.g. electricity). Paul Weiss has presented, in my opinion, a compelling account of mathematics in Creative Ventures. Accepting it, with these other propositions, may leaves the question of whether “higher” mathematics is different from the mathematics that seems so evidently to work in the world we experience directly or indirectly through experimentation, observation, or extrapolation.

Everyone makes errors. We can recognize therefore that something is “false”: and something thereby is inferentially “true”. But if we included every instance of truth, is there something in common we can abstract? Is there some procedure we can employ in all our reflections, experiences, and actions? Assuming arguendo we could get a clear picture of such an abstraction, would it necessarily demonstrate that there is a “truth” underlying all truths? Would truth have a pull that love has for individuals or justice should have for a society (or a dispute resolution)?

There appears to a continuum of “truth”. We can persuade people of an error to any satisfactory degree by rhetorical/dialectical devices as Aristotle and Plato employed. We can persuade people by plausibility and analogy as many scientists (and Freudians) try to do. We can work within narrow frameworks where “proofs” are possible and persuade by them. (Mathematics presents the purest form of this method. Descartes embraced it as fundamental truth). We can argue for a position by a preponderance of the evidence accepted by parties to the discussion (or equally acceptable analogies.) We can run experiments which, properly controlled, demonstrate that under certain conditions certain results should happen arguing that a general proposition has been verified. We accept as provisory or the best account currently available in a range of propositions from astrophysics to history to social science.  The philosophical question remains whether “truths” partake of an ideal “truth” or we arrive at a concept of “truth” by abstraction and extrapolation or some other means.

Some transcendent absolutes, with which philosophy must deal directly, are not perceived immediately the way an entity or a physical force is (although we experience “aging”) nor do they seem abstractable or extrapolatable from what is as we do with the daily entities and forces that impinge on us. When we jump or fly, even fall, does that give us enough sense of space? When we gaze at stars we think of them at distances like objects we can reach only to discover in our scientific understanding that the nature of this distance is complicated, indeed, it is currently accepted to part of a space time continuum in which our perceptions of space and its occupants are governed by time (light years) raising philosophical difficulties that Paul Weiss has indicated in considering time. Can there be objects without space or space without objects? Regardless of relativity, can we experience time without events, or events without time? With quantum theory we seem to be able to have an entity at two places at the same time; make movements without traversing space, face deep mysteries in sub atomic theories such as Quantum Mechanics, etc.

As human beings. we not only claim our humanity be respected by others. we seek to grow and fulfill ourselves as our own story, giving meaning to our engagement with ourselves, others (individually, societally, and mankind) in a multi-leveled reality. The absolutes such as truth and beauty function in human enterprises, in part, as means of judgement and understanding of what has been created in and by those human endeavors. Some societal institutions take on a life of their own. The law furnishes one example, morality another. (The plurality of personal Gods claimed seems rootless (in spite of the frequent historical claims as a basis, privileged highly above all other contemporaneous and later stories) and, in total, contradictory, but clearly theologies exist as doctrinal systems as well as societal institutions.).

We do live in a world we try to understand. We do try to understand our perceptions and clarify our ideas.. Observation goes beyond perception, which is experienced as immediate, by using it in a manner controlled by individuals (in some disciplines in cooperation with others). Science operates with its presuppositions more or less explicit and generally a language (usually including mathematics). The arts presuppose both perception and observation to explore, each in different ways, the possible patterns of perception, then observation and reflection, with emotional impact on the audience, dependent on the justifiable expectation of common nature of mankind and conventions, traditions, and patterns of values, some of which may be somewhat different in different societies, requiring creative use of materials. Perceptions continue often beyond our control. Reflection can make identify specific observations in them which may affect future perceptions Habits and institutions, human in origin, function as quasi-physical factors and forces. We fulfill ourselves, enjoy ourselves in many ways with many pursuits so that philosophy, affirming that, philosophy is always actively engaged for all of us.


In our daily lives, we often are disappointed by others’ rigidity of positions, politically and socially particularly, their inability to take good advice, or learn by experience. Such impressions imply the lack of dialectical interest or ability. Dialectical progress, on the other hand, is essential to philosophical inquiry, development, and communication. Whatever starting points are accepted, with degrees of clarity and assertion, evolving connected concepts have to take into account and reflect implications, compatibility with experience, learning from other fields, coherence and plausibility of methodology, and ingredient past philosophical conclusions in a ladder up to a perspective and principles presentable to an audience willing to engage in this adventure of ideas. The principles are also testable by predictions and description of what occurs in other domains of human experience and creativity. The development of a system is dialectical; the audience engaging in a dialectic with that developed and developing philosophical system.

The history of philosophy demonstrates that there is no one method of discovery, persuasion, or presentation. The eternal questions continue to challenge. They are also present in the stories that comprise our experiences as individuals who interact, create, and navigate. Literature can raise philosophical questions (e.g Dostoyevsky and evil). but not answer them. The meaning of life, the nature of space and time, the foundations of morality, mathematics, art, thoughts and feelings raise questions that insist upon us even as we deal with daily life and others. The answers we arrive at, and/or accept, affect our conduct, perspective, and nature. A full philosophy therefore, tries to resolve and answer these questions while recognising intrinsic ambiguity in reality and understanding with associated real randomness. This ambiguity rests in part on the multi-layered nature of reality as we experience and understand it. Reciprocally, a dialectically created system must deal with the many depths presented in experience and the entities which contribute to it. Humans are complex, arousing and containing ambivalency (not necessarily constantly.) with an apparently unique ability to abstract and develop intellectual propositions (and artistic and fictional creations.)

We are all subject to moods and emotions. Moods do not appear to have specific content although they can have dramatic effect ranging from paralyzing depression to self-destructive mania, irritability to joyousness, etc. Although they do not alter the individual’s core nature, they lead to its expression in a particular way, coloring how the person feels about his perceptions, observations, projections, reflections, careers, possibility in thought and action including analyses. They often determine how he acts or reacts. Detached from anything but a traumatic event or the body as a stimulus, mood does not seem to have the ontological status that requires philosophical analysis besides the acceptance noted and accommodated.

Emotions, on the other hand, whose origin seem multiple have specific cognitive content. An emotion itself can not be so characterised. We may feel love, lust, joy, boredom, greed, anger, and irritation, but they are also, almost always, connected to something (greed is somewhat attenuated from objects, even as objects as symbols of wealth are valued, while boredom generally involves a situation. There are various formulations of the “Seven Deadly Sins”; anger – including revenge – revulsion, power lust, etc. are encountered daily, historically, and in fiction). Yet, an emotion can be the object of reason, susceptible to proper persuasion (sometimes just “rhetorical” which does not preclude cognitive content or presentation of insight.). The practice of psychiatry, for example, deals with emotions by employing stimuli to memory and unconscious so that reasonable (and even) reasoned thought can be applied to the emotion(s) presented memories and feelings with consequences, establishing coherent connections and patterns.

One can control or restrain the expression of the emotion and actions based upon it We can recognise some emotions as bad or bad in a particular context with particular consequences Many stories are told about emotions gone amuck. In many ways, we can argue that ethics, societal structure, and law are ideally established and justified to control expression of emotions in actions because of perceived bad (or socially “improper”) consequences (including for our selves). We can reason about our emotions in these areas and interpersonally by dealing with the cognitive content critically. (Love expressed lyrically in poetry and song may describe characteristics and reasons both – “let me count the ways.”). Dreams, which include emotions directly and metaphorically, present philosophical nuances as they both reflect and contrast with reality as we encounter and engage with it in many complex ways.

Our experiences therefore involve our selve’s evolving personal world, an insistent resistant dynamic reality beyond including other selves, with an interplay between all. Our lives may unfold like stories but our own pursuits require involvement with cultures, institutions and disciplines with their own interior rationale as well as accommodation of physical reality and biological necessity.

Evil, a deep ethical and philosophical problem, crucial in many fictional stories, stalks the living. Dostoyevsky, again a great moral (and theological?) philosopher who never wrote philosophy per se raises the issue directly. In The Grand Inquisitor the only answer he posits, while subtly suggesting its erroneous nature, is that mankind needs “miracle, mystery, and authority” or they will fall into a worse condition than if they follow Christ’s teachings of pure beneficence and good. To follow the news of the day is to see evil (and, of course, tragedy, incompetence, and stupidity) seriously at work. Everyone who has worked with or for the powerless has seen countless instances where bureaucrats or the police have inflicted gratuitous evil which does them personally no good at all (unless one posits pleasure in other’s pain or a feeling of elevation in the excercise of power. The direct experience, in my life, is that those explanations do not seem sufficient, so that I, at least, am left with a personal mystery). Most of us, particularly when not yet fully mature, have fulfilled the impulse, to do something “bad” just because it was “bad” – perhaps abstractly justified as rebelling against societal norms and restrictions, in general. Evil is certainly more than the absence or even opposite of good. There are innumerable instances evidencing its apparent attraction at least remotely analogous to that of “justice” or “good”. Evil both as manifested and an apparent force affects an enormous variety of human behavior (matched occasionally by diseases and“natural” disasters with global warming combining both human actions and nature’s dramatic and gradual changes) whereas other such abstractable apparent absolutes imply other lesser “virtues” such as inferring the value of trust and communication from honesty, kindness and generosity from the Good. All these concepts must be explored as a part of a systematic whole reached by sustained self-critical analysis, dialectic and argument in a complete philosophical system while often exhibited and examined in fiction with focus on character, predilections, thoughts, emotions, and associated actions .

But this only scratches the surface. The vast majority of mankind lives in deplorable situations, starving, lacking shelter, health care, proper clothing, protection from harm, sustenance, means of transportation, cultural enjoyment, energy in leisure to create or associate or appreciate or enjoy, speculate, or reflect. People do cruel things to them. Politicians take away the small benefits they need. (The penal/incarceration system feeds on them to inflict cruel punishment, often unusual but not so recognized politically or judicially – but making some money and/or political rhetoric -e.g. “closure”, “law and order”. “criminal elements”.) Evil, in terms of suffering and deprivation, seems more universal and constant in most people’s lives than what most mature reflective intellectuals celebrate. The cluster of real life stories manifesting and even exemplifying evil requires philosophical resolution beyond contrasting choices between human affirmation and diminution.

Prejudice is found everywhere. Some particular difference be it color, culture, religion, belief system, gender, sexual orientation, race (under some definition) etc. is considered to taint individuals even to the point of considering them non-human (or at best lesser sub-humans) with no right to equality or to claim on others for reciprocal respect and treatment. The past century was distinguished by the Holocaust, among other genocides of Armenians, Gypsies, etc. and I live in a country where its natives were mainly exterminated for the settlers, who ironically themselves usually had faced prejudice, want, and deprivation motivating them to come here. In my life time, internment of the Japanese in concentration camps, the “red scare” and Jim Crow – the model for South African apartheid – were prominent.

In particular: Wars are crimes. Millions die and are maimed. All the sides claim deities are with them and assign evil to the other side. Works of precious value are destroyed. Hatred is created that lasts through generations, decades, centuries, millennia to generate more wars, deaths, maiming, oppression, and degradation of the “other”.

Evil, in all its manifestations, is inescapable. Stories tell of it over and over again. Our lives confront it. It is as certain as our own death. It poses a problem for philosophy which appears no philosophy proffered yet has resolved. An ethics can help good people come to the right and moral position and by repetition and reflection become better individuals but it does not eradicate evil. The law can restrain and isolate some evil doers but it does not and can not eliminate them or the creation of new ones. What does this tell us of mankind? What philosophy can answer the questions that Dostoyevsky asks in The Brothers Karamazov to his brother before he recites his prose poem? (Or the complaints of the “Underground Man.”?) No philosophy which does not include an account of evil could be complete. A fully complete philosophy, I suggest, would account for its presence and nature to offer remedies inspiring hope. At some point, it has to enter into the dialectic involved in the philosophical construction for ethics (not be avoided s the Stoics and Buddhists would have – denying our human connection to other humans who suffer.)

In De Anima Aristotle faced the difficult epistemological question of how we know all our different senses relate to the same object, positing a common sense. (The mind’s participation in perception is illustrated by being able to see something by learning what it is; anticipating the next note in a melody, feeling something hot which is cold when we see something hot, recognizing colors, and fading odors, etc,). Our experience is that there are many aspects and levels to our objects of observed, as perceived, even before being raised to systemized formal consideration..

These aspects are not purely perceptually epistemological when we abstract from what we isolate from our field of perception. The Greeks discovered pi. Electricians use “I” (“j”). Physicists, chemists, and breeders have been able to make accurate predictions demonstrating that the systems generated as hypotheses or theories from the abstractions (sometimes inductions or ascriptions) have not only cognitive content but tell us something about the complexity and depths of the objects, forces, and dimensions we confront as we advance in knowledge about them in the space and time they inhabit with us. Meanwhile our experience also contains decisions of moral impact and aesthetic dimension. We also resonate to natural and created beauty.

Life itself poses questions. Suppose, arguendo that combining some chemicals (amino acids) created some thing that would grow and decay, create other objects like itself by some process, and these would even develop into more complex nature and groups. The question would still be there as to how and why it happened, and developed so much, on this world. Living matter and associated actions are part of the nature which we confront and utilize, but are frustrated to understand fully, also dependent on context.

There are many levels to what is confronted as objects and the world in which they are contained just as reached by human senses (some of which a much more highly developed in animals reaching dimensions and aspects we can not access directly no more than we can directly observe number), by the senses together, by abstraction, by systems derived with abstraction and dialectic, information obtained by inquiry, observation, experimentation (including manipulation of accepted data) and inference from what we think we know at any time – all in complex patterned interaction. Philosophy therefore, must deal with the presuppositions, processes, and consequences of the abstractions, systems, combinations of concepts achieved, methodological means of inquiry with presentations resulting and inferences drawn in all areas of experience, principles and patterns produced, thereby inexorably lead face the challenges in our lives to inquire into what are space and time, perception, morality, beauty -other immortal questions posed not yet answered to general philosophical satisfaction. Yet the best tentative conclusions define in large part who we are, what we do, what we understand, enjoy, appreciate, reject or avoid. Abstract entities considered reveal forces (including randomness) and facets which, in turn, imply human creativity and dialectic in our received, explored and confronted content and context as part of our nature, development, and understanding.

We reflect ambiguity by ambivalency as not only a possible direct response to partial or complete clashes in contemplation but also as a result of dissonance between memories, morals, habits, values, emotions, unconscious, moods, and conscious considerations. Ambivalency need not rest on ambiguity but may stem from personal lack of complete integration of factors; but confronted with ambiguity, ambivalency seems a natural human outcome matching lack of clarity in observation and reflection with conflicting senses of personal meaning, value, and judgement. Philosophies must include this challenging variable in human experience in at least epistemology and Ethics..

Just as it is impossible for us to avoid the plurality of levels in the experienced world, it is impossible to avoid the human world in which we live too. We must make moral choices. We experience emotions. We seek pleasure, beauty, and self-fulfillment. Our loved ones are important to us and even provides constituents of our nature. (Here fiction thrives.) This human domain also includes, history, psychiatry, creative arts, archeology, paleontology, institutions, and languages. (In the academic world, primarily, “social science” are pursued). These, as we have noted, develop a life and insistence on their own with levels of meanings that can lead to different and sometimes incompatible interpretations.

If, for example, we take three abstract concepts that are involved in our experience and judgements, they range in human involvement. Justice, even if it transcends the law and culture, is based on norms related to them and deals strictly with human beings. (We can say, of course, that one rooster deserved to beat another but that is anthropomorphic. If we say that world is “unjust” we refer to its effect on human beings. Beauty exists whether there is anyone there to appreciate it. The cliche is wrong. It is not in the eye of the beholder. (Weyl tried brilliantly if unsuccessfully to use mathematics to describe it in his book on Symmetry, the Greeks had a “Golden Mean”, etc.) It is possible to appreciate the beauty of something without enjoying it (Some of Bach is that way for me.) Clearly it depends on the senses and configurations both. Beauty involves both the real world and people. Things are true regardless of what people say or do. Pragmatists may argue we never arrive at the “truth” but in allowing us to distinguish between what is more or less true they acknowledge an implicit standard which they think we can never know. The obdurate real world exists regards of what humans do, for it acts, insists upon itself, requires us to accept it, and imposes hard “facts’ or “truths” upon us. (It is interesting that, in physics, the “verifications” of its claims require more and more complicated extensive and expensive experiments indicating how complex and difficult is progress to their “universe(s) and components” – if ever discoverable – with (abstract) developments concerning magnetism, gravity, heat, interactions in space and time, and the extent of “dark matter” now held to differ greatly between galaxies, cf. “black holes; sub atomic waves and particles produced (maybe generated) by atom smashers as well as by theory). Epistemology must form part of philosophy, but clearly does not exhaust it (even with the history of epistemologists struggling to get our of their minds.) nor is the field basically advanced by current scientific claims accepted.

These absolutes, justice, truth, good, beauty (and where do we put evil?) are rightfully the realm of philosophy as much as space and time. There are those that think our sense of justice is immediate. We humans “know” that we should rescue someone in distress. Common law arose (with its handmaiden “equity”) from an accumulation of dispute resolutions theoretically based on common practical and psychological knowledge reflecting basic and societal values and practices and justice (fairness at least) in decisions. Other systems seem to codify common political, policy, and societal values. The analogy to “truth” would suggest that “justice” as an ideal can be glimpsed from these systems. The first section of Plato’s Republic features a lively debate on the nature of justice. One could, it can be argued, arrive at a concept of justice from an analysis of human nature and/or the function of society. Communism, capitalism, and other utopian visions seem to do this.

We therefore can distinguish “truth” and “justice” as concepts related to human activities from “space” and “time” as not so related but subject to human thought. (“Good” “Evil” “Beauty” can also be so treated without denying that they are absolutes.) Both categories pose philosophical questions, if differently, than the human endeavors we have explored with the claim the story provides a necessary key. There are those that think our sense of justice is immediate. We humans “know” (again) that we should rescue someone in distress. Common law arose (with its handmaiden “equity”) from an accumulation of dispute resolutions theoretically based on common practical and psychological knowledge reflecting basic and societal values and practices and justice (fairness at least) in decisions. Other systems seem to codify common political, policy, and societal values. The analogy to “truth” would suggest that “justice” as an ideal can be glimpsed from these systems. One could, it can be argued, arrive at a concept of justice from an analysis of human nature and/or the function of society. (Communism, capitalism, and other utopian visions seem to do this.)

We therefore can distinguish “truth” and “justice” as concepts related to human activities from “space” and “time” as not so related but subject to human thought. (“Good” “Evil” “Beauty” can also be so treated without denying that they are absolutes.) Both categories pose related if different philosophical questions. There are those that think our sense of justice is immediate. The analogy to “truth” would suggest that “justice” as an ideal can be glimpsed from complete philosophical systems.

There are two ways, at least, to consider the philosophical domain. The first is a continuum. We can start with matters that are purely human such as ethics, society, and law, pursue suggestive implications from them and then add perceptual input to create grounds for theories (cf. Naturalists to biologists) to be developed in particular in conjunction with philosophically revealed presumptions, methodologies, and comprehensive perspectives with a philosophical system then produced in conjunction with other human endeavors.. Then, second, there is creativity developed dialectically from all experience and reflection into activities and production that then be argued to be reflective of the “real” world beyond – the Paul Weiss thesis in his books on Art and Creativity. Some may further argue for ontological consequences for creativity (and “beauty”) adding to the universe and its patterns. We suggest that human ideals develop out of the nature of humanity, its affirmation and communication, human potentiality and natural possibility. There are the human enterprises that claim (if we accept their presuppositions) that they describe what the real world “is”. These are the sciences, particularly physics, chemistry, and biology. Mathematics generally plays a crucial role here. None answers all questions, let alone deal with individual experiences. Finally there is time and space which astrophysics claims to describe but its progress resembles the myth of Sisyphus – while we have indicated why there will always be essential uncertainty since randomness and contingency are undeniable. Some deny that there is a continuum and so divide philosophy into two separable domains: humanity and nature, But, there are human enterprises of many sorts, morality, and ethics and then there is the inquiry into “real” world of objects and forces in space and time – both requiring epistemology mated with ontology.

Epistemology is inextricable with ontology not just in exploring the conditions for and nature of the “physical” world. For without perceiving and knowing we could not discuss (or deal with conditions of perception or reason) while, without specific nature involved, we would have contentless groundless concepts. We are necessarily led to consider being, essence, reality as implied and ingredient in the content, structure, and patterns of our experienced and understood perceptions and disciplines. Then to be directly confronted is “being” itself! Paul Weiss in Being and Other Realities starts from everyday experience to move dialectically to Being as generating its conditions and then back to everyday experience. This ontological journey. In his Adjuncts and Other Gatherings he suggests that there are ontological possibilities now open for exploration as metaphysical dialectical speculation produces them with many paths to follow and no final solutions available.

It also can not be denied that each philosopher has a distinctive style of presentation and reasoning. Moreover, philosophy itself has a level of abstraction yet relatedness that distinguishes its discourse from others in a recognizable style. Even those who claim to “overthrow metaphysics”, such as Freddy Adair, do so in a “philosophical” way. Nietsche speaks both in a literary and philosophical manner most notably in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Further, philosophy in attending to space and time, truth, beauty, and being as well as ontological concerns, must keep this inseparable combination of ontology/epistemology functioning. What it must accomplish is both the revelation and justification of presuppositions, implications leading to the exposition of the nature of things, including those which have no direct human input. These all must be part of a coherent system.

Story’s Role

Can Story, encompassing all told tales, extended to human enterprises by analogy and principle manifestation, help us unite these projects – presuppositions and implications studied and universe explained? Can it suggest bridges and tests? Can it help offer a unified view? If it offers a key in human enterprises, can it offer a key to a philosophy which must encompass that which has no human aspect at all?

Were there no space, there would be no objects for there would be no place for them to be. Were there no objects, we would not know, and there might not even be. space, for there would be no evidence of its existence. A fundamental story principle is that although we can analyse and separate plot, character, and style they are different and less than the unified story itself. The same key applies here. Space is essential for the existence of objects and objects essential for the existence of space. (Characters and plots create and operate in a space for their interactive particular distinctive presentation.) Neither space or objects can exist without the existence of the other, so displayed clearly in stories. This proposition does not exhaust the explorative possibilities but offers a beginning.

Similarly, time and events. If nothing occurred there could be neither an observer (who, by nature. would have to persist yet change) nor time. If, on the other hand, there were not the pressure and presence of time, events would not proceed sequentially and irreversibly, expressing cause and effect. Time and events are inextricably interwoven. Plots in a story show us time at work, manifested and created. Just as stories illustrate that certain unities are different in nature than the sum of their parts, time like space is constituted by the inextricability of its distinctive features. Events, forces and objects could not exist were there not time and space.

Space requires time for its objects to act and interconnect with each other and space itself. Time requires space for its changes to occur.

Calculus itself can not overcome Zeno’s paradoxes. Accepting the Dedekind cut (and Dedkind numbers) so that there are an infinite number of points in a line, it assumes that getting as close to a point as we want is the same as getting there – the doctrine of neighborhood. (It tries to avoid the paradox of the theory by ignoring the world in actual motion – leaving time out of the equation. These paradoxes indicate how space and time are inextricably intertwined – the fourth indicates how spatial arrangements can prove that half the time is twice the time.) Current mathematics has Godel for “incompleteness ” in number systems (which may be used to express time). Physics has Heisenberg for “uncertainty” in space with moving objects. Current physics has indefinitess built in its waves. which suggests essential randomness and contingency – quantum mechanics operates counter-intuitively(not like our daily world) with states, leaps, and multiple locations.

This interdependence space time of requires randomness and contingency since there appears no clear determinative unifying force in control. (Pace relativity theory – Heisenberg answers for us too) Descartes was able to identify time with space with his graphs and co-ordinates for the purpose of mathematics (and therefore to allow for calculus). But this space and time are an abstract space and time and not the one that is experienced and that we live in. It allows for understanding and prediction but it does not exhaust the nature of time and space we experience and where we speculate, create, and experiment not in themselves inextricably intertwined.

Note: Zeno’s paradoxes are not true “logical” paradoxes but rather stories juxtaposing where a theory contradicts what we experience. Zeno’s first three stories pose profound problems for those who would deal with space and time as separate.. (His fourth paradox is not a story but a mathematical conundrum).

Story and stories, therefore, seem to offer clues to the study of space and time. As such they offer a bridge to human endeavors where story is at least a key to understanding. Although it too may be a component which only has meaning in a whole, it is an essential component in human endeavors. Although it is a human creation, because it is a human creation, if offers a bridge and an opening into the scientific domains of philosophical inquiry – space, time, reality, ontological elements, and being. Its coherent patterns in stories guide us to philosophical principles, offering implicit standards Its plot developments resemble scientific extension. Its tone lies in the aesthetics implicit in exposition. The characters are what are considered constituents developing. Mathematics, creatively pursued, creates fields for developing certain connections and consequences for its elements. We experience artistic creations personally with effects resembling immersion in literature with the human elements (no matter how abstractly) presented invoking stories. (Social sciences offer narratives about human behavior in group form – causing conceptual problems.) The history of philosophy is an unfolding story. Cause and effect, not necessary predictable or probable, offer excitement in stories and are essential in all narrative accounts. This condensed presentation suggest that Story be considered in philosophy as manifesting similar principles and offering helpful analogies..


But what of being, essence, reality (might one want to add the question of soul and self somewhere – where story would help? (Or can we say that is what all stories are about?)? Let us suggest that we seek to be persuasive and use a dialectical methodology in ontology which tests concepts against givens to proceed. Harking back somewhat to Platonic dialogues, particularly those classified as later, there is a suggestion of Story coherence here.

Let us note in passing that we have expanded our ways of telling stories Movies, a recent form, also gives us documentaries which use all the skills in that craft to tell histories History now includes new perspectives dealing with common (and inarticulate and/or illiterate) people and other data including oral accounts Astrophysics has grown increasingly sophisticated in dealing with the origins of its description of the possible beginning of the mathematically understood universe. Palenotology, archeology, geology, biology, etc. use important new technical tools to add cognitive content. The novel, the paradigm of Story, is a recent phenomena, if with historical antecedents. (I do not include computer technology, including “artificial intelligence” because of innate limitations and its essence reducing to speed in calculation and presentation.)

Everything experienced including what is arrived at by imagination (even some errors)is subject to philosophical curiosity and deserves a philosophical explanation. All our lives offer stories, some of which we tell ourselves and others truthfully, distorted, and sometimes dishonestly. Ideally we develop wisdom and self-fulfillment, and, if able, contribute creatively. What philosophy has opened up as to function, nature, and presuppositions in a universe, to be experienced in many ways, can be studied as the story of ideas – sometimes old ideas with meanings and applications while new profundities display knowledge in progress. Not knowing the whole truth, we can experience our own story in the world in which it is found and our experience(s). Not controlling the universe or other people, we can understand something of both by using story as a philosophical key. We educate ourselves, we make ourselves, and we are ready for more stories, true and false, human and natural, as we wonder about what it all is and what it all means. This wonder leads us with one more challenge: Who am I?

A key to the answer is that we are all potential philosophers living, thinking, and telling stories. We seek the best answers and lives – in varying degrees. We hope to transcend our thoughts by sustaining ourselves with human communication (with love as the apogee), creativity, and increased understanding from the stories, life, and human endeavors contribute as best we can understand them. We seek to enrichen our selves in the world we experience. This inquiry should suggest some answers to questions considered while raising some questions, which pursued for answers, enrichen our experience to enjoyment. With or without philosophy using the key of Story principles, is starts with nothing to develop into a comprehensive system. This achievements invited critical participation and communication continually. We live not only our inculcated perspectives, emotions, and thoughts but also, developing as best we try, we live a philosophical life.

Paul Weiss  May 19, 1901 – July 5, 2002) was an American philosopher. He was the founder of The Review of Metaphysics and the Metaphysical Society of America.

Paul Weiss, 101, Philosopher And Challenger of Age Bias
By Ari L. Goldman 2002


Bibliography of Jonathan A. Weiss. Esq.


“I believed that bringing lawyers to a new class of clients, appealing when necessary to establish good precedents, bringing some affirmative class actions, working with and in a community, would be both an extension of the civil rights movement and fulfill the ideal of oppressed poor people represented in civil court- as well as then mandated in Criminal Court – would produce real social progress in conjunction with the War and Poverty.”



L1 1963 – Book Review: Constitutional Law, 72 Yale 1965

L2 1964 – Privilege, Posture, and Protection: Religion in the Law, 73 Yale 593

L3 1965 – An Analysis of Wesberry v. Sanders, 38 So. Cal. 67

L4The Conscientious Objection Exemption: Problems in Conceptual Clarity and Constitutional Considerations, 17 Maine 143 (with Christopher Clancy)

L5 1966 – Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights by the Senate, 2097, p. 536

L6The Lay Advocate, 43 Univ. of Det. 493 (with Ed Sparer and Howard Thorkelson)

L7 1967 – Book Review: Contracts, 35 Geo. Wash. U. 627

L8 What Can Be Done: A Neighborhood Lawyers Credo, 37 Boston 231 (with Arthur Matthews)

L9 1968 – National Consumer Protection Hearings, Federal Trade Commission, p. 308

L10Neighborhood Lawyer: An American Experiment, New York Law Journal (London), p. 667, July 11, 1968 (with Lee Albert)

L11Pot, Prayer, Politics & Privacy: The Right to Cut Your Own Throat In Your Own Way,  54 Iowa Law Review 709 (with Steve Wizner)

L12 1969 – Book Review; The Trouble With Lawyers, Pittsburgh Legal Journal, May, 1969, p. 42

L13 – Book Review: Controlling Delinquents, 1969 U. of Wisc. L. Rev. 1240

L14 1970 – How to Defend a Juvenile Case in Criminal Defense Techniques, (ed. Cipes) Matthew Bender

L15 – Book Review: Justice and the Law in the Mobilization for Youth Experience, Poverty Law, 1 Yale L. Rev. and Social Action, 129

L16 – Book Review: Italian Church and State, 69 Mich. L. Rev. 385

L17The Poor Kid, 9 Duquense 590

L18 – Book Review: Franchising: trap for the trusting 9 Duquense 152

L19Confessions Under the Influence of Alcohol, 2 Texas Southern 1 – The Law and the Poor. Journal of Social Issues. Volume 26 Number 3, 1970.

1971 – AFree Speech and Political Demonstrations.@ In Constitutional Litigation. Practicing Law Institute- New York.

1972 Right On  National Equal Justice Library (NEJL)
My recollections of working for Neighborhood Legal Services in Washington, DC, in the mid 1960s  Georgetown Law – The NEJL collections includes some of Jonathan Weiss’s papers, including a full set of progress reports on legal services for the elderly, from 1972 until 2002. The Jonathan Weiss papers also include a full bibliography of his writings.

L20 1972 – The Emerging Rights of Minors, 4 Univ. of Toledo Law Review 25

L21 – Book Review: When Parents Fail, by Sanford N. Katz, 72 Columbia Law Review 950 (with E. Judson Jennings)

L23Constitutional Rights of Reporters, WBAI Bulletin, May, 1972, p. 30

L24Justice and the Family Unit, 11 Judges Journal 28 (with Oscar Chase)

L25 1973 – Philosophy of Law, Bishin and Stone: Law, Language, and Ethics- 18 N.Y. Law Forum 801 (with E. Judson Jennings)

L26The Case for Repeal of Section 383 of New York, Social Services Law,
Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 325 (with Oscar Chase)

L27 1974 – A Reply to Advocates of Gun Control Law, 52 Journal of Urban Law 577 (Reprinted by NRA as a pamphlet and a hard cover book which sold out).

L28 1975 – Book Review: Lawyers’ Ethics in an Adversary System, 44 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 202

L29Abused by the System, Juris Doctor, March/75

L30 1976 – You and the Law: The Right to Work, JASA/Brookdale News, March/76

L31The Law & the Elderly, Practicing Law Institute (Sourcebook – co-author/editor)

L32 1977 – Mandatory Retirement Is Unethical and Inefficient, Employee Relations

Law Journal, Vol. 2, Spring, 1977, p. 453 (with Jay P. Warren)

L34 1978 – Neighborhood Practice and Legal Ethics, August, Update

L35Representing the Helpless, 5 Western State L. Rev. 173 (with P. Gassel, J. Warren)

L36 1980 – Medigap: A Violation of ADEA, Clearinghouse Review 564 (with Sandra Clark) Placed an order to clearinghouse review on August 3

L37 1984 – A Pine Tar Gloss on Quasi Legal Images, 5 Cardozo 411
(with C. Clancy)

L38 1986 – What Should You Ask A Supreme Court Nominee, September 1986

New York Civil Liberties Newsletter

L39 – Book review: Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community and the First Amendment

L40 1987 – Constitutional Law Quiz, October WBAI News Letter

L41 1991 – History and Custom in Interpreting Church and State Questions, Studi in Memoria di Pietro Gismondi (Giuffre) Volume 2, p. 515

L42 1995 – A Pine Tar Gloss on Quasi Legal Images, reprinted in Baseball and the American Legal Mind, Waller, Cohen, Finkleman (Garland; NY)
See L37

L43 1999 – Should the Government Fund Legal Services? If So, Why?, 2 Journal of the Institute for the Study of Legal Ethics 401; Informal Debate with M. Horowitz 423

L44 2001 – When a Client Threatens Suicide: The Duty Not to Disclose, September 2001, The New York Professional Responsibility Report (w/Jay C. Carlisle)

L45 2002 – We Are Mad As Hell And We Do Not Intend To Get Over It: Where Were the Troops?, Pace Law Review, Spring 2002, Vol 22, No. 2, With Otis King

L46 2002 – A Road Not Taken, Seton Hall Legislative Journal 415, Volume 26, No. 2.

L47 2007 – The Courts Failure to Re-Enfranchise FELONS Requires Congressional Remediation  Pace Law Review, Spring 2007, Volume 27, Page 407 with Otis King

L48 2008 – Toward Effective Trial Advocacy, Verdict, April 2008, Volume 14, page 133

L49 2008 – The Myths of Big Firms Pro Bono, Verdict, July, 2008, Volume 14, page 15

L 50 2011` – You Can Lose But Still Win, Verdict, July 2011, page 35

L 51 2012 – Fighting Voter Exclusion and Suppression (with Otis King) Verdict, April 2012, Volume 18, page 37

L 52 2013 – Gun Control and Community Mental Health, Vedict, April 2013, Volume 19, Number 2, page 34

L 53 2019- Towards Effective Adjudicative Ethics, by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.


P 1 1963 & 1966 – Book Summaries: Review of Metaphysics

P 2 1968 – Descartes, Certainty and the Future, Lyuun, p. 92 (Israel)

P 3Right & Wrong: A Philosophical Dialogue Between Father & Son,  Basic Books (with Paul Weiss)

P 4 1970 – The Law and the Poor, 26 Journal of Social Issues 59

P 5 1972 – The Justification of Punishment, Vol. XXV, No. 3 (March) Review of Metaphysics

P 6 1975 – Right & Wrong: A Philosophical Dialogue Between Father & Son, (paperback) Southern Illinois

P 7 1977 – Book Review: Freedman’s Lawyer Ethics in an Adversary System,
Journal of Value Inquiry – see L28

P 8 1985 – The Elements of Law, 10 Thurgood Marshall Law Review 407

P 9 1999 – Religion and Science, University Faculty Voice, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 6, 8.

P 10 2010 – When Rights Clash With Cultures

P 11 2019 – Why Keep Promises to the Dead If There Is No Afterlife


M1 1971 – Free Speech and Political Demonstrations, Constitutional Litigations pg. 13

M2 Representing the Helpless: Toward an Ethical Guide for the Perplexed Attorney (with Gassel and Levy-Warren) Western State University Law Review

M3 1983 – Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources U.S. Senate, pg. 49

M4 1986 – It is not too Late to Save the Clinton Section-Letter to the Editor (with Norman Siegel)

M5 1987 – Offside: The Media and the Football Strike, Opposite Editorial, Washington Post, Nov. 7, 1987

M6Foul Play, In These Times, Nov. 25, 1987 in Ashes and Diamonds, p. 17

M7 1990 – Book Review, Stanny: The Guilded Life of Stanford White, by Paul R. Baker, West Side Spirit, Vol. 6, No. 39, Sept. 25, 1990

M8 1990 – Book Review, Central Park: The Birth and Decline of a National Treasure, by Eugene Kinkead, West Side Spirit, Vol. 6, No. 47, Nov. 20, 1990

M9 1991 – When Charity is a Cheat, New York Newsday, September 17, 1991, editorial piece in New York Forum, p. 42

M10 1991 – What’s Wrong with Taking Money from Gambinos?, New York Newsday, October 3, 1991, editorial piece in Viewpoints, p. 101

M11 1991 – On Judicial Appointments, Avanti (Italy), Dec. 4, 1991

M 12 -28 2020 Break Up The CIA by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Break Up The CIA by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Reparations by Jonathan Weiss Esq.

Reparations by Jonathan Weiss Esq.



9/11 CRIMINALS by Jonathan Weiss Esq.

9/11 CRIMINALS by Jonathan Weiss Esq.





The Ironic Current Importance of State’s Rights by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

The Ironic Current Importance of State’s Rights by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Common Law Copyright by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Common Law Copyright by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Towards Effective Adjudicative Ethics by Jonathan A. Weiss

Towards Effective Adjudicative Ethics by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Selective Inflation Increases Financial Gap by Jonathan A Weiss Esq.

Selective Inflation Increases Financial Gap by Jonathan A Weiss Esq.

Television Twisted News by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

Television Twisted News by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.


WOMEN ENJOY MAKING LOVE by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

WOMEN ENJOY MAKING LOVE by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.



Regime Change, Bad and Unforseen Consequence, and Hypocrisy by Jonathan A. Weiss

Regime Change, Bad and Unforseen Consequence, and Hypocrisy by Jonathan A. Weiss

Hitler became Chancellor and Trump President with a minority of the vote.

Hitler became Chancellor and Trump President with a minority of the vote.





By Jonathan A. Weiss Esq.

New York

I had a fulfilling and rewarding life in Neighborhood Legal Services. I was fortunate to be hired by Earl Johnson, an excellent lawyer, then Judge, and human being as the first lawyer to be in the field. Earl was later the national Legal Services Office of Economic policy Legal Services leader in making the program nationwide and extensive – aided by specialized offices to help or lead in complicated, difficult, or important cases. There, I wrote the ethical foundation memorandum paper and then went to the office in the heart of the Cardozo ghetto (now gentrified) at Park and 14th Street in Washington, D. C.. I believed that bringing lawyers to a new class of clients, appealing when necessary to establish good precedents, bringing some affirmative class actions, working with and in a community, would be both an extension of the civil rights movement and fulfill the ideal of oppressed poor people represented in civil court- as well as then mandated in Criminal Court – would produce real social progress in conjunction with the War and Poverty. At the beginning we faced strong opposition in and out of Court (with some lawyers complaining we cost them business even though the eligibility standards for our representation were stringent) but we were quite successful. But, as time went by, the Federal legislative system for funding was increasingly restrictive while Federal Judicial, as well as local, became more and more reactionary affecting adversely the ability to represent fully and to achieve fair results in Courts. What follows is a summary account of some of my successes and then the growing amount of losses (some with good results remaining) in Washington, D.C. New York and nationally.

Civil Liberties in General

Losing your child is perhaps the worse thing that can happen to someone but occur under local Neglect proceedings usually in Family Court. I have won many Juvenile Delinquency trials saving poor children from “terrible prisons” – as Chief Judge Bazelon quoted my affidavit in the DC Circuit. I’ve also had and won more than 30 neglect and child placement cases, writing a “how to handle” summary for Legal Services.  I spearheaded (litigated and argued for) the successful decision in the New York Court of Appeals which later established the right to counsel for the parents facing the loss of their children – now implemented Statewide helping some against this terrible deprivation. The other label varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction “Minor in Need of Supervision” – a Family Court procedure where parents go to get their children “disciplined” or to get rid of them (the same result as neglect); I had (and won) about 25 of these cases but they are not really primarily legal victories. Social workers and community organizations are the key for involvement and in finding placement of juvenile (with family members particularly). This situation illustrates why Legal Services Offices (as the 6 neighborhood ones in which I worked) must have fine knowledgeable (and preferably local) Social Workers. The War on Poverty combined these with other services, tenant and welfare organizing, home care, consumer and health education etc. which were all very important for the community. Sadly, in the only free Presidential Library, of Lyndon B .Johnson, the display for the War on Poverty is found only in a corner and only features a video of my being interviewed in the Store Front office at 51st and 10th in New York. I have received recognition elsewhere including a Yale Las School display, an award in my name for public interest students at Cardozo Law School (where I also taught both Legal Ethics and Law of the Elderly as an adjunct; later I was an adjunct at Pace Law school teaching Judicial Legal Ethics), on the National Advisory Board for Legal Services, one of the New York County Bar Public Interest Lawyers of the Year, (shortly before my program Legal Services for the Elderly was terminated). Appreciation by Verdict Magazine, while the UPI once ran my full page profile as a Neighborhood lawyers, in their Sunday supplement for over 250 papers (one of my friends was delighted to see it in Alaska.)

My amicus language was used as the lynch pin in the Supreme Court Case, Stanley v. Illinois establishing the rights of the father to have custody of children the mother didn’t want. My article (co-authored with Oscar Chase) on the NY legal provision cutting off fathers’ rights (which helped in its repeal) was cited in the Supreme Court as by “experts.” in a subsequent case. Earl Ward worked with me, when with NYCLU, following up on my 2nd Circuit victory preventing chaplains sending a prisoner to solitary because of a religious disagreement (reported on the front page of New York Law Journal). Bruce Ennis of the ACLU and I litigated rights of the confined to keep control of their money and not being held “insane” on religious beliefs (described in his book for first go around before trials on damages.) I won over 30 elderly “incompetence” or “insanity” trials in the special Court for them – often where “guardianships” were cover for depletion of a person’s financial assets when detained in a facility. Based on that litigation and the reports of the psychiatrist I used an expert, City Report proposed reforms.(I have published on 1st Amendment and Criminal Constitutional systems of rights in Yale, Texas Southern Law Review and the Seton Hall Legislative Reviews – listed in the appendix bibliography).. I won in the DC Circuit the right to swear at a policeman when falsely arresting (as I tried misdemeanor cases targeting D.C. Blacks, the first to do it for free.) This decision followed the longest misdemeanor trial thereto in DC (with a big audience) where after the police contradicted each other, sequestered to be out of the Court while the other testified, apparently for the first time moved and granted, the charge was changed from disorderly conduct to swearing at mid trial. Mysteriously, the whole transcript was lost for appeal so that the swearing issue was the one presented to the Court whose decision footnoted some of my trial achievements Subsequent cases I entered were dropped and not prosecuted – arrest record erased when we agreed not to sue civilly. I seemed to be the first to visit clients in the local jail before trials because I had to argue my way in, there was no place for a private interview, so I did it at the dining table with guards on the balcony pointing guns at me and the individuals I interviewed.

I basically won the right to bail for Juveniles in the DC circuit. Norman Siegel, Wayne Hawley of MFY Legal Services, and I litigated to save neighborhoods from Times Square redevelopment where my office was located then (“urban renewal is Negro removal” back to the 60s) We lost eventually but the time consumed prevented the monstrous substitution of buildings and made the situation less awful (believe it or not) than it now presents. The client was a woman whose residency I had previously saved (with repairs made) who objected to the destruction of her neighborhood (so that when the suit was filed her picture was on the front page of the New York Times)..

I also pioneered extensive litigation against Age Discrimination (before and then using the Federal and State Act) and published on the subject. I represented my father, on my own time, twice – the first when Fordham withdrew the offer of the Schweitzer chair, stating the reason was his age (68). Unfortunately, due to a clerical error, it was not a Jury trial (the transcript and briefs are in the Weiss-Weiss archives at the University of Indiana.) Judge Tyler had already told his law students, after reading the Times front page coverage of the Complaint filing, that the case was nonsense. Later, after he left the Republican administration, he joined and then was forcibly retired from a law firm, bitterly complaining about age discrimination. (The AARP runs articles about this permitted, pervasive, practice starting in the 30s and 40s with all its manifestations. I have posted on this site about its media acceptance and use with misogynistic practices.) Only the elderly Justice Douglas dissented when I petitioned for certiorari. About 25 years later, in spite of accolades, Catholic University fired him (faculty meetings notes disclosed the reason was his age.). The first case, as mentioned, made the front page of the Times. This one Newsweek. The EEOC recognized the strength of our position so that Catholic University agreed to our terms of continuation. As Appellate Courts became more and more reactionary, I returned to focus more on trial work with a major part of my litigation against Age Discrimination. I won or successfully settled almost all of these (one trial where I was invited to co-ousel in Detroit.- two week trial for jewelry seller at Hudson store for many years replaced by a years younger person while out sick – judgement of $50,000 for her). Some led to me representing my now poor clients and other discharged indigent employees in successful union hearings on collateral matters. I always believed that once I had a client I should represent that individual in all other legal problems.

I defended clients who were victims of police brutality and brought subsequent suits against the police (sovereign immunity doctrine wrongly important here. I don’t understand the large legal fees taken from the winning plaintiffs described. Some settlements suggested it would have been better to litigate) I went down to DC after moving to New York for its Martin Luther King riots sweep arrests getting a number of people (all I handled) out of jail (during massive pretrial detention) before trial. The dramatic moments were driving back to sleep at 4 AM. There were armed police at every corner of Constitutional Avenue, who stopped our car with 4 lawyers, although we were draped with big “Legal Services” sign. They put bayonets (on rifles) in the windows, close to the throats of the two of us (one me) in front, as they demanded and received our identification, even after seeing our last stop and demands satisfied. Eight times.

I have published against the War on Drugs ( Iowa Law Review; War on Terror (Patriot Act) which justified actions from airport searches to wire taps. Otis King and I published two articles on the reenfranchisement of the ex prisoners which is now also becoming popular legislation. Many cases and causes which follow also have civil liberties aspects, often particular for poor people.


I had the first Welfare hearing in D.C. (and maybe the first Unemployment denial hearing.) They had said my client had a man supporting her (her landlord!) because she had man’s slippers below her bed! They had to create a whole system to handle the hearing, place, procedure, and parties. I had to carry her in on my back. We won. (Over my career I won about 50 such hearings.)

Later, when I had moved practicing law from DC to New York, I started with the Columbia Center on Welfare Policy and Law. The first successful Supreme Court case we handled was King v Smith on the issue of whether men were supporting welfare recipients (e.g. fathers who visited.. There was a Federal Regulation but published which supported our position. I was able to insist on addressing its authority, although unpublished in the Federal; Register by locating a Supreme Court decision never before referenced – as this struck me as a serious problem. Douglas, for the Supreme Court addressed the matter directly referring to that case as an important element for decision in the welfare recipients favor.

Steve Wizner, now retired from running the Yale Law School clinic, was always interested in Administrative Law application and de process applying to welfare. After we both had moved from the Center to MFY Legal Services, had a client cut of welfare with no hearing. He came to my office and I typed up the complaint under his direction. This case was such a Supreme Court success that many individuals claim primary credit for it, although I and Owen Fiss who finds fault with it at his Yale Law School class mainly credit Steve. I participated in the messy strife for control and credit during its litigation. A little after the case was filed (becoming Kelly v Goldberg,) I recruited Lee Albert from Morgenthau’s office to become the Director of the Columbia Center, since after being Law Review Editor in Chief and Number One in my class at Yale Law School, he had recently clerked for Justice Byron White. I was able to persuade the lawyers involved, therefore, to let him argue the case in the lower Court. Other lawyers were upset when he accepted the new city plan, looking for a broader decision. (He has published his defense; others claiming his failure.) A struggle ensued about who would argue in the Supreme Court. I told him if he filed the brief first (before Harold Rothwax of MFY) could, he could denominate himself as the one to argue. He tried to write the brief at his office but felt paralyzed. I advised him to go home to write it. He then called me to come down and work on the brief with him, as I did, and which was submitted before argument. I also filed an amicus brief focusing on the broadest issue. Both MFY and Columbia still claim credit in their official self descriptions. There had to be considerable follow up as the cut offs continued so there was first a Federal day to enforce the decision by lawyers, including me, and then in State Court. Steve and I later interviewed a client in the Projects on another welfare issue to discover there were fines assessed, added to the rent, with no stated basis nor procedure. After we started the case, it was taken over by the Columbia Center which won the right to be free from such arbitrary cost assessment.

Ed Sparer had originally filed an attack on the durational residency case for welfare recipients in Connecticut State Court where it went nowhere. I wrote the complaint for a Federal Action (its handwritten draft on Yellow pad should be in Indiana archives.). The Commissioner of Welfare for Connecticut (Shapiro – hence the case was Shapiro v.Thompson) was opposed to this disqualification and so testified at the District Court. I went to assist in the Connecticut argument and then in the many other cases that were filed, I think resulting in 26 wins. It then went to the Supreme Court, with what I argued to the lawyers, were weak arguments. Apparently, the Supreme Court was going to reverse but in the light of so many lower Court cases, decided to hear it again. The three lawyers who had received much publicity when they won below were eager to continue. Larry Silver and I (and maybe others) called a conference of all lawyers involved. I proffered many new names, e.g. Simon Rifkind, Telford Taylor which were all turned down. The Peter Smith, one of the successful lawyers, brought up

Archibald Cox’s name (he had argued, at that point more cases in that tribunal than anyone else.)

He agreed. (Two weeks before the argument, one of the three previous oral advocates wanted to reclaim a portion as his “obligation” to the client. I managed to dissuade him.) I had filed an amicus brief for the original argument, making the case that the a State could not penalize a person for the past excercise of the Constitutional right to travel (both with Supreme Court cases so saying. This argument, left out of the three briefs earlier submitted, over my objection but stated in my amicus submission was taken up by Cox, in his brief, to become the lynchpin of the final triumph. Earl Johnson, an appellate Judge then for many years, has written it was the best oral argument he has ever heard.

After this case, the Supreme Court was changed with the new Judges, the Minnesota Twins, Warren Burger and Harry Blackman. I was lead counsel along with Christopher Clancy and David Gilman in a case (remember my first hearing) challenging the New York State Welfare practice of making “home visits”, invading privacy, with no notice. We offered to have interviews out of the home to emphasize the unique Constitutionally protect nature of the home. We won below, but since the Court had changed since filing, my brief was against that Court granting the review it did. I tried to cover all bases. I had the Welfare Social Workers file a brief saying it was counter-productive and a misuse of resources. A criminal law group filed a brief arguing it was unconstitutional since a criminal search was while Welfare was required to report any crime observed. The Court, per Douglas, had held, in addition,, that “civil searches” were Unconstitutional The State played dirty pool. The State filed a sealed case record for the named plaintiff in a class action which we were not allowed to see. (An outrage) The information I received was that a neighbor had complained about the main mother’s treatment of the child.. I pointed out in my reply brief that no neglect proceeding had ever occurred.

There is apparently a tradition that a new Judge is assigned an opinion where he can expound his views. During the lively argument, the only Judge who paid no attention was Blackman. (His law Clerks in the Brethren reported he did not seem to understand the case.) According the a next morning’s newspaper, Burger (who voted with Blackman) called the reporters together to say I had given the best argument so far that year. (It is reprinted in One Hundred Best Arguments in Supreme Court.). We lost 6-3, marking the radical change with the reactionaries in control.

In the meantime, I had persuaded the Columbia Center to use that complaint annotated with cases and possibilities by a former Second Circuit Count into a pamphlet as a model to be used in filing Federal Welfare suits .It was widely used (with a Congressman complaining about that fact on the floor.). I have published in an article about winning and losing that sometimes you can lose but still win. New York State never resumed the practice. (On the other hand, I had a case against Pan American for Age Discrimination which, for various procedural changes and challenges, went to the 2nd Circuit and New York Court of appeals (after lower courts) both twice consuming 19 years. After a Judgement for a considerable sum, I had to wait 30 days to file during which time Pan Am went bankrupt).

I consulted for and lectured at the conferences given by the National Institute in Law Poverty – consumer law, welfare law, housing law etc. I created for their handbooks questionnaires in these areas, then letters to write, complaints to draft, discovery to do, and how to try the resulting cases all interconnected.. This complemented the Welfare pamphlet and was widely used to good effect.


Before the Supreme Court changed there were many excellent cases about aliens. It was held they were able to practice law (the plaintiff was the wife of a former brilliant law clerk, John Griffith, again number one and Editor in Chief of the Yale Law Journal – a couple of years after Lee Albert.) MFY, with my assistance won the right of a teacher (I never inquired as to eligibility) to teach when not a citizen in the Supreme Court, I co-counseled Tony Ching in Arizona and Jonathan Stein in Pennsylvania successfully in the Supreme Court so that “aliens” could receive medical benefits. A client came to me with an age discrimination case. By the time he would have become a citizen, he would, at 32, be too old to apply for the New York State Police. I thought he would have a better chance as an “alien”. The State accepted an immediate and permanent injunction, then the Supreme Court took case. Although the vast majority of activity by the State Police was driving tickets the Court held that their duty was too”centrally connected to the government activity” which could not accept these immigrants. During one of the oral arguments I was asked if the plaintiff would be able to arrest a member of the IRA to which I replied that I inferred that the head of the State Police, and named defendant who was also Irish would fire my client if he did not. Of some solace, Japanese aliens who had been in Concentration Camps received legislated Federal reparations through the work by the Asian American Legal Defense fund with my participation as a member of its Board..


I may have been the first lawyer, or among those, who handled Social Security disability funds as my office handled the whole range of disability applications, etc. Lawyers who started there went on to found a National Center for such cases; some went into private practice to get the 25% of retroactive benefits. Many lawyers followed suit so it became wide spread (even some Legal Services offices, wrongly I believe would take the fees for their funding.) The success rate was (and still, to some degree) high.

I discovered, however, that hearings for Bronx residents were held in Westchester which meant a long trip from the Bronx to Grand Central to Westchester to discover an obscure recessed door. It people made it there, this effort was then used as proof of their abilities and therefore a reason for denials. I took my clients by car service. Toby Golick, who later ran the highly successful Bet Tzedek clinic at Cardozo Law School, and I started to campaign with elected representatives and the Social Security Department for its move. She discovered the “smoking gun” of its purposeful discouragement, in writing, so that the office for hearings was moved to the North Bronx accessible by subway and then bus.

Sometime age and disability mix in discrimination. I and Michael Stein, pro bono, represented a holocaust survivor who did the laundry at an Orthodox nursing home (“because I wanted people to have blankets and sheets as I never did”) but the home hired a “service” and then assigned him, with a trauma induced palsy, to work in a kitchen with sharp knives, pouring juice into 5 oz cups so that he spilled the fluid. After discovery they settled.

Landlord, Eviction, and Deplorable Living Conditions

Brian Olmsted in DC Legal Services brought the first “retaliatory conviction” case which prevented landlords from evicting tenants who had complained to city authorities. (Ironically, the landlord never noted he had a valid overcrowding cause of action). It worked its way to the Court of Appeals. Bob Cipes, an advisor, and I, were concerned about a Constitutional basis but located a 19th Century case which held for the Constitutional right to petition the government about grievances – which became the lynchpin of the tenant landmark decision. I later obtained Federal Judicial approval of this principle for New York in District Court.

One virtue of the case was it meant a Jury trial could be held on the “factual basis.” Jury trials demanded in D. C prevented immediate eviction with delays (including discovery), I would advise my clients, who wanted to move at the end of the proceedings, to withhold rent to use to get a more liveable home, after I filed the jury demand. When the landlords complained, I said we would welcome a suit for the rent while we would counter claim for the terrible conditions. No one sued. On the other hand, I brought personal injury suits against slumlords. They all settled with enough money obtained for my clients to move, sometimes out of State, to a satisfactory residence so none ever went to trial (and, of course, not an appeal to create the personal injury claim definitively for tenants so badly treated.)

Rent Control was very complicated in New York (now greatly improved by new legislation.) Landlords used a trick. They would get tenants to agree to a rent increase for improvements and corrections of violations (in my case, over 400). They would promise the increase would be only minimal. But, when they obtained the “new rents” they were many multiples more. The only recourse was to a rent control “hearing.” But by the time it was held, everyone would have been evicted because they couldn’t pay the excessive rents. I filed a Federal Complaint on the basis hat this whole procedure used the Courts for a wrongful purpose (condemned by the Supreme Court for enforcing racial covenants.). I received an immediate injunction. After argument in the 2nd Circuit, the Rent Control Commission, had held a hearing and rolled the rents back to what had been promised originally so no opinion ever issued.

Most landlord lawyers did not like to try cases so I only tried a few on the “Warranty of Habitability“Partial Eviction” but they were early victories so that the landlord lawyers would settle thereafter. We already referenced the wrongful fines in State Housing.

Procedural Process

During one of my age discrimination suits in discovery, one of my lawyers moved to the opposing (then) small firm. He subsequently told me that he had told the firm that I would litigate to the very end (which would help their billing.) I filed an Ethical Objection demanding the firm be removed from the case because of that conduct. (He was angry with me for doing that as it was a “luncheon conversation” with me when he revealed that). The District Court disagreed ed but the Second Circuit wrote a long decision disqualifying the firm on review. Because of various changes in the case law, it went up to the Supreme Court, back down to the trial Court where I was fined $1,000 for a trivial motion to disqualify. The Second Circuit reversed in a strong opinion. The case apparently is used in courses on Legal Ethics (although I never did when I taught courses in that area.)

I was arguing to prevent a forced medical exam in one of the cases with Bruce Ennis where my client had mental problems but was competent – essentially an intimidation practice. When I argued against that disposition Judge Travia in the Eastern Division responded to my statement that I had an exact case in the jurisdiction preventing such examination in these situations (present condition not relevant) that he did not care, would not read the case, but rule for the examination. I appealed that case to the 2nd Circuit and argued also that Judge Travia should be recused. They reversed and suggested he recuse. His name was in the appeal caption. he Court then introduced the rule a Judge’s name could not be included in the future.

Written solely by my office Legal Services for the Elderly (including me – also the Editor) the PLI published The Law of the Elderly (14 Chapters). In it, we described many procedural moves in all the areas with exposition of relevant law: Medical Benefits (particularly medicare and medicaid), SSI (I was in charge of the grant to fund and use advocates), Social Security, Disability Rights, Age Discrimination, Pensions under Federal Law (I had successfully litigated earlier cases under the Taft Hartley Law before there was a controlling Federal law – and worked on some case under it), Consumer problems from condominiums to fraud, etc..We lectured throughout New York and New Jersey on these matters.

Through a grant from the Department of Aging I established four models for delivery of legal services for the Elderly (as the War on Poverty was dead, and legal services increasingly under attack): standard legal aid separate office; based in and using a Social Work organization, being part of a Law Student Clinic and a part of a legal services office.

In 1971, I rook a 3 month leave of Absence from Legal Services for the Elderly (although I continued to work on cases and talk by phone daily) to teach at Texas Southern Law School (now the Thurgood Marshall Law School) where I became advisor to the Hispanic Law Student Association. In addition to teaching Legal Ethics (with examples from my practice) and Constitutional Litigation, I worked in the Juvenile Law Clinic. I discovered with my Student group that the Juvenile Prisons not only censored mail but wouldn’t let any letters go out in Spanish. (When one of my students inquired as to “Why?” the answer was: “We won the War.”) Through meetings with the authorities we were able to change these practices.

Then I lost. in a Friendly decision in the 2nd Circuit based on Juvenile rights to their chosen lawyer, (later in another case of mine in appeal, he managed to rule against a Social Security denial on procedural grounds so complicated that articles followed about the problems created.) He dissolved an injunction against the right to confer privately and excoriated me personally for bringing too many civil rights cases (he believed that only the disputes of the rich deserved Federal Courts.) On remand, however, a cooperative lawyer for the State allowed me to write the desired complete and general regulations which were then published in the Poverty Law Handbook to become a model (another loss-win).

After many others were doing disability appeals, I had just worked on papers. I went to observe one being done by my office. They were held in 26 Federal Place about a mile above Wall Street. All the claimants and lawyers were kept outside waiting (in bad weather too) for up to an hour in a line along with immigrant applicants. I then reached the local Administrator so that lawyers could be admitted immediately with Social Security applicants put it a separate line to be let in expeditiously according to hearing schedule.

I had a client on medicaid who was outraged to see that two Doctors had charged thousands of dollars for many visits when she never saw them. I pursued the matter for months with little interest from the administrators in combating fraud. Finally I obtained a hearing at the World Trade Center buildings, just up, which were being rented by the State to cover vacancies.

The elevators were not working from the ground floor. Reminiscent of my early days in DC, I had to carry my client on my back up the escalator to get into the hearing which we won with a claim they would follow up civilly and criminally. I communicated the general issue for clients reporting Medicaid fraud to the Department of Aging in New York City and received assurances that the paths would be smoother in the future but never had another case to verify – as I could the smaller crowds in front of 26 Federal Plaza

Consumer Law

I had the great fortune, in DC Legal Services, in having Tom Willing, Catholic Law Review, assigned to me by Earl when he graduated. He had published an article on DC consumer law and remedies. In those days, student were not allowed to practice in courts or sign papers. He cranked out answers, interrogatories, and document discovery under my name while I was off in Court or Administrative procedures. As a result, I obtained a reputation for producing a great deal of work, including high quality consumer papers. All the cases folded under his barrage.

In New York, I continued what I had learned from him. My rule of thumb was pay 10% immediately if the suit against my client was weak; up to 50% if it were strong. All cases settled or were dropped after extensive discovery demands. Steve Wizner and others followed the same practice.

Our knowledge was incorporated into model pleadings in the Poverty Law Reporter and in the National Institute on Law and Poverty handbook – as well as the subject of several Chapters in Consumer Law in the Law of the Elderly, In 2008, I laid out how to do depositions in my article “Towards Effective Advocacy.”


I had a client I successfully represented in another matter who was a founding member of the Silver Belles. This group was comprised of the retired chorus line at the Apollo theater in the 1920s. They had led a successful strike in the 1920s which led to the white Chorus Girls getting a raise so they would not get less than “the Negroes uptown.” They still were dancing for the public into the early 2000s. I became their lawyer as they were all financially eligible, separately and collectively.  I negotiated the royalties (and contract) for them for the excellent documentary about them Been Rich My Whole Life. Not only was I listed as their lawyer on the letterhead, but they and the Sledge Sisters (We Are Family) provided the musical entertainment at two fund raisers for which we rented the Cotton Club for a buffet and bar with no other expense. Dick Cavett, an old friend, served as MC, witty and urbane as ever. Our first and only fund other raiser was sponsored by my old friend and mentor since I was 14, Robert Rifkind at and by Cravath, Swaine, and Moore where he was a partner and Dick Cavett was the mc again – so they both discovered they had been class mates at Yale.) They referred some athletes who were members of their friends and families who were drafted high for the NFL and NBA expecting millions of dollars to sign. Of course, I referred them to the Bar Association.

The Redstockings were the major founder of the Feminism, beginning in the 1960s. Famous members included Kathy Sarachild who coined the phrases “Conscious raising” and “Sisterhood is Powerful” – the title of a book they published with Random House about the range of feminism and its interrelationship with other forms of oppression, Naomi Weisstein, Kate Millet, T. Grace Atkinson, and Shlulamith Firestone. I represented one of the members who was in danger of eviction and incompetency commitments. I explained to the female Judge that I was worried that if anything happened to her, there would be mass picketing of the Courthouse. We immediately went into the Judge’s conference room where she and her “sisters” and I agreed to leave the woman alone. As the group then lacked money, I became their lawyer and represented many, now older, women associated with them in the range of cases indicated above. I also negotiated the Contract to publish and place their archives (at a price) in major institutions across the Country. They are now inspiring a younger generation of activists.

Opposing Decline and Demise Of Legal Services

I had wondered when Legal Services would be attacked for publicly funding lawyers who sued the government which funded it. The answer is they function as an omnusbudman. Further, as indicated above, we opened up many areas for private practice lawyers such as disability, neglect, slumlordism. In particular, decisions we achieved Age and Disability Discrimination, Medicare, Medicaid Civil Rights Law suits, and the Federal Pension Law (ERISA) produced attorney fees which would attract private lawyers for both their own and public good with fees lasting for enforcement for long times. (Legal Services for the Elderly received a substantial amount of resources each year up to a quarter of the budget, I believe.)

Meanwhile, the reactionaries in Congress, with the unfortunate cooperation with various legal services groups claiming to save funding, followed up on a few restrictions (such as representing aliens) with a blunderbuss bill including the elimination of class actions (efficient for Courts and injured), attorney fees, raising Constitutional claims in Welfare litigation (while allowing the State defendants to do so), etc. The ACLU declined my request to bring a suit about this destructive legislation. I then sent out an e mail to all programs in the Country to organize resistance (causing controversy because of claim of preserving funding). A suit was filed by Hawaii legal services (rejected by Byron White as premature) and various programs resisted in various ways. The Village Voice published an article about the controversy with opposite page pictures of Alexander Forger, the head of the Legal Services Corporation ( which had been separated from other Poverty Programs for protection) and me..

My office decided to take action. Valerie Bogart, David Udell, and I, from Legal Services for the Elderly then asked NYU’s Constitutional Professor and Litigator, Burt Neuborne to represent us to declare the Act Unconstitutional and improper for lawyers and Court administration. Our office and those two became lead plaintiffs for the suit in New York. The Second Circuit, per Pierre Leval, struck down the restriction on one sided Constitutional arguments. The Supreme Court, now packed with “conservatives” upheld the whole bill.

New York City Legal Services founders did not follow the funding system we had in D.C. and ethically justified under Supreme Court rulings of funding lawyers for the poor directly (as I had written in the beginning). Instead, overriding my objections, they sought approval from the Appellate Division which denied it; then rewrote it for acceptance. This created a large, mainly useless, but expensive Central Office as an “umbrella” with powers over the separately created borough-wide programs. Legal Services for the Elderly was then functioning as a “back up” Center among many others with specialities to litigate and advise programs across the country that did not have expertise in various areas which the “back up” Centers provided. These centers were closed down by the Corporation but friendly people there continued Legal Services funding by routing it through New York legal services as a funding conduit. (The NLRB held, and then reheld that we were separate from the other programs in New York in all personnel and labor matters, etc.) We also received separate funding from the Federal Office of Aging for a while. Norman Siegel, while heading MFY Legal Services, obtained a grant to represent SSI claimants for Manhattan. He then expanded it city wide with our office as central, running task forces etc. One accomplishment of that task force was winning a cortical mass of appeals from a terrible Disability Hearing Officer so that we were able to bring a Federal law suit against her to prevent her continuing.

After the Supreme Court upheld the highly restrictive funding conditions, members of Congress complained that we were uniquely in the Country, still receiving past attorney fees (not prohibited) for several years which sustained our budget. The New York Central Office decided to abandon the idea of community local offices keeping themselves large and intact while instead consolidating all the different programs in each borough into one program so that we became more anomalous – to the discontent in the Central office about what was designed to be a funding conduit. They finally were successful in closing the Legal Services for the Elderly office completely and placing some attorneys in various borough offices.

The ideal and ideals are no longer viable, but capable of being revived as the New Deal and the Great Society are. In Landlord-tenant court, lawyers are now available for all eligible perhaps partially inspired by the right to counsel cases we had won. I served on the Administrative Council of the United States with future Supreme Court Justice Breyers, other Federal Appellate Judges, famous experts on Administrative law: Kenneth Culp Davis, Walter Gellhorn, the counsel of the Social Security Department, other notables etc. while Edgar Pauk, our ERISA expert, at that time served on the national advisory board to the Labor Department Pensions. Both of us in the era of Republican presidents had good influences on the legal outcomes, I believe.

Many people have been helped. Early we achieved notable progress in precedent, persuasion, and example. As the Courts grew more inhospitable to poor people, their needs, and rights we ended up with bad precedents. Many beneficial changes have been institutionalized by the actions and involvement of Legal Services lawyers. As I concentrated more on trials and less on appeals which would advance the law and equality, I personally was gratified by winning – then, publishing, and lecturing on how to be successful in these ways.

This story of some personal highlights, with the decline and demise of the ideal is sad. I still keep in touch to help my clients and some they refer. Many others with Legal Services background, teach, run clinics, or are in private practice after benefitting from the Legal Service experience. Some lawyers remaining in the field make real differences tor the clients they represent.

Tragic it is that the Courts (and technology) have so reduced effective lawyers for the poor in all tribunals while bad laws, decisions, and regulations now proliferate. I really can’t boast about what I did, but do bask in the sun of memory, people, and the Phoenix possibility.



Clearview AI’s software can find matches in billions of internet images.

Law enforcement is using a facial recognition app with huge privacy issues

Clearview AI’s software can find matches in billions of internet images.

We have to keep fighting for our right to privacy.

You may have good reason to be worried that police use of facial recognition might erode your privacy — many departments are already using software with serious privacy concerns. The New York Times has learned that over 600 law enforcement agencies in the US and Canada have signed up in the past year to use software from little-known startup Clearview AI that can match uploaded photos (even those with imperfect angles) against over three billion images reportedly scraped from the web, including Facebook and YouTube. While it has apparently helped solve some cases, it also creates massive privacy concerns — police could intimidate protesters, stalk people and otherwise abuse the system with few obstacles.

Part of the problem stems from a lack of oversight. There has been no real public input into adoption of Clearview’s software, and the company’s ability to safeguard data hasn’t been tested in practice. Clearview itself remained highly secretive until late 2019. It’s certainly capable of looking at search data if it wants — police helping to test the software for the NYT‘s story got calls asking if they’d been talking to the media.

The software also appears to explicitly violate policies at Facebook and elsewhere against collecting users’ images en masse. Facebook said it was looking into the situation and would “take appropriate action” if Clearview is breaking its rules.

Company chief Hoan Ton-That tried to downplay some of the privacy concerns. He noted that surveillance cameras are “too high” to deliver truly reliable facial recognition, and that Clearview was only notified about the reporter’s inquiries because of a system built to catch “anomalous search behavior.” Customer support reps don’t look at uploaded photos, the company added. And while there’s underlying code that could theoretically be used for augmented reality glasses that could identify people on the street, Ton-That said there were no plans for such a design.

Joe Biden wants to freeze Social Security and Medicaid

LOOK AT THIS. Joe Biden tried 4 times to freeze everything 4 times.

Here’s decades of @JoeBiden fighting to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by using right wing talking points, with english subtitles.
Another clip surfaces of @JoeBiden proudly bragging about working with Republicans on a plan to cut Social Security.

Joe Biden: ‘Paul Ryan Was Correct’ When He Tried to Cut Social Security and Medicare

Joe Biden wants to freeze Social Security and Medicaid

Joe Biden defends his view by  paid for by dead billionaire Pete Peterson’s foundation. The foundation exists specifically to cut Social Security.


Top Facebook exec makes antitrust argument

Top Facebook exec makes antitrust argument why public would benefit if Instagram and Facebook had to compete with each other. “We should have started to more proactively think about how Instagram and Facebook could be abused and mitigate those risks. We’re playing catch-up.”

“The man who is working to mostly eliminate likes really wants to be liked.”

This Is the Guy Who’s Taking Away the Likes

Adam Mosseri, chieftain of Instagram, wants to keep the platform a safe, special space. That means learning from the mistakes of its parent company: Facebook.

Elizabeth Warren says her plan to eliminate student loan debt can bypass Congress


Elizabeth Warren says her plan to eliminate student loan debt can bypass Congress on the first day of her administration, using legal tools.

She will direct her secretary of Education to begin to “compromise and modify” federal student loans up to $50,000 for 95% of those with outstanding student debt, or 42 million people.  She would forgive up to $50,000 in student debt for individuals with household incomes under $100,000.


She introduced a bill over the summer to cancel the bulk of the nation’s outstanding student loan debt.

Read the Plan

Warren released a letter written to her by three legal experts who vouched for the legality of a president canceling student debt through executive action. The experts, based at the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard Law School, described such a move as “lawful and permissible.”


The experts, Eileen Connor, Deanne Loonin and Toby Merrill, cited a provision of a sweeping higher education bill passed in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson. The provision grants the Education secretary the authority to “modify” existing loans, they wrote, adding that the secretary “has the authority to modify a loan to zero.”

but …. NOT SO FAST

Towards Effective Adjudicative Ethics by Jonathan A. Weiss Esq. 

Higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz said that authority did not extend to all student loans.

Mark Kantrowitz makes all his money on the back of the public selling  how to get those loans. FinAid was originally founded by Mark Kantrowitz


Mark Kantrowitz ~ “The U.S. Department of Education does not have the discretionary authority to cancel student loan debt except in limited circumstances specified by the statute, such as death, disability or closed schools,” Kantrowitz said.

Likewise, the authority to compromise debt is limited to situations in which the borrower demonstrates severe financial distress.”

He also serves as publisher of, a web site that provides students with smart borrowing tips about private student loans. Mark has served previously as publisher of the Cappex, Edvisors, Fastweb and FinAid web sites.


Luke Herrine, CURRENTLY a Ph.D. student at Yale Law School was legal director of the Debt Collective, which successfully lobbied for the debt forgiveness of thousands of for-profit college students. As I just explained to a reporter, the meaning of a law depends on the political context in which it is interpreted/used. Changing the political context means changing the way the law can be used. Part of what Warren’s announcement today does is change the political context.

SEE The Law and Political Economy of a Student Debt Jubilee


Executive Action as Power Building: A Response to Professor Doerfler

ISA = Indentured Servitude Agreement

is planning to morph federal student loans into investor-owned indentured-servitude agreements (ISAs).

Tuning in at #FSATC2019 for a mystery session, added at the last minute, on a new experiment through Ex-Sites Initiative on “investing in student success.” Telling that this is the only non-keynote session led by a political appointee and wasn’t included in the printed materials.


Dershowwitz former attorney for Epstein is Trump’s Impeachment Defense Team who appeared on flight logs 11 times

#Dershowwitz former attorney for Epstein is Trump’s Impeachment Defense Team who appeared on flight logs 11 times

Dershowitz got a great deal for Epstein so he will get Trump off too.

#PublicCorruption The Department of Justice #Barr is Corrupt

Both Starr and Dershowitz were previously members of the Epstein defense team. In 2015, victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a lawsuit against Epstein, claiming that he recruited her as a “sex slave” at the age of 15, sexually abusing her for years in his private jet as well as his various residences in New York, New Mexico, Florida, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In an interview with the Daily Mail, Giuffre said he “always took care of paying” her after she “entertained” his friends. Her alleged abusers included British royal Prince Andrew as well as Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz; both of their names appeared on flight logs from Epstein’s planes that were published by Gawker after Giuffre’s filing. In her affidavit, Giuffre claimed to have had sex with Dershowitz on Epstein’s airplane with another girl present.
Dershowitz, a former attorney for Epstein, appeared on flight logs 11 times.

Alan Dershowitz was reportedly identified as participating in Epstein’s sex ring by at least two of the women engaged in a 2007 case against Epstein.

Alan Dershowitz

Two different women have said they were trafficked by Epstein and “directed” to have sex with the prominent Harvard law professor. Giuffre says that after she was recruited to be a masseuse for Epstein and coerced into having sex with him, she was told that she had to have sex with other men, including Dershowitz. Separately, Sarah Ransome, who sued Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for alleged sex trafficking, says she was directed to have sex with Dershowitz. The attorney has denied the claims from both women.

Giuffre’s attorney Paul Cassell, a former federal judge, told the three-judge panel that his client favored a “broad unsealing” of the records in a suit that Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell, an Epstein friend accused of helping procure girls for Epstein and others to engage in sexual activity. “It will demonstrate Epstein and Maxwell sexually trafficked her to Epstein’s friends, including Alan Dershowitz,” Cassell told the court. “She wants all the documents unsealed substantively.”

Jeffrey Epstein jail logs: Accused child sex predator met with Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton friend, alleged co-conspirators a decade ago

Wealthy financier and accused child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein had a revolving cast of characters take turns visiting him in a Palm Beach County, Florida, jail while serving a 13-month criminal sentence in 2008 and 2009, according to visitor logs reviewed by CNBC on Friday.

Those visitors included Epstein’s appeals attorney Alan Dershowitz, who showed up on New Year’s Day 2009, as well as Arnold Paul Prosperi, a college friend of former President Bill Clinton, documents show.

Giuffre was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s winter home and resort in Palm Beach at the time, court records show.

Trump, who lived less than a mile from Epstein’s waterfront mansion in Palm Beach, had also been friends with Epstein. Records show that he flew on Epstein’s private jet on occasion and attended parties and social events where he was photographed with Epstein.


Film – The Secret History of Hacking

The Educational CyberPlayGround, Inc. sends Love to Jim Warren a true Patriot.

[An Oldy but Goody]

From: Jim Warren 5/19/00
It’s time the media started labeling these viruses correctly!

The media didn’t call the World Trade Towers bomb, “the Ryder Truck bomb.”They didn’t call the Unibomber bombs, “US Postal Service bombs.”

They should stop mislabeling computer viruses by their *innocent* carrier — the Internet.

They should start labeling them what they are: “Microsoft Outlook Express virus” or “Microsoft Explorer virus” or “Microsoft Word macro virus (reputedly the single largest source of viruses for years!).”

Or more briefly — and accurately — just call each one, “the latest Microsoft virus.”

Let’s ask the major media, below, for some *truth* in labeling — giving “credit” where credit really is due. Let’s ask them to stop shooting the messenger, and start naming the real origin — the errors and dangers that Microsoft has built into its products for *years*.

Jim Warren – The Secret History of Hacking

This is a company protecting their assets (software) from reverse engineering and modification to run on hardware which they do not support….
Oh NO! Have we really come this far? So quickly?!
Is someone really ACCEPTING that reverse engineering should be prohibited?! (That is, someone other than massive corporations’ thought-monopoly patent attorneys.)
While a tech columnist in the late ’80’s, I received a “back-channel” copy of a “radical” proposal by IBM, “secretly” outlining how they might go about quietly getting WIPO to — for the first time in history — outlaw reverse engineering. At the time, it was considered a wildly radical idea.
(The World Intellectual Property Organization is the unelected UN agency that “harmonizes” i.p. law between nations, administering more’n 20 international i.p. treaties, to assure equal repression for all.)
Hell, it’s only been a bit more’n 20 years since software was even first deemed patentable!
In the 40-or-so years before that, such monopolies were NOT permitted. Which didn’t seem to harm the likes of IBM, AT&T, Bell Labs, Digital Equipment, H-P nor any of the other companies that grew fat and rich offering products including software that was NOT patentable. That notably included the first ten years or so, of both Apple and Microsoft (which got its start in operating systems using a reverse-engineered version of the then-most-popular CP/M operating system … which, itself, was modeled after Digital’s old TOPS-10 OS).
And in fact, ALL of those companies happily and routinely reverse-engineered competitors’ products — fueling innovation and speeding improvements, for the benefit of all. But now … we see folks not just accepting the repression of software patents. NOW we see ’em even just ASSUMING that reverse engineering SHOULD be prohibited!
Sheesh! If we still had spring-driven mechanical clocks, no doubt their manufacturers would now zealously sue any time someone offered instructions about how to open their “proprietary” clock-cases, much less offering guidance as to their detailed operation! And I certainly hope that no one ever dares to disassemble their bicycle, to see how its gearing works! — jim warren @justjim36
Jim Warren, open-govt & tech-civlib advocate & sometime columnist —


Do Want to be Smart too?

What you can do

Kentucky needs more of this kind of dialog with people who are willing.


RELIGIOUS Whitefield Academy Education Stinks in Kentucky

Jim ~

“Well … Kentucky IS the state that kept electing Moskow’s Mitch to “represent” them.

<snarling sigh>”

Scientists Establish A Link Between Brain Damage And Religious Fundamentalism

The difference between the two lies in the fact that religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations like empirical beliefs are. Because of this, religious beliefs are strongly associated with conservatism, meaning that they are fixed and rigid. That is why conservatism is therefore used to help promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group.

Religious fundamentalism is defined as “an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues.” Anything that questions or challenges religious fundamentalists beliefs or way of life is generally opposed.

Trump Hired Televangelical Scammer Paula White

The Comingling of Church and State F^ck the Prayer Breakfast
Jeff Sharlet’s book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” Published on Jul 24, 2019
It’s not about faith. It’s about power. The Family explores the history of a quietly powerful religious organization with strong ties to US politics.
Meet The Family on August 9, only on Netflix:

Paula White Leads Evangelical Leaders in Prayer Over President Trump



New Florida Board of Education Chair:
“I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”

Florida’s new Board of Education chairman, a citrus farmer named Andy Tuck, said about the theory of evolution when he was the vice-chairman:
“As a person of faith, I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all. I’m purely in favor of it staying a theory and only a theory. I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”
Tuck was appointed by Florida Governor Rick Scott.
School Board Vice Chairman Andy Tuck said, “as a person of faith, I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all… I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”#evolution #education #Florida
— Secular Students (@SecularStudents) August 3, 2019
The New Florida Board of Education Chair, Andy Tuck: “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”

Historic day for women we now have the 38 States to Ratified the ERA

38th states approve the ERA and now demand constitutional change.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued an opinion that said the expired deadline means the ERA cannot be ratified.

The religious right mobilized to block it.

Watch Season 1 Now on Netflix

This documentary is inspired by Jeff Sharlet’s book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.”

Watch in Full

An enigmatic conservative Christian group known as the Family wields enormous influence in Washington, D.C., in pursuit of its global ambitions.