Multiplex: What's New | Site Map | Community | News My Multiplex Account | Sign In 
in Search

INTEGRAL LAW

Last post 08-20-2007, 4:22 PM by cgnost. 65 replies.
Page 2 of 5 (66 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  10-09-2006, 2:47 PM 10637 in reply to 10604

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Chris,

    Very exciting.  I didn't read the whole thing (work to do) but I did take some time to skim it, looking at some parts in more depth.  I must say, I'm jealous.  I wasn't grounded enough in the work to have thought of my comment as an opportunity to apply it three years ago.  But I've been kicking ideas around in my head about writing some items on the legal profession, the experience of being a lawyer, and the future of our dispute system from a developmental perspective.  I would love to talk or even collaborate with you, if you're interested.  Where are you headed now that you have graduated?  I'm in Chicago at a large firm for now.  I look forward to hearing from you.

    Chris


    One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. --Andre Gide

    Hope is as hollow as fear. --Lao-tzu
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  10-09-2006, 3:13 PM 10646 in reply to 10637

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Hey lawyers, hope I don't distract the flow of the thread but I have a question for y'all.

    The other night on Dateline NBC they showed a story where one of the follow-up, end results of a difficlut case and its outcome was that in that state (CO I think) the law was changed with regard to the burden of proof for self-defense. I understand it that previously the burden was on the defense to prove it was an act of self-defense. This case caused a change to where now the burden of proof that it was not an act of self-defense was the plantiff's.

    This sounds less than integral to me, since we could go round-robin on that for the next millenia or two, always claiming the other side had an unfair upper hand.* I though the best solution was just to get rid of the whole "burden is yours" thing and let each of side give whatever they have their best shot.

    What do you all think of that? Are my integral law instincts correct?

    Peace, Tim

    *Also, there was a very clear inter-meme dissonance in the case, the state/plaintiff orange, the defense and defendant amber.

    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-09-2006, 5:11 PM 10661 in reply to 10646

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Hey Tim,

    I would have to say no, your instincts are not correct, at least on the narrow issue of whether there should be burdens.  One of the things that works about our system is that we have developed long-standing decisional rules/standards that guide courts and juries in choosing sides in tough cases.  If there is no burden on a side, then how do you know when someone has actually presented sufficient evidence?  Who has to go first?  And if there is no burden, then anyone can make any claim they want and the court has to allow it to be heard in its entirety and can't get rid of the weak or frivolous claims because there is no burden to be met by the party bringing the claim.  In other words, it would be a mess and the system would grind to a halt.

    Now, as far as who should have the burden, that's a policy decision, one that we could go round and round on.  In reality, this choice both makes a big difference (in the individual case) and very little difference (in the aggregate).  Presumably the effect will be that a few more people will escape liablity in the hard cases and people may be less deterred from acting aggressively in self-defense (assuming that people actually reference the law when they are being attacked to determine whether they should just use their hands or pick up a bat, etc.).  IMO, this is another example of a mole-hill mountain.

    Chris


    One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. --Andre Gide

    Hope is as hollow as fear. --Lao-tzu
    • Post Points: 35
    • Report abuse
  •  10-09-2006, 6:00 PM 10667 in reply to 10637

    • cgnost is not online. Last active: 06-08-2008, 6:35 PM cgnost
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2006
    • Posts 28
    • Points 425

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for your post - I know my article has its flaws, but glad to have it finding eyes.

    I think it'd be great if those of us interested in all this could throw out some scholarship ideas, practical ideas (I think Lynne has mentioned things like model integral contracts), all the projects we've had stewing in our heads and see where they overlap and what we might work on (together, separately, anything).  I'll send you an email, but maybe we could also get some things growing here, in public.

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-09-2006, 8:23 PM 10673 in reply to 10661

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    cahacker:

    Hey Tim,

    I would have to say no, your instincts are not correct,

     

    Does this explain why I feel so powerless to "litigate" disputes between my daughters? ( Someone should have the burden of proof as to who hit first or "stole my stuff" etc.)

    It did get my mind working though on matters in which I am not proficient. I admire any of you who might be able to work this important area out integrally. It can never be "perfect," right?

    So, with that, Chris, how 'bout them Bears!?

    Thanks for your answer.

    Tim


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-10-2006, 7:08 PM 10822 in reply to 10667

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    So what ideas did you have for scholarship ideas?  You mean a joint project?? YIPPEE!!!!

    And what about a conference call?

    When I get the time (LOL) I want to write a paper that I've already begun on Scalia and original intent. 

    Anybody else??

    Lynne

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-14-2006, 11:16 AM 11122 in reply to 831

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Attachment: P7270438_merge.jpg
    M E R G E
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  10-15-2006, 7:20 AM 11190 in reply to 10822

    • cgnost is not online. Last active: 06-08-2008, 6:35 PM cgnost
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2006
    • Posts 28
    • Points 425

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    I'm up for a conference call whenever people are available - anyone else?

    As far as scholarship ideas - I have the basic ideas of a paper on affirmative action in my head (seems like some really interesting developmental aspects on why people approve/disapprove in the first place, and some pre/trans interplay, and then the strict scrutiny legal analysis and where that comes from/how it plays out, and - whew, this is getting big); and I'd like to dig in deeper/more rigorously on some of the things I wrote about in my previous article; and I have a very sketchy idea about how an AQAL approach might provide the impetus for some changes in the rules of civil procedure.  I'm kind of a constitutional law geek but also a procedure geek : )

    More practically - I'd like to nail down some ideas that have been batted around already, like ADR, integral contracts, integral negotation and client counseling and all of that.  I don't feel at all qualified to spearhead any of that but would love to participate.

    Mostly, I'd like to jump in - anyone else?

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-15-2006, 7:44 AM 11193 in reply to 11190

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Hey, you and I share a geek-topic!  I'm way into con law as well, have an MA in it as well as my concentration in my JD program, did crim law for years.  Now I teach it.  I also had the fortune of having a 3 hr. conversation with Brian Robertson about holacratic governance and its legal implications, and we came up with a really coolk idea about having  NJ be the first state where holacratic governance from the BoD would become legal.  Lots on the drawing board...

    I think we have enough folks to arrang a concall, just have to set up a time, and get the email addresses for notification purposes.  Our soon-to-be I-I General Counsel and our formal gen counsel are also on-board, so that's 5 already, plus others on this topic.  So if there are any lurkers, please make yourselves known.  I'd love to get the Integral Law Center off the ground, and we'e just one paper away from doing that!

    Yee-haw!

    Lynne

    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-15-2006, 6:28 PM 11249 in reply to 10661

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    I think it's interesting to consider the possibilities of change to a government based legal system by looking at similar non-governmental systems and how they function.  There are rule-based systems in all areas of our lives, including this community itself, as well as family units, workplaces, and schools, and we can see a wide variety of styles of application and outcome.

    So when I think of Tim's question about burden, my mind wanders to my own experiences with group rules.  I've seen groups where there is no basic rule about burden, and groups where there are highly biased rules about burden, and I've seen groups where there are fair but changing rules about burden.  And all groups had at least a moderately high rate of satisfaction and sense of justice, even the highly biased ones!  It really depends on the values of the rule-making group, and how committed the individuals involved are to the group's success as a whole.  A law only works well when the majority of the group agree that it is valuable in protecting the group (unless your group happens to be at either of the extreme ends of the spiral).

    So, I do see that having no prestablished rule about burden of proof is a very realistic possibility.  It works well for families (though maybe not always in Tim's family :-), schools, workplaces, and so on.  Even in a large governmental system it would not necessarily result in chaos, at least not any more chaos than there is now.  It would work well if the majority of people agreed upon it and believed that it was a valuable way to solve social problems.  If that were the case, then the details, such as who goes first and who gets heard at all, would be worked out in some way, just like they are for any other group.

    I'm not sure how much this comment makes sense.  I'm definitely not at peak performance these days (lots of low end of the spiral needs to take care of), so bear with me here :-)

    I'm also interested in offering ideas in a brainstorming session, though I'm not much of a conference call type gal.  So I'm not sure what I can offer an group outside of this forum...

    Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
    Turtle
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  10-16-2006, 6:44 PM 11370 in reply to 10673

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW


    tim:
    Does this explain why I feel so powerless to "litigate" disputes between my daughters? ( Someone should have the burden of proof as to who hit first or "stole my stuff" etc.)
    tim, you know what solomon, in a releated predicament, said.

    do you think there's a chance we'll get to preview 'Transformations of Consciousness' the way we did 'Integral Spirituality'? i'm getting unspiritually impatient,

    ralph


    • Post Points: 20
    • Report abuse
  •  10-16-2006, 9:38 PM 11387 in reply to 11370

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Boy Ralph, I sure hope we do get the same sneak peak with the new TOC -not that this is on topic but, still.Smile [:)]

     


    "With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
    . . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
    "You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
    -Constantin Stanislavsky
    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  10-22-2006, 7:26 PM 12048 in reply to 11193

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    I'd love to have some critical eyes take a look at this bit of Integralbabble that I just came up with.  It's intended for high level policy makers and for non-profit organizations working on policy proposals.  So it's intended to have a little less Wilberspeak and be a little more in layperson's terms.  (I'll pull out the "AQAL" and quadrant terms, but put them in for posting here.)  Let me know what you think of my explanations and definitions.  Some of them were really difficult for me to get my head into, and I'm not sure if they are at all accurate representations of that specific perspective.    Oh, and these are based on Maslow's needs hierarchy (which Ken implies is a seperate line, though I'm still not convinced, because I see that all of the lines have specific needs for growth to happen).  The need/levels here don't necessarily match up completely with the Spiral Dynamics levels, but they are in the order that Maslow's research suggests, so that's the order I presented them in.

    Oh, and I should note that this particular version specifically addresses program/infrastructure policy and design.  It would definitely need to be tweaked for more general law application.

    Anyway, without further ado, I present you with...


    Public Policy Problem Solving  (AQAL-style checklist of priorities)

    The policy/law/program/design should seek to meet the individual needs from the following perspectives and levels:

    Internal Individual (UR):
     Emotionally accessible (seems usable)
     Emotionally safe (seems non-threatening)
     Emotionally attractive (seems inviting, maybe even fun to use)
     Emotionally supportive (creates a healthy level of self esteem - validation/acknowledgement while not giving a distorted view of importance)
     Intellectually understandable (seems logical, practical, and non-confusing)
     Intellectually beautiful (looks efficient and simple, and maybe even intellectually stimulating!)
     * Synthetically appears to allow for "chaos" (doesn't feel limiting)
     * Intellectually seems to adapt to "chaos" (seems to accommodate all potential uses now and in the future)
     ** Personally Portable (underlying idea appears to be applicable to other places and even situations - seems like a universal solution)


    External Individual (UL):
     Physically accessible (is actually usable)
     Physically safe (is relatively non-harmful)
     Physically attractive (users choose to use it)
     Physically supportive (generally gets users what they want)
     Physically understandable (doesn't misdirect users)
     Physically beautiful (is efficient and simple, in practice)
     * Physically allows for "chaos" (doesn't reject or punish different kinds of users)
     * Physically adapts to "chaos" (accommodates all different kinds of users/uses while still functioning well)
     ** Physically Portable (underlying idea works in other places and even situations - is a universal solution)


    Internal Society (LR):
     Moralistically accessible (doesn't make people schizophrenic)
     Moralistically safe (doesn't seem evil to people)
     Moralistically attractive (appears fairminded)
     Moralistically supportive (creates a healthy level of society - promotes equality and community mindedness)
     Moralistically understandable (fits in with people's ideals for society)
     Moralistically beautiful (wins awards, attracts positive media attention)
     * Moralistically appears to allow for "chaos" (doesn't offend different types of cultures or religions)
     * Moralistically seems to adapt to "chaos" (works well for users with different belief systems and educations, including different languages)
     ** Socially Portable (underlying idea appears to be applicable to other cultures and belief systems - seems like a universal solution)


    External Society (UL):
     Governmentally doable (we have the resources to make it happen)
     Governmentally safe (won't scare off government workers or voters)
     Governmentally attractive (has bipartisan/multi-department support)
     Governmentally supportive (voters reward government employees who make it happen)
     Governmentally understandable (clearly designed for implementation by necessary departments)
     Governmentally beautiful (helps streamline related laws, conserves resources, and eases the involved departments' workloads)
     * Governmentally allows for "chaos" (doesn't reject or punish different kinds of government employees/departments or voters)
     * Governmentally adapts to "chaos" (accommodates all different kinds of laws, government employees/departments, and voters now and in the future, while still functioning well)
     ** Governmentally Portable (underlying idea works for other policies/laws/departments - is a universal solution)

    This is a very exhaustive list of priorities!  There are 36 in all.  Ideally, a policy would satisfy all of these priorities, however, it would take a vast amount of knowledge and intellectual capacity to juggle all of these all at once.  So we can start at the lower levels of each of the four perspectives of the world: Internal (Subjective) Individual, External (Objective) Individual, Internal (Subjective) Society, and External (Objective) Society.  We should seek to meet the most basic needs of all of these perspectives first and foremost, and then work to move down the lists to meet needs of the more developed and complicated individuals.  For example, everyone needs to have access and be/feel safe with a policy.  While only a segment of the population will care about or need beauty and intellectual stimulation from a policy.  Of course, the more perspectives and levels that a policy satisfies, the more it will be universally supported, used, and appreciated, and the fewer problems there will be with the policy.  Keeping the more difficult priorities on the table as future goals is important, but it's best not to be too obsessed with them, so that at least something can be accomplished and tested out, with an eye for potential solutions to meeting the higher level priorities.


    Notes:

    * These complicated priorities are not always taught in educational settings, and so they may be very difficult to come up with solutions for.

    ** This is the most complicated level of priority, is most definitely not taught in most, if any, educational settings, and is very unlikely to be solved for, though not impossible!


    Phew!  OK, tag, you're it!


    Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
    Turtle
    • Post Points: 50
    • Report abuse
  •  10-23-2006, 11:15 AM 12124 in reply to 12048

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Turtle,

    I've looked this over for a while and still have to wrap my mind around this to give you the feedback that youdeserve.  I hope someone with quicke response time and more free time can do this justice, but I promise to get back to this great addition with some specific feedback in honor of your work!

    Love,

    Lynne

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
  •  10-23-2006, 7:05 PM 12229 in reply to 12048

    • cgnost is not online. Last active: 06-08-2008, 6:35 PM cgnost
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 07-04-2006
    • Posts 28
    • Points 425

    Re: INTEGRAL LAW

    Good stuff - I haven't put enough thought into this yet to give any comprehensive comments, but I wanted to throw something out there.  My initial impression is that some of these are often going to be in apparent conflict (e.g., emotionally safe and yet doesn't seem 'limiting'), so considering the priorities as a list, while a great list of things to think about, maybe doesn't work as a checklist of what any policy should contain?  It might even be paralyzing at times.

    thoughts?

    • Post Points: 5
    • Report abuse
Page 2 of 5 (66 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML
 © Integral Institute, 2006. all rights reserved - powered by enlight™ email this page del.icio.us | terms of service | privacy policy | suggestion box | help