Lawyers vs. Child-like bliss

A balding lawyer in a red Jaguar comes to a stop sign, but does not quite hit the brakes completely before driving past the intersection. A cop sees this, puts on his flashing lights, and pulls the lawyer to the side of the road.

Lawyer: What's the problem officer?
Cop: You did not come to a complete stop at that stop sign. You came to a rolling stop. Therefore I have to ticket you.
Lawyer: Officer, you are saying 'rolling stop' as opposed to 'complete stop' as if they are two different things. The word "rolling" and the word "stop" are both antonyms for the same action: "stop".
Cop: They are two different words, therefor you deserve a ticket.
Lawyer: Officer, if you can logically convince me that there are different definitions preceding the action of stopping, then I can and will gladly accept the ticket.
Cop: You want me to convince you that there is a difference in coming to a rolling stop or a complete stop? Sure, I'd be happy to explain that to you logically. Get out of the car.
The lawyer obliges and gets out of the car. Just then the cop step forward, takes out his baton, and begins beating the hell out of the lawyer.
Lawyer: Oh stop! You are killing me!
Cop: Now, you want me to come to a "rolling stop" or do you want me to just "stop"?

My point is that anyone can argue any point with the proper training, knowing a formula, and memorizing some three dollars words, anyone can argue any point. There has to be some soul injected into any argument.

I found an old book of letters that D.H Lawrence (one of my favorites in my early 20's) wrote to his friend Aldous Huxley on this subject. Lawrence wrote to Huxley a biting letter about his disgust of his book, "Point Counter Point" getting such wonderful reviews in general. At the time Lawrence was getting shit for his Lady Chatterley book (don't really bother with it) because it was 'immoral' for the time period, though it's about love. Lawrence wrote that if the general public realized that "Point Counter Point" is about arguing any point, and how dangerous that could be, they would trash his (Huxley's) book, not his. He kind of got a laugh about how fickle literature audiences are with sexuality and yet overlook dangerous issues. I'll explain why knowing the knowledge in "Point Counter Point" could be create danger later.

My negativity is not directed at the professional lawyer, but the metaphorical one (was that cheesy?), inside everyone. The part of us that dwells in petty talk, gossip, politics, static.

If that's too abstract then I'll break it down in images. Lawyer stuff is like the shit you read on the front page of yahoo news because they don't have anything to say. It's the petty talk from someone beside you who is not on acid, when you are on acid. It's talk that jocks create to win women at the bars. It can be intellectual masturbation as well. How would you like to be locked into a room on LSD with CNN playing loud in the background? Lawyer stuff. It's arguing that you can't feed the world's population because it's not profitable, or logical. It's the fucking jerks of the world who argue to stroke their fragile egos even when it means to throw compassion out the window. Basically for me it boils down to compassion, and the ability to win an argument without it and just call it 'logic'.

I once walked out of a Jean-Paul Sartre class (hated it!) at San Francisco debate because of this line of thinking. Sartre was a ass, and I'd challenge him to a duel if he were not rotting in the ground. My beef with one of his lessons was that he believed you can postpone grief, and emotion in general to be responsible. Sartre was all about responsibility, and making "rational decisions for an emotionally positive outcome"

As a side note I think I dropped that class because of the word "responsibility" repeated so often, it did not jive well with my gypsy life. Sartre would have me live without conflict if I actually took his advice. I found it boring to strive for that type of life at the time.

Anyway, the war was going on back then too, and I asked the Professor if she thought that line of thinking could be dangerous. For example: should I be responsible and take the test that was scheduled for that class that day for a good grade in the future and a good outcome for myself academically, OR could I follow my heart and protest the war. Sartre would say to be responsible. I could not accept it. Arrogance too on my part. Plus I could not stand all those poorly dressed hipsters (lawyer types all of them!) in that class.