Night of 1/16: Your verdict and why

[intellectualammo]

I was wondering what your verdict was for in Ayn Rands Night of January the 16th? And Why?

My verdict: Not guilty.

Why?

No body of evidence, as in, I couldn't identify conclusively that the body that was splattered on the ground or the one burned in the plane, was that of Bjorn. Nothing presented, to me, established that he, in fact, is even dead.

And what's more is that my verdict had NOTHING to do with "sense-of-life", but rather my sense of justice, my objectivity in regards to judging this case and reaching the verdict that I have.

Wasn't that supposed to be what was on trial here - jurors sense-of-life?

Also this case, The people of the State of New York v. Karen Andre, I vet the impression that it's a Capital Case, was it? Seems like it to me, because of Karen's line: "I thank you" "You have spared me the trouble of committing suicide." if the jury had reached a guilty verdict.

[Marc K.]

And what's more is that my verdict had NOTHING to do with "sense-of-life", but rather my sense of justice, my objectivity in regards to judging this case and reaching the verdict that I have.

Do you really think that your sense of justice or objectivity have NOTHING to do with your sense of life?

If one's sense of life is: "The integrated sum of a man’s basic values is his sense of life." -- Ayn Rand, "Philosophy and Sense of Life", The Romantic Manifesto p.27 ; then ...

... Do you think it is possible to divorce your sense of justice and objectivity from your sense of life? This is like saying my judgement on this matter has NOTHING to do with the sum total of my judgements.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Marc K.

[intellectualammo]

The context of the sense of life she is talking about is in the introduction, and my judgment had nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. The judgment I pronounced was not one I think she was aiming toward, read the intro and especially the closing before the verdict.

[intellectualammo]

"The factual evidence for and against the accused is (approximately) balanced. The issue rests on the credibility of the witnesses. The jury has to choose which side to believe and this depends on every juror' s sense of life."

Again, my decision had NOTHING to do with any of that. Let me explain: I did not have to believe either side, as she claims. And, for me, the issue did not rest on the credibility of the witnesses, as she claims. Or depended upon my "sense of life" (see Stevens and Flint closings for the exact sense), as she claims.

I just cannot determine the how, where, when, why, or even IF he is in fact dead.

That is a fatal flaw in the play that kills it in its book form for me - but - on stage, I think k it would be fun to go see just for the chance to get on the jury.

[Marc K.]

Again, my decision had NOTHING to do with any of that. 

 

Again, you cannot divorce any particular judgment from the sum total of your judgments.

 

First you need to understand what "sense of life" is.

[intellectualammo]

I am going by how she describes it in the introduction and in closing arguments of the trial.

If I was Karen's defender, my main attack on the prosecution would be in not having sufficient enough evidence in regards to Bjorn even being dead, for one. Then when Guts suddenly comes in, that would help that much more in my attack, it really reinforces it and drives it home. Not sense of life.

Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

I am going by how she describes it in the introduction and in closing arguments of the trial.

 

I understand, so am I. 

 

What you don't seem to understand is that every judgment you make says something about your sense of life. You accept the concept of "evidence" which implies many metaphysical and epistemological judgments. Please read the Lexicon page on "sense of life" to start. But really you must read the "Romantic Manifesto" in order to understand it fully.

[intellectualammo]

And for the third and final time, the way it is presented in the closing in the stage version of the play, and when put into book form that aforementioned as well as the introduction that was added, is what we go by in regards to the sense of sense-of-life she means, and the prosecution/defense closings. What is elsewhere, I think, is still not relevant.

Though I may try to argue with that since you keep bringing it up. It has to do with subconscious and emotional appraisal. So the theatrics, melodrama, she wants you to respond to I the case, see the closings for that, and I don't go for it. My judgment was not emotion oriented or swayed by the closings.

Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

And for the third and final time, the way it is presented in the closing in the stage version of the play, and when put into book form that aforementioned as well as the introduction that was added, is what we go by in regards to the sense of sense-of-life she means, and the prosecution/defense closings. What is elsewhere, I think, is still not relevant.

 

 

Is that all it takes? Well for the third and final time I am going by what was said in the introduction. Perhaps you should quote exactly what you would like me to read. 

 

Here is a quote from the intro: "A sense of life is a preconceptual  equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man's relationship to existence. I emphasize this last because it is a man's attitude toward life that constitutes the core and motor of his subconscious philosophy."

 

Appraisal is another word for judgment. And all of Ayn Rand's works are relevant. Why wouldn't they be? She explains "sense of life" further in the other works I mentioned. The only way you even have a "subconsciously integrated appraisal" is to take your most basic appraisals of the world, the ones that are relevant to everything you know and automatize those appraisals. 

 

As I said: you accept the concept of "evidence" which means you believe in reality and man's ability to figure out and know reality. This gives you a certain sense of the world and that sense cannot be divorced from the appraisals that formed it.

 

The way you sense it in this play is by who you believe is telling the truth. I believed everything Karen's side said and believed nothing of what the other side said.

[intellectualammo]

For me it's not sense of life (subconscious emotion), it's not who I believe, it's based solely upon two bodies that can't be IDed, so Karen walks.

Edited February 20, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Marc K.]

For me it's not sense of life (subconscious emotion), it's not who I believe, it's based solely upon two bodies that can't be IDed, so Karen walks.

This makes no sense. Guts Identified the bodies and you don't believe him. Do you have no opinion about who is telling the truth?

 

One more time: your judgment about what kind of evidence is acceptable says something about the sum total of your judgments, i.e., your sense of life. Remember "emotions" are lightning quick, automatic judgments so don't let that word scare you.

 

Again, it is a logical impossibility to divorce your judgment on any particular matter from the sum total of your judgments. The sum total of your judgments necessarily has an effect on how you will judge new issues.

 

You don't know what "sense of life" is, so until you do you should stop talking about it.

[intellectualammo]

I have no opinion on who I believe is telling the truth. I am not letting emotions guide me, or the closing arguments move me, from my firm objectivity.

[Marc K.]

I have no opinion on who I believe is telling the truth. I am not letting emotions guide me, or the closing arguments move me, from my firm objectivity.

Really, so in your firm objectivity you think both could be telling the truth? You don't think testimony is evidence?

 

Well at least you believe there is such a thing as objective reality. Do you think there is no difference in the sense of life between you and a person who doesn't believe in objective reality?