Legal fiction

Distortion and nature of the legal system
The power that is turns everything into tools and weapons to use in a constant attempt to win by playing win/lose games against a man’s brother. One of the most powerful, magical, and hard-to-see tools and weapons used by aggressors and exploiters against humanity is language. The word “phonetics” is said to be derived from “phoenetics,” supposedly derived from the Phoenicians, who gave us “lan-goo-ag,” a word that refers to a substance that, when fired from a ship’s cannon, rips the sails and collapses the mast leaving opponents “Dead in the water.” Obviously, words are an extremely powerful weapon and are used for the purpose of conquest and rule, which is the true nature of the legal system. Ideas concerning the nature and use of language in law have been identified, among other things, in a book entitled “Legal Fiction” by Lon L. Fuller

Fiction as a linguistic phenomenon
Ihering once said that the history of the law can be written as a motto through its first chapter by the sentence, “In the beginning it was a word. “(Ihering thus expresses the excessive respect shown in the early law for spoken words.” Among all primitive nations the word appears as something mysterious; it attributes naive faith to the words of supernatural power. ” Students of legal fiction can take this motto to heart. It is certainly true that it is often overlooked that fiction is “a disease or infection of the tongue.”
Anyone who has considered legal fiction must be aware that it is an illustration of the pervasive power of words. A statement that neither its author nor its audience believe in can have any significance, and all this is sufficient proof that we are here in touch with the mysterious influence exercised by names and symbols. In this sense, fiction is a linguistic phenomenon.

What is Legal Fiction?
The impact of fiction extends to all departments of legal activity. However, it cannot be said that this circumstance has ever caused much discomfort to the legal profession. The laity often complain about the law: but very rarely do they complain that it is based on fiction. They tend more to express dissatisfaction when the law has refused to adopt what they consider to be more appropriate and desirable fiction. Fiction may also have played its part in drafting the law of the “unknowable” layman. The sheer strangeness and shamelessness of legal fiction tends to curb lay criticism, and no doubt often lead them to modestly agree with the writer of Sheppard’s Touchstone, that “the subject of the law is something transcendent, and too high for ordinary capacity.”

Difference Fiction from lies
Maine’s classic definition of historical fiction as “any assumption that conceals, or influences to conceal, the fact that the rule of law undergoes changes … remains unchanged and its mode of operation is changed” seems to leave room for deliberate fraud. The English courts have got into the habit of pretending that movable property, which could in fact be seized from the plaintiff by force, was found by the defendant. Why? To allow action that otherwise has no basic. If this fiction doesn’t cheat, what is its purpose?

It is easy to conclude mercilessly that judges who extend their jurisdiction or who change the rule of law by covert fiction very coldly and budgetingly choose to hide from the public the fact that it is they who make the laws.

The difference between fiction and the wrong conclusion
Fiction generally differs from the wrong conclusion (or in the scientific fields, from the false hypothesis) in the fact that it is adopted by the author even though he is aware of its falsehood. Fiction is a “purposeful, but consciously false, assumption.” As life, physical, biological, sentient beings, we are real because we exist as an aspect of being. The system, on the other hand, is an abstract creation of the mind. It is in the domain of words, symbols, ideas, laws, contracts, etc., where circulation exists through the flow (currency) flows in accordance with the rules of law and trade.

Manifest existence emergence in form and content from nothingness of the unmanifest. Everything is creation, therefore, a derivative, created and derived from the creator. Creator and creation are different “meta-levels” or “logical categories”, from each other. The eternal absolute has no finite properties. From any relative perspective, the absolute can neither be recognized nor known, and must be described in accordance with what is not, such as “Void”, “Unlimited” “Immutable”, etc./

While the unmanifested is immutable, the manifested existence is an endless, not repetitive, unique, always different change. It is not possible for any configuration of anything created to ever be the same as it always was, or as it will ever be, or what will be a split second later, or what it could ever be. As Heraclitus pointed out, “No man can step twice into the same river.” Everything is in the pattern of processes, the energy in motion in certain forms, orbits, paths, in circles that are infinitely unique at all times. Furthermore, the more manifest reality is away from its source, the more derivative / distorted it is on and less powerful.

What the mind, through sensory experience and all other relative processes, regards as “physical reality” which is solid, real and material, is in reality, most illusory. The more subtle, unrealistic, and unattainable level of manifestation an individual approaches, the more real and powerful it is, since it is less derivative and closer to the Source. We can illustrate this by looking at the history of science, and perhaps most dramatically by the example of weapons development. How does a man “progress” in weapons, initially mostly physical (sticks, spears, catapults, etc.), to more subtle layers at the chemical level (where gunpowder works), toward the atomic and subatomic regions (atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb), according to the more unmanifested the more energy is released.

Although neither absolutely nor relatively can actually be perceived by the mind, this does not stop almost everyone from participating in the popular game of a different opinion. The mind creates concepts about the source – none of which are from afar is a faithful map or area that is supposedly mapped – as well as aspects of the relative.

To satisfy the mind’s “need for knowledge,” one lives with the foolish idea that his concepts of existence (whether absolute or relative) are true and that a fixed image forms, or that conclusions are drawn from some finite points of advantage (mainly through experience and sensory perception. ) captured the core of the thing itself. It is as silly as taking a progressive snapshot of the ocean and its waves, and to think that we have so understood and comprehend the essence of the ocean, or to speculate outside the door what is inside a room where no one is there and to live on speculation as if they were absolute. We call this state of human development “ego-conscious state” (as opposed to “unconscious” in which life simply lives, or “Self-consciousness” in which man lives in the awareness of the Absolute and the relative as they really are, not what his mind imagines or perceives).
This ego-conscious state, or the mistaken replacement of the abstract construction of the mind for reality, and consequently the construction of careers, institutions, “security”, and government, is therefore idolatry. It is idolatry, that is, worshiping Baal. By giving confidence and superiority to concepts of something (such as God), rather than reality itself, the individual worships (pays homage, worships and depends on) images carved into the mind.

Engraved images in the mind are as many idols, and indeed are absolutely necessary for construction, as are idols of wood or stone. Man’s tendency to think that he has realized the unknowable, and, worse, to replace his knowledge with what he thinks he has known, but is not only idolatrous, but can be responsible for even more dissent, bloodshed, suffering and war than any another aspect of human lives. It could be said that “God (the eternal source) created man in his own image (as a conscious, spiritual being with the power of creation), and the man returned a compliment.” As Pascal joked, “To die for the ideal is a pretty high price for something , which we can only speculate on. “
The goal of every Zen master, for example, is to bring people to a conscious state where they can no longer, according to Gregory Bateson, “eat menus and leave dinner.” Until one sees and lives reality, as it really is, what is wrong is he considers “reality”, that is, what his mind (through the senses) perceives and thinks about existence, about reality itself. It replaces the map for territory. (“The central axiom of semantics is that” the map is not territory; the name is not a named thing. “)

Because the senses are enormously limited, conclusions about the reality that the mind comes to are fantasy. They are lies and seducers. We will perceive reality in a much different way, for example, if we could see existence across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, instead of the extremely narrow range in which what we see as the existence of colors.

The practical consequence of all this is that a person in a self-conscious state lives a false and fictitious life. It is one of the illusions and deceptions of life in keeping with the absurd belief that its conceptualizations are both true and real when they are not. Man not only lives, but also treats others (often dogmatically and violently), on the basis that he believes that the cheater is true. Since law is a subset of the workings of the human mind, what else can law be different from terms such as fiction and fraud? Moreover, since these are all occurring within, and as a derivative expression of, ever-changing relativity, law cannot be other than ever-changing.