Read the article below then answer the questions that follow.

THE FACTUAL ASPECT

1. Question: What is the flow of conduct that is the subject of this article?
   Answer:  The flow of conduct is WEARING if it assumes its positive polarity and NOT WEARING if it assumes its negative polarity. Recall that a flow of conduct exists in either of two states i.e. conduct is binary: 1) on or flowing or positive or 2) off or not flowing or negative. Also recall our practice when isolating a flow of conduct to put it in its gerundial form - the root + ing. 
   


2. Question:Who is the source of conduct? Who is doing the wearing or the not wearing?
   Answer: The source of conduct is the Turkish women.


3. Question:Who is the recipient of conduct?
   Answer: The recipient of conduct is the Turkish women themselves. They are both the source and the recipient. [Note:  When the source and recipient are identical has different implications for lawmakers then when the source and recipient are two different persons. Is it good or bad policy for lawmakers to get in the middle of conduct that person does to himself (See Regulation vs. Liberation by clicking here). Think about the answer to this question by thinking about lawmakers who get in the middle of conduct between two consenting adults. When should a lawmaker bud out? When should a lawmaker bud in?]
   


4. Question:What is a circumstance? Recall that a circumstance is a fact that surrounds a flow of conduct.
   Answer: A circumstance is ON THE HEAD. Circumstances are often found in prepositional phrases.  Perhaps if Turkish women wanted to wear scarves on their right arm, there would be no divisive, national controversy



THE LEGAL ASPECT

5. Question:What is the legal issue?
   Answer: The legal issue is the Duty to not wear a head scarf vs. the Privilege to wear a head scarf or not wear a head scarf as the individual decides. No side is arguing for the duty to wear a head scarf.


6. Question:What opinion do the supporters of the ban hold?
   Answer: The supporters of the ban hold the opinion of dislike. They dislike the wearing of head scarves.  See column 3 and row C of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here.


7. Question:What opinion do the opponents of the ban hold?
   Answer: The opponents of the ban hold the opinion of indifference. They are neutral toward each state of conduct. To them it is ok for a woman to wear a head scarf and it is ok for a woman to not wear a head scarf. See column 3 and row B of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here. The opponents of the ban are not advocating the third alternative: See column 3 and row A of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here. They are not advocating a ban on uncovered heads.


8. Question:What polarity of conduct do the supporters of the ban desire?
   Answer: The supporters of the ban desire that the flow of conduct be negative. The desire 'not wearing'; they reject 'wearing'. See column 4 and row C of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here.


9. Question:What polarity of conduct do the opponents of the ban desire?
   Answer: The opponents of the ban have no desires with regard to either flow of conduct. Either flow of conduct is acceptable to them. To them, 'wearing' and 'not wearing' are equally acceptable. See column 4 and row B of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here.


10. Question:With what flavor of law would supporters of the ban express themselves?
    Answer: The supporters of the ban would express their opinion that they dislike the wearing of head scarves and their desire that women not wear head scarves with a command. See column 5 and row C of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here.


11. Question:With what flavor of law would opponents of the ban express themselves?
    Answer: The opponents of the ban would express their neutral opinion and lack of desire for either of the two binary states of conduct with a permission. See column 5 and row B of the Periodic Table of the Elements of a law by clicking here.


12. Question:  Using the language of basic legal understanding, what words would supporters of the ban use?
    Answer: Thou shall not wear a head scarf.


13. Question:  Using the language of basic legal understanding, what words would opponents of the ban use?
    Answer: Thou may wear a head scarf or not wear a head scarf as thou decides.
    


14. Question:How many tokens do Turkish lawmakers have in their hands to distribute to sources, recipients and others??
    Answer: Like all lawmakers, the number is (4) four: a duty, privilege, right and a no-right


15. Question:On what tokens does the article focus?
    Answer: The article focuses on two tokens: 1) a duty and a 2) Privilege. Recall that a duty simply means that weight is present and that a privilege simply means that weight is absent. Weight is anything used to influence a source with regard to a flow of conduct. The secularists advocate for the duty while the religious advocate for the privilege. Hence at issue is a command versus a permission. A command has weight; a permission is weightless.
    


16. Question:Using the language of advanced legal understanding, put the position of the supporters of the ban into words.
    Answer: A woman has a duty to wear a head scarf.


17. Question:Using the language of advanced legal understanding, put the position of the opponents of the ban into words.
    Answer: A woman has a privilege to wear or not to wear a head scarf as she herself decides.


18. Question:To whom is the duty or privilege token bound?
    Answer: A lawmaker binds the privilege token or the duty token to the women of Turkey


19. Question: Is a ban a command or permission?
    Answer: The ban is a command not a permission.
    


20. Question:Does the article discuss standing?
    Answer: The article says nothing about standing.


21. Question:(Command - Permission - Command) Why does Hiket Sami Turk say, "It's been presented as a liberty to cover the head, but in practice, it is going to evolve into a ban on uncovered hair."
    Answer: He covers the compete range of options available to a lawmaker. These three options are depicted on the Periodic Table of the Elements of a Law as its three rows (click here)  The ban on head scarves is a command for negative conduct, i.e., the duty not to wear a head scarf.  The liberty is a permission for either negative or positive conduct, i.e. the privilege to wear a head scarf or to not wear a head scarf as a woman freely chooses.  The ban on uncovered hair is a command for positive conduct, i.e. the duty to wear a head scarf.  Mr. Turk is afraid that despite a lifting of the command banning the wearing of a head scarf, the permission would be illusory because of intolerance.  Intolerance will force women who do not want to wear a head scarf to wear a head scarf.  So Mr. Turk recommends intolerance - a ban on the wearing of head scarves- to counteract intolerance from the opposite viewpoint.  Recall that weight is anything that influences a source to engage in a flow of conduct. Hiket Sami Turk means that while a liberty or a permission may be written on the law books of Turkey, the social pressure by the majority of Turks will coerce women to wear their head scarves. Therefore, intolerance is needed to fight intolerance.
    
    

 

ISSUES OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF A UNIFIED THEORY OF A LAW

22. Question:What is your initial reaction to the story? To which side are you sympathetic and why?
    Answer: Each of us must answer this question ourselves


23. Question:Before looking at the law in Turkey and proposed changes, what is the law in the United States of America? Are NY Met caps banned in Yankee Stadium? Are NY Yankee caps banned at Shea stadium?
    Answer: In the United States, the permission is the norm. A person has the privilege to wear something on the head or to wear nothing on the head as the person himself or herself decides


24. Question:Knowing that the norm in the United States is the permission, does your initial reaction change or continue the same and why?
    Answer: Each of us must answer this question ourselves


25. Question:What does a divisive, national controversy over what Turkish women wear on their heads tell us about ourselves? [Are we in America immune to controversies over trivialities? What does GOD think about the importance we humans invest in head scarves? If violence erupts from this controversy, is the perpetrator of the violence exculpated because he did it for God?  Doing evil for God: is that an oxymoron?  Do God and evil co-exist? Are God and evil incompatible, irreconcilable concepts? Would the world be a better place if we let GOD do his own dirty work while we do GOD's good works?]
    Answer: Our unified theory of a law does not answer this question. It can only put things in perspective so that such a question can be raised.


26. Question:Is there another solution rather than using intolerance to fight intolerance?
    Answer: How about the creation of institutions that foster tolerance.  How about tolerance Police and tolerance Courts that would be charged with safeguarding the 'liberty' from incursions by those who would want to socially coerce all woman into wearing a head scarf?
    


27. Question:Is dissent good or bad? Is there value to dissent in a society? Is tolerated dissent a hallmark of a free and mature society? Is it important that everyone hold the same beliefs? Is homogeneity of opinion good or bad?  Is it important to safeguard dissent? Doesn't dissent test orthodox dogma for validity and invalidity? Are we so sure of our beliefs? Who decides what is dissent and what is the orthodox dogma? Why cannot the orthodox majority live happily with a heretical minority in their midst? In what circumstances, does one tolerate and in what circumstances does one not?
    Answer: The answer is up to you.
    

A Row 'A' and a Row 'C' lawmaker are engaged in regulation (Click Here). A Row 'A' lawmaker deals with the regulation of positive conduct not negative conduct. A Row 'C' Lawmaker deals with the regulation of negative conduct not positive conduct. A Row 'A' and a Row 'C' lawmaker issue commands. Regulation and commands go together.  A lawmaker who regulates imposes duties upon sources of conduct. A regulating lawmaker substitutes his will for the will of the source.  The source is not allowed to decide upon a course of conduct for himself.  The choice is the lawmaker's not the source's.

A Row 'B' lawmaker is engaged in liberation (Click Here).  A Row 'B' Lawmaker deals with the liberation of negative or positive conduct.  A Row 'B' lawmaker issues permissions.  Liberation and permissions go together.  A lawmaker who liberates bestows a privilege upon a source of conduct.  There is no substitution of wills.  The source makes a decision without interference from the lawmaker.  The source of conduct decides upon a course of conduct himself. A lawmaker butts out.

Neither regulation nor liberation is, ipso facto, superior to the other.  One is not intrinsically bad; one is not intrinsically good.  Regulation can be good or bad.  Liberation can be good or bad.

Food for thought:

Question #1:  Which is more virtuous?  Celibacy imposed by others (regulation) or self imposed celibacy (liberation)? 

Question #2: Is God a Regulator or a Liberator or both?  What is the relationship between free will and the concepts of regulation and liberation? Does God strike us down with lightening the moment we sin? What does this tell us? Has God made a mistake by not striking us down immediately when we sin?  Why are some people so eager to correct God's "mistake" and supply human lightening for God's?  Who is correct: they or God?

[Note: Positive conduct is simply conduct that is on or flowing; negative conduct is simply conduct that is off or not flowing. Polarity is the property of a flow of conduct that recognize that conduct is either flowing or not flowing (is either on or off)]

You have seen before and after photographs in magazines in advertisements for weight loss products.

How is this done with regard to legal thinking?

We ask each new student to contribute examples of laws.  The examples capture a student's current legal ideology. The examples are the before picture. After a student runs himself or herself through the program, we compare the before picture with the after picture.  There is usually a significant difference.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is being asked to explain to us the meaning of the foregoing language. If only the drafters of the 2nd amendment had been clearer. This is a perfect example of how sloppiness in legal thinking shifts power from those who make our laws to those who interpret them. Laws without meaning can be interpreted to mean anything.  Precise legal thinking keeps power with the lawmakers instead of letting it accidentally drift to the law interpreters. 

Before we begin our analysis, there is an assumption that must be kept in mind: the hierarchy of lawmakers.  In our society, our lawmakers are ranked.  Laws that come from our constitution trump those that come from lesser lawmakers.  When there is a conflict between a law from an inferior lawmaker and a law from a superior lawmaker, the law from the inferior lawmaker yields and gives way to the law from the superior lawmaker..

We begin our analysis using our unified theory of a law with the flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances (Click Here), i.e., the factual part of a law.   What is the conduct?  From the above text, the conduct is the keeping and bearing of arms.  Nothing is too complicated here.  A lawmaker at the top of the Triangle of Law (Click Here) can look down upon the flow of conduct and can form any of three opinions towards it (Click Here).  A lawmaker can

1. like (See Column 3 by clicking Here) that a person keeps and bears arms and hence desires that the flow of conduct be on i.e. desires that he keeps and bears arms (See Column 4 by clicking Here) and hence issue a command for positive conduct (See Column 5 by clicking Here);
2. be indifferent (See Column 3 by clicking Here)  to a person keeping and bearing arms and hence does not object to either flow of conduct (See Column 4 by clicking Here) and hence issues a permission for positive or negative conduct (See Column 5 by clicking Here);
3. dislike (See Column 3 by clicking Here) that a person keeps and bears arms and hence desires that the flow of conduct be off, i.e. desires that he not keep and bear arms (See Column 4 by clicking Here) and hence issue a command for negative conduct (See Column 5 by clicking Here);

 [Note: positive conduct is defined as conduct that is on or flowing.  Negative conduct is conduct that is off or not flowing]

Taking the description of the universe of what can be done above, the three permutations of a lawmaker can be expressed as follows

1. a person shall keep and bear arms;
2. a person may keep and bear arms or not keep and bear arms as he sees fit
3. a person shall not to keep and bear arms.
   

There are no other permutations. This is it.  A lawmaker can issue a command for positive conduct that we see in item #1. A lawmaker can issue a permission for positive or negative conduct that we see in item #2. A lawmaker can issue a command for negative conduct that we see in item #3.  But this is it. Sure a lawmaker can sprinkle circumstances around each of these (Click Here) attaching "if" clauses or "even though" clauses to the main clause to build a three part sentence - which by the way, is the linguistic vehicle ideally adapted to hold a law. However, the legal heart of any law from the lawmaker will be one of the three permutations above.

Although there are always three possible permutations available to a lawmaker, the issue usually always boils down to a choice between two.  In this case,  the issue is #2 vs. #3.  Those who oppose gun control say that the United State's Supreme Court created a permission - #2 - by virtue of which a person may keep and bear arms.  Any laws passed by lesser lawmakers that conflict with it must yield and stand aside.  Those who support gun control say that the United State's Constitution created no such permission.

The foregoing was basic legal analysis.  A uniformed theory of a law divides the legal aspect of a law into basic and advanced.

The advanced legal aspect of a law deals with "weight" and "standing" and the process of "binding" them to a particular person.

Weight is anything a lawmaker does to influence a flow of conduct from the mere utterance of a command to the guillotine. Commands are laws that have weight.  Permissions are laws that are weightless.  Weight is present in a command and absent in a permission.  The word ' duty' indicates the presence of weight.  The word 'privilege' indicates the absence of weight (Click Here).  Binding is like pinning a medal onto someone.  A lawmaker binds a duty onto a person or binds a privilege.  Binding exists because it is sometimes easier to talk about a law in a more advanced manner than in the basic manner. The three permutations available to a lawmaker thus become

1. a person has a duty to keep and bear arms;
2. a person has a privilege to keep and bear arms or not keep and bear arms as he sees fit
3. a person has a duty to not to keep and bear arms.

Standing is a little more complicated. Weight derives from a grammatical concept known as the imperative mood. Weight is wired innately into our grammar.  This is not so for standing.   However,  it exhibits the same logic as weight. Standing is the recognition of a person's interest in a flow of conduct. Standing is found in commands but not in permissions.  The word 'right' indicates the presence of standing. The word, 'no-right', indicates the absence of standing (Click Here). 

So far, we have been holding this discussion from the point of view of a source of conduct and weight.  Weight and a source of conduct often, but not necessarily, go together.  Our discussion could also be held from the point of view of standing (although it is clearer when the conduct is transitive not intransitive or reflexive)

Yale Professor Wesley Hohfeld (Click Here) taught us that for every duty there is a right and for every privilege, there is a no-right. (Click Here)

1. duty - command for positive conduct - right
2. privilege - permission for positive or negative conduct - no-right
3. duty - command for negative conduct - right 

From  the perspective  of standing, the three permutations of a lawmaker translate as follows

1. a person has a right that someone else keep and bear arms;
2. a person has no-right that someone else keep and bear arms or not keep and bear arms as the someone else sees fit
3. a person has a right that someone else not keep and bear arms.

With regard to keeping and bearing arms, it is more common to see the discussion from the point of view of the source of conduct and weight.

[Note: colloquially, people often use the word 'right" as the token that indicates a person has a right as we use it and to also indicate a person has a privilege as we use it.  These are two totally different things. One involves a command and the other involves a permission  To use one word to indicate two things leads to confusion. Yet, it is done and done often.]

Let us now bring our discussion to a conclusion.

The gun advocates argue that a person has the privilege to keep and bear arms and, because this permission derives from the U.S. Constitution, it cannot be taken away or "infringed" upon by some lesser lawmaker.  The advocates of gun control disagree.  They argue that the U.S. Constitution did not create a permission. It did not give a person the privilege to keep and bear arms.  Hence, when lesser lawmakers impose the duty to not keep and bear arms, there is no conflict between the command for negative conduct issued by these lesser lawmakers and a Constitutional permission for positive or negative conduct and, hence, the command of these lesser lawmakers that bans guns applies and is in full force and effect.

The Supreme Court needs to decide whether the Constitution has created a privilege to keep and bear arms that lesser lawmakers cannot change. If only the drafters of the 2nd  Amendment had not been so sloppy and said what they meant.

Who did the framers of the 2nd Amendment want to protect from the infringement of lesser lawmakers if it were not each and every person in these United States? Some group of "people"?  It is obvious that the framers were trying to insulate someone from regulation.  Either

1. the Supreme Court says there is a Constitutionally protected privilege possessed by a person and gives the red light to lesser lawmaker's attempt to regulate guns i.e. or
   
2. it says there is no Constitutionally protected privilege possessed by a person and gives the green light to the regulation of guns by lesser lawmakers.
   

 Does it boil down to the use of the words 'the people" instead of 'a person'?

Our unified theory of a law can frame the issue but not answer it.  It tells us the allegations of law.  Only legal research can dig up the evidence of law - judicial opinions, statutes, etc. - that points to the answer. Moreover, one of the nice things about our unified theory of a law is that it puts on the common table a standard vocabulary with which we can talk about a particular law in its most intimate detail. In addition, it gives the legal thinker intellectual confidence.  Because it validates or invalidates the presentation of the issues, it generates a high degree of confidence that our legal thinking is correct. The smartest lawyer can understand a law no better than as a law is captured in all of its fullness by our unified theory of a law.

There are two primary legal relationship in the business of lawmaking:

1. a relationship between a lawmaker and a source of conduct, and
   
2. a relationship between a lawmaker and a recipient of the consequences of conduct.
   

The third primary relationship in the business of lawmaking is a factual relationship. It is the flow of conduct between a source and a recipient in circumstances. 

Because there are three relationships, the 'triangle' is the perfect metaphor to depict them (Click Here) 

The relationship between a lawmaker and a source of conduct is describe by the term, "weight".  Weight is anything that influences a source with regard to a flow of conduct.  Weight ranges from the mere utterance of a command to the guillotine. Only commands have weight.  Permissions are weightless. The presence of weight is indicated by the term 'duty'.  The absence of weight is indicated by the term 'privilege'. Moreover, while it is common to associate "weight" and a source of conduct,  this is not necessary.  A lawmaker can 'bind' a 'privilege' or a 'duty' to someone other than a source of conduct.  We call this extrapolation.

The relationship between a lawmaker and a recipient of conduct is describe by the term, "standing". Standing describes whether or not a lawmaker recognizes a recipient's interest or expectation with regard to a flow of conduct.  Commands have standing; permissions do not.  The presence of "standing" is indicated by the term 'right'. The absence of 'standing' is indicated by the term 'no-right'.  Moreover, while it is common to associate "standing" and a recipient of conduct,  this is not necessary.  A lawmaker can 'bind' a 'right' or a 'no-right' to someone other than a recipient of conduct.  We call this extrapolation.

Hence, what, in essence, does a lawmaker do? A lawmaker stands on top of the Triangle of Law (Click Here) with four legal tokens: a duty, a privilege, a right and a no-right. In his left hand, he holds 'duty' and a 'privilege' tokens. In his right hand, he holds 'right' and 'no-right' tokens. To make laws, a lawmaker hands the tokens out to particular persons. We call this process 'binding'.  The process of lawmaking is as simple as that!  There is little complexity to it.  Any complexity arises only because the process has not been well understood. As a child, did you ever play 'pin the tail on the donkey'?  That is what a lawmaker is doing. A lawmaker is pinning the tail on the donkey.  By handing out tokens, a lawmaker makes laws.

One interesting aspect of a command and a permission involves decision making.  With a command, there is substituted decision making; with a permission, there is not.  With a command, a lawmaker substitutes his decision making with regard to a flow of conduct for the source's.  With a permission, substitution does not occur and a source makes his own decision. 

Our Current Status

We have encountered 8 out of the 11 parts of the structure that underlies any law.  There are only three to go.  We are on our way to being able to understand any law as well as the smartest lawyer. We have encountered

• The factual part of a law

1. Conduct
2. Consequences
3. Source
4. Recipient
5. Circumstances

•  The legal part of a law: basic

1. Opinion
2. Polarity
3. Expression

Still to go are

• The legal part of a law: advanced
  

1. Weight
2. Standing

as well as

• Legal Expression

1. The three part sentence
   

With an understanding of these 11 parts and how they interact with one another (click here), all of the sloppiness in your legal thinking can be eliminated.

O. = A lawmaker forms an opinion with regard to a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. She likes it, dislikes it or is indifferent about it.

P. = A lawmaker's opinion sparks a desire in the heart of a lawmaker with regard to the polarity of a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. A lawmaker who likes a flow of conduct from a source to recipient in circumstances desires a positive polarity, i.e. that it be on. A lawmaker who dislikes a flow of conduct from a source to recipient in circumstances desires a negative polarity, i.e. that it be off. An indifferent lawmaker lacks a desire either way so she does not care whether the flow is on or off, positive or negative

E. = A lawmaker expresses her opinion about the desired polarity of conduct by issuing a command for positive conduct, a command for negative conduct or a permission for either positive or negative conduct.

Summary

• Meaning is structured by pairing a constant with a variable.
• The variable holds values.
• A part of a "meaning structure" consists of two elements:
• constant
• variable
• A structure consists of parts.
• Parts are the building blocks of a structure
• A part consists of a constant and a variable. In other words, a part has two elements.

• Below is a diagram of the skeleton of a structure
  
• Structure
• Part 1
• Element 1 - Constant
• Element 2 - Variable (There is no element 3; a part only has 2 elements)
• Part 2
• Element 1 - Constant
• Element 2 - Variable (There is no element 3; a part only has 2 elements)
• Part 3
• Element 1 - Constant
• Element 2 - Variable (There is no element 3; a part only has 2 elements)
• Part 4
• Element 1 - Constant
• Element 2 - Variable (There is no element 3; a part only has 2 elements)
• Part etc.(A structure can have many parts)
• Element 1 - Constant
• Element 2 - Variable (There is no element 3; a part only has 2 elements)
• Note: the name of a part of a structure is usually the name of the constant.
  
• The above structure can underly many, many "devices". It may appear multiple times in many different things.

• In figuring out the structure of something, the best place to start is with a part. More particularly, it is best to start with the element of a part that we call the constant. When you have identified all of a structure's parts, you have identified the structure. Start at Parts; end at Structure. This is
  

• When meaning is sturctured, there are twin benefits

1. Instantaneous Understanding
• Those who understand a structure can instantaneously associate the value in the variable with the meaning of the constant.
2. Transportable Understanding

• Those who understand a structure can travel from one device that is based on a structure to another device based on the same structure, and can instantaneously understand.

Metaphoring: A Law & a Scorboard

• Metaphors are not dead. They live. Metaphoring takes an idea from one context and plants it in another context. (What Commandment of Understanding is this?)
• We are "metaphoring" by taking the idea of a scoreboard out of its context of a sporting arena and placing into the legal world. As pedestrian as it sounds, a law is no different than a scorboard.
• A law is also a device that presents structured meaning.
• A law is an array of constant - variable pairs.
• A law is defined by its parts
• Know the parts and you will know the law.
  

The factual part of a law

• a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances
• How many parts does the factual part of a law have?
• Five
1. Source
2. conduct
3. consequences
4. Recipient
5. Circumstances

• Be prepared to take the example of a law you gave me as a "before snapshot" of your legal ideology and analyze it - analyze means to break it down - in terms of the five factual parts of a law. Can you identify five parts in your example? How about four? Three? Do all the examples have conduct?

• A metaphor: The handle and its suitcase
• The two elements of a part of a "meaning structure" can be thought as a handle and a suitcase. The handle is akin to the constant. The suitcase is akin to the variable. Values go into the Variable just as items go in the suitcase.
  
• Not
• 'Not' belongs to the factual not the legal.
  
• 'Not' turns conduct off.
  
• 'Not' turns positive conduct into negative conduct
• Not" changes the polarity of conduct.

• Conduct has two significant properties
• Direction: Conduct is mono-directional. It always flows from a source to a recipient. It never flows from a recipient to a source
• Polarity: Conduct is either off or on. It is either postiive or negative. 'Not" changes the polarity of conduct. Conduct either is flowing or is not flowing.
  

• The Defintion of the factual part of a law
• The factual part of a law is a flow of conduct from source to recipient in circumstances. Memorize this. Repeat it over and over again.
• Five (5) parts define the factual part of a law
• They are found in every law that governs us.
• The factual part of a law appears at the base of the triangle of law (Click Here)
• Let's look for it. At times not every part is expressed

1. instantaneous
2. transportable?

Isn't it significant that understanding can be instantaneous and transportable. Wouldn't it be nice if this was so not just with sporting events? Wouldn't it be nice if this was so with chemistry? with biology? with mathematics?

Bosco said that we can bring the twin benefits of instantaneous and transportable understanding to the field of knowledge called law, if we start to view a law as a scoreboard.

As pedestrian as it sounds, a law is no different than a scoreboard.

Bosco had the students go up to the blackboard and draw the parts of a baseball scoreboard. The first student wrote the number 2 and above it wrote the word, balls. (His humor was recognized by the entire class). Other students went to the board to add more parts to the blackboard scoreboard: Home - 3; Visitors -0; Errors - 2, Hits- 5, etc.

Bosco asked what did all these scoreboard parts have in common?

Constants and Variables. The Words are the constants. They do not change. Associated with the words are variables in which various numeric values can be placed.

Hence, a scoreboard is nothing more than an array of constant - variable pairs.

If you put the right constant - variable pairs together, you can get a good picture of a baseball game.
But this principle is not limited to sporting events.
If you put the right constant - variable pairs together, you can also get a good picture of a law.

Just as a scoreboard has a structure, a law has a structure and both consist of an array of constant - variable pairs.

Understanding is instantaneous and transportable for a scoreboard, because fans have an intimate understanding of the structure of a scoreboard. They truly understand the array of constant - variable pairs that underly a scoreboard.

Bosco says he has identified the constant - variable pairs that underly a law. A law, like a scoreboard, has a structure. The structure of a law like the structure of a scoreboard consists of parts. The parts of a law like the parts of a scoreboard have two elements: a constant and a variable.

A law and a scoreboard are examples of devices that present structured meaning. Their meaning is not unstructured. There are other devices that present structured meaning? Can you identify them? Think of anything that consists of an constant - variable pairs.

How about a traffic light? The constants are the order and color of the lamps; the variable is the illumination of a particular lamp.

How about a form? The preprinted words are the constants. The blank line after the preprinted words holds the variables.

What else?

Bosco has identified the right combination of constant - variable pairs that together give us a true picture of a law.

Bosco says there are only 11 of them and anybody can understand a mere 11 things.

A Device that presents structured meaning

• Part #1
• Element 1: Constant
• Element 2: Variable
• Part #2
• Element 1: Constant
• Element 2: Variable
• Part #etc.
• Element 1: Constant
• Element 2: Variable