“On Representation and Justice:Rebirthing of Ziz”
– Julie/Julia Q Goldmann
Summary: Matthew Greene (1823-1844)
Introduction:
Proprietary to the lone author we’ve chosen to cover twice, Goldmann brings along certain ideal and stylistic novelties. Most ideas, controversial in public to this day, yet were nearly copied over in legislation and cultural norms. Stylistically, the poetic and subtle presentation, certainly made them softer to accept than Days’, though best understood if paraphrased instead. As mentioned by Elena, Day left a vivid mark on Goldmann, more stylistic than fundamental, as it’ll be seen.
The “Young Goldmann” covered here is poetic, challenging, tone mixing of anger and condescension. Contrast to “Late Goldmann” whose work is in prose, cryptic, symbolic; tone changing to one of cold distance embossed by an aura of cynicism.
TOC:
→ Romanticist “Revivalism”:Rebirthing of the “Trivium”
→ Central Theme and Advocacy:Goldmanns’ “Separatism”
→ “Separatism of power balances and Separatism of elites and commoners”
—> “DOXA:”
—> “LOGO-EPISTEME:”
→ “Separatism of the Nasphiliti soul”
—> “DOXA:”
—> “LOGO-EPISTEME:”
Romanticist “Revivalism”:Rebirthing of the “Trivium”
A teacher by profession, the structure of this work is reminiscent of the medieval “Trivium”. In answering the domestic Enlightenment, Goldmanns’ work is comprised of three “chapters”, each with a series of poems: “THE DOXA” (how things seem/are appear/to be); “THE HYPSO-ENTHYMENE” (imaginary falsehoods stemming from hidden premise in arguments); and “THE LOGO-EPISTEME” (the word/logic as it truly is–to truly understand how word/logic ought to be).
Clearly, there are certain analogies, under S.J. Brands’ influence. “The Doxa” are similar thematically to “Analytical jurisprudence”. Whereas “The Logo-Episteme” thematically mirrors “Normative jurisprudence”. However, Goldmann is more courageous, extensively “advising” changes in the latter.
As menioned, the summary will paraphrase these, for better clarity. It’s pivotal to mention that the present “Mandatorian” schooling system of Nasphilitae, is a modified version of the “Trivium”; following grammar → logic → rhetoric. This first came about in extensive social reforms during the reign of King Carl Darzens and “The Unionist” political party. Both inluenced by this Revivalism of “Young Goldmann”.
Central Theme and Advocacy:Goldmanns’ “Separatism”
Days’ descriptive categorisation of Goldmann into “separatist suffragettes”, was taken from Julias’ self-prescription of ideals. Much like Daisy Day and Ian Zachary, Goldmann re-interperates Protoiridine. However, she does state so openly, in that these are not Protoiridines’ own ideas, but merely inspired her own.
By “Separatism”, it is unclear whether “separation” was meant instead. What remains certain is that, when Goldmann mentions “Separatism”, it refers not to any connotation that ideology has today. To re-instate earlier mentions, Goldamnns’ poems here seem to follow a harmonic string, focused on answering or filling the void in S.J. Brands’ “normative jurisprudence”.
From all that’s been said, Julia creates the ideas of: “Separatism of the sexes”; “Separatism of power branches”; “Separatism of elites and commoners”; “Separatism of the Nasphiliti soul”[culture, identity]; and “Separatism of the Infinite Divinity (Ziz) from the Mortality (Behemoth and Leviathan)”. We find that focusing on a combination of the second and third; and on the fourth, to be most vital in covering.
“Separatism of power balances and Separatism of elites and commoners”
(paraphrased)
DOXA:
“Observe now! This fever dream of a polity’s institutional puzzle. A Head of State, nominated by and from the secluded dynastic elite, to follow “first among equals” principle into extreme’s cliff-edge.
There are these three eternally re-occurring voting blocs.
Adamsons, Atkinsons, Pellmores, Morganforts, Masons; on one bench.
Another bench seated by: Darzens, Edwards, Konevenagels, Schlesingers, Taylors.
With the king-maker spiderweb but absolutely disinterested third bench of: Ernsts, Fieldlers, Greenhills, Stonehams.
Now, proceed to the ‘elections’ between two nominees–by Earls, whose tenure nor title are guaranteed!
A charade? Not yet! None of them are anymore seated in the Assembly: a very serious, representative, law-making, building… Whch is parochial in ‘electiions’, members which are more concerned in furthering their groups’ local interests. No representation nor meaningful law-making will you find there, no sense of the collective, Nasphiliti state.
All of these tasks were given to the nearly-divine Justices; the only reformatory institution with a lonesome but clear ladder for commoners, if they so choose, wish to climb!”
LOGO-EPISTEME:
“Drifting, everlasting, moment of Imagining; as follows!
An Earldom whose tenure be bound by the same customs, rewarding their lack of treacherous blood[referring to the Buccaneer Wars], jointly and each in a ballot secret cast nominees not of their suzerain. Repeat once again until two-to-three Peers are nominees.
The Head of State, elected by universal, nation-wide, limitless unweighed suffrage; a title now has meaning.
Likewise, an Assembly wherein each ‘Estate’ has a fixed equal amount of seats. Representatives of commoners as a collective. Out and do away with the archaic guilds! A Speaker may be then chosen from these members.
Lastly, what use is justice if not independent and of a mandate dictated only by their merit in profession? ‘Arbitration’ of ‘disputes’ are for them, as all are, people and things, equal before Justice. To close, an effective Judiciary requires expansion in subject, as well as in local Courthouses.”
Greene:
Notice that nearly all of these would become, albeit modified, adopted during Goldmanns’ lifetime. However, what follows is where controversy lies.
“Separatism of the Nasphiliti soul”
Greene:
When Goldmann says “Stranded” she is critical of the Austral Empire. “Fortress” is criticism of Nasphiliti surrounding polities being “bentful” to great powers. Lastly, “Pluro-paradigmal” is “Cross-Cultural”.
(paraphrased)
DOXA:
“Look around to the grounds and we will see that the nation-states have come to be. Yet, what are we, this disjoinnted family?
Stranded, yet loyal to its’ identity, half-planet away and centuries apart.
Gathered alone, built a Fortress, attack a brick it will turn quick: a cascade will fall on those who are not yet satiated, by the bentful surroundings.
A lone candle-light is this fortress, I understand, the only place where warmth of one’s identity is soothed…
What guarantees us that such warmth will be not extinguished? A Stranded Fortress, is very reckless to believe, others can on their own free will kneel to this candle-light.”
LOGO-EPISTEME:
“Let us dream for far days to come where all around are free as us. Awake now and arise, for in days that will be, such door of hope, will have no key.
Abandoned and free, no longer Stranded, a unique identity was long ago by us all decreed. The collective Castle with high towers and waters around, the fortress of fear to be replaced.
A bridge to enter is always there, so long as the rest be burned and laid bare. The Castle’s beacon shines bright, in collective might, among this forest of fright.
Once landed on its’ shore, one is millions, as millions are one.
Confident in itself only now, only then may the Castle be pluro-paradigmal. Now abandoned no longer Stranded, it may venture into the woods, but understanding of them first — pluro-paradigmal, yet sentimental of confident self-identity.”
Greene:
Goldmann does fool the reader here. The preceding “Doxa” and unsummarised “Hypso-Enthymene” would lead a reader to believe that she will advocate for Nasphilitae’s expansionism. Yet, in the first line “where all around are free as us” completely, nearly with disgust, negates the idea of expansionism. This was hinted to be the case with how cherishingly of a description is given to the “candle-light” in Doxa.
Goldmann expresses worry that, if Nasphilitae does not establish firmly its’ distinct identity and fight to remain free, the immigrants would no longer see a difference from it and “the woods” (outside world).
Novelty here is this syncretic interpretation of a “Nasphiliti identity” as freedom for everyone who values the “Nasphiliti” freedom. Nearly contradictory, she advocates for ensuring integration of newcomers, as to keep future newcomers arriving.
FInally, she references the “Ius Soli”" citizenship practice in “once landed on its’ shore”. This has been true, later more developed in procedure by courts practice.
Namely, Nasphilitae, as noted by Goldmanns’ “burned and laid bare[past bridges]”, still does not recognise dual citizenship nor citizensip by heritage.