一种纯粹的客体关系模型:费尔贝恩的人格客体关系理论评析

英国精神分析学家费尔贝恩在修正和发展弗洛伊德和克莱因思想的基础上，结合自己的临床实践，提出了纯粹的客体关系模型。他认为人格的动力是客体关系而非性欲，并从容体关系角度阐述了一种具有动力性的人格结构理论，即内心结构观。此外，他还结合了弗洛伊德的阶段论和克莱因的心态论构想了一种全新的人格发展图式。费尔贝恩的人格客体理论在精神分析史上具有重要的贡献和影响。     

民事法律关系的客体探析

民事法律关系的客体是民法理论中的重要概念,是民事法律关系的三大要素之一。但对民事法律关系客体的定义和范围,学术界一直存在着争论。随着社会的发展和新型民事法律关系不断产生,传统民事法律关系的客体理论更是受到了巨大冲击。本文拟从民事法律关系客体的定义出发,通过分析其特征,在对其范围的争论进行分析的基础上,深入研究民事法律关系的客体理论,以期更好的理解民事法律关系的客体。     

“双重客体说”：劳动法律关系客体再论

在确定劳动法律关系客体的具体类型时,我们应以＂涵盖性＂、＂反作用性＂、＂概括性＂作为判断客体形态的基本出发点。以此标准衡量,＂劳动力客体说＂、＂劳动行为（或劳动活动）客体说＂、＂主从客体说＂等我国当下几种主要的劳动法律关系客体理论学说均存在着若干不足,极有必要代之以＂双重客体说＂,亦即静态的劳动力、动态的劳动行为均应被视为劳动法律关系客体的表现形态。在客体种类被界定后,我们更应关注和研究双重客体自身的特殊性,以及这些特殊性对劳动法的宗旨确立、权利义务结构、制度设计等方面产生的制约作用和决定性影响。     

权利客体的概念构造与理论统一

民法上的客体有法律关系和权利两个语境,存在颠倒概念种属等逻辑矛盾.民法上的客体语境应限于权利,法律关系主、客体理论受前苏联的不当影响.客体概念源自哲学,强调主体的支配作用,客体理论由此烙上哲学印痕.客体概念应回归法学,为权利的形成机制.权利具有规范和事实的二元属性,应区分其客体与对象,使前者表征权利的规范性;后者表征权利的事实性.客体多元论导致了权利二象性的错位,权利客体应向一元论回归,统一为义务人的行为.《民法总则》不规定权利客体为其解释及理论发展留下了空间.     

从人格利益到人格要素——人格权法律关系客体之界定

在将人格视为人之根本的人文主义理想与权利客体理论矛盾的背景下,为了实现对人格的全面保护,我国学者采用了"人格利益"这一抽象概念作为人格权与人格权法律关系之客体.虽然这在一定程度上实现了通过权利模式对于人格的保护,但是由于"人格利益"概念本身的模糊性和对于人格理论的依赖性,人格利益作为人格权法律关系之客体具有根本性的缺陷.无论从当代法学之哲理基础还是从社会历史发展的现实来看,人格要素都是独立于法律上的主体的,因此人格要素作为人格权、人格权法律关系之客体,不仅不存在障碍,而且具有重大的理论与现实意义.     

试论克恩伯格对客体关系、情感和驱力理论的新整合观

克恩伯格用复杂而精确的语言描述了客体关系、情感和驱力之间的关系,提出了新的整合观.该整合观认为,情感是行为的最初动力,在婴儿与母亲的关系中具有交流功能;正性及负性的情感,经过整合,被分别塑造成力比多及攻击性驱力.与此同时,强烈的情感状态以投注于自体和客体表象的形式,对内化的客体关系起着组织作用,于是,情感从根本上影响着内部的客体关系世界的组织,并使内部客体关系逐渐结合成为三元心理结构.该整合观还认为,驱力、情感及客体关系之间,是以相互包含的方式而存在的.     

On the Influence of Tenure on Debt's being the Object of Property Ownership

英国法上,财产所有权的客体不是有体物而是财产利益.英国法财产所有权客体的形成有其特定的历史原因,土地保有关系的产生是英国法财产权客体定位为财产利益的根本原因,土地保有关系模式下的这种立法思想深深影响了英国所有权客体理论.在英国法上,任何具有独占排他的财产利益均可以成为所有权的客体,因合同等原因而产生的债属于债权人的财产利益,因此英国法将其作为所有权的客体.英国法明确区分因合同产生的债的所有权以及合同权利本身,英国法的债权的二分理论值得我国学界研究.     

法律关系客体再探讨

传统的把法律关系客体表述为"物、行为结果、精神财富、人身利益标的、环境和国家利益标的"的理论,存在论证理由不够充分、无法很好地实现对其他部门法学的理论指导的问题.在"权利客体"的标准下把法律关系客体抽象为"行为"是较好的选择,主要理由是:行为是法律的调整对象,行为抽象产生权利和义务,行为是权利和义务指向的对象,行为是准确把握权利和义务的内涵和外延的关键.     

犯罪客体——一个巨大而空洞的价值符号——从价值与规范的相互关系中重新审视“犯罪客体理论”

传统的犯罪客体理论在其历史的起源上是随着社会主义刑法理论中曾经出现过的政治需要高于一切、政治压倒法律的理论氛围的形成而产生的,这种即使在外观上具有政治观念图腾的形式表现,依然无法掩盖其实际上不过还是一个巨大而空洞的价值符号.为此我们有必要通过实践的考察分析和理论的反思批评,深刻地认识到犯罪客体的神秘产生、神奇发展和神圣地位确立过程中所蕴含的历史吊诡;认识到犯罪客体实际上是价值评价的产物而非刑法规范的产物,所谓"犯罪客体"所蕴含的社会危害性问题已经在刑事立法过程中先行予以解决了;在刑事司法实践过程中,应该从价值与规范的相互关系中认识到传统的"犯罪客体"无论是形式还是内容都不能起到规范的作用.由此进而可以对犯罪客体理论进行全面和彻底的否定,从而最终结束它在我国曾经无限风光的历史命运.     

自我·客体关系·人格——费尔贝恩的纯粹心理的人格发展观

精神分析的客体关系理论家费尔贝恩在修正与发展弗洛伊德和克莱因思想的基础上,结合自己的临床经验,从客体关系角度出发,阐述了一种纯粹心理的人格发展理论.该理论指出,人格发展的实质是自我客体关系的成熟;母婴关系是影响人格发展的首要因素.费尔贝恩还综合了弗洛伊德的阶段理论与克莱因的心态概念,构想了一个全新的人格发展图式.费尔贝恩的人格发展理论以其革命性和独创性在精神分析学、人格心理学、发展心理学领域都占据了一席之地.     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.