Blogs by D.C. Quillan Stone: February 2022

Saturday, February 19, 2022

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 267

Most likely to be published later this summer of 2022, my 12th book entitled appropriately; Propositions, Problems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters. The following will probably be included upon further editing, and front cover a slightly modified yet appropriate version of the 10th and 11th books...

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 267

~ George Boole and Aristotle's Dictum / Reprise ~

To further correlate although elaborate briefly, so it follows (although see first Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 266).

Religion often parallels while considering particularly Christianity’s various binaries longstanding like Morality versus Iniquity, Righteousness versus Sin, Salvation versus Damnation, Holy versus Unholy, Heaven versus Hell, Form versus Void, Light versus Darkness and so it follows, Angels versus Demons/Devils, Gabriel versus Lucifer, God versus Satan and dramatically iconic; Heel of Christ versus hence upon Head of Serpent.

Obviously, some would retort then claim as unnecessary, irrelevant even injurious such theological references as compelling parallels. Howbeit, would such historically comparative prevalence, thematic consistency be so quickly ignored, so easily discarded if categorically something other?

As much as there is observably critical significance to identify the point in history then forward shared by the Evolutionist and Creationist per the moment the specie human first reasoned (see Proem & Poem No. 199), so it is by the aforementioned correlations, elaborations thus parallels, rendering no less, no more charity the logical harmony of it all if to insist either posture as arguably superior.

---

Frailties abate not, rather one’s state of Self quite fraught
All a fright as the human lot mid rock and stone well caught
Fuck then roam, aft’ feast later moan, ergo fight on wet loam
The mud sanguine with blood per presumption’s syndrome

Ah, arrogance’s drones hail and prevail on confiscated air
`Hind subsidized podiums too, thus breastplate’d the au pairs
Shielding the covetous glares, the shroud as cloak tent-flaps
Upon socio-rapes across politic-scapes, the fondest of traps

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Friday, February 18, 2022

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 266

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 266

~ George Boole and Aristotle's Dictum ~

It may be a question whether that formula of reasoning, which is called the “dictum” of Aristotle,” de omni et nullo”, expresses a primary law of human reasoning or not; but it is no question that it expresses a general truth in Logic. Now that truth is made manifest in all its generality by reflection upon a single instance of its application.

George Boole (1815-1864)

He was of course referring to the Latin phrase fully contiguous; dictum de omni et nullo. In paraphrased English, so it goes; it was said of all and none, or to also say, the maxim all or none. In his 1854 book An Investigation of The Laws of Thought, further maintaining, Boole wrote on…

That which may be regarded as essential in the spirit and procedure of the Aristotelian, and of all cognate systems of Logic, is the attempted classification of the allowable forms of inference, and the distinct reference of those forms, collectively or individually, to some general principle of an axiomatic nature, such as the “dictum of Aristotle:” Whatsoever is affirmed or denied of the genus may in the same sense be affirmed or denied of any species included under that genus.

The noted Greek philosopher earlier to the dictum stated quite clearly regarding every premiss, each consideration per objective if you will…

Every premiss states that something either is or must be, or may be the attribute of something else.

Aristotle (384-322 BC), Organon / Analytica Priora, Book I

Then to thematically combine, William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) well articulated in his book Elementary Lessons in Logic Deductive and Inductive published in 1870 (see Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 225)…

These laws describe the very simplest truths, in which all people must agree, and which at the same time apply to all notions which we can conceive. It is impossible to think correctly and avoid evident self-contradiction unless we observe what are called the Three Primary Laws of Thought, which may be stated as follows:

1. The Law of Identity. Whatever is, is.

2. The Law of Contradiction. Nothing can both be and not be.

3. The Law of Excluded Middle. Everything must either be

or not be.

Though these laws when thus stated may seem absurdly obvious...I have found that students are seldom able to see at first their full meaning and importance.

Facilitating neo-intellectualism are of course 21^st century societies’ persistence then insistence toward conditions, exceptions, arbitraries therefore egregious inconsistencies otherwise personalities’ propensities prerogatives, preferences as well juvenile fancies, adolescent whimsies or childish fantasies as evidences, arguments thus premises.

---

Well sought per covetous infatuation, un-satiated the lust
Oh, what fuss the lost of time by respect, regard and trust
Disgusted by the patience, the reluctance to rightly negotiate
Prating instead, castrating o’er deathbed as disparities conflate

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Wednesday, February 16, 2022

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 265

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 265

~ Definitions of Isms / 2nd Reprise ~

What is the justification (see Proem & Poem Nos. 3, 4) of any arrangement intimate, private, philosophical, spiritual/theological, public, social or political between two persons or more if not Consent expressed by each individual? To go further, what is the justification of any arrangement between two dozen, two hundred, two thousand, two million or more people if not Consent expressed initially and continuously by each individual?

Yet more often than not discussions and debates persist even insist on this or that formation of government per any-ocracy and/or any-ism as argued thusly fair, equal, just, humane as well socially good or religiously moral, and if pragmatic enough, perhaps economically sustainable, else sentimentally preferable, emotionally desirable. Similarly as often, those among discussions and debates are unaware of the innately covetable dynamic, the rot-at-root of the aforesaid without exception. For rarely (if ever) discussed and debated the consideration of consensual unity and ethical continuity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 225-228), that is to say, unanimous consent initially as well continuously.

Rather, democracy widely hailed thus highly waved as most righteous of banners among those self-regarded as humanely sensitive even self-considered as morally superior. Yet among the same presumption, the same arrogance there exist not a consistent definition of democracy, nor any definition relying not on the solicitation of enough consenters so to exact political coercion, governmental force therefore execute majorly supported violence upon the remaining dissenters.

---

Estranged and weaned from God, outgrown of such nuisances
Succumbed mystically nonetheless per clutched noctilucences
While thumb-screwing the dissent upon pretense o’er fabrication
“All is naught!” as arrogance ought, fraught with presumption

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.