Blogs by D.C. Quillan Stone: September 2021

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

To step out of the intellectual cave dug deep and dark by public schools and universities, never is a single step into the light...

To step out of the intellectual cave dug deep and dark by public schools and universities, never is a single step into the light, nor an arrival to an enlightened destination, rather the beginning of a lifelong path. I had already taken numerous baby-steps from the darkened depths towards the cave's mouth, but the first steps into sunlight were due to reading these five books within three to four or more months twenty plus years ago.

Consequently, since that time, I have insatiably read "many" books by the same five writers as well others; Locke, Flynn, Rothbard, Hayek, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Say, Turgot, Cantillon, (Federalists then to rightly counter the former the) Anti-Federalists, Spooner, Thoreau, Hamilton (only per his F.P. No. 84), Mill, Chodorov, Flynn, Rand, Garrett, Sowell, Woods, Paul, Williams, Rockwell, Deist, Block, Soto and many more.

Currently in preparation for my 12th book project, I have been studying the writings by several logicians/syllogists, of late Hazlitt, Jevons, Porphyry, Aristotle (of course), Boole with others yet to read.

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.

Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Sunday, September 26, 2021

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 254

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. 254

~ Individualism's Bill of Right / 2nd Reprise ~

Superficially educated by government’s schools and universities, stupidly conditioned by society’s fads, trends as well ever-changing norms and morals, the 21^st century American mind gravely lacks the logically ethical character and imperatively self-reliant fortitude to critically thus properly distinguish between personal preference and individual right.

If the mere existence of debates regarding rights is not sufficient evidence, then surely the evidence is plain by the various arbitrary conclusions, various arbitrary enumerations, therefore various arbitrary preferences suspiciously sanctified as rights. Plainer still the evidence when products and services requiring others to laboriously produce and provide, are conveniently, covetously promulgated as basic human rights while belittling, slandering and demonizing anyone who questions, challenges or rejects.

Yet, against all observable evidences, all logical arguments by many noteworthy philosophers, economists, professors, lecturers, thinkers, and writers since antiquities till present day, the 21^st century American mind doltishly misses, brutishly disses or foolishly dismisses, particularly of the two majorly partisan persuasions polarized hence intensified towards near lunacy.

---

O Publius, the one gem deterred, not thy alter-whims
Consolidating schemes upon themes of federalist vim
Yet rightly dividing as unnecessary even dangerous
Rights enumerated, hence allowing purposes devious

O the veneration of Statism by reverent “Thou art great!”
Referent the usual bait and titillation by prattle and prate
Such parades of pomposities upon asses among the masses
Flash o’er head, cash to shred, while raising empty glasses

---

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

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 253

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 253

~ Individualism's Bill of Right / 1st Reprise ~

All other rights as billed or listed among various governmental constitutions, political documents and international declarations are either redundantly unnecessary, thus compound and complex the argument if enumerated, or more likely disrespect and disregard the Singular Human Right therefore violent towards the individual. To historically affirm, consider Federalist Paper No. 84, originally published during the summer of 1788 by The Independent Journal, New York Packet and The Daily Advertiser under the pseudonym Publius, otherwise known as Alexander Hamilton, hence the following excerpt…

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Generally this poet ideologically despises Alexander Hamilton, although his insight expressed in Federalist Paper No. 84 is not only noteworthy among other such papers but quite logically prophetic as well. History demonstrates time and time again the predicted abuse by the U.S. government as covetously, presumptuously, arrogantly thus violently continued to this day.

---

Ten enumerations honored, revered, still circumvented
As the Founding Framers and Schemers perhaps intended
Syntax bended, parallax presented; a logical suspicion
Yet anagogical the promulgation for Statism’s veneration

---

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

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 252

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 252

~ Individualism's Bill of Right ~

If such understanding forms and foments, then solely amid ceaseless study, ponder and labor, concluding first in part, later in whole, to logically respect then ethically regard, hence fervently declaring then firmly establishing in this manner.

The propensity, preference and persistence upon observable practice by Each and Every Individual since first reasoned the Specie Human and Peculiar above all other species, thus consistently inclining, constantly insisting the Singular Right to Consent or Dissent regarding Each and Every Matter, indeed without exception as exemplified per unwanted prevention, unacceptable prohibition, undesirable preemption, unwelcomed intervention, unwarranted retroaction by persons ever covetous as well parties ever contemptuous whether private, religious, philosophical, economical, social, political, governmental and more.

---

Society crashes, lightning flashes exposing the behemoths
Although too few pursue the remnant toward the Zenith
Crumbs of bread buy gold bars, still old are the damn stories
Repetitive oratories of deceptive glories; vituperative, gory

---

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

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 250

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 250

~ Individualism's Ethos and Creed ~

To regard hence respect each and every person's Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on ALL matters as manifested per each and every person's Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. Without exemption or exception, all considerations must rest upon the aforesaid, else the unethical dilemma remaining unjustifiable ergo unresolvable till resumed and revered the one ethos and creed as determined then established since humanity first reasoned.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) stated with insight; Justice is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed. Fast forward some 1800 years, John Locke (1632-1704) wrote similarly; No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. Logically similar only if compared the proper elements of these two quotes or axioms and others like them (see Proem & Poem Nos. 129, 147-155). For what is justice if harmed but injustice? For what is life, health, liberty and possession if harmed but injury to these things in various possible forms; termination, affliction, subjugation, confiscation and incalculably more?

And what are both considerations if harmful or injurious but actions or activities against explicit even implicit dissent therefore perceived as harmed or injured the individual’s person, propensity, prerogative, preference, purpose as well profession, purse, possession and property (see Proem & Poem No. 176). To simplify, only the individual’s conclusion on the matter thus dissent versus consent, determines the harm or injury versus no harm nor injury. Only presumption and arrogance well rooted in covetousness would object to such a method of determination.

---

Inked in gore and gray glories, downing bodies by rapier
Mostly jury of one, all wrote and told, whether by paper
Penned or typewritten the odd capers, printed, later aired
Caressed then finessed as most would, with a bit of flair

O the speck and splinter fester graver per critical eyes
Cynically “The ayes have it!” thus vied finically the guise
Mystically the ruse the racket per the excuse slightly tacit
Though logically flaccid, academically plain upon placid

---

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

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 230

Note:
For a cleaner version (format, tables, etc.), see the SubStack link.

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 230

~ Laws, Gates, Tables and Expressions / Part 2 ~

Though preferably refraining to belabor the point with further compounding or complicating logic so to be theoretically comprehensive, it would still be remiss if not to explain or place the aforesaid two laws, logic gates, algebraic expressions, the resulting pseudo code therefore analysis rightly within the larger context, the perpetual while/do statement, the repeating loop if you will representing life from womb to tomb. From the point of awareness sometime after the womb, to the point of unawareness sometime prior the tomb, the peculiar human ability to reason is in constant motion, the constant repetition of the pseudo code or analysis (see Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 229) regarding literally all matters upon literally all moments.

It would be unnecessary, irrelevant even impossible to state the repetition or while/do loop as ongoing every hour, every minute, every second, every tenth of a second or less. It suffices to say nonstop executing of the two laws’ pseudo code (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 25-28), that is to say, analyzing, determining, judging, prioritizing, economizing upon all internal and external conditions at initiation as well duration then completion. Additionally, conditions serializing, overlapping, paralleling do not change the analysis, but merely exemplify the mind’s capacity to task and weigh within such complexities and perplexities. Clearly, there are analyses of conditions as part of smaller contexts within of course larger contexts. To exemplify, what would one eat for lunch while projecting the day’s set of tasks per end of week’s deadlines, as well saving part of earnings towards major purchases or investments later in the year, conducting all within one’s principles, ethics, beliefs as well propensities, prerogatives, preferences and so on.

Even when manipulatively, coercively, forcefully imposed upon by government, institution, organization, gang or master, the individual continues to reason nevertheless within the restraints however lenient or severe, therefore nonstop executing of the two laws’ pseudo code, that is to say, analyzing, determining, judging, prioritizing, economizing upon all internal and external conditions at initiation as well duration then completion. It is important to note, if the individual reasons to not revolt, reject, resist, repel nor run in response to the imposition by government, institution, organization, gang or master, such reasoning is not a consent thus not a justification of the enforced condition. Instead, it is the individual reasoning then preferring a condition perceived to have less ergo tolerable risks opposed to other conditions having more ergo intolerable risks. Hence an oppressed citizen’s reluctance to revolt or a threatened slave’s reluctance to run, logically do not justify and ethically do not moralize either government or master.

---

O the brass rings o’er crass things as bellies swell for lack of bread
Per empty racks, bare shelves tho’ barren more themselves instead
Feasting on bone, fucking alone, fighting forlorn, no coin, no corn
Worst than beasts in fields, old cocks on dunghills, as forewarned

Thus the scorn, sackcloth torn, coals and ashes upon shaven heads
So, damn the talking heads to a particularly made hell, stones instead
Piled as postwar rubble, their only memorials, no prayers offered
For proffered they as whores, “All lies the truths!” bay chaos’ authors

---

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

Saturday, September 25, 2021

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 229

Note:
For a cleaner version (format, tables, etc.), see the SubStack link.

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 229

~ Laws, Gates, Tables and Expressions / Part 1 ~

Consider both aforesaid laws, Law of Consensual Unity and Law of Ethical Continuity, therefore the two logic gates, the AND gate as well embedded in the else (not consensual) clause the XOR gate, additionally their respective truth tables and Boolean algebraic (analytical) expressions. For distinction thus clarification between the two logic gates, symbols or variables A, B and C will be arrays A[1,2], B[1,2] and C[1,2] as shown below…

AND gate…

. .

A[1] à | AND |

| | à C[1] (conclusion)

B[1] à | gate |

A[1] B[1] C[1] (conclusion)

0 0 0

1 0 0

0 1 0

1 1 1

ƒ(A[1],B[1]) = A[1]*B[1] = C[1] (0,0,0,1)

XOR gate…

. .

A[2] à | XOR |

| | à C[2] (conclusion)

B[2] à | gate |

A[2] B[2] C[2] (conclusion)

0 0 0

1 0 1

0 1 1

1 1 0

ƒ(A[2],B[2]) = A[2]+B[2]-2A[2]B[2] = C[2] (0,1,1,0)

Consequently, again consider the following comprehensive pseudo code, utilizing both logic gates, values (variables/arrays) of both truth tables as determined by both Boolean algebraic (analytical) expressions…

if consensual

(A[1] = 1 AND B[1] = 1)

then

unity

(C[1] = 1)

else (not consensual)

(A[1] = 0 AND B[1] = 0)

(A[1] = 1 AND B[1] = 0)

(A[1] = 0 AND B[1] = 1)

not unity

(C[1] = 0)

if action disregarding dissent

(A[2] = 1 AND B[2] = 0)

(A[2] = 0 AND B[2] = 1)

then

ethical dilemma

(C[2] = 1)

else

(A[2] = 0 AND B[2] = 0)

(A[2] = 1 AND B[2] = 1)

not an action disregarding dissent

not an ethical dilemma

(rather ethical continuity)

(C[2] = 0)

done

done/exit

To be clear, the point of such exercises is to demonstrate the syllogism as logical hence consistent, the logical argument as the critical prerequisite towards proposing then proving further the ethical argument. To reverse engineer, if to propose any consideration as ethical as should any consideration factual and truthful, then paramount during the observation then determination must be consistency as a primary characteristic, dynamic and/or element, else inconsistency then certainly something other than factual, truthful as well ethical.

It is true that as the empty voids and the dismal wilderness belong to zero, so the spirit of God and His light belong to the all-powerful One.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716)

Whence it is that the ultimate laws of Logic are mathematical in their form... It is not because we choose to assign to it such a mode of manifestation, but because the ultimate laws of thought render that mode possible.

George Boole (1815-1864)

Information: the negative reciprocal value of probability... Information is the resolution of uncertainty.

Claude Elwood Shannon (1916-2001)

It would be appropriate even prudent to declare again clearly, concisely the two aforesaid laws before proceeding to the next installment Laws, Gates, Tables and Expressions / Part 2, and prior to the third law yet proposed (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 231, 232)…

Law of Consensual Unity; if consensual among all then ethically determined unity, else rightful dissension among one or more then unavoidable disunity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 225, 226).

Law of Ethical Continuity; if an action disregarding dissent (non consensual) then an ethical dilemma, else not an action disregarding dissent, not an ethical dilemma rather ethical continuity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 227, 228).

---

The chillness then frigidness, per cyclical ice ages, repeated phases
Embracing illogic thus inconsistency as science’s mantric phrases
While tantric praises tossed as laurels on heads of jesters and kings
Lords and queens, their whores and fiends and depraved offspring

---

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

Thursday, September 23, 2021

Individualism's Pledge of Allegiance and Creed...

Individualism's Pledge of Allegiance

Private property my country, family and friends my countrymen, consequently the sweaty, dirty, bloody, long worn shirt-off-back my flag for upon the rustic post at edge of field hangs that banner `neath my old hat, however tattered, patched, frayed, stained, worked thus ragged while individually, agreeably therefore mutually, consensually bought and bartered... I pledge allegiance to nothing else and to no other!

Individualism's Creed

To regard hence respect each and every person's Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on ALL matters as manifested per each and every person's Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. Without exemption or exception, all considerations must rest upon the aforesaid, else the unethical dilemma remaining unjustifiable ergo unresolvable until resumed and honored the one principle and creed.

Note:

Right, ethic and/or morality is NOT plural, lengthy, complex, inconsistent RATHER singular, concise, simple, consistent. Disagreement and rejection more often due to the covetously driven unwillingness to "consistently" recognize the above principle for others yet always expected for oneself. For consistency is a right or ethic's paramount characteristic, whose unwavering rigidness counters the popular covetousness, presumption and arrogance usually resulting to unwanted and injurious actions against others' dissent explicit even implicit... See my previous post for Individualism's Bill of Right.

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.

Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another... it is unfit to exist...

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist."

Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) correctly assessed then, thus accurately predicted the "unfit" document's further failures upon constitutional failures already plaguing 19th century America. Of course, if to appropriately understand the Summer of 1787 in Philadelphia as history's first of many political intrigues and schemes, then the failures would have been expected, compounded by the logically fulfilled prediction(s) per Federalist Paper No. 84 by Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804).

It is by these truths self-evident (or should be to any observer of history), I wrote and shall abide to this Bill of Right (singular) till my last breath, thus published in my last book and printed on canvas hanging over my treasured whiskey cabinet...

BILL of RIGHT

D.C. Quillan Stone

10 December 2019

Sunday, September 19, 2021

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 243

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 243

~ Preferring Unfairness Even Injustice / 3rd Reprise ~

So not to have the focus excessively, exclusively tunneled upon one particular example, nor on any other example, the point was sufficiently argued (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 240, 242) regarding not taxation of course, rather to represent the human mind as susceptible to propaganda along with personal covetousness, presumption and arrogance.

Propaganda, the usual seed covertly or overtly planted and watered (if you will) by publicly funded schools then universities, political rhetoric, crony news agencies as well crony corporations thus government’s various industrial complexes; military, healthcare, transportation, arts and entertainment, etc. Personal covetousness, presumption and arrogance, the dark, rich soil in which propaganda’s seed germinates therefore imbibes, respires manifesting into manipulated thought, speech and action, the demonstration and confirmation of the aforesaid deception as truth the intended harvest, the schemed perpetuation. And so it goes.

It is critical to focus further beyond examples (i.e. taxation) and before influences (i.e. government, cronies, etc.), so to consider one’s own responsibility. At end of day, the individual’s preference for unfairness regularly prevails, that is, the covetous, presumptuous, arrogant choice for preferential treatment towards oneself whether politically, legally, socially, religiously, privately, and intimately. Consequently, it is quite correct to critique then condemn the examples longstanding per common pursuits for the following three minimally…

1. Unequally greater portions of governmental subsidies ergo the capricious even desirous deprivation of others.

2. Unequally lesser applications of governmental legalities ergo the capricious even desirous affliction of others.

3. Unequally weightier provisions of governmental faculties ergo the capricious even desirous subjugation of others.

Oddly, the same three enumerated (and more) are popularly categorized as good, moral, just, fair while the claims covetously rooted, perversely founded, logically the very opposite hence evil, immoral, unjust, unfair. So much so, ardent critics as well mere doubters of the alleged goodness, morality, justice, fairness coldly, inhumanely deserve to be ridiculed, slandered, abused, punished, ruined, destroyed and/or terminated while their properties, purses, possessions confiscated even children apprehended. Unavoidably, inevitably so are these ends by such cruel means.

---

(Swilled to odd quell then unwanted thrill, odder still the pell-mell

Details as floods, rather, thistles bred amid delicate buds swelled

Lulled the blood in mud, ergo rutted the mind uninspired, tired

Unable to conspire, earlier speculations hung well on old wire)

And old attire, frayed collar, cuffs, tattered fedora, wilted flora

Darkest auras, dreams of aurora borealis or australis, tho’ Gomorrah

Then some fake Torah, the Sodom in between, struggles midstream

Hoping long torched the menorahs along mind’s shores beseemed

---

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

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 242

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 242

~ Preferring Unfairness Even Injustice / 2nd Reprise ~

So propagandized the citizen even politician, thus enticed then seduced the peculiar human ability to reason towards distortion, the nearest to any fair tax concept is the aforesaid flat version per a consistent percentage, yet still falling gravely short of fairness actual, logical, ethical. For only two scenarios can be observably (historically), logically, consistently, ethically determined as fair; no tax, or fixed tax. That is to say, the same or exact amount paid by each citizen regardless of economic status.

If 10 social services are unanimously determined, also calculated the average cost per average usage per average taxpayer as $500.00 per service per year, then hypothetically each taxpayer regardless of salary/wage would be levied the same fixed amount of $5000.00 annually. This of course is merely approaching a bit nearer to absolute fairness thus remaining still as unfair. For it would be unacceptable and unfair to apply the same methodology to all goods and services in the marketplace whether patronized or not, hence unacceptable and unfair for every person to pay $3.50 for bread every week whether purchased or not.

Absolute fairness would dictate however for all services offered by government to be priced and paid only by those who patronize. Consequently, only those who use the public library pay for the service, just as only those who want or need bread pay for the $3.50 as priced. Yet this absolute fairness is not only rejected, but criticized as unfair, unjust even immoral.

If to understand the absolute definition of fairness, there could still be a fairness (if you will) achieved by logically understanding popular though misguided definition(s) of fairness as nothing more than plans, arrangements, proposals of arbitrary conditions. In this way, the only means to ethically justify as fair or just is per mutual or unanimous consent. If to depart from the absolute fairness of all goods and services, even those provided by governments, to be patronized and paid voluntarily, individually, then any other system of taxation would ethically require unaminous consent to achieve and maintain fairness and justice.

---

O sincere the mobocracy therefore endearing the monocracy

And so devised incivility upon guised idiocy aft’ revised history

(Per propaganda’s gin mills, suited cowboys thus mulling lush

Such daily fuss o’er goddamn maddening cuss and media thrush

Swilled to odd quell then unwanted thrill, odder still the pell-mell

Details as floods, rather, thistles bred amid delicate buds swelled

Lulled the blood in mud, ergo rutted the mind uninspired, tired

Unable to conspire, earlier speculations hung well on old wire)

---

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

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 241

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 241

~ Preferring Unfairness Even Injustice / 1st Reprise ~

Truly, both US major parties along with their respective partisans and supporters have been complicit per quite explicit demands for government favoritism. The examples are many, however one regarding taxes sufficiently, concisely expose the inconsistency.

On one hand, the Left prattled of late about certain economic classes paying their Fair Share, hence to mean imposing more taxes on some over others. On the other hand, the Right ranted decades prior (i.e. 1980s/90s) for pro-family policies oft including Lesser Share, hence to mean allowing less taxes for some over others. And if to criticize these favoritisms, the former would retort “Are you not pro-poor?” Likewise, the latter would retaliate “Are you not pro-family?”

Upon various tax reform movements, that is to say, for less taxation, the concept of flat tax per a consistent percentage manifested and explained as fair or fairer, consequently everyone levied a common 10% of earnings or profits (to exemplify). Ignored of course how qualifiers fair or fairer are naturally assessed by producers and consumers among private purchases and barters. Never are prices for a loaf of bread, new suit, pair of shoes, automobile and house valued per a percentage of the consumer’s salary. That would be unfair, thus the knee-jerk response followed by ethical decry as should rightfully be.

To properly categorize, the flat percentage’d tax merely achieved relative fairness, as oxymoronic the term may be, oppose to actual or absolute fairness.

Comparatively, would not any government service if privatized then be so valued? Would not the same assessment, determination, negotiation then mutual agreement on price, as practiced for all other goods and services, occur between producer and consumer? Yet oddly, that inherent understanding, the natural practice longstanding since the human specie first reasoned, is disturbingly tossed aside by polity and citizenry alike, regarding government services whether healthcare, roads, bridges, libraries and so on. Astonishingly, the latter conclusion is popularly unchallenged as politically foregone.

---

O revere the hypocrisy, let the people rejoice, relish and revel

In the subsidized stench, knee-deep in shit well shoveled

Cesspools liken public troughs, while elites laugh then scoff

Pounding tall podiums, along mobs Falstaff’ed squaring off

O sincere the mobocracy therefore endearing the monocracy

And so devised incivility upon guised idiocy aft’ revised history

Per propaganda’s gin mills, suited cowboys thus mulling lush

Such daily fuss o’er goddamn maddening cuss and media thrush

---

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

Sunday, September 12, 2021

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)... They hate fairness more than unfairness...

"They (people in general) don't regard with hatred what they have committed because it is evil, so much as they do God's just judgment, which they fear as penalty. THEY HATE FAIRNESS MORE THAN UNFAIRNESS. For a long time they been blinded and called to be converted from their maliciousness, until finally divine justice so turns them over to a reprobate mind."

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)

Interestingly, the medieval French theologian, philosopher, logician, teacher, musician, composer, poet noted then the same observed preference as cancerously rampant in today's society, the prevailing promulgated, propagandized moralities, rights as well interventions, impositions, intrusions, legislations, laws, regulations, taxations, restrictions, mandates, executive orders, censorships, cancellations, deplatforms thus RULES FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME!

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

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 240

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 240

~ Preferring Unfairness Even Injustice ~

Among the human paradoxes, the easily observed preference for unfairness although the specie quite unaware, for still promulgating even pontificating fairness and justice within religious, social, political, governmental contexts. Interestingly, the 21st century morally zealous mind whether social (left) or religious (right), is no different, of course paradoxical thus posturing as enlightened on such matters concerning justice, fairness, tolerance, rights, regularly practicing however unjustly, unfairly, intolerantly, unrightfully and more.

The medieval French theologian, philosopher, logician, teacher, musician, composer, poet Peter Abelard (1079-1142) noted the same observed preference in his collection of ethical writings...

They (people in general) don't regard with hatred what they have committed because it is evil, so much as they do God's just judgment, which they fear as penalty. They hate fairness more than unfairness. For a long time they been blinded and called to be converted from their maliciousness, until finally divine justice so turns them over to a reprobate mind.

The medieval French theologian correctly assessed the person as the sinner disingenuously speaking of justice and fairness, yet desiring to escape God’s judgment as well natural causalities, outcomes, repercussions, emotionally, desperately preferring special treatment (if you will) therefore observably, logically preferring injustice and unfairness. For to be spared of that justly, fairly deserved per ill planned, unprepared, impulsive, irresponsible, reckless even malicious action(s), not to bear fully one’s own responsibility and risk (see Proem & Poem Nos. 117-120, 123), is to carry on unscathed, to move beyond lessons unlearned.

Thus swelled the bent oft pell-mell the intent, the coil mortal, soiled total, further still, upon innate propensities towards error and excess, otherwise the Adamic sin, so it is covetously, presumptuously even arrogantly then socially, politically and governmentally. To identify one among many examples, consider polity and/or citizenry’s thoughtless inclination or careless intention regarding taxation, whether arguments regarding fair share, fair tax versus the assorted tax exceptions, exemptions therefore exasperations (see No. 241).

---

Fairness even Justice, a rareness as Augustus’ authenticity

Ergo, actual (else not) the Pax Romana, the Great Duplicity

A conqueror’s peace upon the conquered and deceased

And slavery’s consent if slaves relent, or worse, showpiece’d

O revere the hypocrisy, let the people rejoice, relish and revel

In the subsidized stench, knee-deep in shit well shoveled

Cesspools liken public troughs, while elites laugh then scoff

Pounding tall podiums, along mobs Falstaff’ed squaring off

---

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

Saturday, September 11, 2021

O the brass rings o’er crass things as bellies swell for lack of bread, per empty racks, bare shelves tho’ barren more themselves instead...

Verses as drafted, unedited thus written late last eve into early morn with much American coffee (Black Rifle Vintage) and English gin (Plymouth) with a splash of Genevan tonic water (Schweppes) on the rocks, all for and towards my forthcoming 12th book....

Logic insofar Boolean thus seen, it seems, in forms algebraic

Rhymes of recent times while archaic and Aramaic upon mosaic

Gates, tables, expressions as codes scribed, inked then finessed

Till hammered and chiseled Romanesque, white as marble tress

His fingers brush the writ exegetical, as feathers along her skin

She sighs yet his eyes on each text, every verse, so it all begins

To spin towards spun, as wrung then contend, the end syllogistic

For horns of plenty hence casuistic the many, willingly parasitic

And so it goes, the intellectual throes per goddamn inconsistency

If prolonged, persisted then personal arbitrariness, social idiocy

Political hypocrisy, and governmental tyranny by foregone chaos

As so long the pathos linger well into twilight’s "withering Amadeus"

On Patmos the mind wanders till Atlas shrugs the assassin’s drug

As polity fastens smug then stiffens arrogant upon the Persian rug

Masturbating their covetousness, erecting their presumptuousness

Ejaculating to their inner adulation within an outer monetized illness

The chillness then frigidness, per cyclical ice ages, repeated phases

Embracing illogic thus inconsistency as science’s mantric phrases

While tantric praises tossed as laurels on heads of jesters and kings

Lords and queens, their whores and fiends and depraved offspring

O the brass rings o’er crass things as bellies swell for lack of bread

Per empty racks, bare shelves tho’ barren more themselves instead

Feasting on bone, fucking alone, fighting forlorn, no coin, no corn

Worst than beasts in fields, old cocks on dunghills, as forewarned

Note:

Stanzas taken from the installments as listed below, see link for entire text along with rough notes, demonstrating the logic and consistency for "singular human right to consent or dissent" argument, rather proposition using Boolean algebra, logic gates, truth tables...

No. 225 - Law of Consensual Unity / Part 1

No. 226 - Law of Consensual Unity / Part 2

No. 227 - Law of Ethical Continuity / Part 1

No. 228 - Law of Ethical Continuity / Part 2

No. 229 - Law of Ethical Continuity / Part 3 (soon to be written)

No. 230 - Laws, Gates, Tables and Expressions

My 12th book in progress entitled Propositions, Problems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters... Click on link or book cover.

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.

Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Thank God for companies like Daily Wire, for taking this ardent "Hell no!" stand against Fascistic "top-down regulatory methodological" tyranny...

I happen to work for a company with less than 100 employees (my day profession, poetry/philosophy/ethic my evening profession), so I'm not directly affected... yet. And I am not Republican and certainly not Democrat, so I'm not always 100% in agreement with Daily Wire's political position. HOWEVER... Thank God for companies like Daily Wire, for taking this ardent "Hell no!" stand against Fascistic "top-down regulatory methodological" tyranny (oppose to Communistic "bottom-up confiscatory methodological" tyranny).

Consequently, I am now contemplating to become a paid subscriber of Daily Wire... So I raise my glass of rye whiskey, tip my fedora, and hail, "Well done!!!"

Wednesday, September 8, 2021

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 228

Note:
For a cleaner version (format, tables, etc.), see the SubStack link.

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 228

~ Law of Ethical Continuity / Part 2 ~

Again, the law states the following within the else clause (disunity or not consensual); if action disregarding dissent (non consensual) then an ethical dilemma else not an action disregarding dissent, not an ethical dilemma rather ethical continuity. The syllogism as constructed in sort of pseudo code furthers the emphasis per the simple form…

if consensual then

unity

else (not consensual)

not unity

if action disregarding dissent then

ethical dilemma

else

not an action disregarding dissent

not an ethical dilemma

(rather ethical continuity)

done

done/exit

However to compliment the law’s pseudo code, consider also the XOR gate diagram as well the Boolean algebraic (analytical) expression thereof…

. .

A à | XOR |

| | à C (conclusion)

B à | gate |

ƒ(A,B) = A+B-2AB

Categorically, A represents a group of one or more persons, and B represents another group of one or more persons. Numerically, A and B will be the respective groups’ expressed consent equally to 1, else unexpressed consent equally to 0, therefore the below truth table (0,1,1,1) or conclusions…

A B C (conclusion)

0 0 0

1 0 1

0 1 1

1 1 0

ƒ(A,B) = A+B-2AB = C (0,1,1,0)

As the result, the pseudo code could be rewritten, expanding further according to the XOR gate’s truth table…

if consensual then

unity

else (not consensual)

not unity

if action disregarding dissent

(A = 1 AND B = 0)

(A = 0 AND B = 1)

then

ethical dilemma

(C = 1)

else

(A = 0 AND B = 0)

(A = 1 AND B = 1)

not an action disregarding dissent

not an ethical dilemma

(rather ethical continuity)

(C = 0)

done

done/exit

Again, it is by the above else (not consensual) clause the logical expression becomes an ethical evaluation simultaneously as well determination inseparably. For prior (see Proposition, Problem & Proem Nos. 225, 226), simply, amorally established the condition as either consensual then unity or not consensual then not unity thus applying not ethical evaluation nor determination. Yet by the action proceeding against and exacting upon dissent explicit or implicit, the ethical dilemma innately, instantly rises and remains unresolved until relented.

---

On Patmos the mind wanders till Atlas shrugs the assassin’s drug
As polity fastens smug then stiffens arrogant upon the Persian rug
Masturbating their covetousness, erecting their presumptuousness
Ejaculating to their inner adulation within an outer monetized illness

---

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