12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 235

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...

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

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 235

~ Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness / Part 5 ~

However to compliment the law’s pseudo code (see Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 234), consider also the AND gate(s) diagram expanded from 2 to 4 input variables, as well the Boolean algebraic (analytical) expression(s) thereof…

                                    .           .

                        A à     |  AND |

                                    |           |   à E[1]  (1^st conclusion)

                        B à     |   gate  |

 

                        ƒ(A,B) = A*B

 

 

if E[1] = 1 then…

                                    .           .

                        E[1] à |  AND |

                                    |           |   à E[2]  (2^nd conclusion)

                        C à     |   gate  |

 

                        ƒ(E[1],C) = E[1]*C

 

 

if E[2] = 1 then…

                                    .           .

                        E[2] à |  AND |

                                    |           |   à E[3]  (3^rd conclusion)

                        D à     |   gate  |

 

                        ƒ(E[2],D) = E[2]*D

 

                        -or-

 

                        ƒ(A,B,C,D) = (((A*B)*C)*D)

            Categorically, A represents covetousness (c), B represents presumption (p), C represents arrogance (a) and D represents violence (v), any act or activity levied against dissent. Numerically binary, A, B, C and D will be the respective characteristics expressed when existent or occurring thus equaling to 1 (one), else nonexistent or not occurring thus equaling to 0 (zero), therefore the below truth table(s) (0,0,0,1) or conclusions…

e = ethical dilemma

n = not an ethical dilemma

                

c = covetousness (arousing con dissent)

p = presumption (flirting con dissent)

a = arrogance (plotting con dissent)

v = violence (acting con dissent)

 

                        A(c)     B(p)     E[1] (1^st conclusion)

                        0          0          0

                        1          0          0

                        0          1          null (w/o covetousness)

                        1(prq)  1          1

                                   

ƒ(A,B) = A*B = E[1]  (0,0,null,1)

 

                        E[1]     C(a)     E[2] (2^nd conclusion)

                        0          0          0

                        1          0          0

                        0          1          null (w/o presumption)

                        1(prq)  1          1

                       

ƒ(E[1],C) = E[1]*C = E[2]  (0,0,null,1)

 

                        E[2]     D(v)     E[3] (3^rd conclusion)

                        0          0          0

                        1          0          0

                        0          1          null (w/o arrogance)

                        1(prq)  1          1

                       

ƒ(E[2],D) = E[2]*D = E[3]  (0,0,null,1)

 

-or-

 

ƒ(A,B) = (((A*B)*C)*D) = E (0,1,1,1)

It is important to note the prerequisites (prq), else not applicable or null. If E (conclusion) equals 1, then D (violence) equals 1. If D (violence) equals 1, then C (arrogance) equals 1. If C (arrogance) equals 1, then B (presumption) equals 1. If B (presumption) equals 1, then A (covetousness) equals 1. So it follows, A (covetousness) equaling 1 indicates the initial state or condition upon any instance B (presumption), C (arrogance) then D (violence) each dependently equaling 1. Consequently without exception, E (conclusion) equaling to 1 as the unresolved ethical dilemma until D (violence) equals 0 once again per cessation of acting (or action) con dissent, regardless the states or conditions of C (arrogance), B (presumption) and A (covetousness). 

Universally understood as well consistent with Boolean logic as utilized per AND gate’s algebraic/analytical expression thus truth table, common agreement establishes a constancy between the conditions ethical dilemma versus not an ethical dilemma. Though yet demonstrated the ethical argument, the prerequisite logical argument as shown prior does in fact demonstrates consistency.

            It is true, many would theologically even universally argue a ceaselessly prevailing covetousness harboring within the mind, heart and soul of mankind, ever ready to incite, excite then ignite presumption, arrogance as well violence. To align of course with the reformed posture regarding total depravity, the first point of Calvinism, a theological discussion suggesting universality of the same would be another philosophical and/or psychological conversation perhaps ardent debate. It is suffice observably, logically, consistently therefore ethically to propose covetousness as anterior, the necessary prerequisite to presumption, arrogance and certainly violence per aforesaid definition.

---

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, as Individualism’s praxis
Opposed to all other isms’ modus operandi regardless the political axis
Thus observable fact is; if arrogance succeeds, presumption precedes
And covetousness the original seed toward government’s violent deeds

O the silent bleed from coercively inoculated veins, sunken the eyes
Drunken the tongues, feigned per lies unapologetically o’er the sighs
Wry the cries yet sublime upon the fantastically fraudulent assurance
Contrarily odd per the observable occurrences of oligarchic prurience

---

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

Copyright © 2022 by D.C. Quillan Stone