Blogs by D.C. Quillan Stone: February 2022

Sunday, February 27, 2022

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 269

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. 269

~ Amiss the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason / 1st Reprise ~

To expand further, well intertwined are the peculiar human ability to reason and self-interest, so much so, quite easily and universally observed, logically determined then properly argued as synonymous else inseparable. To quote from her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) wrote per the inherent passion thereof.

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

As starkly cold some may interpret this quote, equally thus unavoidably practiced by each and every individual since the specie human first reasoned, the one point in history and forward shared by both the Evolutionist and Creationist (see Proem & Poem No. 199 and Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 267). From here, it follows.

Firstly, best exemplified the beauty of self-interest respected thus regarded per modest governance, when individuals separately calculate, speculate, labor and produce, then in the marketplace of mutual consent, not taxed, regulated, subsidized, prohibited, sanctioned, confiscated nor seized, negotiate and exchange their goods and services, all proportionately satisfied even benefited.

No one actor empowered politically, governmentally enough to interfere, intrude, impose per inherently unavoidable biases and prejudices covetously driven, yet properly moderated each individual by fully bearing his/her responsibility and risk, therefore appropriately guided every person by wholly exercising his/her peculiar human ability to reason for resultantly not awry, askew nor amiss.

Conversely, best exemplified the ugliness of self-interest disrespected thus disregarded per arrogant governance, when individuals separately calculate, speculate, labor and produce, then in the marketplace of covetous presumption, well taxed, regulated, subsidized, prohibited, sanctioned, confiscated or seized, adjust and transact their goods and services, all disproportionately unsatisfied even harmed.

One or more actors empowered politically, governmentally enough to interfere, intrude, impose per inherently unavoidable biases and prejudices covetously driven, yet improperly moderated each individual by not fully bearing his/her responsibility and risk, therefore inappropriately guided every person by not wholly exercising his/her peculiar human ability to reason for resultantly quite awry, askew nor amiss.

---

O the covetousness, presumption and the inevitable violence
Hyping as rights others’ possessions, nonesuch the vehemence
Insomuch the fraudulence, so preceding the deceitful polyanthus
Such savoring fragrance for minds susceptible then superfluous

Question neo-truths, hoary lies, either oft connived then derived
Attired withal bane, polity then gains per the contrived as strived
Slurred verses for blurred curses o’er private purses then purposed
Covetousness fitly stirs as the public booty disperses as rehearsed

---

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

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 268

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 268

~ Amiss the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason ~

If not hindered nor impaired then awry, askew, amiss the peculiar human ability to reason upon the mitigation or negation of the individual’s burden of responsibility and risk. There are of course the observable, logical therefore sustainable as well ethical considerations (see Proem & Poem Nos. 117-120, 123), as so previously introduced.

Each and every action carries with it the inherent thus unavoidable burden of responsibility and risk, defining since antiquity the natural state of human activity. First, the actor bears the responsibility thus cost of the action by exerting labor and/or expending resource. Second, the actor bears the risk thus outcome of the action by enjoying the increment and/or enduring the detriment.

However on the actor’s behalf, another person may bear responsibility and/or risk, voluntarily if have consented thus acceptant, or coercively if have dissented thus resistant, albeit never negating nor mitigating rather merely transferring the burden. With that said and to state the obvious, it is intellectual whimsy, fantasy even psychosis to contemplate society or human activity without individual burden of responsibility and risk…

It is not difficult to imagine by resorting to force the newly induced overhead thus expenditure of labor and resource, in addition to the moral dilemma per the disregard for the Singular Human Right to Consent or Not Consent on all matters, inseparably the disrespect for the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason.

The implication should be made plain. While the forceful transferring of one’s responsibility and risk to another may present obvious dilemmas making difficult if not impossible to maintain postures logical, sustainable, ethical however less noticed the less obvious dilemmas per the peculiar human ability or capacity to reason ill effected. It is also obvious hence quite true the path of least resistance equation as the propensity of reasoning, properly conducted when fully bearing one’s responsibility and risk, however gravely conducted when not fully bearing one’s responsibility and risk.

---

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.

Saturday, February 19, 2022

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

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

---

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.