Friday, October 8, 2021
The Trilogy...
Tuesday, October 5, 2021
12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 213
To deny an individual’s humanity is universally understood as inhumane, for certainly dehumanizing if to so deny. Who would disagree of course with this sort of obvious characterization? Yet a discussion or debate on the definition of such denial would result to something less than universal understanding, for also less than universal the definition(s) of the words humane and/or humanitarian.
The
common scenarios representing inhumanity immediately come to the forefront;
slavery, genocide, mass shooting, murder, rape and other physically violent
activities. Even so among these examples, reactions differ per the events’
details and contexts, especially upon politicization and oddly upon heightened
awareness of particular issue(s) per currently popular film, documentary, exposé,
investigation, etc. Consequently, without the observable, logical, consistent
thus ethical definitions for words humane
versus inhumane, transgressions and
tragedies are incorrectly assessed, determinations and decisions incorrectly
concluded then legislations, laws, policies, programs incorrectly proposed,
popularly confirmed, disastrously implemented inducing further inhumanities.
And so for centuries even millenniums as ordinarily contrived then randomly compiled the lists, codes, bills, canons of moralities, ethicalities, rights, statutes, commandments, principles, ideals, standards, behaviors, causes, often governmentally imposed yet none universally contended nor usually conducted.
Specifically, the U.S. Bill of Rights originated as 17 amendments approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, 12 of the 17 approved by the U.S. Senate, and in 1791, 10 of 12 ratified by then 13 American states. The rejection of rights from the start was as arbitrary as the approving 17 then 12 as well the eventual ratifying the final 10 (see Proem & Poem Nos. 27, 28). Prior of course, Thomas Jefferson named 3 unalienable rights in 1776, John Locke in 1689 proposed 4 rights that “no one ought to harm”, then fast-forward to 1948, the newly formed United Nations declared human rights in a lengthy document of 30 articles, as defined by Eleanor Roosevelt and the commission she chaired. The lack of consensus worsens outside political, governmental sciences thus within social, academic, religious contexts exemplified by far more diversity of thoughts and conclusions on the matter.
Oddly,
the diverse opinions and various divisions over rights as well moralities,
decencies, probities, equalities, do not dissuade nor discourage the passionately
sentimental persistence even fanatically emotional insistence towards governmental
presumption therefore institutional compulsion (force) per the vote of the vaingloriously
monarchic one, the arrogantly oligarchic some, the riotously kratocratic many
else the covetously democratic most, however never respectfully, ethically
patient until the unanimously harmonic all upon each and every person’s consent.
To be plain, covetousness, presumption, arrogance cannot bear the thought of
constraint when confronted with one more dissenting soul.
The core, the root, fraught per rot, “All for not!” as
most lament
As though foot in cement, society hell-bent, no
ladies, nor gents
For dignity well spent, moral garments rent near
consuming fires
Liken funeral pyres, while gypsies dance to “fool’s
gold” lyres
And covetous desires fan to flames, panning polity’s fiat
games
Tho’ few to logically triage the false claims, placing
proper blame
While facing the slanderous aims, “Racists and Fascists
are All!”
Appalled by disagreements the pious cabal while
self-enthralled
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Monday, October 4, 2021
Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1563)... RESOLVE TO SERVE NO MORE, and YOU ARE at once FREED...
Sunday, October 3, 2021
Quotes by Leibniz, Boole and Shannon, then a comment on ethics...
12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 251
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...
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!
---
Pledges and allegiances to banners and flags, oaths and vows to empires and nations, to monarchies and governments, to parliaments and congresses, to kings, prime ministers and presidents serve only the interests of the aforementioned, and to be sure the subject and citizen, that is, the individual to fully bear the sacrifice of his/her life, health, liberty, privacy, property, possession, profession, pursuit, purpose, preference, prerogative even propensity as well family, friends, and anything or anyone else held personally dear. Any promises by kings, princes, politicians or bureaucrats to serve the subject or citizen’s wellbeing are Orwellian doublespeak for their intent to presumptuously, impatiently rule therefore expecting the people’s unquestionable obedience.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.
Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1563)
These despots along with crony advisors, experts, professors, doctors, journalists, commentators then priests, pastors, various community leaders even artists, musicians, actors like past sages, magicians, jesters, town criers and more, have so cleverly spun the concept of honor to equate to sacrifice as previously defined, yet in like manner sacrificially honor not the people. Is it not high time to reciprocally however rightfully honor not those holding public offices, thereby logically thus ethically undermining their presumption and arrogance, unofficially yet effectively rescinding their endowment and power, and in so doing to live free, to think, speak and act liberated fully bearing one’s own responsibility and risk (see Proem & Poem Nos. 117-120, 123).
---
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
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
Saturday, October 2, 2021
There is NO GRAY on this absolute issue...
Simply, inescapably, either one respect then accept the aforesaid else transgress while trample it. There is NO GRAY on this absolute issue.
No. 131 - Incapable of Gray / Part 2
No. 132 - Incapable of Gray / Part 3
No. 132 - Incapable of Gray / Part 4