Axiology of Nasphilitae:History of Legal and Political Philosophy

genericsequencealias · April 26, 2024, 11:21pm

Axiology of Nasphilitae:History of legal and political philosophy

Archived historical works. Summarised by: Elena Bartlett , Matthew Greene. Referenced or provided information: Sera Clayton , Ayala Moran , Walt Marcel , Travis Palmer.

Instead of Abstract:

In light of recent developments regarding Judiciary reformation and consolidation as part of the Grand Agenda. As with Ayala Morans’ justified advise against the legislative-executive reckless pursuit and handling of such a topic. It has been suggested to us by domestic Justices to collect critical works which point to fundamental questions of this countrys’ paradigms. Aiming to provide summarisations of chronological ethno-psychological thought in regards to society, justice, fairness, freedom, state, mythos, disputes; Formalised in legal and political philosophy and its’ development, as told by scholars of past times. These will be available in OPAL when finished. When each publication is finished, its’ quick-link will be provided here. Consider all publishing to have occurred on the same date, for NCSAC practicality.

–Elena Bartlett (and Matthew Greene)

Authors, Works, Summary by, Years Work Covers (I):

“Accounts of the Behemoth Leviathan and Ziz” (Part I:Ch.1-82 and Part II:Ch.82-137) by Protoiridine Certusemorand (Part I) and Unnamed Student (Part II) , Elena Bartlett , 1589–1726
“Biography of Grand Peer-General Elton Morganfort” (Part IV) by Privy Councillor, Earl Henry Fafyre , Matthew Greene , 1727–1743
“Records of the Assembly in Southern Haven” by George Wroster , Matthew Greene , 1744–1777
“Reapproaching Ziz’s Rejection of The Gavel” by S.J. Brand , Elena Bartlett , 1778–1808
“Introducing The Andro-Machina:Death of The Three Creatures” by Daisy Day , Elena Bartlett , 1809–1825
“On Representation and Justice:Rebirthing Ziz” by Julie Q. Goldmann , Matthew Greene , 1823–1844
“Cult of The Monad:In the Valley Between Empirical and Logical” by Ian Zachary , Elena Bartlett , 1840-1849

Authors, Works, Summary by, Years Work Covers (II):

“On Justice:Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy and The Republic” by John Whetstone , Elena Bartlett , 1850-1855
“The Gold and The Mother:Desiring Desire Among Nasphiliti During Times of Dorothy” by Julie Q. Goldmann , Matthew Greene 1850-1853
“The Behemoth” by Assembly Representative Ulrich Varcel , Elena Bartlett 1853-1889
[i]“Manifest of The Commonfolks’ Leviathan”[i] by Mark Guy , Elena Bartlett 1885-1905
“Biography of King Carl Darzens (Part VI:Recounts of The Strife)” by Antice Ivy , Matthew Greene 1901–1928
“The Junta Between Duty and Tyranny:Autobiography (Part II-VI)” by General-Commander Walt Marcel , Matthew Greene 1930–1952
"Obsolvence in Times of Death by General, Agent Eric Xor , Elena Bartlett 1952–1962

Authors, Works, Summary by, Years Work Covers (III):

“Answering Ian Zachary:Creation of Pragmatism” by Howard Dinbar , Elena Bartlett 1955–1972
“The Making of Kryptos” by Agent Andrew Johnson (Rolland Krenstone) , Elena Bartlett 1941–1951
“Fatality of Information-Fall of Ziz” by AID:Department Nine Records (Declassified) , Matthew Greene 1962–1980
“Experiments and Results:Project Andro-Machina” by AID:Department Nine Records (Declassified) , Matthew Greene 1962–1984
“Hetorodoxy of Praxis Vanguards” by Constantine Peterson , Matthew Greene 1955-1988
“Anti-Royal Protest Note of Radicals:Praxeology Revisioned” by Benjamin Tunnnstone , Matthew Greene 1962–1988
“Recollections:Autobiography (Trilogy)” by Travis Palmer , Elena Bartlett 1988–1998; 1998–2013; 2013–2019
“David Innsbolt in Retrospection” by Travis Palmer , Elena Bartlett 2019-2023

genericsequencealias · April 26, 2024, 11:31pm

“Accounts of the Behemoth, Leviathan and Zizz - I and II”

– Protoiridine Certusemorand (1589-1726)

Summary: Elena Bartlett

“Accounts of the Behemoth, Leviathan and Zizz” by Protoiridine and ^{(preemptively after Chapter 82)} his student, present written chronicles of “subliterati streonus” ^{(scattering, incomplete, fractal)}. It originally contained 137 “Chapters”, each allegorically recording events by year. The initial and final Chapters have been lost. However, on Chapter 82, Protoiridine obstructs his flow, gazing upon previous points as to categorise disputes by “topic these years share”. It served now to divide the work into eight “Topics”.

Topic 1:

Chapter 82 describes disputes of “Maxima and Minima” as the two “initiating parties”, represented by their Pacifican “leading parties”, which were presumed to be two separate forms. The High Tide would come first, before the Low Tide would reveal its’ consequential – A tombstone with writings on it on the shoreline.

When “the sun wheel struck against the sea” ^{(03.00 PM on East)}, its western shadow fell in a manner which created the image of a “Behemoth”. The creature would exclaim: “The tombstone is death of life beyond it, so begins a new life on land”.

Going on to swore protecting the land from death so long as “Our new family, our new brotherhood, our new polity abides by freedom of its’ own conscience”. A short-name portmanteau was proposed combining this statement → Nas-Phili-Tae (Our new familial-polity).

Topic 2:

Includes “chapters” 29-39 (years 1617-1627). Chapter 82 describes that “two parties have changed, as more primatitis” ^{(nobles, peerhouses)} “would settle under Behemoths protection, each with ther own understanding of conscience”. “Conscience” in this time was the matter of dispute, today understood as core philosophy. The “parties” leading were the Pellmores ^{(then called “Hussitists”, now “Old Church Catholics”)} and the Darzens ^{(then called "Sabellians annd “Ebionites”, now “Modalists”)}.

It begins with an event where the newly arrived primatii, Stonehams ^{(various then, now Anabaptist)} looking upon the tombstone upon arrival received inspiration to investigate a troubling “absentia” (non-existence).
On the Grand Council, they would present a piece of paper, first blank, asking other Earls to declare what their “conscience” told them that object was. All replies “a piece of paper”.
Secondly, upon writing: A drawing; A symbol; A scribble; And the word “word”; Asked the attendees again the same question, with an addition of “which descriptive proprietary holds more significance?” ^{(the writings or the paper)}.Darzens exclaimed that it was now: “a paper with writings on it”, which was quickly disagreed upon by Pellmores, who said: “it is now whatever has been written, the paper is now a secondary medium”.
Finally, Stonehams asked how they trust their “conscience” when they disagree on which steps were taken to arrive to such arguments. The Darzens replied: “The paper I see with my sight still, the writings too, precedence of the paper appear first is what keeps this object a single particularity.” The Pellmores argued that: “The writings take precedence, as a paper with blank contents is not more than a medium”. Stoneham asked each of them again – “What are these writings-symbols meaning?” ^{(What Stoneham attempted to reference with these symbols)}.

The written symbols were of five horizontal lines, five vertical lines, and five diagonal lines. Darzens replied: “Lines, each in their own direction, grouped. As for meaning, we cannot know of your intent.” Pellmores attempted to answer, “They represent, perhaps, divergence in conscience, by each of us here”.
Stoneham would then add a circle connecting the fifteen lines, exclaiming that: “They represent Behemoths protection. Our conscience may diverge but it is for this reason that we are now free”. However, Stoneham pointed out that: “Physicalities are dangerous and vile, they create divisions and trouble, my conscience tells me to abandon this property and focus instead on embracing the Realm of Behemoths shadows.” Merely the Fieldlers ^{(also Anabaptist)} agreed, after which the two primatii left the Council and would seldom attend it later.

Topic 3:

Chapters 39-63 and years 1627-1650. Interestingly, mentions the term “Behemothian Liberationism”. Michiel Oyster used it in his “Sola Victorem” chronicles to describe a poorly understood sub-movement among Adamites and Saballians whose teachings would lead to widespread Waldenstianism by 1650. Oyster attributes Waldenstianism as the leading cause for both the Council of New Nessex and the Council-Synod of Mt. Sor being convened.

However, Protoiridine uses it in a completely different context. The “Parties” in these chapters are objects within the household of a single unnamed character. The dispute is over which object the character would “Take with him to the market in hopes of recognition as if they” ^{(the character)} “is precedential before all others on the market.”
The objects are: A violet robe; A staff; A gavel; A sword; A pot of gold; and a candle. The character prays to Leviathan for knowledge “Of things truly human but unknown to humans”. On Chapter 61., the character travels to the shore, past the tomb and submerges into the Ocean, seemingly drowning.

Chapter 62. opens with the character drinking “Root of the mandrake out of a white amber vessel past noon” before showing the Sword and visiting the market. Upon declaring himself “Precedential of all folk here”, the "Behemothian Liberationists appear from their ephedracea rhizomes of the shrubs" and fire 729 arrows at the character. Finally, Protoiridine says that “The other townsfolk paid no matter to this event”.

Topic 4:

Chapters 62-72 (1651-1663) continue the obvious allegory to the question of sovereignty but don’t mention any historical event nor person at the time. At Chapter 82., Protoiridine explicitly states that: “Parties then were none”. It’s written entirely in prose where every following statement is negating the previous:

Dispute begins with the question of Fairness, negated to be Justice, negated to be about Freedom. Protoiridine mocks in the same dialogue “character” both notions of “active” and “passive” freedom. ^{(Clear allegory to negative and positive law)} He exclaims that the former is “power” and latter “safety”. This is further mocked by the following character which states that: “Power without safety is lunacy, safety without power is servitude.” This is abruptly interrupted by the final statement: “Suffering is suffering and I must be grateful throughout, for the market matters not, but only that which can take and give live.”

The stylistic choice of Topic 4 certainly mimics the Book of Jobs intentionally. Although it remains unclear whether Protoiridine is parodying it or agrees with it.

Topic 5:

Chapters 76-81 (1664-1669) is where two “parties” are preparing to “end all disputed discussed prior”. The “parties” are:

The Leviathan, “Paper with writings on it”, The Violet Robe, and “the Powerful and Safe”.
The Behemoth, “Symbolic precedence”, A Pot of Gold, and “the Free and the Just” on the other. The “ones who left”, The Staff, and “The Fair” are being buried on the shore, which is where the two parties meet.

Each accuses the other of “Evoking all suffering, including death.” They arrange to settle who is to be responsible “In the Palace down the Western Hills, where we have rejoiced.” ^{(slightly west of Fort Masontown today)}.
Upon arrival, confrontation fails, as “The robe is above gold, but the free are above the powerful.” Behemoth and Leviathan begin eating one-another, with their followers taking bricks from “The Fortress” to throw at one-another.

Chapter 81 stops by describing “An avian being flying from south and sitting stop the Hill, larger than both creatures, the beings scream freezes time to speak with me in what seems to be a resemblance of eternity.” Protoiridine is describing Ziz, furhther noting that “The avian told me, if it carried with them a Gavel, where did it materialise from, and why does it possess it?” Ziz negates law to Protoiridine but the Chapter abruptly ends.

Chapter 82: Notes near the end of it that there will be three more Topics, pleading the reader for patience.

Topic 6

Chapters 83-84 (1671-1672), though either written much later or by a student of Protoiridine, as the style changes. It begins by saying: “Ziz is awaiting my answer, glaring me down with white pupil-iris and black eyeballs; The shape in which the creatures’ neck had formed to cast down its’ head from beyond the firmament left me numb in grotesque fascination.”
It’s unclear why Protoiridine considers 1669-1672 to be “frozen in time”, though Sera Clayton suggests that the period might’ve been accompanied by a “Mini Ice Age”.

Nevertheless, it’s descriptively assumed that Ziz is renouncing law as source of its’ legitimacy over power, safety, freedom and justice. The manner in addressing this is novel - All other characters so far have either not questioned or questioned rhetorically, Ziz is the first to patiently await for an answer which it will not consider factual. So is also written:

– “If you are carrying a Gavel, you’ve crafted it by yourself, to serve as a scribe for that which you undertake.”
– “To whom would I scribe my undertakings if the same are successful in execution: What need is there to legalise or legitimise, if none are the audience?”
– “The need arises from ones’ own conscious, it is presupposed.”
An axiom which Ziz explicitly rejects, stating that:
– “Conscience may now be re-assembled; As it always has.”

Topic 7

Chapters 85-113, years 1673-1715. Written nearly entirely as a dialogue.

Ch. 85-88: – “I have suddenly been inspired by an idea”; Spoken inside the throne room, vast an majestic with no ears to hear, by the Elder Ruler of All-Proxima.
– “Truth. Alone as I am, I ponder, what is truth?”
– "Is truth that which it is by itself? If none are here, if I make conscience and emotions and attitudes, as I am, are those true? If truth were given an audience, If I were to permit their continued existence, If the audience was made conscious of all this; Would truth change, and how?

Ch. 89-91: – “You seem to have gone solipsistic in your dementia.”; Spoken from the balcony of the throne room, first among the audiences, the Court Nurse of All-Proxima.
– “Truth is a predicative adjective phrase-expression, or a normalised adjective. Nothing less and nothing more.”

Ch. 92-96: – “Truth, in informative interrogative sentences, is an abject verb.”
– “Truth, may be an argument. For instance: A truth is all which isn’t false.”
– “Truth, in any utterance which is coherent to more than one person is conditionally valid. To find true speech is to seek and eliminate or pronounce the determining causes, links and effects; Which compose conditions for truth.”
– “The mind of Leviathanism is of no utility to anything outside of silent fantasy. The object of Behemothianism is of no value without observation.”

Ch. 97-105. AS THE NIGHT COASTED HALLS WITH SHADOWS, AUDIENCE HAD ONCE AGAIN DISAPPEARED. BEFORE THE ELDER APPEARED A SINGLE DIM SPARK. CANDLELIGHT, WHICH BECAME DISTINGUISHABLE AS ITS’ OWNER APPROACHED THE THRONE, HELD BY A SPECTRE-BODY.

– “These pillars in your hall are cylindrical.” The spectre-body informed the Elder without speech, upon placing the candle before the Elder-Rulers’ throne.
– “Most pillars are.” Replied the Elder-Ruler. “What of it?”
– “…Most pillars aren’t perpendicular, architectural demand is that the bottom base radius is eccentric by greater value of radius length than the top base. Hence only, cylindrical.” From this point, only the spectre-ghost spoke.
– “The mind and the object, in this event your mind processing non-immediately-known properties of, the object being these pillars, are a single instance or event or process or phenomenon.”
– “The mind had not known of these properties until they have been observed, inspected and tested: The mind cannot know its’ own thoughts.”
– “The object would not exist or falter without prior similar objects being inspected by other minds; It is as this only because of prior thought about it.”
– “As per conditionality of truth, one can demagogue both a logically and a nomologically possible statement. The nurse is though correct that truth is a mere possibility.”
– “Temporarility-the passing of time, and Geometry-minded objects, are of highest order. The candles’ cylindrical shape had extinguished due to light during my statements.”

Ch. 106-113. Written without dialogue, though in prose.

THE ELDER RULER HAS BEEN FOUND DEAD BY DAWN. FIVE HEIRS WOULD APPEAR, DESIRING-DESIRE FOR PROXIMA.

I: “An illegitimate wedlock from below the prosperous palace. The child had grown under guidance of Survival-Valuing Strength and Power. Followers were former enemies. A swordsman now, the heir commanded this group of unruly thieves.”

II: “The eldest child from within the palace sent to a fortress. The eldest child commanded a group of banner men, with Violet long-shields. Grown under the guidance of Responsibility-Valuing Fairness and Violet robes.”

III: “The youngest child from within the palace, residing in mothers’ chambers. Grown under the guidance of Opportunity-Valuing Safety and Pots of Gold, taught by the mothers’ affair, Privy Councillor for Treasury. Commanding a network of intrigue within this court, enough gold to buy all forces, and the best Commander.”

IV: “The Forgotten Middle Child, left at a young age in pursuit of mountainous liberty and autonomy. Now reviews and stamps letters and proposals from the common-folk, hearing their disputes and settling them. Grown under the guidance of Consequences-Valuing Freedom and Justice. Commanding the common-folk, for this Gavel was righteous.”

V: “The Lost Child, found as an infant by the Court Apothecarian while they were searching the wilderness for tincture components. The Alchemist had brought the child into the palace, Chambers for Apothecary, located in the lower back section of this structure and kept away from public sight. Grown under the guidance of Virtue and WisdomFromOthers-The Lost Child learned to value Information and the dim Candlelight they’ve spent next to reading the Guardians’ notes.”

VI: "A word told The Illegitimate Child that the rulers’ wife have had an affair, whose child yet, unlike him, lives prosperously. The Youngests’ mother would raise burden on the common-folk and gather more forces for protection. This had annoyed The Middle Child, overworked with complaints over both the burden and the banditry. They have sent a request to the Fortress of the Eldest Child. The Eldest Childs’ knights were called for inauguration, if they kept the commoners relieved of bandits.

The request led to both The Illegitimate and the Eldest Child dying in a gruesome siege, where the City had run out of treasury and food. Seeing struggling common-folk as more mercenaries crowded the palace had made The Middle Child possessed with anger, killing the Councillor and then his mother. The Youngest Child then demanded his mercenaries attack his Middle sibling-Which had angered the commoners who now lunged at the forces."

A BLOOD-FILLED THRONE-ROOM IS EMPTY ONCE AGAIN. YET, THE DECEASED ELDER-RULERS’ BROTHER ENTERED, INFORMED BY THE LOST CHILD THAT A PLAGUE HAD STRUCK THE CITY, ON THE NIGHT THAT THE CHILD HAD SPREAD WORD TO THE CITY ABOUT THIS THE AFFAIR.
YET, THE APOTHECARY CHAMBERS PERSIST STILL, UNTOUCHED, NOW UNDER THE UNCLES’ REIGN.

Topic 8:

Originally chapters 114-137, years of 1715-1726. Chapters 125-137 were lost:

The parties return to Topic 5, with Protoiridine playing an active role in preventing the “dispute settlement”, now being granted the ability of summoning Ziz’s scream by a poorly explained ritual.
Climbing atop the Western Mountlands, he found a watch-tower, which had a “telescope-akin apparatus within”. The telescope was aimed at the shore where Leviathanists and Behemothianists attended the funeral. However, Protoiridine points its’ sights directly into the Sun, staring at it…

The winds howling, trees breaking and a cosmic scream once more occurred, before Ziz’s wings blocked the Sun, casting a “Shadow darker than attics” upon the entire country. Before losing sight, an event which Ziz signs of when flying back, he can observe that the funeral attendants had dispersed. The Leviathan drowning back into the Ocean and the Behemoth venturing east ^{(From Western Mountlands, this means South)} into the Southern Mountalnds’ cloud-forests.

Ch. 127-125 open with Protoiridines’ monologue, which is abruptly cut:

“Virtue is not the moral Fairness, nor the athletic Strength, nor the wilderness Freedom; It is not a subjugation to the Judgement of a Gavel, nor a paramour of Gold or Violet Robes; Virtue is the Collective web, the sky view, the sacrifice of unworthy to build anew; Eternal and Monadic in bei—”

Topic 8 then abruptly ends.

genericsequencealias · May 9, 2024, 10:19pm

“Biography of Grand Peer-General Elton Morganfort” (IV)

– Earl Henry Fafyre

Summary: Matthew Greene

Introduction

Fafyre introduces a reoccurring dilemma during Part IV of the biographical trilogy on Morganfort. Beginning with the question of where authority derives legitimacy from after the enactment of secularism, it becomes engulfed by subsequent questions arising from contra-positions. A central theme and the dilemma presented is the ambiguity of limits to sovereign’s mandate and whether the sovereign is to be held accountable for “proaction” (transformative, positive) or “arbitration” (intervene, negative). It concludes with an analytical deduction of Morganforts’ position regarding the matter on behalf of his own activities. This epilogue serves as basis for tracing the development of consequentalist ethics, constructivist-realist-constructivist method, purposive interpretation in legal approaches, and creating the basis of “living tree doctrine” to which Fafyre refers as “organic-dynamic”.

Source of legitimacy

State consequentalism

Events of 1660-1662, in this framework referenced as “Sola Victorem”, had created discourse on where legitimacy of a collective sovereign (then “grand peer-general”) derived from. Divine authority has been submerged into the particular, further reinforced by prohibition on further inter-noble discussions related to the matter. Morganforts’ elections were evidently persuasive by not addressing the topic of legitimacy at all, unlike the opposing nominees.
In the first five years (1727-1732) he had taken what Fafyre terms an: “arbitration approach to legislation and presiding Councils”, opting for “non-interference unless that of deciding the ultimate outcome of the presided discourse; Which is also limited by solution as well as when an ultimate outcome is necessary”. This leads Fafyre into the next topic.

Limits of sovereign

“Ethic-necessity”

When approaching Fafyres’ framework, it’s necessary to differentiate that Fafyre is specifically addressing the “abstract-level” (theoretical, general) and deriving interpretations from the “country-level” (practical, observable). Fafyre does not yet introduce bordering levels of governance on a vertical scale, among territorial sub-divisions in governance.

Relying on Morganforts’ practices in his mandate, Fafyre distinguishes the concept of “necessity” as key to the questions of autonomy, mandate, power and freedom; “An abstracts^[sovereigns] mandate is entitled to the autonomy of a physical entity insofar as it is necessary to regulate the entitys’ autonomy in relation to another or of entities in relation to the collective.” This is how Fafyre shapes the ethical system, wherein what is good is virtuous by outcome of its conduct being good, a recursion which Wroster will often point to.

Proaction and arbitration

“Necessary in the action of regulation”

Further, “necessity” is is given two natures or modes: “Necessary in the action of regulation, as well as in the contents of the regulate itself”; which is to say that regulation which over-extends beyond the subject matter is not considered legitimate. It’s vital to contextualize these observations in the time of overbearing prohibitive clauses, derived from implicit prohibition unless legislated, of the Home Rule Act 1662. This context should make the following two concepts more easily approachable: proaction and arbitration.

Regarding when “the action of regulating” is necessary, Fafyre gives two events. “Arbitration is an event where the abstract^[sovereign] interferes among autonomous dispute as a form of final settlement”, and as such “justifiable when such disputes’ continuation would threaten others, the collective or the actors themselves”. Contrast this to proaction, which “is the abstract^[sovereign] merely initiating a new phenomenon into reality”. Fafyre makes an interesting judgement, “although unlike arbitration, regulate of the proactive approach aren’t imperative.” These two events will be discussed to this day, with Court practice adjusting per case, avoiding a declarative statement which would give primacy to either.

Statutory interpretation and judicial independence

“Necessary in content”

Contents of the regulate[legislation] also must be necessary, which is amplified in events of “arbitration”, since settling dispute requires some position be taken by the arbitrator. Fafyre begins by induction of a “Lex specialis” dilemma, or when and which regulate takes precedence in older general clause conflicting with a newer specific clause. While “purposive approach guides both the creator and the user […] the user is divided in how they are to read opposing regulates of the creator”. Fafyre begins to exemplify both the prohibitive clause of Home Rule Act 1662. and legislation passed by Morganfort in the “middle seven-year period” or 1732-1739.

Court decisions and case elaborations are then cite to derive eleven general principles:

1. Specific regulations override general regulations.

2. Statutes are understood in the immediate context of their terms.

3. Statutes may be re-contextualized in specific decisions if this action is documented and justified. (Living tree doctrine).

4. Precedence of the specific case decision is presumed. (Lex specialis).

5. Application of the regulate to retrograde cases is presumed null. (Retroactive non-application).

6. Application is presumptive independent of the Courts justices agreement with the regulate content.

7. Prosecution is conducted by an autonomous facility of the Court. (Adversarial system).

8. The regulator is tasked to enact regulate in plain language. (Plain meaning rule).

9. The regulator is tasked to enact regulate in good faith towards the resulting Courts cases arising from it. (Golden rule).

10. Courts may not take into account regulates disrespect of these tasks. (Judicial review and independence).

11. In enactment of arbitration regulate, the legislator is guided by remedy principles, which may include silence on the matter. (Mishief rule, Right to silence).

Intent from results

Constructivist-realist-constructivist method and Morganfort as “proactive proponent”

Throughout the work, Fafyre uses a technique which will later become staple in domestic methodology. An abstraction is initiated by the author in the form of a general question, which is proprietary to the nnature or substance of the phenomena matter. Observations are made and implications taken apart from immediate time and position of the author. The implications are re-contextualized on the abstraction phenomena to provide an answer. Which is to say, Consequentalist ethics’ notions of “good” are not normative statements on the moral good. Fafyres’ succeeding author (Wroster) will explicitly declare that neither of them are exploring what ought to be.

Similarly, another meta-technique is employed in Part IV’s conclusive section. In arriving to what position regarding the proactive-arbitration primacy Morganfort adhered to, results of Morganforts activities are analyzed. From results, intentions are presumed to be derived. Fafyre disagrees that intent can’t be known prior, before demonstrating the procedure. This will be a central point of divergence much later. He notes activities of finishing the construction of Fort Masontown and beginning construction of Agorport as telling of proactive primacy; While a convincing example of legislation is given in the form of “Ordinance on Land Taxation”, which ties the nobility to the land they owned. Fafyre concludes that Morganfort was a proactive proponent, despite his approach in mandate mostly being of an arbitration model.

genericsequencealias · May 15, 2024, 6:41pm

“Records of the Assembly in Southern Haven”

– George Wroster (1744–1777)

Summary: Matthew Greene

Introduction:Authorship context

The “Records” contain both chronicle-historical sections, as well as Wresters’ authentic lamentations over the subject he has archived previously, separated by “comments” after each entry. George came from a family of workshop-Magnates, which provided for his representation in the Grand Council and subsequent Estate Assembly, as well as opportunity for pursuits in education and workforce experience. “Records” serve as: the primary source for Wresters’ own ideas, such as the conclusion of social contract thought experiment resulting in a “Lex mercatoriae” legal foundation and the ethical dilemma of who and how should limit contract law; secondary source for ideas which Wrester re-adapts, like the “Commercial revolution” or “social contract-as thought experiment”; and as a secondary source for historical events which occurred. As this makes “Records” very extensive, historical aspects will be summarised first, prior to summaries of ideas presented.

Introduction:Historical context

Written during the peak of domestic Enlightenment, which included an ideal type divide between the “Moderate” and the “Radical” Enlightenment. Wrester exhibits contemporary influences, most noticeably those of the Radical Enlightenment, in the form of cynical skepticism towards human natural intent and sovereignty. As a historical figure in the field of academics, he is co-credited for advocating in favour of Unniversity autonomy.
Social changes arising from Morganforts’ Ordinance, in the form of tenure-tied Nobility, created a period of transition from Allodial to the Socage system of tenure. Subsequent Enclosure and its’ urbanization consequences led to the period of “Buccaneer Wars”, the “Commercial Revolution” (transition from Putting-out system to the Proto-industrial system), and the creation of “Free Port Cities” which had primitive money exchange offices (Bourses), as well as Privateer Insurance Companies. These changes mutually influenced one another.
“The Assembly” refers to both the Grand Council, prior to 1747., as well as the Estate Assembly, after the enactment of “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates”.

Historical:The Buccaneer Wars

Present-day Peer Houses trace their title prior to arrival on Nasphilitae, which is presumed to have been a land tenure granted upon knighting, a portion for which received this reward for prior participation in piracy. By the time Morganforts’ Ordinance had tied the nobility to their allode, which envisioned loss of land in case of forfeiture, the task of privateering was mostly delegated to their manors in lesser nobility. It is for this reason that inheritance of land by most lesser nobles would not be presumptive, among other. A distinguishing feature which Crown pirates (hereby “Privateers”) were accompanied with is Letters of Marquis from the (initially) royalty and (later) nobility. Contrast to them were the free pirates (hereby “Buccaneers”), which even Wrester, as an opponent of aristocracy; describes as having “No distinguishable difference than the rule-of-gold pirates in the Oceanic heartland (…) It is their choice to act in rejection of birth and country-men, thus they ought not to be bestowed with salvation.”
Others written records of “The Buccaneer Wars” confirm Wresters’ implicit notion. Morganforts’ Ordinance (and subsequent Enclosure) likely contributed to lesser nobles’ mutiny in favour of piracy. Given forfeiture sanctions in cases where nobility would leave their tenures; The Buccaneer Wars were a series of commerce conflicts between lesser nobles loyal to Nasphilitae and/or the Austral Empire (Privateers) and lesser nobles aligned with other free pirates (Buccaneers). They appear to have been a loosely connected series of conflicts and family rivalries, often mentioned between 1737 and 1766, before mentions become scarce, until they completely disappeared by 1771.
The Buccaneer Wars were a major, perhaps key, factor in the establishment of Free Port Cities. The Free Cities were exempt from most Noble and Imperial legislation, a per-requisite for the creation of Private Insurance Companies. The PICs gathered the new urban poor, whose growing number is also attributed to the Enclosures, providing the needed manpower advantage to the Privateers in return for profit. PIC commissions of ships were by in large funded by Joint Stock Ventures, which were secured by Bourse and Bank families of the growing Bourgh estate.
It’s for these reasons that The Buccaneer Wars are considered to have incepted the Military History of Nasphilitae in the form of Privateers and PICs. It should be noted that, until 1919., the term “Military” referred only to land-only troops. Given that free pirates (in particular Buccaneers) raided coastal towns usually by overland marches, Free Port Cities were structured in a manner more reminiscent of outposts than settlements, providing tactical defensive advantage to the Privateers and PICs.

Historical:Assembly of Grand Councils

Prior to the 1747. “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates”, Grand Councils^{(Legislative council)} and the Citizens Assemblies^{(House of Assembly)} were often used interchangeably. Reason being is that Grand Councillors were delegates of Citizens Assemblies, the latter serving the function of local administrative or judicial channels. The Grand Council had four functions: petition, pacification through interest group representation, deliberation through Speaker of the Grand Council, and prosecution through the Court of Chancery. It consisted of lower nobles, bishops (until 1662), academics (from 1662), magnates of coin, militiamen, sailors, and magnates of trade; or their representatives. Unlike in other parts of the Empire, non-judicial bodies were limited in issuing contents of writs which extend beyond explicitly envisioned powers. As such, the Grand Council could issue the following writs: writ of scire facias (petition), writ of coram nobis (petition and pacification), writ of elegit (pacification),writ of fieri facias (pacification and deliberation), writ of attachment (deliberation), writ of exigent (deliberation), writ of capias (prosecution), writ of praeminure et mittimus (prosecution). The Speaker was a Privy Councillor nominated by the Peer-General, tasked with presiding over the Grand Councils and serving as a channel for communication between the Grand and Privy Councillors. Summaries of both the Grand and Privy Council meetings, and the still-used term for archives of executive and National Parliament seating, are called “Inscribes of Consultations”.
Wrester attributes as crucial to Konevenagels’ decision to enact the “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates” to activities by Privy Councillor and Speaker-Ron Anthony, though the following speculations were never confirmed nor rejected. Supposedly, Ron Anthony convinced the Privy Council (and subsequent Nobility) into relinquishing its’ legislative and executive prerogatives. This conviction rested on the assertion that, due to the rise of autonomous institutions (such as attorneys, banks, and guardsmen), it would prove increasingly difficult for the Privy Council to maintain support among other interest groups. Therefore, Anthony supposedly suggested, as a feasible way of maintaining the position of sovereignty, relinquishing ones’ own potential for interference in favour of a passive approach would merit creating a new illusion of a state-embodied. If the following 250 years prestigious position of the Nobility are taken into account, this speculative events’ underlying elaboration is convincing.
Prior to Assembly Estates establishment, a series of reforms took place between 1741. and 1747. which relinquished the Grand-Peers’ prerogatives. Their contents were mostly that of executive-legislative writs, delegated largely to “The Peerage”, which included the Privy Council and other members of the High Nobility. A key prerogative delegated at this time was that of treasury procedure:whose targets were both “The Peerage” together with members of “the Grand Council”. Importantly, a remnant of writs which was kept only to the Grand-General was that of Ordinances.

Historical:Dominions Assembly Estates

The 1747. “Act Establishing Dominions Assembly Estates” was the first such legislation which came from the Grand Council and not the Privy Council. The original Act was modified four times (twice by the Grand Council and twice by the Privy Council). Grand-Peer General Konevenagel, acting as some sort of Consolidation Chamber, presented a final compromise on the Act in late 1747. to both Councils simultaneously; which both had to either accept fully or reject the enactment all-together. This activity is the first domestically known usage of both consolidation procedure in legislative enactment, as well as the first show-case of “Prisoners Dilemma” used in domestic politics.
The Act established “Dominions Five Assembly Estates” as a National Assembly, “Estates of the Realm” as a National Legislative Council, and the “Estates-General” as the Speaker. The Dominions Five Assembly Estates comprised of:

Estate of Nobility (members which were the lesser Nobles)
Estate of Spiritual (members which were the archbishops and dean academics)
Estates of Men-at-arms (members which were the Militia and the Privateers)
Estates of the Bourgh (members which were of the Bourse, Bank and PIC owners)
Estates of the Commoners (members which were merchants, PIC employees and tradesmen-craftsmen)
Members of the Estates would get elected in their proto-Localities (named “Boroughs”). However, each Estates’ electorate members had to have been employed in the respective field.
Further, “Estates of the Realm” were representatives of the Five Assembly Estates which comprised what was formerly the Privy Council. The composition of Estates of the Realm were three representatives of each Estate elected by the Estate which sat right-hand of that Estate. Instance, three representatives of the “Estate of Nobility” was elected by the “Estate of Spiritual”, while the “Estate of Nobility” representatives were elected by “Estates of the Commoners”.

The Speaker gained the title of the “Estates General”. Unlike in the past system, five candidates for the Speaker were nominated by the Estates of the Realm among members of the Dominions Five Assembly Estates. This list was sent to the General-Peer. The General-Peer would choose two of the five candidates for the Speaker, then pass the list back to the Dominions Five Assembly Estates for vote. The Speaker gained more prerogatives, which closely resemble that of current Head of Government.

Comments:“Primordial affairs” experiment (State of nature)

Wresters’ novelty is in introducing “state of nature” discussions as a hypothetical device in domestic theory. He attributes the idea as coming under outside-foreign influence. Manner in which it is introduced likely influenced developments of utopian fiction in Nasphilitae. “Records” insinuate the skeptical nature of Wrester and the Enlightenment in Nasphilitae by positing that such an event does not exist, and neither does its’ contract. The introducing follows the following:
“Presuppose an event in which all current humans were granted the imposed Primordial affair; taken from their ongoing surroundings into a Void, as to agree on rules which will govern one anothers’ interaction, in a reality which manifests from the Primordial beginning. Upon agreeing of the Primordial Codes contents, they are imposed into this Primordial beginning.”

Comments:“Primordial Code” four positions

As far as it’s known, this was a documented discourse among attendees on one of the Grand Councils in 1742-1749. Wrester notes four positions which are presented:

Divergence on the Code manifesting: One diverges from the rest in arguing that the Void would never cease, as an agreement on the Codes’ contents would never be concluded.
Divergence on the surroundings in Primordial beginning: One position assumed that resources are abundant in the Primordial affairs. Henceforth, the positions’ proponents assume that the Primordial Code isn’t pivotal, as attendees would quickly “re-develop” into the “previous-current affairs”.
Divergence on limits of human knowledge OR human nature: Last two positions negate the preceding one, but on different emphasis. One argues that the abundance or scarcity of resources is irrelevant, as humans would perceive them as scarce regardless. The other argues for scarcity because “our current affairs are scarce and it is the only reality that can or ought to be examined”.
Wrestler comments that he aligns with the third position, discarding the fourth to be recursive (?) This presumption would later be criticized. It’s concluded by him that “Greed is the primary motivator in all human action; Unbound and chronic in desire”.

Comments:Primordial Code of the “Insatiable human” (Limiting possibilities of desire and greed)

In this Void, humans aren’t opportune, according to Wrester. Because they are “more aware of consequences from anothers’ unbound desire than fulfilling their own”. This is succeeding by an explanation which should’ve been written first; “the first affect inn interaction is caution, guided by elaborating intricacies in the medium of conscience, mterialised as coded or uncoded norms”. Each human first desires to protect ones own: “vain dignity to oneself, convincingly, before other affects take precedence”.
This is “resolute of most norms prohibitive contents”, as it’s “resulting to Primordial Codes tonality-as-boundary”^{[spirit of the law]}. The Primordial Code further seeks not “what Fafyre references to be arbitration approaches” but to limit their necessary contingent events and precent their occurrences. In justifying this, the “Records” display that, because self-preservence is the first affect, it’s necessary that doubt in another’s competence or will^[intent] follows.
Lastly and seemingly strangely, Wrestler argues in favour of “what Fafyre calls pro-active approach in regulates, comprising mos of the Primordial Code.” In the closing remarks, Wrestler assumed that humans in he Void are ignorant of their title in the next reality, thus they will assume to be tradesmen (???) Which results in the Codes’ contents being concerned with “Lex mercatorie” contents.

Comments:Insatiable human and Lex mercatorie

These comments appear to be written in the latter years of 1760s to 1777., as the contents revolve around ending of The Buccaneer Wars. The last comments appear to be an ethical dilemma revolved around Contract Law. Namely, Wrestler limits any state interference in the area of Contract Law and Lex Mercatorie, as “ethics of man may not be ideal to Divinity, but relative to ethics of the State, they do possess ‘prudentia’.” This places him in a strange situation. Being a member of the Moderate Enlightenment, he holds himself to the standard in elaborating who is it and how and in what event, should interfere in Contract law where the other party is lying by omission to the other. Although this is never answered because he has died before completing the dilemma, Wrester is regarded as having laid groundwork for proto-liberal thought in private property. Namely, by rejecting the notions of “rights” all-together (with strong emphasis on criticizing inalienable, natural and human rights), he posits that “If a fundamental law or right must exist, it is the right to life.”

Comments:Limits of interference and the Contract Law hypothesis

Reasons for pivoting greed a the driving affect are also reasons for why humans enter and remain in “non-immediate organised human structures”. A “placeholder category” termed “bundled particulars” is the containment concept used for referring to the source of all possible reasons. Examples provided as: maximizing possibilities for creation-materialization, pro-active assurance against unpredictability and ambiguity, providing immediacies for deriving pleasure, compensation of compulsion into outward activities, extracting plausible determinants for goal achievement without the need for mundanes.
It’s argued that particulars are reliant on private paradigms and are accustomed to all of the mediums’ intricacies. As such, they’re over-saturated in number of instances. This abundance is limiting in personal interactions but becomes absolute as impossibility within personal-collective^{[public or state]} interaction.

genericsequencealias · May 24, 2024, 2:03pm

“Reapproaching Ziz’s Rejection of The Gavel”

– S.J. Brand (1777-1808)

Summary: Elena Bartlett

Introduction:

S.J. Brand is the first non-polymath scholar, attorney and legal philosopher which these summaries are covering. He first introduced the categorical distinctions between “Philosophies of law”, “Philosophies of Jurisprudence”, and “Legal practice-profession” conjunctiva in Nasphilitae. Criticising Fafyre and Wrester on the grounds of: “methodological convulsion”, Brand defines distinct nomenclatures, disciplines, or topics within “The Legal Realm”. Inspired heavily by Protoiridines’ Ziz allegory, Brand focuses on methodics of “Case Resolution Problem Solving”; Which is not seldom used in legal and political institutions today. S.J. Brand is considered a legal realist in “philosophies of law” and a proponent of justice-centric aretaic “philosophies of jurisprudence”.

NOTE: “Philosophies of law” in Nasphilitae refer to Analytical jurisprudence; whereas “philosophies of jurisprudence” refers to Normative jurisprudence..

Quick Link TOC:

→ a. “Protoiridines allegories of Behemoth and Leviathan” (critique of Fafyre and Wrester)

→ b. “Understanding Ziz and The Proxima Chapters” (re-reading of this section is recommended after finishing)

→ c. “Stages of Inquiry and Development” (how/what/who knows; re-reading of this section is recommended after finishing)

→ d. “Case Resolution Problem Solving:System Construction Demonstrated” (methodic introduction)

→ e. “Propositional Knowledge and Wisdom:Philosophies of Law and of Jurisprudence” (nomenclature introduction; second critique of Fafyre and Wrester)

a. Protoiridines allegories of Behemoth and Leviathan

“Protoiridines’ efforts to mystify religious (necessarily by association: political, cultural and legal) events, into what some vain self-imposed members in the Moderate Enlightenment call a grimoire; Was a feature regular for Protoiridines’ time. What remains a novel and ingenious device is the manner in which such vast topics are covered.”

Brand proceeds to interpret that: “the Behemoth is this foolish wonderland of liberty without blood […] of choosing actions without consequences; This poppy-smoked daydream where the world stops.” Describing Behemothian society as lawless, unjust and mob-ridden. Their ideal state is, “akin to the oligarchic merchants, who many esteemed people even, also call Republics […] There is nothing of Republican virtue in these Republics […] “populi” are barbarians, lest they agree on the collective principles of their community – the Res.”
It’s probable that the reason Brand adamantly attacks “Behemothian idolatry” first is that Wrester precedes him, whom he calls a “Behemothian”. It’s a reaction to what Brand deemed a more imminent danger. However, criticism of “Leviathanists” (where he places Fafyre), leads many to assume that, at least personally, Brand despised them more.

“It is clear now, after the passage of time, that Protoiridines’ Leviathan is a reference to the worst shells of humans without thought or soul. Sycophants of Leviathans’ servants:these hollow seashells display loyalty and gratitude… If “loyalty” is orbiting a changing monarch instead of revolving around the unchanging birth-soil, then I insist to be called treacherous. Likewise, one must now confuse cowardice for gratefulness.” He then proceeds to clearly reference Fafyre: “Leviathanists, like their side-leafed Behemothians, then tell others that all but them seek to merely better ones own position in the world. You see, they are allowed to tell us this, if prior to such accusation they declare intention not to be the topic of discussion.”

Brand concludes by openly addressing Fafyre, on a subject which must lead him to inspect a question himself: “Fafyre was one such Leviathanist, perhaps the most cunning of them all. Prompted with the question of what a monarch is to be responsible for: Fafire opts for “Arbitration”! According to Fafyre, disputes ought to be settled by the whim of a current office holder, not a permanent office whose sole duty is to settle disputes […] As I have stated, they orbit an unpredictable fluidly changing asteroid, as their sycophancy would not favour them in Ziz’s Proxima.”
Brand dug himself in a hole, where he then must’ve attempted to give an interpretation of “Ziz” and “Proxima” allegories in Protoiridines later chapters.

b. Understanding Ziz and The Proxima Chapter

Ziz intervenes to merely freeze time and inquire on the authors’ (Protoiridines’) own stances prior to “Proximating or Illuminating” them into higher, non-human complexity “stages, those of meta-systems”. Therefore, Ziz is used as a tool of illuminating the reader into a world yet unknown to Pacifica.
Brand calls this “Prototype Instance Ziz I”, the first iteration of Ziz’s appearance. In it, Ziz is questioning the author as to compare their contemporary sets of conditions to that of the complete continuous set, which is recursive, as in repeats after each matrices iteration. Now, please be aware, that at the time of when this was written, there wasn’t really an established set of logical symbols.

(S,A) ≡ max{h(A')|A ⋲ A ∩ A' → S → A}matricedⴄ

This is an archaic manner of writing the same formula used by Candice Cohen, as I have mentioned in my Juxtaposition essay published for IaN. It reads as follows: Given a fixed set of Subject (S) with the task of completing an (A)ction, such a set is (if and only if conditional) equal to the maximum adequate A’ action-decision (note that A’ is nowadays represented by O) to some event (h). The maximum adequate super-set max{h(A’) can be determined if the (A)ction is within the set of that Action being uniform to adequate action-decision. Therefore, the Subject S is addressed adequately. However, the Subject S also addresses subsequent Actions; which create the infinite matrices loop.

In legal terminology, Brand seeks to represent a precedent. This alternative event-action of h(A’) is why Proxima was the chosen setting. By alternating the max{h(A’)}matriceⴄ is assumed to be existing; if that is assumed, then the matrices must be both a looping continuum and there must be infinite iterations of the adequate maximum matrices. “Alternatively formulated, Proxima showcases a different formal system (stages 11 and 12) based on differences in stages 1 or 2 onward” (this will make sense only after the succeeding chapter).

Finally, “Prototype Instance Ziz II” is the result of authors’ illumination by the Court apothecary or alchemist and The Lost Child in Protoiridines’ final chapters. They provide Protoiridine with Wisdom; “complete and adequate set of data, information and knowledge, to call upon Ziz”. Ziz in the closing chapters is still the underlying recursive mechanism, “Ziz becomes the meta-system”. It is then paramount for Ziz to reject just one systemic form of one instance as to exercise stage 11 and 12 (the gavel or legal system).

c. Stages of Inquiry and Development

Both of these chapters are an epistemological and mathematical intermezzo in S.J. Brand. While not being a polymath, he must’ve had to justify "Case resolution problem solving" in “The legal realm”, by providing a wider systemic explanation.
Do note that Brand is writing during the dying stages of The Enlightenment in Nasphilitae and the beginning of Romanticist reaction. For brevity, I will showcase chapter c very reductive.

Brand introduces axis x (horizontal) and y (vertical). Horizontals include: levels of application or “Stages” of knowledge and action (0-13+); What is being learned or acted upon and how it is being learned or acted upon; and an exploratory description. Verticals are the Stages (0-13+).
For each situation (h), there is an iteration (matrices). Brand then provides another formula which is an integral curve. It is merely just the Lipschitz continuous with flow groups, or what Brand calls “recursions”. As this is even more convoluted than the previous example, with the reason behind the same lack of standardisation, I will spare you from how Brand attempts to represent a Lipschitz continuous ~100-150 years prior to integral-function mathematical analysis standardisations.
However, for comprehension, here is the (x,y) graph which he’s referencing:

Source:"Kate"

d. Case Resolution Problem Solving:System Construction Demonstrated

S.J. Brand classifies 3 types of “data”; filtered through “stages” or perceptions; and most importantly, 3 types of “knowledges”. To him, “Prudentia” or Wisdom is the task of legal practitioners. We will only cover his definitions of the schema shown below in the context of “The legal realm”.

Source:"Kate"

“Data in the legal realm are either facts of the matter (data as fact definition) or symbolic of a perception-paradigm.” The first type is what he calls “the basis of legal practice and philosophy of law”; while the latter “that upon which jurisprudence rests”.
“Information is the 11th stage […] a stringed sequence of variables, structured into a simple argument.”
Knowledge is his novelty, still used today. Brands classification of knowledge in the legal realm is the method of “Case Resolution Problem Solving”:

→ Processed knowledge: Corresponds to stages 1-7. “Documentation, relevant facts, organised and processed into contextual events, conveying understanding, values and rules.”

→ Procedural knowledge: Correponds to stages 8-11, forms the basis of legal practice in most cases. “Using tradition, experience, study, understanding, rules, sources of conduct; To apply law and justice within a simple, given set of documentation […] It is doing things correctly, and, if the event be simple, also righteously.”

→ Propositional knowledge: The 12th stage; used to enact law, justice and fairness; in a given legal system. Brand gives two definitions; which constitute the nomenclature of “Philosophies of law” (how it is) and “Philosophies of jurisprudence” (how it ought to be).

e. Propositional Knowledge and Wisdom:Philosophies of Law and of Jurisprudence

Definition of propositional knowledge in philosophies of law:

“Is a statement which has three necessary proparties: (1) The official as an individual believes that a decision is true to law and justice; (2) The official(s) can justify such beliefs before the tribunal; (3) It is accepted by the tribunal as just and by the justices as lawful.”

In philosophies of jurisprudence; Propositional knowledge is “Proximian”, it seeks to ensure fairness, searching for wisdom. S.J. Brand gives aretaic stances on the matter:
“Laws should promote the organic development of virtue and Prudentia in citizens […] Fafyres’ deontology and Leviathanists alike subscribe to deontology. Behemothians such as Wrester, naive as they are, believe that consequences are somehow compatible or enforcable with their utilitarian fantasies.”

Brand finishes the work by categorising Fafyres’ Leviathanists into “philosophies of law” school of “positivism, rule by decree advocates”. Contrary, Wresters’ Behemothians are described as being: “confused, as they follow something akin to ‘natural moral law’, yet rebel against legal realism, while advocating for it simultaneously.”

Brand himself admits to being divided between legal realism and legal interpretivism.

genericsequencealias · May 31, 2024, 5:56pm

“Introducing The Andro-Machina:Death of the Three Creatures (version 1 and 2)”

– “Daisy Day”

Summary: Elena Bartlett (1809-1825)

Introduction to Daisy Day

Daisy Day (1771-1825), her stage name, was to her contemporaries (mainly S.J. Brand and Julia Q. Goldmann) and still today considered a very controversial figure. Her life, including Days’ real name; Prior to her publications of: “The letters addressed to the Illuminated”^{(referring to the Enlightenment)}; “The letters addressed to our god-father Nobles and the generous loansharks of the Bourghs”; "The collected written speeches of Daisy Day at Agorport town square addressing the cognitively-dysfunctional commoners"…remains unknown.

She was the first to criticise the Enlightenment for “advocating separation of sciences, arts, and lives”. She was the first of the Suffragettes. The second above mentioned “Letters” inspired Millferd Manson and Watson Evans Taylor. In particular, Mansons’ constitutional-strength “Expanding Act on Gendered Royal Titles” – introducing mandatory linear primogeniture for all noble and all land-owning inheritance in Nasphilitae. In Taylors’ case, it were the “Constitutional Act on Rationalised Assembly Representation”, “Act of Commoner Suffrage”, and “Consolidation Act Regulating Anti-Trust Laws and Chartered Companies (Edition one)”.

Day is considered the first Utopian writer, influencing: “Later Goldmann” (after Julia adapted some of Daisy’s elements, preceded by two decades of rivalry), Ian Zachary, agent Eric Xor, agent Andrew Johnson (Rolland Krenstone), and the Peer House Edwards in creating the AID. Subsequently, all events related to AID’s Department Nine experimentation. Sometimes (but not by many), she’s called “a proto-radical”. A better description was given by Ian Zachary:
“The first among equals of Romanticists; an Egoist-Universalist derived from theology, cosmology, and Christology; The Apocatastasis Monadist; and first Universalist.”

Her “Death of the Three Creatures”, published in 1811. and 1822., mark the end of Enlightenment thought in Nasphilitae and the beginning of the Romanticist “Revived Universal ideal, counter-intellectual, restorative yet re-interpretive Renaissance and Reformation thought” Romanticism in the philosophical sense would last until 1910’s appearance of the Pragmatic School, formally ending in 1964. with Howard Dinbars’ “Answering Ian Zachary:Creation of Pragmatism”.

Quick Link TOC:

→ Overview of the three works

→ “Death of the Three Creatures,The Rose and The Cross”

→ “Death of the Three Creatures,Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia”

→ “Introducing The Andro-Machina”
—> Utopian ideal of the Andro-Machina features

Overview of the three works:

“Death of the Three Creatures” is a two-part work, the first being subtitled “The Rose and The Cross” (1811). is set on Xion. The second, subtitled “Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia” (1822). is set in “Shuv Endeesterots Restitutionis LOGOS”.
Which is one among many other controversies. Namely, “Shuv” is Judaic-language for “return/returning (to)”; “Endeesterots” is a transliteration of Aegean comparative declension for "defective"; “Restitutionis” is Montacian for “restorative”. “LOGOS” is the term Daisy Day always uses when talking about God.
“Young Goldmann” mocked Daisy for writing in a style “resembling a period before even Protoiridine”; she would turn out ot be more correct than she would have hoped for. “Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatica” used primitive encryption methods. Namely, a white typewriter ink and a special cipher code, which appears to have been self-made.

Upon discovering this, when the books’ paper colouration had decayed enough for the white ink to be readable; Darzens’ First Deputy Head of State (Durand Edwards), kept suggesting the Chartering establishment of a cryptology agency. Four years later, Darzens was convinced enough to Charter the Establishment of the Agency for Identification and Documentation.

Death of The Three Creatures:The Cross and The Rose

“Xion, cosmogenesis, the principal focus inter-human affinities through the central mediatrix of universal convergence, then first about virtue-good-right we must say both what it is and from what it comes. First of all, we must axialite that every science and every art and every life, must have an end, and a good one. No science or art or life exists for evil” […] “And generally, one can see that it’s not part of any science or art or life to consider the question of virtue-good-right in particular. Why not? Because good occurs in all of their parts. Good is them, that of substances, quality, quantity, time, relation, instrument…”

These are the opening statements. Xion appears to refer not so much the Planet in an astrological sense, but rather in a sense of a fictional event; Xion is where or the result of the cosmogenesis event. The commas then seem to indicate a sequence. In (during or after) cosmogenesis, the principle of human relations is set. The principle is “the central mediatrix” – which is how every Abrahamic confession define its’ Halls of Worship.
Day negates all of them, instead stating that the central mediatrix (that which is between Divinity and Humans) is “Universal Convergence”.
Her definition and defense of universal virtue-good-right is then given an example in the form of constructing a house with very specific symbols.

“The point in case of all arts, sciences, and lives; it’s not one of them or a part of them which makes a house, but then another which makes a good house. The differentiation comes then from the Mastery of whichever Stonemason is building the good house. Next, a house provides life with habitat safe from nuisances such as thunderstorms, for instance. To build a house requires convergence of arts, sciences, and life.”
“A good house has appropriate facilities, but must also be mindful of this universality – A diagonal Cross, and the Wonders of the Green Rose.”

She will elaborate why such is the case for a “Good House” a decade later.

Death of The Three Creatures:Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia

→ Symbols of part one: Day examines, in too much detail, every two-dimensional shape, arriving to the conclusion that:
“The Saltire is penultimate good. In it, Divinity is addressed. It is addressed in the most aesthetically virtuous manner.”
“The Green Rose has not to it attachments of mundane symbolics. It is modular: In symbol, in growth, in colouration, in modification. As modularity is the predestination for the Central Mediatrix, us humans have a way to represent our final destination – It is the most virtuous Décor.”

→ “Shuv Endeesterots Restitutionis LOGOS”: Is the actual first paragraph if the book describing what “Universal Convergence” meant.

“Restoration of the perfect condition. Final salvation of all humans, a universal restoration for all souls which have ever been, of all things uttered, a reparation of the wicked and the fallen. To return into Xion, All, which existed since the Cosmogenesis.”
She then begins her defense by citing: Chronicles 16, Isaiah 9, Romans 8, Ephesians 4, Peter 4, John 1, Exodus 19, Gittin 4, and the Horebs: toroth, mitzvot, mishpatim, chuzim, edoth avodah.

Introducing The Andro-Machina:

Published post-mortem in 1827., by her former rival Julia Q. Goldmann. Apparently, upon reading this work, Goldmann was convinced to follow Days’ arguments. This is evident as elements in *“Older Goldmann”*s writing draw heavy inspirations from Daisy.
The Andro-Machina is further expansion of Days universal convergence. It takes a feminist approach here, though she rejected that labelling and would be abandoned by feminists of the 1940-1970s Sexual Revolution. Reasons for this are in the first three sentences of the book:

“Compatibility of the human sexes is contradictory, if we are merely aspiring a xerox of the biological, then we are without grace of LOGOS’ essence in complex cognitive thoughts.
Opposite of them, the sex:gender Pluralists; who I must ask, if gender is plural, how is then sexuality also not a choice?
Of all this brain-diseased patients, I only acknowledge the Separatists such as Goldmann, for it is at the very least not contradictory within itself.”
…It’s now probably adequate to mention that Daisy despised reproductive activity. A large portion of the Andro-Machina criticises men for sexual promiscuity. However;
“Which is no justifiable excuse for women to now also partake in this degradation of humans and their penultimate goal.”

Utopian ideal of “Andro-Machina”, features:

Daisy describes the “Andro-Machina” as: “A non-existent simultaneously being, event, world.”
It is “Term chosen for what will come upon after the Restitutionis”.
The “Andro” references “androstenediol”, a synthetically made hormone mixture of both male and female sex genes, experimented at the time by eugenicists.
The “Machina” is two-fold: It is both “contrived” by humans, and a “device” by which humans “reconcile with Divinity.”
It is a syncretic product of the Divinity and of the Humanity.
As it is divine, it has no sex distinctions.

Daisy Day was a “Unionist” Suffragette. She rejects genders as anything more than grammatical tools; Opposes sexuality and sex, albeit indiscriminately. She concludes both the “Unionist Movement” and the book by the following statement:

“The reason Andro-Machina is a Utopia is because, we cannot, sadly, though yet, abolish sex as a species, and unify into the Divine.”

genericsequencealias · June 12, 2024, 9:59pm

“On Representation and Justice:Rebirthing of Ziz”

– Julie/Julia Q Goldmann

Summary: Matthew Greene (1823-1844)

Introduction:

Proprietary to the lone author we’ve chosen to cover twice, Goldmann brings along certain ideal and stylistic novelties. Most ideas, controversial in public to this day, yet were nearly copied over in legislation and cultural norms. Stylistically, the poetic and subtle presentation, certainly made them softer to accept than Days’, though best understood if paraphrased instead. As mentioned by Elena, Day left a vivid mark on Goldmann, more stylistic than fundamental, as it’ll be seen.
The “Young Goldmann” covered here is poetic, challenging, tone mixing of anger and condescension. Contrast to “Late Goldmann” whose work is in prose, cryptic, symbolic; tone changing to one of cold distance embossed by an aura of cynicism.

Romanticist “Revivalism”:Rebirthing of the “Trivium”

A teacher by profession, the structure of this work is reminiscent of the medieval “Trivium”. In answering the domestic Enlightenment, Goldmanns’ work is comprised of three “chapters”, each with a series of poems: “THE DOXA” (how things seem/are appear/to be); “THE HYPSO-ENTHYMENE” (imaginary falsehoods stemming from hidden premise in arguments); and “THE LOGO-EPISTEME” (the word/logic as it truly is–to truly understand how word/logic ought to be).
Clearly, there are certain analogies, under S.J. Brands’ influence. “The Doxa” are similar thematically to “Analytical jurisprudence”. Whereas “The Logo-Episteme” thematically mirrors “Normative jurisprudence”. However, Goldmann is more courageous, extensively “advising” changes in the latter.
As menioned, the summary will paraphrase these, for better clarity. It’s pivotal to mention that the present “Mandatorian” schooling system of Nasphilitae, is a modified version of the “Trivium”; following grammar → logic → rhetoric. This first came about in extensive social reforms during the reign of King Carl Darzens and “The Unionist” political party. Both inluenced by this Revivalism of “Young Goldmann”.

Central Theme and Advocacy:Goldmanns’ “Separatism”

Days’ descriptive categorisation of Goldmann into “separatist suffragettes”, was taken from Julias’ self-prescription of ideals. Much like Daisy Day and Ian Zachary, Goldmann re-interperates Protoiridine. However, she does state so openly, in that these are not Protoiridines’ own ideas, but merely inspired her own.
By “Separatism”, it is unclear whether “separation” was meant instead. What remains certain is that, when Goldmann mentions “Separatism”, it refers not to any connotation that ideology has today. To re-instate earlier mentions, Goldamnns’ poems here seem to follow a harmonic string, focused on answering or filling the void in S.J. Brands’ “normative jurisprudence”.
From all that’s been said, Julia creates the ideas of: “Separatism of the sexes”; “Separatism of power branches”; “Separatism of elites and commoners”; “Separatism of the Nasphiliti soul”^{[culture, identity]}; and “Separatism of the Infinite Divinity (Ziz) from the Mortality (Behemoth and Leviathan)”. We find that focusing on a combination of the second and third; and on the fourth, to be most vital in covering.

“Separatism of power balances and Separatism of elites and commoners”

(paraphrased)

DOXA:

“Observe now! This fever dream of a polity’s institutional puzzle. A Head of State, nominated by and from the secluded dynastic elite, to follow “first among equals” principle into extreme’s cliff-edge.
There are these three eternally re-occurring voting blocs.
Adamsons, Atkinsons, Pellmores, Morganforts, Masons; on one bench.
Another bench seated by: Darzens, Edwards, Konevenagels, Schlesingers, Taylors.
With the king-maker spiderweb but absolutely disinterested third bench of: Ernsts, Fieldlers, Greenhills, Stonehams.
Now, proceed to the ‘elections’ between two nominees–by Earls, whose tenure nor title are guaranteed!
A charade? Not yet! None of them are anymore seated in the Assembly: a very serious, representative, law-making, building… Whch is parochial in ‘electiions’, members which are more concerned in furthering their groups’ local interests. No representation nor meaningful law-making will you find there, no sense of the collective, Nasphiliti state.
All of these tasks were given to the nearly-divine Justices; the only reformatory institution with a lonesome but clear ladder for commoners, if they so choose, wish to climb!”

LOGO-EPISTEME:

“Drifting, everlasting, moment of Imagining; as follows!
An Earldom whose tenure be bound by the same customs, rewarding their lack of treacherous blood^{[referring to the Buccaneer Wars]}, jointly and each in a ballot secret cast nominees not of their suzerain. Repeat once again until two-to-three Peers are nominees.
The Head of State, elected by universal, nation-wide, limitless unweighed suffrage; a title now has meaning.
Likewise, an Assembly wherein each ‘Estate’ has a fixed equal amount of seats. Representatives of commoners as a collective. Out and do away with the archaic guilds! A Speaker may be then chosen from these members.
Lastly, what use is justice if not independent and of a mandate dictated only by their merit in profession? ‘Arbitration’ of ‘disputes’ are for them, as all are, people and things, equal before Justice. To close, an effective Judiciary requires expansion in subject, as well as in local Courthouses.”

Greene:
Notice that nearly all of these would become, albeit modified, adopted during Goldmanns’ lifetime. However, what follows is where controversy lies.

“Separatism of the Nasphiliti soul”

Greene:
When Goldmann says “Stranded” she is critical of the Austral Empire. “Fortress” is criticism of Nasphiliti surrounding polities being “bentful” to great powers. Lastly, “Pluro-paradigmal” is “Cross-Cultural”.

(paraphrased)

DOXA:

“Look around to the grounds and we will see that the nation-states have come to be. Yet, what are we, this disjoinnted family?
Stranded, yet loyal to its’ identity, half-planet away and centuries apart.
Gathered alone, built a Fortress, attack a brick it will turn quick: a cascade will fall on those who are not yet satiated, by the bentful surroundings.
A lone candle-light is this fortress, I understand, the only place where warmth of one’s identity is soothed…
What guarantees us that such warmth will be not extinguished? A Stranded Fortress, is very reckless to believe, others can on their own free will kneel to this candle-light.”

LOGO-EPISTEME:

“Let us dream for far days to come where all around are free as us. Awake now and arise, for in days that will be, such door of hope, will have no key.
Abandoned and free, no longer Stranded, a unique identity was long ago by us all decreed. The collective Castle with high towers and waters around, the fortress of fear to be replaced.
A bridge to enter is always there, so long as the rest be burned and laid bare. The Castle’s beacon shines bright, in collective might, among this forest of fright.
Once landed on its’ shore, one is millions, as millions are one.
Confident in itself only now, only then may the Castle be pluro-paradigmal. Now abandoned no longer Stranded, it may venture into the woods, but understanding of them first — pluro-paradigmal, yet sentimental of confident self-identity.”

Greene:
Goldmann does fool the reader here. The preceding “Doxa” and unsummarised “Hypso-Enthymene” would lead a reader to believe that she will advocate for Nasphilitae’s expansionism. Yet, in the first line “where all around are free as us” completely, nearly with disgust, negates the idea of expansionism. This was hinted to be the case with how cherishingly of a description is given to the “candle-light” in Doxa.
Goldmann expresses worry that, if Nasphilitae does not establish firmly its’ distinct identity and fight to remain free, the immigrants would no longer see a difference from it and “the woods” (outside world).
Novelty here is this syncretic interpretation of a “Nasphiliti identity” as freedom for everyone who values the “Nasphiliti” freedom. Nearly contradictory, she advocates for ensuring integration of newcomers, as to keep future newcomers arriving.
FInally, she references the “Ius Soli”" citizenship practice in “once landed on its’ shore”. This has been true, later more developed in procedure by courts practice.
Namely, Nasphilitae, as noted by Goldmanns’ “burned and laid bare^{[past bridges]}”, still does not recognise dual citizenship nor citizensip by heritage.

genericsequencealias · June 22, 2024, 11:38pm

"CULT OF THE MONAD:

In the Valley between Empirical and Logical"

– IAN ZACHARY

Summary: Elena Bartlett (1840-1849)

Background:

Ian Zachary (1801 – 1871) is one of the domestically considered “Big Five” thinkers, alongside Protoiridine Certusemorand, S.J. Brand, John Whetstone, and Howard Dinbar. Some replace Whetstone with Eric Xor because of Ians influence on John, but Xor stands out as he was also a practitioner. Ian Zachary is the first cosmopolitan-- much of the Monad was inspired upon travelling the world, translating foreign works, and systematically analysing different cultures. Seeing The South Pacific as a single civilisation by noticing that all cultures strive for the same two virtues, differing only on means to achieve them.
Most known for Chapters I and V of the Monad; where he asserts that once Austral Hegemony ceases, the vacuum will create a competitive war of Empires fighting to assert themselves. After the Monad this continues in “Advises to Dorothy Atkinsons” (1850). There, Ian proposes to Dorothy that she replicate the “Austral unmatched expertise in politics” if she wishes “for legacy and Nasphiliti interest”, as “Once the Hegemon finally slumbers and young Empires begin infighting, Nasphilitae must preserve peace by itself.”
Ethics take a central focus in Zacharys writings. As seen in his earliest works, one virtue he strongly values as being universal on all levels is “tranquillity within the individual human which must require peace among the nations, as the lesser always comes from the whole.” Ultimately rejecting the idea of “Imperialism and peace be compatible–as it is inherently anthropo-destructive”.

Early Contributions:

Revolutionary were his early essays, later compiled by Whetstone as “Ian Zachary:Foundational Essays” (1819-1825). Their contents deal with Logic, Language(s), Science(s), Arts-Aesthetics, and “fundamental laws of nature”. Prior to travelling the world, but upon earning his Masters degree in the University of Suhavenster with the thesis of “Comparative method:Theory and demonstration”, he spend five years along the coastline of Nasphilitae mostly talking to foreigners. At the same time, the five years were spent relentlessly teaching in Suhavensters University as well.
As for his contributions to the University of Suhavenster during these “latter five” years (1825-1830); He opened centers of studies for: “Methodology and Logic”, “Socio-physics and Culturology”, “Philosophies of Laws”, and “Political Macroeconomic Sciences”. The years were marked by his courses in the Liberal Arts major in “Methodics of Abductive Logic” and (perhaps most importantly) “The meta-systematic politicology”. Remember the latter, he would often repeat the phrase “Beauty is Wisdom is Knowledge is Virtue” (todays motto of Nasphilitae).
The lectures also seem to have first mention both “Monadic Methods” and “Systems Theory” in Suhavensters University.

The Travel Periods Notes Structure

Before beginning the Monad, Ian Zachary, following his own systemic logic; First insisted on travelling the world. He believed Young Goldmann to be mistaken: “To observe an Empire, one must look at its core, not its Crabyan peripherals.” Which he did, from 1830-1838.
Except for “Austra culture notes” (1831.), which has seven chapters and 35 pages; Every other collection of “Notes/Indice/Index” has 5 chapters, each chapter has 5 pages, all of them 25 pages long. Each chapter, regardless of culture, is of the same subject matter:

[1] “The deep culture as seen among commoners”
[2] “History, Geography, Language:As they are told or taught here”
[3] “Espoused views on virtue, laws, idols of these lands”
[4] “Who holds power, who decides and how, on wealth disparities”
[5] “The actual deep culture of these lands”

Places Travelled and Oddly Named Notes

– In Vixbridge: “Austra culture notes” (1831.)

– In Torielen, Brient, and Jensen Island: “Rugii-Burgundian cultures notes” (1832.)

– In Hagen, Atlantis, Larasin, Freudstadt, Kroefed, Munnich: “Equatorial Alman cultures notes” (1833.)
—> He would later return to Elbonia and Weisserstein: “Mountain Alman cultures notes” (1837.)

– In Ralton, Imperus, Aurora, Thermopetri, Cadmium, Xenia, Ypsilos, Archaios, Karelia, Ravneby, Tvillingelver: “Index of the Mountain cultures notes” (1834.)

– In Hai’Men, Almia, Tarvem, Grovne, Durivv, San Marco, Canna, Hanahi, Zholtograd, Makalis, Eastern State (Shtaad), Northern State (Shtaad), Mirrey: “Index of the Privateer and the Commerce cultures notes” (1835.)

– In New Mako City, Happelstein, Ricubai, London, Severin, Takara, Alkantara, Zhukantara, mount Makharat, and Karnetgrad: “The Proxima cultures notes” (1836.)

As previously mentioned, these aren’t travel guides. Ian seems to present each culture(s) in a very dry tone. With the exception of “Austra culture notes” – Where the additional two chapters are:
[6] “Empires In General” (Where he compares the Boreal and Austral Empires, along with noticing a difference in their demise).
[7] “Empire whose expertise is politics”. This chapter was copied over as the introduction to his “Advises to Dorothy Atkinsons” (1850.)

Namely, Zachary observes that:
"Hegemons reach a peak and then their knights in armour turn to rust because their paper heroes have turned to dust; Always sudden and quick, as we’ve seen with the Boreals. However, the Austral Empire:
“Lost both knights and heroes. It is an old woman preparing tea before slumber. YET, this Hegemon is falling with no noise, slowly, almost willingly.”

Zachary attributes this to “Imperial or core Australs, are political masters. Aware that every Hegemonic Empire must demise; They’ve prepared. Knights are not needed, gold suffices; Heroes are pointless, diplomacy will be our assurance.”

It’s important to mention that Ian seems to use “diplomacy” in a more negative connotation. All he ever specifies about diplomacy:
“It is a very subtle art of deception where the deceived are convinced to be enlightened.”
Ian equates diplomacy with what is now called “sharp power” and “cross-cultural understanding and applying”. The University of Suhavenster, to this day uses this understanding in “International Relations”, as does the RANASA.

Advises to Dorothy Atkinsons

Written after the Monad and mostly includes what we’ve covered previously. One paragraph stands out due to lack of specification and still causes confusion among scholars:

“Regarding the Nasphiliti and the Australs, when I was in Vixbridge, writing the last seventh chapter, I’ve come across a book in their great Library… “Names of Greater and Lesser Houses”, which I’m sure you’re familiar with.
I see a pattern which keeps us atttached.
THE SILENT HAND.
, a guiding force which appears to emphasise politics above all else. All of it is done very subtle. Impressive.”

The reason why this is puzzling is that the Royal Anthem of Nasphilitae carries the title “THE SILENT HAND”, albeit dating back to 1664.

Cult of the Monad

Previous context is necessary for this work to even be structurally understood. It has Five Chapters like his travel notes do. The first and the last chapters are seemingly in a dialectical opposition to one another.
Ian elaborates why The South Pacific is a single civilisation (Ch. I), sees that Nasphiliti express oddities in culture compared to the rest (Ch. II), warns other cultures of falling too deep into either the “empirical” or “logical” traps (Ch. III), warns the Nasphiliti that these traps carry with them necessary departmentalisation in economics (Ch. IV), predicts that once the Austral Hegemony slumbers, a Great War will emerge, and Nasphilitae must preserve peace by itself (Ch. V).

I “The South Pacific is a single civilisation with countless cultures […] A civilisation shares fundamental virtues. Cultures differ on ways to manifest these virtues:
(1) The same idea that virtue is that which betters the human life; Both materially and in spirit-will-knowledge.
(2) Other cultures are examined and sorted by criteria of how well the above virtue is achieved.”

II “Nasphiliti are anomalous in three aspects.
Firstly, for insisting on universal ideals of the Renaissance.
Secondly and as a result; Nasphiliti have never separated philosophies (which others now call “social sciences”), the sciences (by which they mean studying nature), and the arts.
Lastly and most oddly to foreigners, Nasphilitae never addressed positive-negative rights dispute proper. It uses this idea of a ‘collective singular’ to protect and ensure the value of Freedom. It doesn’t distinguish between ‘freedom from’ or ‘freedom to’ – To the Nasphiliti mind, it is freedom-as-it-is.”

III “Other cultures seem to lack extensive focus on ‘systems’, instead educating experts in specific fields…”

IV “Advantages of such human fragmentations […] are obvious […] I am filled with premonition for a time in the future […] Where Nasphilitae will suffer the consequences for no choosing empiricism of logic.”

V "As the Hegemonic Empire nods into sleep, the civilisation will enter a period of highly destructive wars. The two virtues cannot be achieved outside of peace. Wars are led by Empires seeking to dominate their own ways in achieving the human virtues. Imperialism is incompatible with any human virtue, while it relies on instruments of human destruction; It may become compatible, if the instruments change.

End of Part I

With Ian Zachary, we conclude Part I, which we’ve begun by Protoiridine. Part I’s authors seem to focus solely on Nasphilitae, which makes sense. DO NOT expect this in Part II, which is determined by Whetstones “fourth level of analysis”, it is more ideological and versatile. Cosmopolitanism of Ian Zachary opened the floodgates of much more imported ideas, which take on these bizarre forms of themselves when used domestically. For legal philosophy, Zachary recurses back to Protoiridine, but expands, and births this weird notion of “Universal-Fundamental Rights/Virtues”.

Axiology of Nasphilitae:History of Legal and Political Philosophy

Topic 1:

Topic 2:

Topic 3:

Topic 4:

Topic 5:

Topic 6

Topic 7

Topic 8:

Introduction

Source of legitimacy

Limits of sovereign

Proaction and arbitration

Statutory interpretation and judicial independence

Intent from results

Contents:

Introduction:Authorship context

Introduction:Historical context

Historical:The Buccaneer Wars

Historical:Assembly of Grand Councils

Historical:Dominions Assembly Estates

Comments:“Primordial affairs” experiment (State of nature)

Comments:“Primordial Code” four positions

Comments:Primordial Code of the “Insatiable human” (Limiting possibilities of desire and greed)

Comments:Insatiable human and Lex mercatorie

Comments:Limits of interference and the Contract Law hypothesis

Introduction:

Quick Link TOC:

a. Protoiridines allegories of Behemoth and Leviathan

b. Understanding Ziz and The Proxima Chapter

c. Stages of Inquiry and Development

d. Case Resolution Problem Solving:System Construction Demonstrated

e. Propositional Knowledge and Wisdom:Philosophies of Law and of Jurisprudence

Introduction to Daisy Day

Quick Link TOC:

Overview of the three works:

Death of The Three Creatures:The Cross and The Rose

Death of The Three Creatures:Doctrina Alchemia Aenigmatia

Introducing The Andro-Machina:

Utopian ideal of “Andro-Machina”, features:

Introduction:

TOC:

Romanticist “Revivalism”:Rebirthing of the “Trivium”

Central Theme and Advocacy:Goldmanns’ “Separatism”

“Separatism of power balances and Separatism of elites and commoners”

DOXA:

LOGO-EPISTEME:

“Separatism of the Nasphiliti soul”

DOXA:

LOGO-EPISTEME:

Background:

Early Contributions:

The Travel Periods Notes Structure

Places Travelled and Oddly Named Notes

Advises to Dorothy Atkinsons

Cult of the Monad

End of Part I