Axiology of Nasphilitae:History of Legal and Political Philosophy

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
1 Like

“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.”


“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.


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."


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.

1 Like

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

– Earl Henry Fafyre

Summary: Matthew Greene


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


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.

“Records of the Assembly in Southern Haven”

– George Wroster (1744–1777)

Summary: Matthew Greene


The Buccaneer Wars
Assembly of Grand Councils
Dominions Assembly Estates

“Primordial affairs” experiment
“Primordial Code” four positions
Primordial Code of the “Insatiable human”
Insatiable human and Lex mercatorie
Limits of interference and the Contract Law hypothesis

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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”.
  3. 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.

1 Like

“Reapproaching Ziz’s Rejection of The Gavel”

– S.J. Brand (1777-1808)

Summary: Elena Bartlett


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:

Systems of Inquiry and Development SJBrand.png

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”.

Case Resolution Problem Solving SJ Brand.png

“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.

1 Like