“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:
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”.
“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.