GRAMMAR OF NATURAL LAW —Hi, do you remember the title of your post which conta

https://propertarianism.com/2017/02/20/natural-law-and-the-grammar-of-operational-language/Q&A GRAMMAR OF NATURAL LAW

—Hi, do you remember the title of your post which contained the basics of propertarian grammar?—-

(ask Ricky Saini if he suggests others)

https://propertarianism.com/2017/02/20/natural-law-and-the-grammar-of-operational-language/

NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM

(propertarianism core)(important)

Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already.

For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.

EXPLANATION

Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.

Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.

So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.

THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false)”

(Reminds me of Yoda-speak, or Latin… lol)

In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.

FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW

If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.

{terms and definitions }

-We … (who)

-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )

-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)

-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)

and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)

-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)

and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),

-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).

-Signed

…. -Juried

…. …. -Adjudicated.

…. …. …. -Recorded.

This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution.

Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions.

We must correct:

The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty.

All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and tehir ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission.

WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH

By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years.

We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior.

This is terribly easy todo. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity.

And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit.

APOLOGIES

I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments.

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155068012522264

PROPERTARIANISM: DataTypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax Think of Propertarianism as a programming language consisting of data types, operations, grammar, and syntax. if you can ‘write a program’ that ‘computes’ (is operationally constructable’) with those data types, operations, grammar, and syntax, then you can write a formal description of any phenomenon open to human experience in the language of natural law. You cannot do math without understanding it, and you can’t write software without understanding it, and you can’t write natural law without understanding it. I mean… you’d honestly have to be a simpleton to think that you’re going to learn this FAST. you’ll learn it as fast as you could learn to program. If you can program you can simply do it faster because you’ve learned VERY SIMPLE VERSIONS of the form of operational logic of transformations that exist in propertarianism: Natural Law

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154982509502264

ON A GRAMMAR OF CATEGORIES (IDENTIFYING CONSTANT RELATIONS)

So if we are to speak precisely we need a term that describes the limits of the human brain’s processes of identifying categories, then one for natural categories (invariant), and then one for utilitarian categories (variant/explanatory), and then for partially-substitutable/unpredictable ( variant/explanatory/plastic): this last being the problem of economic analysis, since that is the point at which mathematics begins to break down in the description of constant relations.

So we need a grammar of identity (category). Because every category is something we identify, by identifying a set of constant relations. (a search function).

Unfortunately, until we have artificial intelligences, it will be very difficult to quantify, or define some set of limits, that describe the information necessary to form constant relations. (this is, in my opinion, what Taleb’s work is limited by). This is also why I work with via-negativa, since if we cannot describe the thing in and of itself, but we can describe what it is not.

The grammar of existence prevents substitution (ignorance, error, bias, deceit), by creating a unique identity for every single action, and therefore a category (recipe) of constant relations.

i’ll try to give this some thought so that I can create a spectrum(series) that gives us a post-rationalist language for this subject…

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155110196377264

NO, EPRIME ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT IT’S A GOOD START –“Is E prime *really* that great? I’ve spent a lot of time messing around with shorthand, concept maps, and a bunch of other tools in an effort to improve the quality of my thinking. Is it really as simple as eliminating certain verbs from the way I present ideas?”— A Friend Eprime provides us with an explanation of WHY we can lie so easily using the verb to be, and by doing so pretend we speak with authority about that which we know little or nothing – or worse, engage in the suggestion, false dichotomies, and obcurantism which constitute the majority of sophomoric philosophical questions. The grammar (which I posted last week or the week before) plus abandoning the use of the verb to be, plus operational language, plus property in toto, plus limits and full accounting just make it very, very, very difficult to carry on a pretense of knowledge when you don’t possess it. So no, EPrime isn’t enough, but it’s a whole lot. There is a difference between writing well, and writing proofs. We are working at writing proofs

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154993496722264

SERIES:

Hierarchy of sympathies:

1 – condition (empathy – condition sympathy) “i can sense/experience your feelings”

… 2 – imitation (action sympathy)

… … 3 – intention ( intention sympathy)

THE LESSON; Whenever you use a term:

(a) can you place it in a series, so that you know you aren’t conflating?

(b) can you narrate how the state you’re describing or naming came into existence? Or are you conflating imagination (fantasy) with possibility(existence).

(c) are the references to all your terms consistent in existential grammar? Meaning: are they all in operational language, and if not, are they in observational, are if not are they in experiential, and if not, are they in intentional? How do you know you aren’t conflating forms of existence?

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154941304102264

AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH EXPERIENCE FROM EXISTENCE. The deceit is in failing to use EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR, the same way we use gender-grammar, or temporal grammar, or locational grammar. Not sure why it’s so hard for people to grasp this concept. Not quite sure why people want to rely on the pretense of ‘god mode’ to make their statements. or rather, I think it is a form of cognitive solipsism: inability to separate the self from existence. Actually, that’s what I”m going to call it: cognitive solipsism. Just as so many women cannot distinquish between experience and consequence, some people cannot distinquish between experience and existence. cognitive solipsism. Not sure if it’s a developmental disorder, or a failure of maturity, or an uneven evolutionary distribution of intellectual capacity… hmmm….. (edit: added) Existential Grammar is only important once an individual makes claims to truth because of a premise or conclusion. Now, I’might argue that it’s necessary to ensure you’re not making a mistake, but then, meaning for the purpose of ideation and testimony for the purpose of warrantying due diligence prior to making a truth claim are different things. So I would hope that people would grasp that almost all philosophical arguments I run across are SOPHOMORIC because of nothing more than trickery accomplished by conflation by using the verb to-be to make existential and deducible claims, rather than simply using existential grammar and making the fraudulent claim to existential ‘authority’.

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154636799082264

—“WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”—

(probably important)

Well, while I agree that for our level of intellectual capacity that we practice an {actor, verb, noun} grammar, and that such a grammar, similar to logic but evocatively rather than critically allows us to speak and transfer experiences by association, in increasingly complex sets, which the audience consistently re-sorts to produce something sensible tot hem, I also think the presentation is pseudoscientific, and that all human emotions(self) and moral intuitions (others) are reducible to changes in the state of inventory of one asset or another, across a very broad set of assets from the informational, to the habitual, to the normative, to the institutional, to the physical, to kin, to body and life.

The universe is telling us something very clearly: it’s very simple. As part of the universe, the human mind is a very simple thing, which achieves the appearance of complexity through sheer numbers and layers of neurons. We are part of the physical universe. We are bound by its laws. The most basic of those laws is that we must conserve energy to persist our lives, our kin, and our offspring, while at the same time transforming the universe’s current condition into one that is our benefit.

Our problem in understanding our minds, is not discovering complexity, but discovering simplicity, by removing our imaginary content, error, bias, justification, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, and deceit from our ideas – each of which is produced by free association. Albeit, the mathematics (measurement) of that free association appears to be as difficult for us to measure as is the subatomic universe.

Nature does not need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism in order for us to act. We need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism to perform an inexpensive means of communicating complex memories.

We need to reduce memory to a model only in so far as we wish to understand our limits of communication. And we need to understand the limits of our communication in order to eliminate error bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, justification, and deceit from those communications.

We cannot necessarily increase the density of information except through habituation (practice). Yet we can reduce the error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, justification, and deceit from it. Which appears to be the only remaining purpose of philosophy that is not possible to produce by other, superior means.

The Universe is Simple.

We Imagine by free association.

We test for possibility by ‘wayfinding’

We launder possibility by criticism.

We use criticism to perform due diligence against:

1 – Ignorance and Error,

2 – Bias, Wishful Thinking, Suggestion, Moral Loading and;

3 – Overloading, Justification, Obscurant Mysticism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, and;

4 – Information hiding and outright Deceit.

We perform due diligence by testing for consistency (determinism):

1 – categorical (identity / properties)

2 – logical (internal consistency / verbal / sets)

3 – relational (relational consistency / mathematical / logical instruments )

4 – empirical (external correspondence / physical instruments )

5 – existential (existential possibility / operational language )

6 – moral (volitional possibility / subjective testing of rational voluntary exchange)

7 – fully accounted, parsimonious and limited (that we have fully accounted for that which we speak of and that we include nothing that we do not speak of.

If we have performed this due diligence, and warranty that we have done so, (‘skin in the game’) then it is quite difficult to speak falsely.

Meaning != Truth. Meaning = Justification of prior knowledge. That is all we can say.

It says nothing about the truth of any proposition.

This is the central failure of philosophical inquiry: justificationary meaning over critical truth.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154294535652264

THE HUMAN ARGUMENT SPECTRUM. Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human. And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse. Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention. We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.) It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions. But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions. We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life. In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack). Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli. Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes. Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic). This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response). This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon. But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud. It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand. And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results. So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules. And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality. All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism. So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science. Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony. Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal. And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties. So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars? Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails. So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific. When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter. Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions. And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act. And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds. So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility. It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence. But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description. CLOSING I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages. There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology. It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud. I hope this was helpful to you in some way. It’s a very important set of ideas. We do what we have the knowledge to do. We do what we have the energy and resources to do.

Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

Curt Doolittle

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154234662047264

WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘IS’ MEAN? (The “COPULA”) ” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… ” The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat it will appear to reflect the color black to you, or anyone else that observes it.” WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE? If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings. IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO: 1) Exists (identity) 3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time) 2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties) 4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories) We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts. MISUSE We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order 1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject. 2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy. 3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost. (Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.) 4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions. THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies. ***The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties*** Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property. It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything). So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties. But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen. (chapter inclusion quality) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine