The Sociopath and the Philosopher


Christopher Dorner

In rhetoricparrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking.[1] The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.

I am going to demonstrate my models of psychopath and sociopath.  I have made it clear in the past that I disagree with the models currently in use because of the way in which the terms were created,  I don’t think a clear demarcation or understanding of the two mentalities has been made.  The sociopath is like a zen monk or a samurai, a warrior philosopher.  the psychopath and the sociopath are…

View original post 1,091 more words



  1. Non arbitrary, it doesn’t create disparate impact.
  2. Valid in every situation, unfalsifiable, and specific.
  3. Applies to everything doesn’t ignore any subjects.
  4. Is predictive, descriptive, and predictive.
  5. Non delusional, in relationship with reality.
  6. Understands teleology, and eschatology, the movement of ideas and things through time and space in the context of that time period.
  7. Gives credit where credit is due, quotes its sources.
  8. Doesn’t conceal itself in a rational relationship, communicates understanding of it’s true nature.
  9. Never fails to act on what it knows to be true, Praxis.
  10. Authority under the philosophy doesn’t extend to making an unjust law.
  11. Everybody is equal under the law.
  12. The highest expert on the law, expounds the law, doesn’t create the law.
  13. All assertions are proven through reasoned debate, experiment, or contest.
  14. It is meritocratic, people are free to move about based on merit and understanding and correct procedure.
  15. It is internally incentivized, not externally incentivized.
  16. If it realized it is in error it admits the error, retracts the errant assertion, and corrects it.
  17. Clear, cogent, Profound, and as brief as possible.

Criticism of Psychology


Jack Nicholson


First of all I think that the field attracts people that don’t feel like authorities in their own lives because something went wrong with their individuation process from their parents.  I refer to this as “displacement”.   Specifically I feel that when a person doesn’t feel like an authority in their own life, because they perhaps had a rich parent that constantly threatened to disinherit them if they didn’t always do what they wanted, and the child listened to their parent, concealing their resentment but believing that the parent was correct in their actions, so they wanted to be an authority figure in someone else’s life since they can’t be an authority in their own.  They become a police man or a psychologist.  It attracts damaged people that are trying to figure themselves out.  They are emotionally morbid and they want to attack passive aggressively, to lord their modicum…

View original post 670 more words

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness


In my philosophy, Rational Praxis-ism, the individual, even in relationship prehends their resources.  That is to say, that your resources do your will because it is a meritocracy and you earned your resources.  Even in relationship your resources do your will unless you have made an agreement to the contrary.  All of the time I hear people arguing for what other people should think and say and do.  In my system your actions, thoughts, and self expression are yours and yours alone.  Only when someone has proven their correctness to you and NOT to themselves and you have agreed to change your behavior can they hold it against you if your behavior is not desirable, or if you changing your behavior is necessary for the success of the endeavor and is reasonable, as in mitigation.  

People are so full of their stupid judgments.  They presuppose their own self appointed moral authority, I refer to this as not being smart enough to detect your own horse shit.  What’s good for you is good for you, and what’s good for me is what’s good for me.  You don’t get to choose what is good for me.  This is known as judging tacitly from analogy.  It is a normative bias in which the person thinking that everybody should think like themselves pecker slaps people with their perspective, arguing that they should change their expression, that they are experiencing life wrong.  It is one thing to say, “this is my experience of life.” or, “you cannot relate to me in this way by doing this with me, I will not participate with it.”   it is quite another thing to say, “you are experiencing life incorrectly and you have to change the way you think, express yourself, and behave.”  especially when their has been no contest of proof, no scientific experiment, and no debate with reasoned arguments. 

The most annoying thing, I think, to me, is that there are soooo many more stupid people than intelligent people, and stupid people are not less judgmental, they are more so…..


“Strange Bird”

Iconographic Art of Joxua



This piece was very spontaneous for me.  I have a love hate relationship with Vincent Van Gogh, his violent use of yellow makes me sick to my stomach but his use of blue makes me swoon.  I love the fluidity and the depth and the movement in his blues which I emulated in this piece.  I put many occult secrets in this piece as well, concealed in the head of the bird is the hebrew letter “shin” meaning spirit.



At the time I wrote this piece I was studying the poetry of Aleister Crowley, under the tutelage of world renowned occult authority Lon Milo Duquette, also known affectionately as Baba Lon.  We were reading a poem about the Benu bird.  Of course this bird is not just the Benu Bird, it is also the phoenix, and it is also the shechinah.  One of the forms of the shechinah…

View original post 88 more words