Tag Archives: praxis

Origins of Western Philosophy, Rabbi Ba’al Shivah

A huge help in putting together my theories was the work of Okko Behrends.  What I do is I look for the movement of ideas, words, philosophies, processes, practices (praxis) from one culture to another over time.  These create rhetorical tautologies or identical patterns.  Some cultures adopt and keep those patterns because of an affinity and others do not.

Frankly I think that the Augur’s of Pre-Greek Minoan cult were originally from India and in India I believe they were called the Aghori.

The Aghori (Sanskrit: अघोरaghōra)[2] are asceticShaivasadhus.

The Aghori in Shaivism.

The Aghori are known to engage in post-mortem rituals. They often dwell in charnel grounds, have been witnessed smearing cremationashes on their bodies, and have been known to use bones from human corpses for crafting skull bowls (which Shiva and other Hindu deities are often iconically depicted holding or using) and jewelry. Due to their practices that are contradictory to orthodox Hinduism, they are generally opposed.[3][4]

Many Aghori gurus command great reverence from rural populations as they are supposed to possess healing powers gained through their intensely eremitic rites and practices of renunciation and tápasya. They are also known to meditate and perform worship in haunted houses.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori

8 minutes in Behrend’s defines Auctoritatus as a form of authority not based on force but based on reason, what I refer to as Sapiential Authority.

In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious “power of command” of heroic Roman figures.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas#Auctoritas_principis

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.  Matthew 7


44 minutes okko quotes cicero

Auctoritas is determined by it’s good results and it’s success and by the merit of reason.  The High priest of the Augure’s didn’t create the law, he didn’t manufacture it, he expounded the law that already existed in the universe the Law that governed success.  They were readers of omens, signs, and portents.

The augur was a priest and official in the classical world, especially ancient Rome and Etruria. His main role was the practice of augury, interpreting the will of the gods by studying the flight of birds: whether they are flying in groups or alone, what noises they make as they fly, direction of flight and what kind of birds they are. This was known as “taking the auspices.” The ceremony and function of the augur was central to any major undertaking in Roman society—public or private—including matters of war, commerce, and religion.

The Roman historian Livy stresses the importance of the augurs: “Who does not know that this city was founded only after taking the auspices, that everything in war and in peace, at home and abroad, was done only after taking the auspices?”[1]  


It was also antithetical to tyranny. At 14 minutes tyranny = kingship.  The Augur, much like the president is supposed to be, (I am glaring at you Obama) is not above the law, they are also under the law.  This isn’t from Okko Behrends, but notice how to Remus was not chosen as the first king of Rome because he lived on Aventine hill which was full of “inauspicious birds”.  The reason the birds were present was because Aventine hill was used for the disposal of garbage and dead bodies, remember if you will that the Aghori also live in grave yards.

Roman augurs were part of a collegium of priests who shared the duties and responsibilities of the position. At the foundation of the Republic in 510 BC, the patricians held sole claim to this office.

Augury sought the divine will regarding any proposed course of action which might affect Rome’s pax, fortuna and salus (peace, good fortune and wellbeing).[2] Political, military and civil actions were sanctioned by augury, historically performed by priests of the college of augurs and by haruspices on behalf of senior magistrates.

According to Cicero, the auctoritas of ius augurum included the right to adjourn and overturn the process of law: consular election could be – and was – rendered invalid by inaugural error. For Cicero, this made the augur the most powerful authority in the Republic.

In ancient Rome the auguria were considered to be in equilibrium with the sacra (“sacred things” or “rites”) and were not the only way by which the gods made their will known. The augures publici (public augurs) concerned themselves only with matters related to the state.

The jus augurale (augural law) was rigorously secret, therefore very little about the technical aspects of ceremonies and rituals has been recorded.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augur

Shiva Shakti - Maha Shivratri

If you examine the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra you will find that the deep intimate conversation between Shiva and Shakti about the nature of reality becomes the basis of philosophical and scientific reasoning.  It became the Sohbet of Rumi and Shams and before that it was the intimate conversations that Jesus had with his disciples and before that it was the discussion of the Rabbi’s discussing Torah, or the law of the universe among themselves.


This became the Parrhesia of the ancient Greeks:

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, andbeliefs based on new or existing information.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered[by whom?] to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.[3]

The field of logic studies ways in which human beings reason through argument.[6]

  • The original Greek term was “λόγος”logos, the root of the modern English word “logic” but also a word which could mean for example “speech” or “explanation” or an “account” (of money handled).[7]
  • As a philosophical term logos was translated in its non-linguistic senses in Latin as ratio. This was originally not just a translation used for philosophy, but was also commonly a translation for logos in the sense of an account of money.[8]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

In rhetoric, parrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking.[1] There are three different forms of parrhesia. Parrhesia is its nominal form, is translated from Latin to English meaning “free speech”. Parrhesiazomai in its verbal form is to use parrhesia, and parrhesiastes is the one who uses parrhesia for example “one who speaks the truth”. [2] The term parrhesia first appears in Greek literature in Euripides and can be found and used in ancient Greek texts all throughout the end of the fourth century and during fifth century A.D. [3] The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” and ῥῆσις “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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesia

and that became the sciences, the logy’s, or the logic of, teleology, biology, psychology, ecology, geology, etc.  Each logy would have a guru or teacher that specialized in that subject.  The entire western civilization evolved out of this process as well as the Western brain and the way western people think in general.  Our separation of powers, our checks and balances in the government, our sense of propriety, all of them came from the same place.

27 minutes: The name Augustus was chosen by Octavian chose the name Augustus the name of the High Priest of the Augure’s instead of the name Romulus the first king of Rome, he chose between the two names.

‘In my sixth and seventh consulships [28-27 BC], after I had extinguished civil wars, and at a time when with universal consent I was in complete control of affairs, I transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome…After this time I excelled all in influence [auctoritas], although I possessed no more official power [potestas] than others who were my colleagues in the several magistracies.’ (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34.1-3)[[1]]

46 minutes, the separation of powers, the leader can assume command of the military upon leaving the polis, but upon entering the polis must relinquish control of the millitary, (a legitimate leader must never use the military against his people).

Compare that with what President Obama recently did, is he giving power back to the people of the united states?  Is he more like Augustus or Julius Caesar?

In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word ‘tyrant’: they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate. [Rousseau, “The Social Contract”]  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tyrant

In a commentary of Oedipus I once read the author argued that Oedipus Rex should rightly have been called Oedipus Tyrannous because the original term didn’t have a negative meaning, it just meant popular ruler, Julius Caesar was very popular, he also was a usurper of the law.



You are about to use the moving the goal fallacy with yourself as the goal and we are going to have an argument of infinite regress where you refuse to believe what I have just told you no matter how often I support it with facts.  You are not a linguisitic philosopher, an analytical philosopher or a philologist, I am.  Moreover, I am correct.


The Symbols above is known as the hamsa, it originated in India and was associated with the Jains, who were the Janis mentioned in the story of Moses.  The name comes from the Hindu concept of Harmlessness known as Ahimsa, notice the similar phonology?

Ahimsa (Sanskrit: अहिंसा; IAST: ahiṃsā, Pāli:[1]avihiṃsā) is a term meaning ‘not to injure’. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. cause no injury, do no harm.[2][3] Ahimsa is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings – including all animals – according to many Indian religions.[4]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

The word itself derives from So Ham the inbreaths and outbreaths of Brahma if you are familiar with my work you know that I believe that Abraham and Brahma are one and the same, I am not the first or the only person who believes this.

Soham (सो ऽहम्so ‘ham[1]) is the Sanskrit for “I am He/That”. (See also: Tat Tvam Asi.)

When it applies to a person’s name, according to Vedic philosophy it means identifying oneself with the universe or ultimate reality. Some say that when a child is born it cries Koham-Koham which means Who am I? That is when the universe replies back Soham. You are the same as I am. It also stems from the Sanskrit word which means, “self pride.”

I am

“May [God] bless the lads, and let them carry my name, along with the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac. May they increase like fish in the land.” (Gen. 48:16)

The Talmud (Berachot 55b) explains that Joseph shared a special quality with fish:

“The fish in the waters are concealed by the water, and thus not susceptible to the Evil Eye. So too, the descendants of Joseph are not susceptible to the Evil Eye.” http://ravkooktorah.org/VAYEHI59.htm

Kabbalists such as myself know that “water” is a metaphor for Torah which is synonymous with the law of the Universe that is studied by rabbis, and augurs, and expounded.  Fish live in the water, so this zen like koan, which is so paradoxical is saying that the philosophers, the rational people need to be increased.  It is these philosophers who are protected from the evil eye.

The nounkohen is used in the Torah to refer to priests, both Jewish and non-Jewish, such as the Jewish nation as a whole,[1] as well as the priests (Hebrewkohanim) of Baal (2 Kings 10:19).

The Hebrew noun kohen is most often translated as “priest”, whether Jewish or pagan, such as the priests of Baal or Dagon, though Christian priests are referred to in Hebrew by the term komer (Hebrew כומר). The word derives from a Semitic root common, at minimum, to the Central Semitic languages; the cognateArabic wordكاهنkāhin means “soothsayer, augur, or priest“.






The Bible Deconstructed for Atheists.


It is not my intention to bore you.  I wanted to explain some things to you about the bible.  The people that wrote the bible didn’t take it literally because it was written in PaRDeS, the word PaRDeS phonetically mimics the word Paradise.  

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis) )

Pardes (Hebrew: פרדסorchard) is the subject of a Jewishaggadah (“legend”) about four rabbis of the Mishnaic period (1st century CE) who visited the Orchard (that is, Paradise):

Four men entered pardesBen Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher (Elisha ben Abuyah),[1] and Akiba. Ben Azzai looked and died; Ben Zoma looked and went mad; Acher destroyed the plants; Akiba entered in peace and departed in peace.[2]


Rashi explains that they ascended to Heaven by utilizing the Divine Name, which might be understood as achieving a spiritual elevation through Jewish meditationpractices.  PaRDeS-exegesis is an acronym for the 4 traditional methods of exegesis in Judaism. In this sense, they were the four to understand the whole Torah[citation needed].  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(legend)#Exposition


This is a pretty good commentary on the exegesis of this legend metaphor:  



It might interest you to know that Muslims assume that the Jews altered the bible because while it foretells the coming of the messiah, it doesn’t foretell the coming of Mohammed.  


The reason the name of god is ineffable is that it isn’t spoken with words, it is spoken with your thoughts, your words, your emotions, and your actions.  When the Jews Helenized the absorbed the Greek Philosophy.  YHWH is a metaphor for praxis. Praxis could be simplified into the concept of living your philosophy which is rational and by which one can be falsified.  A psychopathic philosophy for example (Islam) cannot be used to falsify the individual Muslim or Muslims collectively because it can only be used for proving them correct. . .

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger,Hannah Arendt, Paulo Freire, Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.


The first five books of the bible are known as the torah or the Pentateuch, which is the extended version of god’s name. Curiously it was written without vowels.  I think the significance of this is that each character of the Pentateuch represents a human being, the vowels weren’t added because they represented the feminine or the way in which all of the characters were connected to everything else.  Which is to say the way you pronounce god’s name on a global scale is through the correct relationship between everybody.  This also allowed different interpretations of Jewish faith to be codified in a way since that interpretation couldn’t be disproved which created a similar pattern to the Sanatana Dharma in India.  

Rabbis have a linguistic fetish and they play word games to look for hidden messages and to see things differently.  It is a source of inspiration.  If you consider my theory that Neural Myelination is passed on through cellular memory ask yourselves why are their so many Jewish comedians, lawyers, surgeons, philosophers, actors, and psychologists?  It was because of meditating on the Torah.  The laws of the Torah cement a democratic society that is cohesive, and it protects itself from psychological factors or economic factors that could tear the community apart.  

The Bible Code is just such a meditation that the Rabbis meditate on.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

This is probably a little less credible but still fun, in the english version of the bible code one of my Nom de plumes has a bible code matrix, let’s see how accurate it is.  



The first two chapters of the bible are Genisis (going in) and Exodus (going out).  What is the first thing you do when you are born?   What is the last thing you do when you die?  First you inspire and then you expire.  

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.  genesis 2:7


inspire (v.)Look up inspire at Dictionary.commid-14c., enspiren, “to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);” also “to prompt or induce (someone to do something),” from Old French enspirer (13c.), from Latininspirare “inflame; blow into” (see inspiration), a loan-translation of Greek pnein in the Bible. General sense of “influence or animate with an idea or purpose” is from late 14c. Also sometimes used in literal sense in Middle English. Related: Inspired; inspires; inspiring.   http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inspire


Of further interest is that Rabbi Maimon said that the account of Moses was written in the present tense, which means get away from the Mizraim right now.  The Mizraim are the nations, specifically Babylon and Egypt.  Remember that Babylon (ancient Persia) was constantly trying to expand in increase it’s authority and that threat went all the way to Greece during the battle of Thermopylae.   The Bible was written by a people trying to maintain their identity and separate themselves from the ancient Persio/Babylonian mentality.  

As a god worshipped by the Phoenicians and Canaanites, Moloch had associations with a particular kind of propitiatorychild sacrifice by parents. Moloch figures in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the Book of Leviticus as a form of idolatry(Leviticus 18:21: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch”). In the Old Testament,Gehenna was a valley by Jerusalem, where apostate Israelites and followers of various Baalim and Caananite gods, including Moloch, sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:2–6).





Participating with the Premise.

Image In debate, not only is it necessary to remain rational it is necessary to remain consistently rational.  When a person makes a logical fallacy or a cognitive bias it needs to be addressed and corrected before the conversation can continue.  If you continue the debate without correcting the error you are granting equity to the other person in the conversation.  You are acting as though they have not made an error and by staying in the conversation you are participating with the premise that they are being and have consistently been rational. If the other person in the conversation is not being rational, the conversation itself is not rational.  If one person tries to remain rational in a debate while the other person is making no effort to be rational or proceed rationally, this creates a disparate impact in favor of the person that isn’t being rational.  When you get in a fight with a clown, even if you win you lose. It is necessary to proceed correctly.  The words process and practice come from the greek word praxis.  All valid philosophies have a praxis. A philosophy by its very nature has to be self referentially consistent, if it creates disparate impact it is invalid and therefore not a rational philosophy.  If a person can’t be falsified by their own philosophy it is not a philosophy and they are not rational.  So as you see they falsify themselves by their own procedure.  A rational person proceeds rationally, nothing can be proven by irrational means, that is why due process exists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.  —Calvin O. Schrag[1]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin HeideggerHannah ArendtPaulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.




  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.

Rational Praxicism, or Ratiocracy/Logocracy, My Philosophy.


So, how would I describe my philosophy?  It is impossible to sum up in one post, I have spent years studying this old philosophical relationship and the processes in it. Literally everything I say and do is based on this relationship which has been forgotten in this day and age.  Never heard of.  There is so much intellectual crap and prancing intellectual buggery floating around out there.  Even when people hear my philosophy and think to themselves, “That sounds good.”  They turn around and do the opposite, because they are using a normative bias, and haven’t learned to detect logical fallacies that they are making.  

The only way I can teach this relationship is as a type of guru with an ashram or philosopher with a gymnasium.  It has to be shown, it can’t be told, because people are terrible at detecting their own horse shit.  This is a type of relationship in which people only relate to others rationally and positively keeping their judgments to themselves.  Your resources do your will, you prehend your resources.  You have earned them they are yours.  I can’t take your resources and use them against your will.  Taxation without representation. 

Not only does a person focus on creating value for others in the community, they focus on doing so in a rational way.  The most rational person gets his way, the most rational argument wins.  Everyone in the community is a philosopher king and is working on increasing his understanding.  Nobody is above the law of reason, and everybody submits to it.  If it can’t be proven it can’t be argued.  This prevents the type of intellectual faggotry that adopts a philosophy and then is successful in spite of it, which means that you are dragging the philosophy along, you are not applying the philosophy, you are championing it and proselytizing it.  Your success should be directly related to your philosophy, your philosophy is your soul, and your sword and your word.  If you discover you are wrong your amend your philosophy and your behavior.  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses of the word Praxis, see Praxis (disambiguation).
So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.
 —Calvin O. Schrag[1]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin HeideggerHannah ArendtPaulo Freire,Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.

It is also important to note that because of the nature of Moral Authority and its constant habit of usurping Sapiential Authority by making emotional appeals certain guards are created for preventing the passive aggressive take over of this pattern which eventually, universally, creates the degradation of all good systems.  Processes and patterns that aren’t logical and can’t be defended logically fly in the face of reason to repeatedly destroy all of the good that was created.  Everybody, man or woman must respect the authority of reason and if they can’t defend their position rationally with rational means they are not allowed to speak.  You don’t get to argue that one person or group must spend their resources on another person or group, this thwarts meritocracy.  If you want to be merciful and charitable you do so with your own resources and your fate and reputation are tied to those that you are helping and you are responsible for their actions.  If you want to own slaves, you are responsible for them and you don’t get to use your sentimental arguments to obfuscate or caste doubt or stumble reasonable discourse on its path.  In order to be a citizen you have to be equal to the task.  There is no freedom while their is ignorance.


Everyone in the society has their personal responsibilities, what would be power if it were extracted from them in the form of a law or structure of authority to serve them.  This would then attract psychopaths which would use that authority as power.  The point is to have a democracy amongst philosopher kings, Warrior philosophers.  Only when you have equality amongst genii can you unleash the highest common good.  When you have the false forced equality of making an irresponsible, social climbing, acquisitive, idiot the equal of a philosopher king, you have sabotaged yourself and your way of life.  Psychopaths ruin all of the good by refusing to understand and participate.  Should a person not accept their responsibilities their power must be given back to them forcefully or they must not be allowed to benefit from the surplus of value created by this type of relationship.  The quality of life is created by the philosophy itself, and the immigrants to this philosophy who do not adopt it and apply it are there for no other reason but to benefit themselves without contributing value, more value than they consume.  





Praxis of the Rational.


I_____________________ promise to myself that I will never stop learning or growing being interested, curious, questioning, questing. I will love the real and the true, no matter what it is. I will admit when I am wrong and correct myself happily. Because all knowledge is self knowledge, to have accurate knowledge is to know myself. To reject truth is to hate reality and avoid myself. If I cling to the untrue, the illogical, unreasoned, I hate my true self. If I am not growing and not learning then I am already dead. I will slay that which is deluded in me by learning what is true.I will stay in real-ationship. “Epanasundesi” I realize that the walking on the path is the destination. I will not think about a desired destination. That destination is becoming and I have already arrived. If I realize that I have stepped foot off the path, the praxis of the rational, I will make amends and return to my path that I have set before myself. Not out of guilt or shame but a returning to the analytical, the rational. I will reciprocate good for good. I will not be distracted from those relationships that support me and help me, that create value. I will not take from those relationships and squander resources on relationships that do not pay me back.

I will not engage in strategic behavior to manipulate a desired outcome. I will speak plainly and my words will reflect my accurate thoughts, emotions and actions. I will speak my truth boldly “Parr Hesia” I will remember that there are 3 hidden subjects, my experience of reality, your experience of reality and reality itself. I will not judge tacitly from analogy thinking that I must contend over experiences of reality, I do not choose what is good for others, they do no choose what is good for me. My resources do my will as long as they do not affect the resources of others. Combined resources do combined will, but at the same time remain the property of the persons that earned them.

I will not be tyrannical, arbitrary, or inconsistent. I understand that all valid philosophies pose a meritocracy of some sort so that the individuals can move around freely. I understand that I must remain consistently rational in order to be considered rational. That I must know myself and represent myself accurately. Even when the lights are off and no one is watching I still remain loyal to my own philosophy for myself which I will not conceal from others for the sake of personal gain. I will be known as I am and I will know others accurately as they are. We are equal under reason.

I have taken this burden on myself to make the world a better place, one that I want to live in. I own all wisdom by having the ability to understand it and apply it. All best processes belong to me through this faculty. In order to live in a rational world the people in it have to be rational. I recognize the authority of reason and reason alone. The law was not made by man, but the laws that govern success in relationship are preexisting and immutable. If I want to live in a rational world, I must behave rationally in rational relationship in rational environments.

I am a citizen of the world.

By Shivastus Solomonicus




I have been asked repeatedly to write down my techniques for what I learned to do with human behavior and psychology.  I think Cris Blakk will particularly find this technique interesting so I dedicate this blog to him.  https://plus.google.com/115599668920707439466/posts

When I think a person might be behaving strategically towards me, which is any unprovoked deviation from rational relationship for the purpose of maximizing what they are getting from the relationship without contributing equal value, or an attempt to establish dominance or leverage themselves, or refusing to participate, communicate, understand I have a little test to see if they are being self-referentially consistent.

Most people in trying to falsify another person do so from their own perspective making visual emotional judgements.  “I feel that you are wrong, therefore you are wrong”.  In order to actually falsify someone you have to do so from their perspective, which means understanding their philosophy if it is valid and non arbitrary, and if it is sound prove to them that their behaviors are not congruent with their beliefs.

I will use a tautology of the behavior or the strategic communication on them and see how they react to their own strategy.  If they respond as they want me to respond when they use it I know they are not intentionally being strategic, but if they don’t I know it is some manner of subterfuge.

I came up with this technique from my ASCENDING DRAGON STYLE TAI CHI that i created when I was in Washington state.  The concept is that you only turn the energy used to attack you back on your opponent.  You must make your ego very small and remove your judgments and interpretations from the interaction to ensure that they are in relationship with their own tactics through you.  I also sometimes refer to this as the silver ray technique. http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2012/10/ascending-dragon-style-tai-chi.html

One of the tests for intelligence in animals is to see how long it takes them to realize that they are fighting their own reflection.  The mirror technique is fascinating because you get to see how the person is in relationship with their own strategies.  There is a part of my consciousness that sits back and just observes.  If you use 100% of your energy for the physical stuff or the emotional stuff you will not have the energy to sit back and learn and remember.  You can’t be completely invested in the conflict, you have to have a reserve of energy to learn and remember so that you can improve and compensate for that strategy in the future.

They are not fighting me, they are fighting themselves.  Sometimes people become aware of this.  Other times they become psychotic and feel they must destroy me.  They use as much dumb physical force as they muster and they enter a self destruction loop.  They become completely unconscious and completely obsessed with my destruction.  Paul Eckman refers to this as a refractory state, he says that a permanent refractory state is synonymous with insanity.  This is the technique I used to troll trolls and entire groups of trolls off the internet.  Right now I am apparently too controversial for facebook, lol.  They won’t let me have a single profile and it has been 6 months.  WINNING!