initial

Argumentative.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+So apparently we are able to rank order humans by the degree to which they oppress one another. To evaluate this rank order, we are simply make a list of identity groups for which a person can be ascribed, based on the following characteristics:
+
+- Skin colour (immutable, mostly)
+- Race (immutable)
+- Sex (immutable)
+- Gender (mutable, but paradox because of arguments supporting the need to bear a gender identity other than that which is analogous to one's sex)
+- Religion (mutabl)
+- Sexual orientation (mutable, but often argued as immutable)
+
+Skin colour is a strange one, because it's used for quick assertion / determination about a person's race. If we are to infer that there is a specific degree of victim/oppressor status to be inferred by a person's skin colour, which of the following is it most heavily (or entirely) based on:
+
+a) the observer
+b) the actor
+
+
+If it is the observer, it is assumed that the observers are bestowing a particular degree of privilege or oppression to a given individual because of the expectations they have, courtesy of their bias which has been calibrated through their having been socialized within a given social sphere aka community.
+
+Why should we be expected to entertain assumptions dictating how we are to allocate morality? Especially when the actions and initiatives which are lead to be these assertions all come in the form of restructuring and reappropriating power to themselves or those whom they claim to approve of. If there is a current or historic issue with power being sought and unfairly used for the structuring of society and allocation of resources, then why would such an issue magically not be applicable to types of actions now? For this issue to not be immediately obvious to whomsoever is suggesting these types of changes, it would mean that this person either:
+- Believes that they are morally pure themselves, impervious to cognitive biases and, as a result, are operating at a capacity which is not attainable by other fellow humans (or humans that can be identified by mutable characteristics, or by virtue of having an imperative which does not align with the person in question
+- Is aware of the tendency for this issue to manifest, and is doing everything in their power to be the one to take advantage of this first, either because of a lust for power or because of fear (these both may be, under this set of circumstances, the same thing)
+
+
+What is courage?
+
+Is it courage to profess one's adherence to the popular religion of today, without needing to prove its case? If its case is proven implicitly, and one believes that it is proven implicitly, then any individual championing this religion would, in turn, not be required to make the case for the religion. 

Manifesto_notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+I suppose this is a moment to allow the stream of thoughts in my mind to coalesce into coherent ideas that can be built upon.
+
+It would seem that humans need some sort of purpose, and whether this is due to some metatruth inherent in the Universe at large, or is simply a coping mechanism of a biological organism with the ability to self reflect and contemplate, it is nevertheless a useful factor to approach and develop in one's life as not only does it present the potential for develop better tools for dealing with life, but it also yields the potential to improve life for all.
+
+Why should one improve life for all?
+
+Well, regardless of whether or not one can verify the existence of other consciousnesses outside of the self, the world seems to operate as though it is true. In fact, it could be said that it is best to approach the world as though the other seemingly conscious beings are, in fact, conscious. It is also best to meet this concept with the interpretation that, in a general sense, one's experience contains many attributes which are fundamental to the experience of all conscious beings. With that in mind, it should be noted that the experience of others and the perception of others has an affect on one's own life and, as such, it should be in the interest of each individual to assume that improvements for the lives of others should result in an improvement in life as a whole, including the life of oneself.
+
+With that out of the way (for now), let's talk about purpose
+
+If one is to choose a purpose which possesses the potential to improve one's life, as well as the life of others, then there are a few areas to expand upon:
+
+1. Subject
+- Should, perhaps, the purpose be defined by goals and activities which relate to a subject to which one is personally interested? Why?
+  i. It would seem that having an interest in the tasks one partakes in is beneficial NOT ONLY because it is more interesting, but also because it can be argued that there are many axioms by which the actions relevant to the task will be performed at a more highly functioning level, can be repeated and refined, and can be performed for longer periods of time. All of this translates to an undertaking of a task which should be performed and completed with a higher degree of success.
+
+Conjecture -
+
+It has been argued that setting oneself up to engage tasks through a structure of purpose, whether by convincing oneself or by going through the sets of thoughts and related actions which can be perceived as being logically bound through a higher level scope which assumes a purpose, is not necessarily the true means by which a human pursues continuity and improvement. This can be argued against, and it may be fruitful to argue both sides, as this might not only reinforce one's modus operandi, but might lead one to new ideas which are better suited to higher achievement.
+
+The case for purpose might involve a few of the following:
+
+- Optimal orientation of character
+- Long term planning
+- Pursuance of decisions the consequence of which yield an increased likelihood of the emergence of universal benevolence and prosperity
+- An overarching system for intelligent decision-making
+- A system of language to describe action which can be communicated and received in an active and appreciated manner. That is to say, when values are expressed to which humans can universally relate, and when the tangible aspects of the decisions and actions involved in the propagation of these values are ones which bear the potential to provide a benefit to the listener, then perhaps the listener can better afford the time and contemplative faculties conducive to understanding the components of this system of actions.
+
+So why to start a company?
+- Create record of work which was done
+- Direct it such as to aggregate reputation
+- Interest in one's work might lead one to higher levels of achievement and performance
+- Producing the best work possible means creating more progress
+- Ensuring that this progress is related or completely proprietary towards the improvement of technology means that the effort can be more useful towards improving life for all beings
+- If the lives of all beings are improved, this is a net positive for the individual as well, since the environment is improving
+

Moral Grandstanding.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Taking any opportunity to increment one's moral standing, with each seeming to traverse the minimum journey through reason to be sufficient as prerequisite to its incorporation.
+
+This is the least costly path towards adoption of a belief in virtue.
+
+Not withstanding the call to contest the degree to which reason has been practiced or the quality of analysis applied in such reasoning, it bears legitimacy to call into question the acceptance that to proclaim one's virtue is a forthright gesture at the most fundamental level.
+
+If such expressions of moral standing, even if only implicit, are not readily believed to be of significant meritorious weight, it is no longer admissible to swallow the redundancy of considering the reason applied unless such reason, or the context within which it is displayed, cultivate the potential to supercede the natural pitfalls of a human propensity towards the illusory.
+
+As it is not expedient to consider each occasion in great excess, given the nature of time, one must pursue the matter by factor of steadfast and compelling methodology. One of the most reliable, is to measure the degree to which personal sacrifice is incurred, or the breadth of psychosocial gain likely to be afforded through the act itself.

SolvingProblems.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Identities and intersectionality
+
+You can fractionate to represent reasonably viable identities to be attributed to a person, but such a process can proceed ad infinitum such as to, eventually, enumerate an array equal to the number of individuals.
+
+Unconscious bias is to be offset with activities which are meant to counter implicit association, which doesn't bear the validity required to be used in a clinical assessment, according to its creators.
+
+Psychoanalytic ideas
+
+
+
+What problems are there to solve?
+
+Many problems are worth solving, but none bear valence worthy of reorienting the group except that which serves the group.
+
+What serves the group?
+
+A reduction in suffering
+
+
+
+
+Microinstitutions can be reorganized to exhibit equitable representation of group identities.
+
+
+Alexandre Solzenytsin
+
+anti semitic ?
+
+how do you expand equality?
+
+are we rushing to force something universally advantageous and beneficial?
+
+IS SPEECH SILENCING?
+
+Indignation is corrosive
+
+Recognizing the captivating condition brought through the accreditation of moral authority should not, itself, pivot the judgment such as to not perceive it from any single individual, as the bestowed impetus to choose such a pivot likewise grants an allure much the same.
+
+So how to proceed, as a human drawn to systemization, being and acting in a myriad of subsets of systems ?
+
+Systems may appear to behave in a manner which, to the extent of one pragmatist's perception, are fairly self-contained. The codifying of a given system, of unknown complexity, in a system of plausibly infinite systems, necessitates the implicit viewpoint that determination of each consecutively processed action, within such a system is based, absolutely, on its internal mechanisms. 
+
+This view, might seem akin to a young musician's early foray into recognizing and codifying sound. The most apparent pitch, at the fundamental base level, is the only tone admissable to the context of harmonic analysis, but the quality of its sonority surpasses the classification of its relevance upon a sheet of music, even within the performance of the music itself. Orders of overtones envelope the surroundings, surpassing not only the intrinsic faculties of one's sense of sound, but also the limits of one's intellectual capacity to decipher the modest volume of discoveries within our pitiful sound spectrum. Similar observations can be ascertained when examining other genres of systems.
+
+To the point, without absolute knowledge, the extent of the effect of any one action can never be truly known.
+
+So how to proceed, as a human whose very experience might be construed as continuous, sequential action?
+
+If I am not to deny moral authority to mankind as a whole, but am also liable to stumble by virtue of a belief that such authority can tantalize as it empowers, then perhaps the tool of such knowledge is best applied to myself.
+
+Am I honest? Virtuous? Competent? Do I even have the feeble beginnings to understanding, or even being able to express, my own beliefs?
+
+Perhaps, or perhaps not. 
+
+All things withstanding, if I choose to produce any universally favourable order in the field of existence, I should begin where the resolution of my perception is at least going to give me the best chance of NOT stubbing my toe.
+
+I guess I should go and clean my room.

Spectrum.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+The argument is made that gender and sex (interchanbeably) are not binary, but a spectrum, on the basis of 3 arguments:
+
+1. The existence of intersex persons
+2. The variation in endocrine expression
+3. The structures of the brain being different
+
+The issue with the first is that the contention of sex not being a binary has manifested not due to the existence of intersex people, but due to claims being made to modify laws and services to accommodate needs of trans people who, in most cases, are wishing to be considered as the opposite gender. This arguments for these accommodations always state that gender is a spectrum and that the evidence is the presence of intersex people. This does not seem to be related to the needs of trans people, who, as stated, are mostly wishing to identify as the opposite gender and would like to use serives and amenities normally allocated to that opposite gender. In the cases where a trans person is claiming to be non-binary, it is not being done through scientific analysis, and it would be a gross assumption to believe that these non-binary trans people are intersex.
+
+The issue with the second is that qualifying the system property of gender, or sex, as a spectrum on the basis of variation in endocrine expression would necessarily qualify all humans as not being completely male or female. By such a standard, could it not be argued that all humans are trans?
+
+The argument on the structures of the brain is in its infancy and one would be hard pressed to be too apply it universally, as it is not likely that most people who claim to be trans would necessarily have the structural properties which are being suggested as leading to the behaviours proposed as being associated with transgenderism.

Supporting Postmodern Ideas - June 9, 2019.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Though there are many reasonable people who have upheld ideals and institutions which lay their claims through arguments that are commonly critiqued as being post modern, it may not be necessarily so that they support all post modern ideas. It may not also be necessary for them to believe in the suppositions required by the post modern arguments themselves; however, for that to be the case, it must also be noted that the act of expressing a belief may also to cause and instill the actor to believe, if not completely in those suppositions, but to a degree where their internal apparatases of worldly analysis are being continuously primed and adjusted to deal with the living experience in the most effective manner possible and that, as such, to engage in an act of belief on an issue of moral significance should result in a transformation in the values of the parameters employed in such apparatuses.

courage-final.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Issues of Courage and Fear
+
+It's easy to conjure a consensus on the presence of issues, oftne a tragic truth of reality, which can be observed in society, and can begin to be addressed in the present time because of how far we have come. Though these nuanced, sensitive issues should call for a coalition of purveyors of reason and inquiry so that they may scrupulously work through complex ideas with an open mind and sound evaluative process, we grow, increasingly aware that they are often represented in their most simple terms, bringing forth an innate susceptibility to make any proposed accord prone to paralyzing degrees of obfuscation, and that they are being championed by actors who are quick to demonstrate a loathesome disdain for ideas which do not immediately proclaim uniformity of thought.
+
+
+Simplification carries stereotyping. The stereotypes that groups have historically dealt with. Undoing the progress made for one community because the baseline demand for radical change and disruption has been elevated past the point of examining the nuances upon which our previous progress fundamentally required.
+
+Previous progress lead to the granting of self determination, especially of note to those who had been most marginalized. This is now replaced with a need to assemble and designate generic enumerates bearing the key politically visible patterns sufficient to affect artifical tallies of justice, where the numbers themselves are the evidence of choice, and the tooling of choice itself is becoming a distant heretical memory.
+
+Brute forcing conversations which demand that viable issues must be interlocked into one simplified position, and recasting any question of the depth and authenticity for such alignments as an admission of intolerance towards all of those issues sourced to that assumed amalgamation.
+
+To solve an assumed bias of oppression requires not just an assumption of victims, but an assumption of the guilty.
+
+Should it not always be acceptible to ask for evidence? Is denial itself the evidence of guilt? And what of those who plod along and agree to shoddily defined measures? Is their agreement also proof of consent for undefined manipulation?
+
+When is semantic disagreement evidence of corruption? Is the conflict of semantics merely borne of a doomed interface of epistimology, naturally bound to one's immutable characteristics?
+
+If something is in the name of justice, must it be assumed to be legitimate? Or are we content to agree that the threshold of legitimacy relies upon name only?
+
+There is a pervasive idea that there exists a particular form of knowledge, encapsulated within a community, and that in order for such knowledge to be shared within the greater world, it's required that those bearing the characteristics associated with that community be computably present in specific quantities. As though this is a reality bound to the typing of knowledge itself. Consequently, the corollary is that the knowledge is intrinsic, perhaps mystically, to the characteristics of the members of that community, and, thus, this knowledge could only be understood and wielded by the members of that community. In order for this to be true, one need assume that this knowledge cannot be understod by members of other communities, and that acknowledging that knowledge has been shared is performed through extrapolating an evaluation of power by group. What this means is that in order for knowledge to be shared, the best we can hope for is a neverending battle for power, or the uniformity of group, and not the sharing of ideas themselves. 
+
+What sort of conversation can teach and share ideas, if the presumption is that each side's knowledge is, by nature of the characteristics associated with each group, confined.
+
+Alas, setbacks. Perhaps not the ones I've named. In fact, most of the setbacks that we note are personal ones, physical ones, emotional ones. 
+
+But what of a better world?
+
+Unfortunately, it's not just in our best interest to act in such a manner so as to not allow yourself to be set back, when it needn't be so. Especially by those for whom the nature of their wishes remains unknown. It's a form of responsibility.
+
+If truly one recognizes the there exists both good and evil, joy and tragedy, being experienced in the world, then surely one must desire to maximize the good and the joy. - Except for, maybe, those bordering on psychopathy. They get a free pass, this time around.
+
+So, how can this be done? Should one believe that there is a difference, at the individual level, to be made? Is one able to tip the scale, so to speak? Is one capable of illiciting a perceptible change, by any temporal measure?
+
+Perhaps one estimates the superlative effect of one's existence towards diminishing tragedy, and the valuation came up short. Is there a measured degree of substantive reduction in tragedy that's too pathetically dismal to be worthy of concern? If it's not valuable enough, then it should follow that something else is more valuable. More worthy of precious time.
+
+Reducing tragedy can have its consequences, especially even just for thinking about it.
+
+Can this be met with courage?
+
+What is it to be courageous? What is conflated? What can be labelled as courage without qualification?
+
+Is there a method of critical analysis by which we can assert a state or behaviour is courageous?
+
+Who claims to have fear? Who claims to have courage? Is it courageous to lay claim to your fear?
+
+Initiatives can be sought and declared as being worthy of undertaking, by virtue of being a measure of courage. An endeavour which claims to contend with irrational or otherwise unwarranted fear, while promising that it itself, as demonstrated by careful labelling, could never be conceived of, motivated by or borne out of fear itself.
+
+So what of courage?
+
+An act of courage is an act performed steadfastly in spite of one's fear of a consequence to which one is aware. That is to say, the actor in question consciously acknowledges specific consequences that can result from the action, but is committed to performing that action for the value it yields.
+
+Some hypothesize that many acts are courageous, many more than fit that description. Small acts of courage -> perhaps there is a courage index, does it correlate with justice? While there may seem to be some sense to this belief, it may be premature to conclude as much. If one were to deconstruct a modest act of participation in a movement to which one has pledged allegiance, facilitated through a belief of congruence in ideals, or a belief in the power of a movement's symbols, then one might be inclined to clarify the notion of its consequences. If, for instance, the consequences were found to be within a range of social discomforts, such as having to endure words to which one would not normally wish to be exposed, but without a realistic expectation that such consequences also contain a threat to one's thriving and flourishing, or even to one's survival, then logic should compel one to dutifully make the distinction of risk.
+
+One might argue against this weighting of clashing consequences, especially if a dichotomy of ideals can be conceived, on the basis that the bias to protect one's ignorance, or retain some form of obedience, essential to one's rhythm of being, might manifest a most pronounced bond within the covalence of one's interwoven conception of reality. Though this predilection may, too, be one for which some degree of sense might lurk in support, it is acutely susceptible to the same pitfalls which predicate its formulation. This leads us back through a seemingly neverending cycle - perhaps a cycle of humanity, or perhaps just one obliged to the biological, or to the conception of finite systems sporting a means of evaluated reflection. A longstanding presumption in the eternal challenge to this cycle, is that in order to aim towards truth, one must embrace the conflict of exposing oneself to the strongest representation of the very ideas which one believes to be in defiance of those to which one is allegiant. A conflict that can only be adequately engaged, not be disproving those deceitful ideas, but aiming to prove them to see if they do, indeed, fall short.
+
+If truly one is allegiant to their ideas, then they will wish to represent them with robust and exhausting understanding within a context which includes the ideas that oppose them.
+
+Though our narration of history seems to contend that it is a tyranny of the majority which produces the greatest of tragedies, any such tragedy began with an intransigent minority having coalesced to a point of inflection. Our imperfect and incomplete view renders it impossible for us to identify the harbinger of intransigence by mere labelling of the aesthetic. It is, instead, incumbent upon us to focus on the health of process for the conversations themselves. 
+
+In order for the world to designate time for conversation, it will curtain time for blood.

courage.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+@feminism
+Female stereotypes:
+  - Weak
+  - Not independent
+  - Seductive
+  - Focused on fashion and presentation
+  - More concerned with form and appearance
+  - More concerned about how they are viewed by others
+  - More concerned with fitting into society
+
+@trans
+Trans issues seem to be a transmuted issue whereby a tragic truth of reality, which can be observed in society, can begin to be addressed in the present time because of how far we have come. And though these nuanced, sensitive issues should call for a coalition of purveyors of reason and inquiry to scrupulously work through ideas with an open mind and a sound process to evaluate ideas, we they are instead represented im their most simplest terms, prone to paralyzing degrees of obfuscation, and championed by actors who are quick to demonstrate a loathesome disdain for ideas which do not immediately proclaim uniformity of thought.
+
+@topics
+Reinforcing the stereotypes that homosexuals deal with. Undoing the progress made for one community because the baseline demand for radical change and disruption has been elevated past the point of examining the nuances upon which our present progress has fundamentally required.
+
+Previous progress made to grant self determination, especially by those who have been most marginalized, is now replaced with a need to assemble and designate generic enumerates bearing key politically visible patterns sufficient to tally artifical tallies of justice, where the numbers themselves are the evidence of choice, and the tooling of choice itself is a distant heretical memory.
+
+Brute forcing conversations which demand that viable issues must be interlocked into one simplified position, and recasting any question of the depth and authenticity for such alignments as an admissision of intolerance towards both issues.
+
+Antibias training - assume victims thus assume the guilty
+Is it always acceptable to ask for evidence?
+When is denial proof of guilt? Racism?
+When is agreement proof of consent for undefined manipulation?
+When is semantic disagreement evidence of class corruption, or a doomed interface of epistimology borne out of one's immutable characteristics?
+
+Guaranteed to be legitimate, at least in name
+
+How is standard of evidence the tool of a class or group?
+
+There is a pervasing idea that there exists a particular form of knowledge, encapsulated within a community, and that in order for such knowledge to be shared with the greater world requires that those bearing the characteristics associated with that community be computably present in specific quantities. If that's a reality bound to the typing of knowledge itself, then the corollary is that the knowledge is intrinsic to the characteristics of the members of that community, and that thus this knowledge could only be understood and wielded by the members of that community. In order for that to be true, one would need to assume that this knowledge cannot be understood by members of other communities, and that the sharing of knowledge is based only extrapolating an evaluation of power by group. What this means is that in order for knowledge to be shared, the best we can hope for is a neverending battle for power, and not the sharing of ideas themselves. What sort of conversation can teach and share ideas, if the presumption is that each side's knowledge is, by nature of the characistics associated with each group, confined.
+
+It's not just in your best interest to act in such a manner so as to not allow yourself to be set back by those who don't truly want to see you succeed. It's your responsibility.
+
+If truly you recognize that there are both good and evil, joy and tragedy, being experienced in the world, then surely you must desire to maximize the good and the joy.
+
+How do you do this? Do you believe you can make a difference? Are you able to tilt the scale, so to speak. Are you capable of illiciting a perceptible change, by any any temporal measure?
+
+Perhaps you have estimated the superlative affect of one's existence, towards diminishing tragedy, and the valuation came up too short. Is there a measured degree of substantive reduction in tragedy too pathetically dismal to be worthy of concern? If it's not valuable enough, then it follows that there must be something else that is more valuable. More deserving of our most precious time.
+
+What is it to be courageous? Why must we be courageous? What is conflated as courage? What is labelled as courage without qualification?
+
+Is there a method of critical analysis by which we can assert that a state, belief or behaviour is courageous?
+
+What is cowardice? Is it out of fear? Special knowledge? Understanding that pain can follow if one does not operate within a range of actions that are motivated and affected by fear?
+
+Who claims to have fear? Who claims to have courage? Is it courageous to lay claim to your fear?
+
+There are often initiatives which are sought, or declared as being worthy to be undertaken, as a measure of courage. What is an example of an initiative, claimed as a courageous endeavour, which might more likely be borne out of fear itself?
+
+What of a faux-courage endeavour, which claims to be relevant because of irrational and unwarranted fear, that is itself conceived of and motivated by fear?
+
+Where do we draw the line?
+
+An act of courage is an act performed steadfastly in spite of one's fear of a consequence to which one is aware. That is to say, the actor in question has acknowledged in their conscious thought what specific consequence can result from the action, but is committed to performing that action because the action is believed to yield value.
+
+Some might hypothesize that many acts are courageous, or that there are small acts of courage and that these acts may form a sum of greater courage, or greater value. While there may be some sense to this belief, it may be premature to conclude as much. If one were to deconstruct a modest act of participation in a movement to which one pledges an allegiance, facilitated through a belief of congruence in ideals, or a belief in the power of a movement's symbols, then one might be inclined to clarify the notion of its consequences. If, for instance, the consequences were found to be within a range of social discomforts, such as having to endure words to which one would normally not wish to be exposed, but without a realistic expectation that such a consequence also contains a threat to ability to thrive or, even survive, then some logic should compel one to dutifully make a distinction of risk. 
+
+One will argue against this weighting of clashing consequences, especially if a dichotomy of ideals can be conceived, on the basis that the bias to protect one's ignorance, or retain a form of obedience which has become essential to one's rhythm of being, might manifest the most pronounced bond within the covalence of one's interwoven conception of reality. And though this predilection may, too, be one for which some degree of sense might lurk in support, it is acutely susceptible to the same pitfalls which predicate its formulation. This leads us back through a neverending cycle, perhaps a human one, or perhaps just one bound to the biologic or through some finite system sporting a means of intelligent (and not necessarily at the level of Einstein) reflection. This cycle is a longstanding position, and an eternally challenged one, that in order to aim towards truth, one must always embrace the conflict of exposing oneself to the strongest representation of ideas which one believes to be in defiance of those ideas to which one is allegiant.
+
+If truly one is allegiant to these ideas, then they wish to represent them with the robust and exhaustive understanding.