I’m still around. Drama, unfortunately, is evident in my life. I’ve decided to shift from my last topic until the basics are established; at which point it will be resurrected and tied to the foundational principles.
My thoughts osccilate through ideas of self reference, self refutation,
purpose, meaning, consent, intent, value, life, death, suicide, thought.
It’s oft’ declared in these screens of discourse , that people don’t think, or that people don’t listen.
The echo of these declarations is the topic of this post.
How would one even go about evidencing that someone is incapable of contractual behavior, including, maybe, themselves? How does one tell that the being in question doesn’t bind their linguistic tokens; their thoughts to the external world, in a manner that is not always projective and self refuting?
In our legal system, we manage to seperate non-consenting parties from consenting parties in this manner. If their mental process doesn’t correspond to the evident result, we consider them non-consentual, and thus, remove them from contractual binding, and equally, we nullify their contracts. We deem that they are incapable of representing themselves, we deem that they cannot consent. It is determined, that their linguistic tokens are always self refuting of what they demonstrably produce. We consider them to be unconscious frauds, and that by declaring them unconsenting, we are protecting them and ourselves from the ravages of an oblivious linguistic token machine. We are doing it for the greater good, preserving their life and dignity for when and if they ever become
But, what if the very process we use to seperate these beings out, the very principles and inferences, can be used to generate an internally consistent definition of you or I, the accuser, as a non-consenting being as well? Do we let them free? Do we jail ourselves?
I’m going to use a test, to sort this out. The linguistic token, will be “suicide”, and respectively, “survival”.
When a person engages in an activity that they suggest to be survival, are they always demonstrably committing suicide? And when a person uses the linguistic token of “suicide”, are they always demonstrably, “surviving”? This certainly seems to qualify the criteria for selecting between non-consenting beings from
To begin this, I’ll highlight a concept that some here may already be familiar with to an extent.
The Suicidal Tension Line.
It can be observed and measured in any environment that linguistic tokens of purpose for survival are uttered. A simple way to measure it, is to select a group of individuals who possess no discernable suicidal ideation or impulse for two massive and seperate control groups. The more control groups, the more representative the statistical data. As these control groups go about their lives, their survival so to speak, the technician for the experiment introduces technology that decreases the tension a person will enounter when contemplating suicide
in staggered integrals to one of the control groups.
As the suicidal tension decreases, the rates of suicide should increase, unless the linguistic token of survival; the persons ideas, are actually corresponding to what survival is.
Everybody who exits life with this technology as suicidal tension decreases, is said to be within that integral of the suicidal tension line. In this manner, it can be determined that the being under observation was only a viable worker, producer, translator of purpose, as a result of suicidal tension. Which means, retroactively, that they weren’t consenting to the previous labor under the auspices of survival; that this behavior actually represents the self refutation of survival. This self refutation, lies dormant, invisible with high suicidal tension, but becomes abundantly clear when tension is decreased. The consent of the persons within the parameter of the suicidal tension line is being simulated with linguistic tokens, and demonstrably self refuting. The being, is not aware that they exist, in the sense that it would be considered that they are contractual beings.
What emerges from observing the two seperate groups, over time, is what systems become viably contractual when suicidal tension is slowly decreased. Every contract formed with a person sustaining as a result of that tension, is a process that is now known to be an intentional means of committing suicide to the research group; no different than decapitating yourself in effect, even though the amount of time spans over decades rather than milliseconds. A disease has been detected; and to the degree that one adopts or represents systems that are only stable with suicidal tension, they would intentionally be injecting this disease into themselves, again, intentionlly committing suicide. It is
literally like uttering the linguistic token “I do this to survive”, and then they decapitate themselves. Hardly, behavior characterized as consenting, or even particularly sane, given the internal consistency of current legal action with respect to consentual being.
So the question comes down to using the legal standards employed in a demonstrable manner that is internally consistent, and how this standard can reflect a person making such legal judgements; thus self refuting their
own accusation for which they take action. In this manner, it can be determined whether a judge or a lawyer or even a sideline critic, represents a system of concept binding that refutes itself and renders them the more substantive perpetrater of what they accuse another of.
One objection that I’ve encountered a few times, to someone who feigns to understand this, is that the systems maintained by the suicidal tension line are statistically insignificant. The irony is, I’m offering a method to prove whether or not their own linguistic token is bound or not; and so there could be, what one might call, a conflict of interest.
How would this happen? How can a being who can test whether they are demonstrably killing themselves or not, who claims to want to survive, not agree with, dismiss, or not even be interested in this mechanism? “Surely, it must be flawed… Every judge can’t be insane, or non-consenting. It’s absurd.”
There is much more occurring here than currently presented, but I want to establish some basic principles before connecting these dots.