Issue 118 - Human Rights

[Phil8659]

I was asked if I could support my statement that we have one and only one human right. Now, I do not exactly know what the author of the request had in mind, perhaps expecting that I could insert intelligence into a mind that incapable of comprehending what is already a historical fact. I just do not know. But the following I do know.

It is a fact that a mind is responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides. All social law is based on that fact. All social discourse is based on that fact, but more fundamental that this, is that every form of life consists of a number of life support systems, i.e. each one has a particular job to perform in order for the organism to live. Plato expressed this fact about purpose, which Aristotle put into a simple sentence:
Everything which has a function exists for that function.
I.e. a radio exists so that we may hear sound. A toaster exists to make toast. etc.
Plato applied it to life support systems, no life support system can do the job of another. The eyes cannot hear for us, the nose cannot see for us, etc.

The mind is an information processor, designed to effect life supporting behavior over the whole body. All information is processed in binary which produces four specific categories of grammar forming a Grammar Matrix: Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry; each one of them used to perform the task of producing predictive behavior.

It is also known that all grammar systems can do is parse information, i.e., the relative difference, the verb, is a given, and all we do is shape information to make useful products.

As Plato stated, between any pair of correlatives is one and only one relative difference. i.e. within any shape is a single material.
So think of it like this. No matter how complicated an arithmetic problem is, the result is just one number. Or again, binary recursion can only produce a binary result.

Or if it is getting too complicated for you. We always produce just one thing. And that product is either produced in accordance with a valid system of grammar or it is not. i.e. we have one, and only one right, human literacy. Therefore, we are either literate or not.
As an information processor, we are either doing our job, just like any other life support system correctly or we are defective.
It is as simple as that.


I.e. the mind produces just one thing, but it is always the product of binary recursion. Therefore, we have one right, as Biblically stated, to learn judgment, and one wrong, the inability to learn it.

Now, if one is too stupid to follow the reasoning, it is certainly not because they are right.

[Phil8659]

Lastly, I know something else. The ability to parse information for the good of survival is a biological given. When people state that they are the authority for judgment, that they can grant or deny any behavior which they like of another person, that person is a sick and dangerous sociopath.

There are two sources, which predict the outcome of human evolution, a time when Nomocracy rules over man, i.e. behavior in respect of literacy. The Bible, and Socrates.

Now the Bible predates Socrates in that respect, and its metaphors remain consistent well over the life-span of any human being. The only conclusion I can draw is other forms of intelligent life in the Universe, which is testified by our own observations.

Now, Plato used Socrates metaphorically in order to aid in our evolution, however, it is clear that mankind has yet to come even close to the level of literacy expressed even by Plato.

So, no matter how many times you multiply 1 x 1, the result is always one. Secondly, When you define any thing, perceptible or intelligible, the product is just one thing.
Relation to self is inadmissible, which is one way of stating the Law of Identity. Those who claim we have many rights, confuse the particular with the universal by which we are defined.

Definition is of a thing, not the products of a thing.

[Phil8659]

It also stands to reason, as intimated in the Bible and said directly by Plato, the only member of our Grammar Matrix which can provide perceptible paradigms of all reasoning is Geometry. Geometry places the two elements of a thing, relative and correlative in a one to one correspondence with the symbol system of the grammar. So, as Plato stated, a true philosophy strives to demonstrate in a figure, not pull nonsense out of their ass.

And, it also stands to reason, that as we can only parse information, one can either strive to learn grammar, or spin stories like children's story tellers, i.e. so called theory. When one defers to theory instead of fact, they are as children. Simple minded.