Contra Columnis Quintus X

Biological Prelude to the Further Analsysis of a Racket

A Case Study in Philosophy become Ponerology become Criminology

(I would say "become Scatology", but "shit" is not in itself an evil racket in this context, and I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence or knowledge concerning the biological nature of shit)

So now I explain something I have often said.  Rackets are by nature clandestine or partially clandestine, operations.  The unjust portion, which is the substance of the entity under discussion, is the controlling factor, and is in some sort of "symbiosis", quite literally, with the "host" which operates as its food source and defensive perimeter against any hostile environment.  In effect, it is a parasite, if and only if the host would have been an independent entity without its adherence to the "unjust portion".  It would seem that in life forms even in their "independent" form in this world, there is a sort of justice to the roles of the various tissues and organs, and the various fluids and biochemical substances, which when taken together functions, at least relatively, as a very optimal symbiosis of one another, and not necessarily in any way inappropriate to each elements potential.  We seem to have at least some inkling of a fully integrated organism which is not improperly sorted as to any of the elements which comprise it, each according to its ability, as each is sustained to live out its role in a way that manifests the utility of its tendencies for itself strictly as part of this organic whole. 

Some would die sooner than others, perform more menial roles or more glamorous ones, but this would take place according to each element's fitness for its role and its unfitness for all other roles, or most other roles without some distortion in optimal function taking place.  And each role will have an element serving the whole and being served by the whole within that role in a way that would not otherwise exist unless, in fact, that entire organism can be improved.  Otherwise it would be "perfect" and there could not be a better assignment of functions per the structure and vice versa.  So in fact there could be "better specimens" only if there could be "better species".  And this extends up and down the categories established by Linnaeus for the various forms of life so that they may be all considered in some sense part of an "organic whole of life".

But let us look more closely and see that in this "whole of life" it is already apparent that there are ecosystems wherein these life forms take advantage of one another just as if they couldn't leave each other alone.  It certainly does look like a bunch of tissues and fluids and organs et.al. cavorting with one another in varied relationships of coexistence or co-occuring of life, or a "symbiosis".  Many forms of symbiosis involve simply "taking advantage of" one life form by another and vice versa in many cases, so that one life form may benefit from what another refuses, and does so in such a way that it either does not harm or even benefits the one who refuses something. Any biologist worth his salt will fill all the blanks for you in that paragraph by simply referring to his knowlege of his subject, where there are all sorts of examples of this found in all kingdoms of life.  And these exist also between kingdoms of life, where the most foundational distinctions in life forms exist.  Whatever the fundamental "protoplasm" of life and however it diverged, the evidence of the relations between life forms in the various kingdoms and within their "clades" shows that they will relate functionally as distinct life forms which can either go about their business more than one degree of freedom from one another or, whether they can or not, that they will operate in such a way that, at least overall, these forms of life will manifest as large scale symbioses called ecosystems.

The cycles of life which are found to exist and can be mathematically analyzed with a precision limited only by the depth and breadth of data collection concerning the life cycles in themselves.  What these reveal is that there is a limit to how far any of these cycles will permit changes in those elements which comprise them, and that these can be ascertained as cycles of attributes analogous to that found in a single organism. By all meaningful observations other than mere sensation, and even including that faculty (when these organisms interact directly), we see clear evidence of an organic process, but not necessarily a "perfect" one, and perhaps not even a "just" one.  Yes, I know there are those who don't know what "justice" has to do with "life".  I'm getting them and their cohorts shortly.  Indeed, I'm here simply laying the metaphysical, and hence metabiological foundation for that discussion, which will get sharply evident when I switch from the essence and mode of these phenomena and shift into "fifth gear", so to speak, when discussing the manner of these phenomena and specifically with an eye to the injustice of the matter.  And I must insist that the expression of these understandings, which I've gained from observation and analysis of raw and sourced data, is my pleasure, and this is nothing short of the honor that I have been bestowed to take it as my proper duty as a devotee of Truth, and in simply one of those roles of devotion as a philosopher, but simply as an Honest Man.  I can Rightly say here that those who have been in concerted and deliberate opposition to my performance of my duties, accorded me by all factors (circumstances of birth, place in space and time, place in history, inherent nature and Heaven-Bestowed Vocation), and are a FRAUD TO THE CORE, AND IN ANY EVENT ARE ALSO PARTICIPANTS IN A MASSIVE RACKET WHICH I HAVE HERETOFORE GIVEN ADEQUATE DESCRIPTION.

So on with the foundation.  We cannot properly assess any structure without a good look at its foundation, just as we couldn't have properly built one without that measure.  But that will begin to go into "measure theory", in the understanding of which I am a pure novice.  So I will have to maintain a set of "qualitative intutions" which I think link up with that science in relevant ways, and introduce those intutions at a either a more appropriate juncture in this or in future articles, but it should be mentioned as relevant because it is crucial in analyzing the "Big Data" which, if made available to a just analysis, would require that science as part of its heuristics for empirically detecting certain levels of fraud.  However, I should mention also that mathematics between Algebra and Linear Algebra should be sufficient for getting to the foundational roots of it.  The simpler math, fortunately, can handle the "unjust portion" of this phenomenon.  That's the aspect, the "beating heart" of which pumps all the "ichor" of corruption that gives the beastly racket and its primary beneficiaries their "life".  

In that, this monstrosity is not much different than any form of life of any conceivable kind.  It may be a tribute to my objectivity, and to the simplicity of the tools and materials of this analysis which are required, to approach it simply in that way.  At the foundation of the interactions of life forms we can see certain major "fields of action" which are all underlying the phenomena of their being observed.  Biology itself is the "discovery" of these fields of action which are both descriptive and explanatory of the nature of life forms otherwise readily perceived and understood in intuitive ways by perhaps even casual observors, such as children.  And you better bet it is sad racket which actually fails to respect that fact, for there are children who already, right now (based on publicly parleyed evidence) are unfortunately gaining first hand experience with the "unjust part" of the entire racket (and the entire racket in this case and in any case, outer front to inner den, is unjust).

What we see in these fields of action, discovered and conceptualized by biologists since long before the science was "official" in modern terms, are forms of activity which "define" life.  We can describe processes such as breathing, digestion, circulation, motility (in some cases mobility), adaptive response to "stimuli" taken broadly so that this includes amoeba and other entities), and finally the "reproductive process".  These all seem to be present.  Note that "sentience" is not actually included in this basic and, to my lights, comprehensive list of attributes which tends to well-describe the actions taken by "life forms". 

Now if those exist at the individual level, and they all do in some way, they also exist for all members of the group which are of the "kind" that is the same as that individual, wherever and whenever those entities overlap in their actual substantive similarity.  We'd expect these attributes to have a root in some causal substance, and that is simply understood on the basis that causation is the "root heuristic" employed by human cognition to undertand things, and that is sufficient for describing that process.  As this process involves referring to things as any observation must, and then referring that to patterns in observation which those observations must demonstrate (and do), and then as this indicates ways to actually determine the cause as distinctly manifest through the effect as a model of processes already more elementally understood as though "axioms" (physical, chemical, biochemical... in a series of explanatory fields), annd as these complexified observations yet map onto strong evidence for their relevance to the phenomena already observed, this is demonstrated as science if anything could be.  

Technique for discovering what is the cause of some phenomena understood as the "effect" eventually reaches some elemental domain of effect which, to that domain of understanding, are "their own" cause.  That is determined when causal relevance of what is further explanatory of those elements cannot be determined for effects which proceed from those elements, yet can be causaully determined in reference to them.  So there is even a sort of pattern observable in the realm of life in general, where it turns out that this "cognitive" behavior occurs in some forms of life.  Even now, we may be minimalistic about our reference to "sentience", and that does no direct damage to our analysis and its sufficiency for understanding the phenomenon at hand.  But it should be added also that if we were to understand the phenomenon which undergirds cognition as such then we would have to appeal to phenomena which are understood only as some form of sentience.  Without having to go on in that direction here, let's just continue with the examination of certain forms of behavior found in ecosystems which are proper analogues to behavior descriptive of life within species and specimens.