additional ruminations on the meanings of a quote:

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

"As slaves, we build the society that dictates our freedom illegal. Incite insight. Don't agree to compete. One who has NO agenda cannot fail. One who does nothing succeeds at everything." - Jon Gee

"As slaves, we build the society that dictates our freedom illegal."

Money is the chain that binds the poor into doing the bidding of the rich, and thus (for the guards of "prison planet" earth can no more escape and leave to anywhere else than the prisoners) enslaves them both to one another. The poor NEED the carrot on the stick held out before them by the rich, and the rich NEED the poor to carry them around places. Thus, both are enslaved to one another; that is the feedback-loop at the core of the metastasizing cancer of human society. This society then makes Laws the sole function of which is to make us feel guilty for doing things our survival necessitates. If we stand "guilty" before the Law, we are honored as society's "prisoners" and given free room and board - just not allowed to leave or travel. Thus, it is not possible to obey the Law and to live free, both; and ultimately, it is not better to be found "guilty" by the Law, although this suspect position as subject of the Law is presumed true of us all regardless.

"Incite insight. Don't agree to compete."

These statements effectively attempt, yet fail to utterly, cancel each other out. One is a positive affirmation, a commandment stating what thou shalt do. The other is a negative denunciation, a commandment stating what thou shalt NOT do. However, if the subject of both is the same, as it MAY prove to be, then one cannot both DO and NOT DO whatever is the subject of the commandment. Thus, it remains to examine what is being said to DO and what is being said to NOT DO, to determine if they are the same. If one "incites insight" in the minds of others, the result is that they will attempt to "compete" with you over this content. However, it remains possible to "incite insight" without simultaneously "agreeing to compete" if one ignores the input from one's contemporary audience, and focuses only and entirely on their own output of content. Thus it is this line of reasoning to which I am referring when I join these thoughts in this context.

"One who has NO agenda cannot fail. One who does nothing succeeds at everything."

These comments amount to a zero-sum logical tautology in the same way implied, yet not used, in the earlier contraposition between a positive and a negative commandment. Effectively, the two statements cancel each other out. If you have an agenda, you are doing something. However, to do nothing and to have no agenda, one cannot do anything at all. Effectively, however, even "being" is "doing" something, and unless one can stop being and resume again at whim, then one cannot possibly succeed at the effort to "do nothing," for it as impossible and self-contradictory as to "be nothing." In a realm defined as existence, "non-existence" cannot exist. Thus, the only thing that does not exist is non-existence. In short, success is impossible if the goal is defined as inaction and non-existence. Even desiring such is an agenda, and therefore cannot result in successfully achieving the act of inactivity, opposed, as it is, to being itself. Because these twin comments cancel each other's values out, however, their combined absolute value itself amounts to zero or "nothing," and by doing so, proves "nothingness" itself CAN exist.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

from comments on notes:

a "fake constitution"? There's no such thing as a "real" one, especially not in nature. It's not like they grow on trees; no, to make a constitution it is necessary to kill and cut down a tree, and to harvest its bark to make paper, and thereon to write down one's presumptuous "laws" as dictates upon, from above, and symbolically over nature. No, a "constitution" counts as an "artificial" or "man-made" law. The periodic table of elements on the other hand, is debatable. If such a "key" exists anywhere in nature, I doubt it conforms to the table structure given in the current common format therefore. Even so, this would be more like a "list of ingredients" than a "codex of laws," so really the periodic table is no more a "natural" version of a man-made "constitution" than a "constitution" is alike anything in nature, being, as it is, man's "artificial law," and thus based on inevitable murder by "humans" for all subject to it, even the trees themselves.

the concept of a "legal fiction" should be, itself, considered a fiction in legalese. Also, if the "periodic table of elements" is a "list of ingredients," and is considered a "legal fiction," does that mean that the cook-book of figurative "recipes" for recombining these "ingredients" - a relative legal codex describing "natural" and "artificial" laws alike in one lexicon (and duly titled "how to serve mankind") would be only a "white-lie" intended as a joke? I think not.

in other words, if there were a second deluge, and a vast, global tsunami were swallowing up all the land masses of earth, there would be every lawyer in the world with a pen and adding-machine there to greet it with an audit and say, "I'm sorry, mr. huge wave, but you cannot exist, because it says in my record of accounts that your status has you penciled down as a legal fiction." Hence the joke that goes: "10,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the sea." HAHA.

also, hence the joke about "man-made" or "artificial" laws: "When is a law not a law? Whenever there aren't any cops around." Meaning, if no one exists who is willing to "enforce" any given idea as a "Law" in itself, then no given idea can be considered a "Law," that is, in any situation applicable to anyone but the one whose idea it originally was. If I imagine a thing, it holds no bearing on anyone but myself, until I "enforce" agreement to my imaginary ideal onto others, and then it becomes the "Law" of that society. However, if an idea fails to be born a Law, it is not still-born by default. It may still prosper by being made into a "model" that can then benefit others, such as a new mechanical motor can benefit an engine, or such as a new kind of microchip may benefit a computer.

the very idea of a "man-made" or "artificial" law presumes force. To "make" something, we cannot summon an object from the subjective ether, so we must rearrange existing elements in our environment. To do this we must FORCE our "will" upon the surrounding terrain and reshape it as we see fit (although we usually fail to accomplish our goals and the result is all only a huge compromise at best). This is as much true of a "man-made" house as it is for a "man-made" law. To "make" a house we must cut down trees, mill their lumber into planks, and assemble these into an agreed upon structure using many nails, one hammer and our own brute force (alchemically expressed as our "blood, sweat and tears"). The same is true of a "man-made law" such as a "constitution;" it cannot exist until it has been built up and dwelt under and within a while; then it can be said to be "accomplished;" but before being summoned up as a legal arrangement, it did not ever exist aside from in the realm of ideas. Thus, in order that we may forcibly hew our own graven image into the marble surface of natural laws, we enshrine the idea in the marble hallways of our "Temple to the Law" that "man may imitate natural law by creating artificial laws himself." And this is, of course, false; merely left, long ago, as bait to catch a, by now long dead, concept of god.