Competency

I may need change the term. My vocabulary is in the balance of a prime factor, shifting to lefthanded in the negotiation with parkinson's. I was never a succesful communicator.

A particular of my opposition to Kant(ian) is that it demands memory, the categorical imperative, and one committed to a single persona that has to be remembered. So you are out, segregated, if you fail with memory toward the imperative, and you will fall foul of the imperative by acting on a memory that others deem errorful or in a ill will.

So firstly my version is that you only have to think about what you do. You may not remember, you may not be much able to remember enough before you act. That anyone - there's no private or public prosecution distinction here (police are for being on call to deal with troublings, to find and apprehend the troubling, to assist or dismiss citizens arrest (as per, give or take the typical definition) - can you bring you to trial.

The sense of competency does not at all mean you can be found generally competent and therefore let off the charge - which no matter how complicated would be on simple codification - for the point is to establish if your general or specific competency is employed by you to pretend otherwise on an issue, or it is entirely a pretense and your general competency is pretense. The specific offence, in terms of what results from establishing the status of your competency is prior to trial agreed by the aggrieved and a judge. The examination in trial, which needs jurors capable of examining the charge and those called on to give evidence or examine, can allow the judge to alter the charge. The aggrieved can also be brought to trial within that trial.
Outside of those deemed a danger to others who would face forseeable permanent incarceration, it is the restriction of liberty, wealth accumulation or specific employments that are to be established through trial by the judge.

This is simple sketch of what I think the law entirely absents from scrutiny. A difficulty is jury selection, I'd guess it should be voluntary and, maybe, limited to those who have been prosecuted, even successfully.

I haven't exercised much on this. I'd rather some did. Yes, I have read a lot of theory on justice. I've also seen the hits and misses of legal systems and I am persuaded by calls to think how it can be with police reduction, not as numbers only as activities and powers. I'm still not seeing the sociologists circling on this enough.

I'm doing a these things as footnotes to twitter @247ofthat, by the way.

23:7:21 Maybe a near elephant pregnancy duration since I was (re)introduced - and tweeted - to the existence of Pudendorf.
So this lecture - I've skipped the q&a, where the speaker may position himself - is as good as it gets (unless you've a lot of money, or a supportive dept) and gets how it is tough to track Pudendorf. Note I'm not aligned to Natural Justice. I've read of Grotius, it is pretty much the old story - well, democracy is there etymologically - of the maritime rule departing from what would be a pentecostal adherence to the chicanery of the 12 tables. Dedicatees of the maddening in divine arts and "symbolic" will have clues that science and shipping were a solid compact, a secrecy, before the Harrison chronometer controversy. And that I've said there's a novel in that, I fear that horror Neal Snowcrash get one squeezed out. Pynchon, in which we trust?
The link https://youtu.be/fC-W7tPLp9c

Le Chatelier

It is worrying to have the thought that history is record of reversion to physical reactions that achieve a salience of specific power relations closed to dependency on general conditions. That, in sum, there's more yet to The Myth of Metals.

Extending this to an unconscious systematizing, a quite independent mimicry that holds power up by social practices, meaning the power of the somatic is not so ridiculous.
Though I only the latter matrices in mind originally, that it had (all that poetic proto science of alchemy) arrived by culture absorbing other unexplained near everyday - naturally metal and ceramic craftspersons would note as much as horticulturing and brewers including apothecary herbalists. No doubt things would be put down to astrological influences etc.

So we have a somewhat mindfucking notion of the phracking of power.

Even if it were the basic biopower my argument is that it has to supplemented by practices, to conserve the substrates, maintain the vectors. So the only difference it makes - except, the example, to gold markets - in this moment is that it is too mindfucky. The solemn admission of our vulnerability to biological events and psychological frames was much easier.

Except I can't unsee what was before the mere haphazard strategies and tactics of wealth accumulators. Today I learnt of the railroad builders, the stock market dependent, buying the rights to canal sections and constructing weirs simply to stop the access by barges, in Britain. And I think that's the kind of thing, the land inherited by descendents, the filling of the House Of Lords even now, that matters. Matter, the Chaterlier Principle, is not a top down particular determinant, as if some extradimensional power. Though it is, I would go as far as to say, rigged into that position. All that is gold is not only glittering?

A section that may continue to take apart New Historicism

I may not be altogether clued up on this so I'm going to start, I write this only to note the below, this entry as one that gets updated (yes I know that is possibly remote possibility).

The Dr Stock matter. If the dr is convinced of New Historicism then the dr has made it god and, as I tweeted long ago (@247ofthat previously 247humanLuhmann), the dr has a complicated relationship with a deity force. Though obvious in the participants of NH, it may be, there is that deconstruction to be made of what is it that a monocultural account of living, of something in fantasy yet for reality to capable of (a suitable term) engendering fantasy? I do mean the phrase in its plurality. So much I expect has opened on this already. Not least the historical growth of "white" as ethnos largely through the Macaulayian I suspect. We cannot overlook the impression made on other societies by the technological advantages a faith (where doubtless the hypocriscy was noted as mysteriously part of the central dogma) that was conquering them. I'm pointing to a universality that the dr has ambivalence in. We all do, it just depends on our command of leisure utilitising psychoses. I think, in Veblen way, that leisure and Horney neurosis are the same thing - I cannot state they are synonomous given that I've no desire to bring a utilitarian ethic over the definitions.
You may guess correctly that existential questions are the matter, especially as to the way the agent, the subject, suffers a moral journey - one we cannot save them from, as it were - through this complex I'd guess is the animal element, of many or the only, that makes us a different animal.

Whilst saying pluralism, and nothing of science.
I do commend the Praeger view to replace the Baconian so far as any life science goes. The blue skies of physics and chemistry, however, needing for their own purposes methodological experiments (no, not on animals either) are more Praeger-like because the distinctly human control of material is really their pursuit. Plurality of analyses of data, of methods, is as far as science can allow that, and especially on anything living. Allowing algorithms into the wild of the web or releasing traceable contaminants into populations or even allowing microwave technologies or other electromagnetic systems to be deployed on the grounds that there is no sure connection with biological harms.
I'm not going into STS beyond this, which I use Metho-Presentism to argue for.
Praeger was an irish founder of the British Ecological Society. Presently I fear I don't have the literature to back up my claim on observing the life form as it is niche making, with that being what is living.

(tired)