the law giver transcends the law by necessity, an expression of him, but not the totality of him. elsewise, it is rather a repetition of law internalised from elsewhere (feedback/validation), or rationalization of an impulse written into its own design, law set by some previous architect (ie, solipsism).

consider, to calculate for instance the trajectory of the moon under relativity is (relatively) trivial. but how to obtain a knowledge of the moons future states in actual fact? certainly this would inevitably have to involve also anything beings might possibly do to it (perhaps the secret nsdap moon base is discovered as is nuked by the cathedral before the second coming).

as we know, information gained from analysis changes outcomes (to the constant consternation of neo-classical econs), and with every passing instant the context of the game also changes. in a sense, we could say that changes to the universe change the rules of the universe. could we not also say that this too is following a more fundamental principle? perhaps, but as noted, to ‘calculate’ the universe would mean being fully transcendent, divine. hence i dare say, in no society is there ever an absolute sovereign, but ever is there also sovereignty and hierarchy. and hence, we again see trust as the prior to living, to trust rulers, subjects, and all variations thereof, to operate beyond the pale, as they inevitably will.

so, why bother with systems at all then? a system is useful because it can be used, how to say, naively. consider money, that ever useful shorthand demonstration for the transcendent nature of value. certainly we could perhaps speak of a quantitative framework of say, dollars (ie, what action will definitely result in more dollars). but obviously this framework is also subject to revision, (and indeed, is under constant revision). adepts (autists) at such systematic approaches to value (or anything, really) are functioning essentially as meaty difference engines, cogs in some more transcendent leaders machine (not that theres anything necessarily wrong with that). the solipsist does not (cannot) understand the tradition the same way as the brahmins they follow, but without the tradition, they (ie, society), are undone.

and so in conclusion, worry not about achieving or enforcing universal and absolute principles, for if they are indeed universal and absolute, they are already the case, and with us in every case.

I don’t think we where aiming to become the hub of reaction, rather we wanted a space for exploring certain questions.