Bhakta David Nollmeyer
Ex Deux Maquina, literally the Ghost in the Machine, the spirit of the undertaking, is a component of MOEC which helps construct the intent of the system as well as boundaries. In the abstract such develops from a dialectical debate between two actors. One proponent argues pro the platform of eternal law, absolute morality, and the con argues the latter, materialism and relative morality. The former is more akin to orthodoxy while the latter tends towards revisionism. What prima facie appears as logical debate is no more than a subjective boundary dominated entrapment, which is designed to morphogenetically expand into the suprasystem MOEC.
Cambridge Law School is alleged to have developed this model. It is argued that this paradigm contains tactics and fallacies that the United Kingdom has used, as well as other empires in creating, sustaining, and controlling subjects as well as other powers throughout history.
The above is a platform which enables one to trace the origins and beginnings of events that will help define their nature and to demonstrate if consequent events are bound by a law.
All of histories concepts of Eternal Law are available for consideration. As absolute truth there can only exist one. Two simultaneous eternities cannot exist at the same time.
Two constants for all perspectivism is the hierarchy of motility and the biological hierarchy of needs. The two structures are reflective of the materialist scientific argument with a varied degree of acceptance from theistic traditions. Both models may be used to argue sources of identity. The first structure, the Hierarchy of Motility is used to explain movements of all levels of life forms.
It is to be noted in the main that what appears to be a logical debate is biased towards eternal law and absolute morality. Conversely the opposition or the con faction will be compensated at different structural levels throughout MOEC. The materials generated by Ex Deux Maquina are seen in content and boundaries throughout all components. The system will mutate as it attempts to sustain or survive.
It is clear that MOEC is an attack on religion and manmade. The theistic materials are of high quality but there implementation is dubious. Hence the process and ends reflect more of a labelling event.
The crucial boundaries of the system propose that there is a Godhead. It is Christian therefore it must be a triune Godhead and monotheistic. The model is biased towards the orchestration of Christianity as revealed in the Cambridge King James Red Letter Version or the Vulgate. The con will rebut with a materialist presentation that shall include arguments as scientific determinism, relative morality, and the multicultural diversity of persons.
The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas as Summa Teologia versus V.I. Lenin's Empirio Criticism: Refutation of a Reactionary Philosophy frame the purpose of a legitimate debate as to pursue a rational discussion of facts to perceive the truth and do justice within a conclusion. Cases exist where the solution may be ontological or the efficient ends of the supporting arguments. There is also the probability that yielding to the strongest argument will reign over a conclusive victor.
After the finality of the debate the solutions or facts must be promulgated. If such is eternal law such should reign in the event of future's futures for the edification of all persons. The alternative of a victory by the relative position yields a result that shall be subject to revision over space and time.
As seen from the present, the model supra, the revelation or discovery seeks to yield right from the strongest platform or law for all consequent acts. This would be from eternal law as the source of consciousness and intelligence. This posits that all entities are in a relation with this law to realize such or participate to the maximum benefit.
The debate structure exists as only semantic, solely a mechanism to radiate ideas and acts from a conspiratol core. The head of the Cambridge Law School argues the pro eternal law position and the con or materialistic natural law position is argued by a subordinate staff member. The content reflects an anthology of master works of theism, philosophy, and science. The traditional liberal arts program is the model.
An epistemological or theory of knowledge axiology is used to establish the relation of the human towards other relations with objects in one's environment, oneself, and the deity. The process is of catholic derivation but is very universal in its coverage. The eternal law position is bound to argue all in existence in descent from this law. The materialist position must argue construction from natural law and an upward movement from assumptions in discovery of a truth. The epistemology may be stated as such:
It is to be noted that in theism God must exist as an a priori being. MOEC is a perspectivism in the correct analysis as an upward ascent from the particular mortal human. The materialist platform is differentiated more between universal abstract science, human preference, and emotion. The victorious side is the eternal law position as that of the Roman Catholic King James Bible interpretation versus the refutation of Empirio Criticism by Lenin. There are host of other profiles basically of great master persons of religious thought and other great thinkers. Consequently the spiritual or material content is used to develop natural and artificial groupings of individuals and collectives. As seen Ex Deux Maquina is an pre archetypal support in the construction of the Organic Cell Model which is more of an archetype as it's form and content attempt to remain consistent through its beginnings, morphology, and ends where the model attempts to use such as the new or first pattern.
Theism is bound to argue the generation of things mind sensation object. Conversely materialism will argue the generation of things object sensation mind.
Is everything in creation ordered and bound by a set of absolute laws or relativity? Can mankind choose their own laws? The construction of Ex Deux Maquina is similar to the chemistry or more accurately the DNA of the Organic Cell Model; an artificial virus manmade to mimic legitimate philosophy only to the point of exposing itself to adapt to new conditions. This will be self evident in the mutations that occur through a pre staged debate with room for some spontaneous discourse.
Liberalism versus Conservatism
The original discussion that I was presented reflected a debate over whether LGBTi persons should be permitted in law enforcement and the military. Several objects were presented which were the object of attack. Marijuana use was the first object to be attacked. Also of a very high degree of interest were homosexuality, capital punishment, nuclear weapons and power, abortion, prostitution, and vegetarianism and veganism are the first cases to be considered.
If a LGBTi officer male or female was being attacked, the issue of being outed or exposed is paramount. The payoffs of Prisoner's Dilemma are paramount. The exact algorithm of Cambridge is impossible to discern. I would clearly prosecute prostitution before marijuana not after. The consideration here is arbitrary. I believe the Liberalism of Cambridge would argue under peacetime the following:
Capital Punishment (Illicit)
Nuclear weapons and power (Illicit in theory but a tool in hand)
The above analysis would result in correct consideration of magnitude. The debate I heard was a comical ad hominem attack in which a LGBTi officer was able to sustain hostile innuendos.
The Ex Deux Maquina was allegedly a confrontation between Trinity Christian Theologians and Cambridge Lawyers whom were running MOEC. There was an reneged agreement between the two parties to cede control to the victors. It appears that Francis MacDonald Cornford is being posited as the factor that swung the contest to Trinity. However the Lawyers simply played along to learn his understanding of Greek Tyrannies of whose models extensively develop the criminal enterprise of MOEC.
The net effect appears to be an Undermining of John Stuart Mill's theory of the Hedonistic Calculus presented in On Liberty.