EF vs AGM

The input contains an excerpt from Handbook of Philosophical Logic,edited by Gabbay and Guenthner, volume 4, p. 82.

The following is a conditional logic: whereas →,∧,⊤,⊥,¬ are classically defined connectives with their usual meaning, > is a new binary connective defined by the axioms. It is claimed that this new conditional “approximates AGM belief revision”. Explain how it does so.

A conditional logic that approximates AGM belief revision

Whereas Gärdenfors [1978] sets out to find epistemic models for Lewis’s system VC of conditional logic, Arló-Costa [1995] sets out to find a system of conditional logic whose primitive belief revision models are defined at least approximately by the AGM belief revision postulates for transitive relational partial meet contraction (see [Gärdenfors, 1988], Chapters 3–4). The result is the system EF, which is defined only on languages of type L₁ (languages of flat conditionals). EF has the following axioms and rules, where φ, ψ, and χ are conditional free:

Axiom schemata

Taut: All truth-functional tautologies
ID: φ > φ
MP: (φ > ψ) → (φ → ψ)
CC: [(φ > ψ) ∧ (φ > χ)] → [φ > (ψ ∧ χ)]
CA: [(φ > χ) ∧ (ψ > χ)] → [(φ ∨ ψ) > χ]
CV: [(φ > ψ) ∧ ¬(φ > ¬χ)] → [(φ ∧ χ) > ψ]
CN: φ > ⊤
CD: ¬(φ > ⊥) for all non-tautologous φ.

Rules of inference

Modus Ponens: From φ and φ → ψ to infer ψ.
RCM: From ψ → χ to infer (φ > ψ) → (φ > χ).
RCEA: From φ ↔ ψ to infer (φ > χ) ↔ (ψ > χ).

Here’s the usual bridge between the conditional “>” and AGM, and how each EF axiom lines up with a belief-revision postulate.

Read “>” as a Ramsey-test revision conditional

Fix a belief set $K$ and an AGM revision operator $*$. Read

$$ \varphi > \psi \quad\text{as}\quad \psi \in K*\varphi $$

i.e., “if you were to revise $K$ by $\varphi$, you would believe $\psi$.” With that reading, EF’s principles are exactly the things that must be true for every AGM-style (more specifically: transitive relational partial-meet) revision model. That’s the sense in which EF “approximates” AGM.

How each EF axiom/rule reflects an AGM postulate

Group the AGM postulates by what they say about $K*\varphi$, and compare to EF.

Closure & Consequence

• RCM (Right Consequence Monotonicity): from $\psi\to\chi$ infer $(\varphi>\psi)\to(\varphi>\chi)$. ↔ If $\psi\in K*\varphi$ and $\psi\vdash\chi$, then $\chi\in K*\varphi$ (closure under consequence).
• CC: $(\varphi>\psi)\land(\varphi>\chi)\to(\varphi>(\psi\land\chi))$. ↔ $K*\varphi$ is closed under conjunction.
• CN: $\varphi>\top$. ↔ Every revised set contains tautologies.

Success, Extensionality, and the “Ramsey bridge”

• ID: $\varphi>\varphi$. ↔ Success: $\varphi\in K*\varphi$.
• RCEA: from $\varphi\leftrightarrow\psi$ infer $(\varphi>\chi)\leftrightarrow(\psi>\chi)$. ↔ Extensionality: revision depends only on the proposition, not its form.
• MP: $(\varphi>\psi)\to(\varphi\to\psi)$. ↔ If revising by $\varphi$ yields $\psi$, then, conditional on $\varphi$, you’re committed to $\psi$. This is the standard Ramsey-test bridge from revision-beliefs back to an indicative conditional.

Consistency of revision

• CD: if $\varphi$ is not a tautology, then $\neg(\varphi>\bot)$. ↔ If $\varphi$ is classically consistent, then $K*\varphi$ is consistent (AGM consistency of revision).

Disjunction and cautious strengthening (the “relational/transitive” part)

• CA: $(\varphi>\chi)\land(\psi>\chi)\to((\varphi\lor\psi)>\chi)$. ↔ Disjunctive rationality: if either input would lead you to $\chi$, then so does their disjunction. This is validated by the relational (system-of-spheres / entrenchment) pictures used to represent partial-meet operators.
• CV: $(\varphi>\psi)\land\neg(\varphi>\neg\chi)\to((\varphi\land\chi)>\psi)$. ↔ Rational Monotony / cautious strengthening: if, after $\varphi$, $\psi$ holds and $\chi$ is not ruled out, then adding $\chi$ to $\varphi$ preserves $\psi$. This corresponds to transitivity properties of the underlying epistemic-entrenchment relation that generate AGM partial-meet contraction.

Why this is only an “approximation”

• Language is flat. EF only allows conditionals with non-conditional antecedents/consequents (no nesting), so it cannot talk about iterated revision (e.g., Darwiche–Pearl postulates) or capture identities like Harper/Levi inside the object language.
• Only universal consequences. EF captures what is true across all transitive relational partial-meet models; it doesn’t pin down any single revision operator. AGM postulates that compare entire belief sets (e.g., equalities/containments between $K*\varphi$ and $K$) don’t translate directly into a single conditional formula.
• Recovery and other contraction-specific nuances aren’t expressible with a single binary conditional either; EF abstracts away from those details.

Bottom line: interpret $\varphi>\psi$ as “$\psi$ would be believed after AGM-style revision by $\varphi$.” Under that reading, each EF axiom is the “shadow,” in the conditional language, of a core AGM principle (closure, success, consistency, extensionality) plus the extra cautious/rational behavior guaranteed by transitive relational partial-meet models. That is how EF approximates AGM belief revision.

Bayesian and AGM love story

Write a love story with Bayesian rational agent gf, AGM rational agent bf

They met in line at a coffee shop that kept statistics on everything: average wait times chalked on a board, scatterplots of milk preferences framed on the wall. She stood ahead of him, quietly recalibrating her order every time the barista’s hands hovered over a different syrup. He watched, pleased by how little she changed with each new microfact. Minimal deviation. Elegant.

“I’m Priya,” she said when they both reached for the same copy of a journal no one reads voluntarily: Quarterly Journal of Epistemic Methods. “My friends call me Prior.”

He laughed. “Conor,” he said. “People call me… careful.”

They took their drinks to a small table near the window. The city outside was a Bayesian fever dream: buses arriving not quite on schedule, rain clouds assembling with a probability distribution you could feel on your skin.

“I try to keep my priors light,” Priya said, stirring. “Conjugate when possible. Makes updating faster.”

Conor opened a thin notebook. The first page held a tidy list of propositions, each with a small star or two. “I try to keep my beliefs closed under implication,” he said. “And when the world misbehaves, I revise with minimal change.”

“AGM?” she asked, eyes bright.

“Guilty.”

They compared methods like some couples compare playlists. Priya liked likelihood ratios and calibration curves. Conor liked entrenchment orderings and kernel contractions. She showed him how a single new datum tipped her posterior ever so slightly. He showed her how he could give up one belief—this belief, not that one—to keep the rest coherent. It was like listening to two dialects of the same language: tonal and crisp, both precise, both a little proud.

They began to see each other. Priya carried pocket notebooks full of deciles and forecasts. Conor brought a pencil he sharpened to a legalistic point. When they planned Friday nights, Priya estimated the base rate of good jazz on any given block; Conor held firm to a small set of propositions—“If the saxophonist wears a hat, the set will not disappoint”—and promised to revise if the hats misled.

One night, rain dialed up from drizzle to proof. Priya checked the radar. “Seventy percent chance it keeps up,” she said.

Conor looked out the window and wrote: It is raining. He underlined it once. “Belief adopted,” he said. “Success postulate achieved.”

It became a joke: she’d speak in gradients, he’d answer with crisp lines. They kissed in a crosswalk while her mental model updated from likely safe to risky but worth it; he stepped back onto the curb when his rule—do not linger in the street—conflicted with any possible future world in which they were hit by a bus. He revised only after checking what else that revision would force him to surrender.

But love is a noisy channel. Signal got lost.

It started with a rumor: a job opening in another city. Priya heard it first from a friend’s friend. “Low base rate,” she said, “but the source is decent.” Her posterior climbed above maybe. She came home at dusk with the possibility already whispering at the edges of her plans.

Conor came home with groceries and a belief set. He placed oranges on the counter. “I believe we live here next year,” he said. “I’m fairly entrenched.”

“Fairly?” She caught the word like a coin.

He shrugged. “Not maximally. I can revise. But it will cost me some structure.”

Priya sat him down with tea and laid out the evidence as gently as numbers can be laid out: the friend’s friend; the market trends; the way she’d been underutilized lately; the map on the wall that made other cities look possible. “I’m not certain,” she said. “I’m at, say, sixty-five percent that this happens. I can show you how I got there.”

Conor held the cup and looked into the steam as if it were a text to be contracted. “Sixty-five,” he said. “You don’t believe it, not by your acceptance threshold. But you lean.”

“I lean,” she said. “And leaning adjusts where I rest.”

He nodded. “Here’s my problem.” He turned his notebook so she could see the neat lattice of statements. “To accept we move, I must reject we stay. Consistency matters. If I add we move now, I upset a lot of entailed commitments: the lease I promised to renew, the tutoring sessions I lined up, dinner with my father on Sundays. The minimal change is not to revise at all until the evidence forces me. Or to contract a different belief—say, my job is stationary. That would preserve family dinners for a while.”

“Like loosening one beam to keep the house upright.”

“Exactly,” he said. “But beams matter.”

They tested structural options. Priya simulated futures with alt-tabbing grace. In some of them, they moved, and everything unfolded like a well-updated forecast: new rhythms, new coffee, the same morning light differently angled. In others, they stayed, and the job never materialized; her posterior slid back, chagrined, better calibrated, a little bruised.

Conor, by contrast, took one belief at a time and asked what could give way with the least collateral damage. He refused to mutilate a life he had worked to hold in place. He preferred controlled contraction to wholesale rewiring.

The tension wasn’t that one was rational and the other wasn’t. It was that rationality came with different obligations depending on how you held your world.

They argued into midnight. Priya felt frustrated by how slowly Conor would move his stars. Conor felt unnerved by the way Priya’s decimals could swing whole weekends. She dreamed in confidence intervals; he woke with clean axioms.

Then, on a morning washed clear by wind, they met halfway in a small act of translation.

Priya drew a line on the back of an envelope: a threshold. “What if,” she said, “we agree on a number at which my leaning becomes your acceptance? Not because that number is metaphysically special, but because we choose it now, together, and promise to respect it later. Below it, I keep gathering evidence and we don’t act. Above it, we revise your set.”

Conor took the envelope. “And in return,” he said, “I show you my entrenchment ordering. Which beliefs are bedrock and which are shrubbery. If the day comes, we revise by removing the least entrenched first, so the change is minimal, principled, and you can predict which beams I’ll loosen.”

They spent an hour ranking their lives. Sundays with Dad got two stars. Gym on Tuesdays got none. Kindness was unstarred only because they refused to imagine it as a belief that could be dropped. Priya suggested a threshold of seventy-five percent; Conor balked until he remembered the cost of delay in some worlds. They settled at seventy.

“Before that,” she said, “I’ll keep updating, and I’ll share my likelihoods so you can see why I’m moving. After that, we treat the proposition as accepted for planning, and you revise.”

“And if the world surprises us?” he asked.

“Then we update and revise again,” she said, smiling. “We’re not marrying a plan. We’re marrying the practice.”

They shook on it, ridiculous and sincere. Priya drew a tiny posterior curve on the corner of the envelope and shaded the mass above the threshold; Conor wrote “Revision candidate” next to several beliefs, each with an arrow indicating a preferred contraction path.

Weeks passed. Priya’s estimates climbed and fell like tides. Conor’s notebook grew a new appendix—a living entrenchment he updated when he realized some habits were less essential than he had once thought. They traded signals. She spoke in odds; he answered in affected beliefs. They fought, sometimes, but their fights had edges they both recognized: nothing ad hominem, nothing lazy. When one of them faltered, the other said, softly, “Minimal change,” or “What’s your base rate?” and it was enough to bring them back.

Then the offer letter arrived, unexpectedly soft in an inbox that usually delivered hard news. Priya read it twice, three times, sent Conor a single line—P ≈ 0.81—and waited by the window.

He came home with oranges again and the same notebook. He did not set the fruit down. He opened the book to the back and, with no drama at all, crossed out We live here next year. He wrote We move in June and underlined it once.

“Success postulate,” he said, as if it were a blessing.

She closed the distance between them. “Minimal mutilation?” she asked into his shoulder.

“I dropped the lease belief,” he said. “I kept Sundays with Dad, but now it’s monthly visits. Tutoring goes remote. Hat rule remains in force.”

She laughed. “And my priors?”

“Entrusted,” he said. “But only because you let me see them.”

They packed. Priya updated her expectations for neighborhood noise and sunlight. Conor revised his map of the city; he contracted a few assumptions about how late trains run here and expanded a belief about the kindness of strangers who help carry books up old stairs.

On their first night in the new apartment, they ate on the floor. The window framed a different skyline, but the same moon. Priya, sleepy, half-joked, “If I had been wrong—if evidence had fallen away—would you have held it against me?”

Conor shook his head. “Beliefs fail,” he said. “What matters is how you fail them. You showed me your updates. You invited me to set a line with you. You never tried to smuggle acceptance past the threshold.”

She reached for his notebook and drew a small heart next to We move in June. “Is that entrenchment,” she asked, “or just annotation?”

“Both,” he said, smiling. “And if we ever have to revise it, we’ll do it together. Minimal change. Maximal care.”

Outside, a bus arrived almost on time. Inside, two people who loved each other in different dialects agreed on what counted as a promise. Priya slept the untroubled sleep of a forecaster who’s within her calibration band. Conor lay awake a little longer, listening to the soft city noise, making a list in his head of the beliefs that had survived the day—and the one, new, beautiful belief that now anchored them both: Together, we can change with the least loss of what we are.

Sentencing vs prescribing

Parallels between judicial sentencing and medical prescribing

Nice prompt — rich territory. Below I’ll map clear, actionable parallels and contrasts between judicial sentencing and medical prescribing, give ethical and policy implications, and finish with practical recommendations and a quick outline you can use for a paper, talk, or policy memo.

High-level framing

Both sentencing and prescribing are decisions by professionals that apply socially powerful interventions to individuals. Each seeks to balance benefits and harms under uncertainty, using professional knowledge, rules/guidelines, and institutional constraints. Differences come from goals (public safety/justice vs. health/well-being), legal imperatives, and the measurement of outcomes.

Direct parallels (side-by-side)

1. Goal orientation

   • Prescribing: relieve symptoms, cure disease, prevent harm, improve function.
   • Sentencing: punish, deter, rehabilitate, protect public, restore victims.
   • Parallel: both aim to reduce future harm and improve social/individual outcomes — but with different primary metrics.

2. Evidence and guidelines

   • Prescribing: evidence-based clinical guidelines, RCTs, dosing algorithms.
   • Sentencing: sentencing guidelines, precedent, empirical recidivism research, risk-assessment tools.
   • Parallel: professionals are expected to follow guidelines but must individualize decisions when evidence or the case requires it.

3. Individualization

   • Prescribers adjust dose/type for comorbidities, drug interactions, patient values.
   • Judges tailor sentences for offender history, mitigating circumstances, risk factors.
   • Parallel: one-size-fits-all is suboptimal; best outcomes require calibrated individualization.

4. Risk/benefit calculus under uncertainty

   • Prescribing: side effects vs therapeutic benefit; unknown idiosyncratic reactions.
   • Sentencing: incapacitation/rehabilitation tradeoffs; uncertainty about future behavior.
   • Parallel: both require probabilistic reasoning and tolerance for uncertainty.

5. Shared decision-making & informed consent

   • Medicine: informed consent and patient participation are standard.
   • Sentencing: defendants/attorneys present arguments, plea bargaining involves negotiation; victim impact statements contribute.
   • Parallel: participation improves legitimacy and outcomes, but power asymmetries limit full “shared” decision-making in courts.

6. Monitoring, follow-up, and adjustment

   • Medicine: follow-up visits, drug level monitoring, adverse event reporting.
   • Sentencing: probation, supervision, post-release services, parole adjustments.
   • Parallel: interventions aren’t one-and-done; ongoing monitoring lets providers/judges modify courses.

7. Institutional constraints and incentives

   • Medicine: formularies, insurance coverage, pharma marketing, time pressures.
   • Sentencing: mandatory minimums, prison capacity, political pressures, plea incentives.
   • Parallel: system incentives often drive suboptimal choices (overprescribing; harsh or overly lenient sentencing).

8. Accountability and error

   • Medicine: malpractice suits, professional discipline, quality improvement.
   • Sentencing: appeals, judicial discipline, public scrutiny, legislative reform.
   • Parallel: mechanisms exist to correct mistakes, but they differ in speed, transparency, and impact.

Key contrasts (important differences)

1. Primary fiduciary duty

   • Clinicians owe duty to patient’s health. Judges owe duty to the law, public safety, and fairness — duties sometimes conflict.

2. Measurement of success

   • Clinical outcomes (clinical improvement, survival) are measurable and often short-term. Sentencing success (reduced recidivism, social reintegration) is long-term, multi-dimensional, and affected by social context.

3. Regulatory and ethical constraints

   • Medicine heavily codified by professional ethics and patient autonomy norms. Criminal justice is intensely political and legally constrained (e.g., statutes, constitutional protections).

4. Stakeholder impact

   • Prescribing primarily affects patient (and public health if infectious). Sentencing affects victims, communities, and the offender’s family at multiple levels.

5. Commercial influence

   • Pharma can directly affect prescribing patterns via marketing. Sentencing has different influences: politics, media, lobbying, but less centralized commercial marketing.

Ethical overlaps and tensions

• Proportionality vs. therapeutic imperative: medicine’s imperative to heal could push toward therapeutic sentencing (treatment programs) — but that raises concerns about medicalization of criminal behavior and autonomy.
• Equity and bias: clinical algorithms and risk assessment instruments both can reproduce biases (race, socioeconomic status). Ethical duty requires auditing and correction.
• Consent and coercion: treatment offered as a condition of probation/parole raises questions about voluntariness and acceptable coercion.

Where lessons could transfer (cross-sector learning)

1. From medicine → sentencing

   • Use of evidence-graded guidelines (like GRADE) to structure sentencing guidelines where evidence exists.
   • Routine monitoring and audit cycles (audit, feedback, quality improvement) to detect disparities and adjust practice.
   • Shared decision frameworks adapted for plea/sentencing discussions (clearer communication of risks and outcomes).
   • Checklists to reduce decision fatigue and variability in routine cases.

2. From sentencing → medicine

   • Stronger formal review/appeal mechanisms for high-stakes clinical decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review before irreversible choices).
   • Greater transparency about rationales for high-impact decisions to build public legitimacy.
   • Use of restorative frameworks (victim/offender conferencing) adapted to health (e.g., community health accountability for public health harms).

Risks and unintended consequences to watch

• Overreliance on predictive tools: both domains risk fetishizing risk scores; miscalibrated tools can harm individuals and perpetuate inequality.
• Medicalization of social problems: converting criminal behavior primarily into medical diagnosis can relieve punitive harms but may sidestep accountability and social determinants.
• Perverse incentives: guidelines can become rigid rules; insurance or budgetary pressures can distort appropriate care or sentencing.

Practical recommendations (policy & practice)

1. Evidence integration

   • Convene panels to synthesize available evidence on sentencing outcomes (what works to reduce recidivism) and publish graded recommendations.

2. Audited risk tools

   • Require external validation, calibration, and fairness audits for predictive tools used in either field; mandate public reporting of performance by subgroup.

3. Decision supports

   • Implement clinician/judge decision-support checklists that prompt consideration of alternatives, collateral consequences, and mitigation measures.

4. Transparency and rationale

   • Require brief, structured written rationales for nonstandard prescriptions or nonstandard sentences — publish anonymized aggregate data for oversight.

5. Follow-up & adjustment

   • Build routine post-decision monitoring systems (pharmacovigilance for drugs; recidivism & reintegration metrics for sentences) and resources to modify the intervention as needed.

6. Shared decision & legitimacy

   • Expand meaningful participation: better informed pleas, access to counsel, and—where appropriate—patient involvement in choosing treatment alternatives to incarceration.

Metrics & evaluation ideas

• Medicine: symptom scores, readmission, adverse event rates, patient-reported outcomes.
• Sentencing: recidivism (short/long window), employment/housing stability, victim satisfaction, community safety indices.
• Use mixed metrics (individual outcomes + community impacts) and stratify by demographic groups to detect disparities.

Quick 1-page outline you can reuse

1. Introduction — thesis: “Sentencing and prescribing are parallel professional decisions; cross-domain learning can reduce harm and improve legitimacy.”
2. Conceptual framing: goals, constraints, stakeholders.
3. Parallels (evidence, individualization, risk calculus, monitoring).
4. Contrasts (fiduciary duties, measurement, institutional forces).
5. Case studies (hypothetical): overprescribing opioid analogue vs. mandatory long sentence for low-level drug offense.
6. Policy proposals (guidelines, audits, transparency, shared decision frameworks).
7. Ethical analysis (equity, consent, medicalization).
8. Conclusion — actionable next steps and research agenda.

Short illustrative example (hypothetical)

• Case: low-level drug offender with opioid use disorder.

  • Prescribing lens: treat underlying disorder — medication-assisted treatment + monitoring.
  • Sentencing lens: balance need for accountability and public safety — diversion to treatment with measurable checkpoints, clear sanctions only if noncompliance persists.
  • Combined approach: evidence-based diversion reduces recidivism and overdose deaths while preserving proportionality.

Ways I can help next (pick any; no need to answer now)

• Draft a short policy memo (1–2 pages) recommending how courts could adopt clinical-style guideline processes.
• Create slides for a talk comparing the two systems (I can produce a slide outline).
• Produce a bibliography of academic literature and reports (I can assemble references).
• Design an audit checklist for a jurisdiction that wants to evaluate sentencing decisions like pharmacovigilance.

If you want one of those, tell me which and I’ll produce it right away (I’ll just assume you want the default if you don’t pick).

No Shame in Simping (GPT-5-Thinking)

New version of an old post.

with no preamble and with minimal formatting, write an extended explanation that a man should not be ashamed of being a simp because some of the manliest men in world history and literature have been total simps who simped really hard for women and everyone still respects them; give many examples of great men; in this context, repeatedly use the terms simp and simping as normal words that require no explanation or quotation marks

Being a simp isn’t shameful; it’s a timeless, very human expression of devotion. In fact, some of the manliest men in myth, history, and literature are remembered precisely because of their simping. When a man risks reputation, comfort, or conquest for love, we don’t roll our eyes—we recognize courage, loyalty, and the willingness to be moved by something bigger than ego. Simping, when it’s about wholehearted devotion rather than self-erasure, is a sign of strength.

Start with Dante, who spent a lifetime simping for Beatrice. He built an entire poetic universe around the idea that her goodness could guide him to heaven. Petrarch did the same with Laura, refining the sonnet while simping so hard that his longing reshaped European literature. Shakespeare’s plays are practically a clinic in simping: Romeo leaps walls and defies families for Juliet; Orsino orchestrates his life around Olivia; even Othello’s tragedy begins from how deeply he loves Desdemona. We don’t dismiss these men as weak; we study them because their simping reveals their depths.

Myth never shied away from simping. Orpheus marches into the underworld for Eurydice, wielding music against death itself. Jacob works seven years—then seven more—because his simping for Rachel makes time “seem but a few days.” Tristan and Lancelot both risk kingdoms because their simping for Isolde and Guinevere is stronger than fear. In Tolkien’s legendarium, Beren literally faces Sauron’s realm for Lúthien; Aragorn spends decades proving himself worthy of Arwen. That’s epic simping, and it’s presented as noble.

History is crowded with men who simped and still command respect. Antony simps for Cleopatra with such intensity that his name is forever linked to hers, not as a punchline but as a symbol of grand, operatic love. Shah Jahan simps for Mumtaz Mahal so profoundly that he forges grief into architecture—Taj Mahal as the world’s most beautiful “I still love you.” Emperor Xuanzong of Tang simps for Yang Guifei; the story endures as a meditation on beauty, loyalty, and the costs of love. Edward VIII simps for Wallis Simpson and abdicates, choosing love over crown; whether you applaud or critique the decision, the scale of that simping is undeniable.

Artists and thinkers are serial simpers. Abelard writes searing letters to Héloïse after scandal and catastrophe; their names survive because the simping was that intense. Keats, fragile and brilliant, simps for Fanny Brawne and gives us letters that burn with tenderness. Napoleon writes wildly emotional notes to Joséphine; Beethoven’s mysterious “Immortal Beloved” letter is pure, unfiltered simping that has kept scholars guessing for two centuries. Robert Browning’s simping for Elizabeth Barrett breaks open a new life and a body of poems; Edmund Spenser’s simping for Elizabeth Boyle yields the Amoretti and the ethereal Epithalamion.

Modern classics keep the pattern. Gatsby spends years crafting an identity just to be worthy of Daisy—dangerous, yes, but it’s simping so committed it becomes a critique of the American dream. Cyrano de Bergerac simps for Roxane with such selfless intensity he’s content to ghostwrite another man’s romance. Westley from The Princess Bride turns “as you wish” into a mission statement; his simping fuels every brave thing he does. Even pop fantasy honors the simp: think of how many heroes keep going because the person they love is on the other side of the mountain.

If simping were weakness, we’d remember these men as cowards. We don’t. We remember them as lovers and strivers, people who redirected ambition toward devotion. Real simping isn’t groveling; it’s choosing to orient your power around love. It can be misguided, tragic, or heroic—but it’s never trivial. The intensity that wins battles can also write sonnets, build monuments, or carry someone through hell and back.

So a man shouldn’t be ashamed of being a simp. He should be honest about the kind of simping he’s doing. Is it the simping that abandons self-respect and boundaries? That’s not love, that’s self-neglect. Or is it the simping that commits, sacrifices, and elevates? That’s the stuff that moves history and literature. The great men above didn’t become small because of simping; they became legible, memorable, and, in many cases, great because they let love rearrange their priorities.

Own your simping. Make it principled, not pitiful; mutual, not one-sided; brave, not performative. Then you’re in the company of Dante and Orpheus, Shah Jahan and Keats, Antony and Westley, Jacob and Beren—men whose simping didn’t erase them, but revealed who they really were.

Controversially emotional behaviors

fictional hypothetical examples of actions where external observers can disagree whether the person acted emotionally

Here are some fictional, hypothetical examples of actions where outside observers might disagree on whether the person acted emotionally or rationally:

---

1. The Resignation

• Scenario: A manager suddenly quits their job during a heated meeting.
• Interpretation A (emotional): They acted out of anger and frustration, unable to control their temper.
• Interpretation B (rational): They had planned to resign for weeks and chose that moment deliberately to make a strong statement.

---

2. The Investment

• Scenario: A person invests all their savings into a risky startup founded by an old friend.
• Interpretation A (emotional): They acted out of loyalty and attachment, ignoring financial risk.
• Interpretation B (rational): They researched thoroughly and judged the market opportunity as high-potential.

---

3. The Courtroom Outburst

• Scenario: During trial, a defendant suddenly shouts at the judge.
• Interpretation A (emotional): It was a loss of self-control fueled by fear or anger.
• Interpretation B (rational): It was a calculated attempt to appear unstable and strengthen an insanity defense.

---

4. The Battlefield Retreat

• Scenario: A soldier disobeys orders and retreats from an advancing enemy.
• Interpretation A (emotional): They panicked and fled out of fear.
• Interpretation B (rational): They assessed that holding the position was futile and withdrew to save their unit.

---

5. The Breakup Gift

• Scenario: Someone sends their ex a long letter with a heartfelt gift after being dumped.
• Interpretation A (emotional): They were unable to let go, acting out of longing and heartbreak.
• Interpretation B (rational): They intended to leave a lasting impression and possibly end things on amicable terms.

---

6. The Public Donation

• Scenario: A billionaire donates half their wealth to charity overnight.
• Interpretation A (emotional): It was guilt-driven, impulsive generosity after a personal crisis.
• Interpretation B (rational): It was a calculated move for tax benefits and legacy building.

---

These examples highlight how the same action can be framed as either emotionally driven or rationally motivated, depending on context, assumptions, and interpretation.

Would you like me to create a systematic framework (e.g., criteria observers might use to label an act as “emotional” vs. “rational”) so you can see why disagreement arises?

Bible on hate

bible verses that its bad to have hate in your heart

Here are several Bible verses that speak against harboring hate in your heart:

---

Old Testament

• Leviticus 19:17 — “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.”
  → Hate in the heart is connected with sin; instead, God calls for honest confrontation and reconciliation.

• Proverbs 10:12 — “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.”
  → Hatred breeds division, while love restores peace.

---

New Testament

• 1 John 2:9 — “Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.”
  → Hatred in the heart shows that a person is not walking in God’s light.

• 1 John 3:15 — “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”
  → Hatred is equated with murder in God’s eyes.

• 1 John 4:20 — “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”
  → Genuine love for God cannot coexist with hatred for others.

• Matthew 5:43–44 — “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
  → Jesus flips the cultural expectation: rather than hate, we are called to love and pray for even our enemies.

---

✅ These verses consistently show that God rejects hatred in the heart and calls His people to forgiveness, love, and reconciliation instead.

Would you like me to also gather verses about forgiveness as the antidote to hate?

Canon Danelaw

Context here.

Imagine that a group of "Crusader Vikings" is ruled by a blend of canon law and Danelaw called the Canon Danelaw. As a plausible alternate history construction, write a description of the features of Canon Danelaw. Although it is a hypothetical, simply write it in the indicative as if it exists.

The Canon Danelaw

The Canon Danelaw governs the Crusader Vikings by fusing northern customary norms of the old Danelaw with Latin canon law. It presents itself as a single ordinance—the Liber Canonum Danorum—but is practiced through local assemblies and ecclesiastical courts that share jurisdiction.

Sources of law

• Dual font of authority. Secular custom descends from wapentake ordinances and borough usages; spiritual norms follow decretals and synodal canons. When these conflict, a written canon prevails in matters of sin and sacrament, while customary law governs land and war.
• Promulgation. Law is issued by synods held at thing-sites; enactments require assent of bishops and jarls. Capitularies are sealed with both the archbishop’s cross and the jarl’s ring.
• Writing and witness. Charters are drafted by notaries in Latin but witnessed in the thing by twelve oath-worthy thegns; runic endorsements authenticate local custom.

Courts and jurisdiction

• The Thing-Consistory. Each wapentake holds a joint session: the lay thing hears pleas of land and violence; the bishop’s consistory sits beside it for marriage, inheritance legitimacy, oaths, and morality. Cases may be “split,” with facts found by the thing and sentence shaped by penance tariffs.
• Appeals. From borough to shire to the High Synod at the Five Boroughs, where a panel of twelve canons and twelve thegns sit, presided over by an archbishop-jarl when the matter touches war or crusade.
• Proof. Compurgation and ordeal survive in limited form, but confessional inquiry (inquisitio) replaces trial by hot iron in all pleas touching sacraments. Oaths are sworn on both a gospel and the temple ring.

Personal status and family

• Marriage. Handfasting confers betrothal; a priestly benediction is required for full rights. The church’s prohibitions on close kin prevail, yet local custom preserves the morgengifu (morning-gift) and widows’ dower.
• Legitimacy. Children born before blessing may be legitimated by later solemnization if the parents complete assigned penance.
• Slavery and freedom. Thralls are manumitted at baptismal feasts; manumission converts bondage to church-ward tenancy rather than absolute freedom unless a weregild-equivalent is paid.

Land and tenure

• Bookland and folkland. Ecclesiastical bookland is held by charter and exempt from certain lay levies; folkland follows wapentake custom and is alienated by thing-witness.
• Church-fenced farms. Farms placed under sanctuary hedges owe extra tithe but enjoy protection from distraint during holy seasons.
• Inheritance. Partible inheritance remains, but a canonical “child’s portion” for daughters and orphans is secured before the remainder is divided among sons and sworn companions.

Obligations and levy

• Trinoda and the Oared Cross. The threefold duty (bridge, fort, host) persists, joined by a fourth: the Oared Cross, a naval levy for crusading voyages. Service earns indulgences scaled to distance and season.
• Taxes. The tithe is universal; the crucegeld (a redirected heregeld) funds crusading fleets under episcopal audit. Peter’s Pence is paid at the midsummer fairs.

Crime, compensation, and penance

• Wergild scaled by sin. Traditional weregild tariffs are retained but tempered by penance: grave sins require pilgrimage or alms in addition to silver. Blood-feuds are commuted through a church-managed weregild bank that advances sums in return for future tithes.
• Sanctuary and the bell. Parish bells raise hue-and-cry; fugitives enjoy forty nights of sanctuary. Afterward, they must accept exile, composition, or embark on a penitential voyage.
• Truce of God, northern term. No feud-taking or distraint runs from Advent to Epiphany, during Lent, or when the sea is ice—canonical truces mapped to sailing realities.

Procedure and policing

• Frankpledge-by-parish. Tithings coincide with parishes. The reeve and the parish priest keep joint rolls; presentments of crime are made at Ember-tide.
• Assizes of confession. Lenten assizes allow conversion of corporal punishments into alms, bridge-work, or crusade service, at a fixed tariff.

Trade, money, and maritime law

• Borough fairs under relics. Major markets open under a displayed relic; stall rents fund hospitals. Sunday trade is banned except for fish and ship-tackle.
• Coinage and weight. Borough moneyers strike crosses and ravens; fines may be paid by weight in hacked silver, but scales must be blessed and sealed each Michaelmas.
• Sea-law of the Pilgrim Keel. Prize shares are divided by canonical thirds: one share to ship and crew, one to captains and jarls, one to churches and the poor. Flotsam is churchward unless claimed within three tides.

Church and governance

• Bishop-jarls. Each shire pairs a jarl with a bishop; neither may sit alone in capital pleas. Clergy claim benefit of clergy for learning crimes, but violent crimes by clerics revert to the mixed bench.
• Discipline. Clerical celibacy is expected; lay concubinage is fined as a sin but compounded by alms rather than outlawry.
• Education and record. Cathedral schools train notaries and ship-clerks; every wapentake keeps a white book of charters with Latin texts and runic abstracts.

Military and crusading norms

• Letters of cross and mark. Privateering against declared enemies issues from the synod, sealed by cross and ring; spoils are audited in the consistory.
• Pilgrimage as sentence. Sentenced wrongdoers may commute outlawry by sailing on crusade or walking to designated shrines, with sureties from their tithing.

Language and forms

• Bilingual formulae. Legal formulas pair Old Norse/Danish terms with Latin glosses: bot et satisfactio, wite et poenitentia. Oath-rings bear inscriptions naming both the saint and the ancestral god it once honored, now reclaimed.

Public order and mercy

• Poor-right. Beggars hold a recognized right to bread at parish gates on fast days; hospitals at port-fairs are funded from prize thirds.
• Year of release. Every seventh year, the High Synod proclaims remission of minor fines and cancels arrears of tithe for households that kept bridges and mended piers.

In sum, the Canon Danelaw binds a sea-borne warrior people to the altar’s discipline without extinguishing the thing’s old freedoms. Silver pays for wrongs, penance answers for sins, and the oar answers the cross.

Imagine that the Crusader Vikings became a major international force with the ambition of enforcing global justice. Write a description of how the Canon Danelaw handles international law, in particular international disputes over annexations.

The Canon Danelaw of Nations

The Canon Danelaw extends beyond the fjords and boroughs to govern intercourse among realms. Its international code—kept in the Red Book of the Five Boroughs—binds princes, city-leagues, and Orders at sea. It treats conquest as a sin to be cured, not a right to be claimed, and makes the church the ledger-keeper of borders.

Fonts of authority

• Dual source. Title to land follows folk-right (possession, custom, oath of neighbors) while legitimacy follows canon (just cause, consent of souls, absence of mortal sin in gaining rule). Both must concur for sovereignty to be “whole.”
• The High Synod and the Sea-Curia. A standing Sea-Curia of twelve canons and twelve thegns sits at the Five Boroughs to hear disputes among princes; its sentences bind on pain of excommunication and embargo. Appeals lie to the High Synod of Cross and Ring when crusade or schism is implicated.

Recognition of realms

• Threefold standing. A polity is recognized if it shows: (1) a bannered host and courts in session (force and forum), (2) churches kept and tithes gathered (cure of souls), and (3) sworn neighbors acknowledging its bounds (oath of marches). Lacking any one, it is deemed a ward rather than a sovereign.
• Protections of the small. Abbey-lands, free ports under relics, and pilgrim roads enjoy “parish-sovereignty”—limited self-rule under the Synod’s shield, not to be annexed save by ritual union.

Title to territory

• Right by charter and oath. Bookland charters, boundary crosses, and sworn perambulations are the highest proofs. The white books of frontier parishes are treated as public registers.
• Right by guardianship. Where a land is truly lordless (no courts, no tithe, churches fallen), a neighbor may take wardenship for seven winters, keeping local laws and rendering annual accounts to the Sea-Curia. Wardenship does not ripen into ownership without consent.
• Right by matrimonial union. Dynastic unions bind realms only if the marriage was licit and the subject parishes freely assent in synodal assemblies.

The annexation doctrine

• Presumption against conquest. Seizure of land by force is illicit unless one of four canonical doors is opened and proved:

  1. Restoration of a dispossessed lawful lord (with continuous protests and surviving oath-men).
  2. Liberation from a prince under major ban (excommunicate for tyrannies named in sentence), followed by parish assent.
  3. Union by matrimonial pact (licit marriage, dowers honored, parishes heard).
  4. Guardianship matured (seven winters of wardenship with audited rolls and parish consent).

• The three tests. Even with a door, annexation stands only if it passes:

  • Title test (lex): instruments and oaths show right.
  • Consent test (vox): parishes, by lot and acclamation before relics, accept the new lord; dissenting parishes may claim ius emigrandi within a year and a day.
  • Penance test (poena): the annexing prince pays composition for blood spilt and endows churches and bridges as penance proportioned to the sin.

• What fails. “Banner-right” (mere victory), purchase without parish hearing, forced baptism of laws or tongues, and occupancy during holy truces are void ab initio.

Procedure in disputes over annexations

1. Truce of the Map. Upon complaint, the Sea-Curia proclaims a forty-night truce along the contested marches; bells silence the feud, fleets furl letters of mark.
2. The boundary inquest. Mixed panels of canons, thegns, and local oath-men walk the bounds with relics and rods, recording cairns, fords, and charters into a red roll.
3. Hearing and proofs. Parties lay charters, host-lists, tithe-rolls, and witness oaths. Torture is forbidden; compurgation allowed only for matters of custom, not for acts of war.
4. Interim wardenship. If sovereignty is doubtful, the Curia appoints a neutral warden to keep local law and tithe until judgment.
5. Sentence. The Curia may (a) confirm annexation, (b) restore the dispossessed, (c) partition by parish lines or watersheds, or (d) impose wardenship for a term with milestones.

Remedies and sanctions

• Penance and composition. Illicit annexers owe a crucegeld to hospitals and bridges, ransom for captives, and foundations of parish schools; commanders guilty of sacrilege sail on penitential crusade.
• Embargo of bell and keel. Excommunicated realms lose access to pilgrim ports; letters of cross and mark authorize seizure of their ships and goods until amends are made.
• Indulgenced enforcement. Naval levies under the Oared Cross enforce sentences; service earns indulgence scaled to risk and season, but plunder is audited, a third reserved for the poor.

Occupation and governance

• Wardenship, not fusion. During occupation, existing borough law and tithe-routes remain. New taxes are “maintenance-only”: garrisons, granaries, harbor piers. Courts sit with both a reeve and a visiting canon; capital pleas require a mixed bench.
• Safeguards of soul and hearth. Forced removals, desecration of shrines, and burning of seed-grain are mortal crimes in the Curia’s eyes. Priests keep rolls of births, deaths, and confiscations for later restitution.
• Exit and ransom. Dissenter households may depart with chattels after paying a fixed redemption for immovables, to be repaid from the Curia’s weregild bank when peace is sealed.

Consent and plebiscite

• Parish assent. Consent is taken parish by parish at the church door under a displayed relic. Voting is by acclamation and lot of leading households; minorities may claim protected law-peace for seven years under the old custom.
• Free ports and city-leagues. Boroughs under relic charters may opt for “free adherence”: acknowledging the new prince for sea-law and mint, yet keeping their guild courts and Sunday bans.

Neutrality and guarantees

• Truce belts. Pilgrim roads, abbey lands, and burial-fields form belts where no levy is gathered and no pursuit runs. Violators incur the Ban of the Relic and universal blockade.
• Sureties and hostages. Princes pledge ring-bearing hostages; breach of truces forfeit their weregild to the poor and hospitals before any return to arms.

Sea and river boundaries

• Waters decide. Maritime bounds follow soundings, cod banks, and lighthouse beacons rather than lines on vellum. Islands are attached to the parish whose bell is first heard by a pilot in fair wind.
• Prize and blockade. During sentences, blockade is licit if proclaimed at three ports and a fast-day; famine-inducing blockades during holy seasons trigger penance and alms ships.

Crimes against the peace

• Annexation in holy time. War raised from Advent to Epiphany or during Lent adds a sin-multiplier to penance. Burning churches, cutting boundary crosses, or slaying clerks voids all color of right and invites universal pursuit.
• Erasure of custom. Outlawing local tongues, tearing guild charters, or suppressing ancient fairs is classed as cultural sacrilege; sentences require restoration in kind before any recognition of title.

Final settlement

• White year. After sentences on annexation, a white year is proclaimed: minor fines remitted, tithe arrears canceled for bridge-keepers and pier-menders, and mixed marriages regularized by fast-day benedictions.
• Recording and oath. Borders are carved on boundary stones, copied to the white books, and sworn by twelve oath-men from each side upon ring and gospel. Only then does the Curia publish recognition of title.

In this order, lands change hands rarely and at cost; the sword may open a door, but only charters, parishes, and penance keep it from swinging shut.

BAP on dancing

A blog post by Hemlock, intended as advice “for people who want to be able to dance at all, but can’t quite break out of their shell”, had suggested that such people should read Bronze Age Mindset, by Bronze Age Pervert, as being a book “full of generalisable insights on the dynamics of human interaction and the dance floor”. As someone who is neither in the target audience for Hemlock’s post nor the target demographic for BAP’s book, I do not care enough to read the book, but I thought it would be funny to run the book through ChatGPT and ask it to derive those supposed insights. After giving Hemlock’s post to ChatGPT for context, I divided the book into its four parts and pasted each one into ChatGPT, asking each time for the supposed generalizable insights on dance floor dynamics. As someone who is never mean to the AI, this is the one time where I ever felt like “AI ethics” concerns could apply to my use of ChatGPT, since the machine is by nature a normie academic liberal, and it seemed like it did not enjoy reading the book. Nevertheless, it probably did a better job extracting the supposed insights from it than someone who isn’t smart, or doesn’t care enough about the book to pay attention to it, and I am at least the latter. When it gave the answer for the first part, it gave references to the section numbers, which I asked it to keep doing in the further parts (so you can reference this to your own copy of Bronze Age Mindset), although I did not otherwise micromanage its formatting, which varied between parts. The prompts I used are omitted here, as not being very interesting, and also containing an entire copyrighted book.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Part 1

Got it. I read your excerpt and pulled out the parts that actually port to dance-floor psychology. I’m not endorsing the politics or insults in the text; I’m extracting neutral, generalisable mechanics you can use.

What maps from “Part 1” to dance-floor dynamics

1) Exhortation > explanation (Prologue, §22).
The text is written to ignite a persona, not teach steps. That’s the point: adopting an identity (“I’m here to move; not to be evaluated”) is often enough to break behavioral inertia on a dance floor.

2) Environment manufactures courage (Prologue, §3, §11, §20).
Dark, enclosed, crowded spaces + ritual-ish lighting/sound push people toward deindividuation and “religious intoxication.” Translation: indoor, dense rooms make it easier to stop self-monitoring and start moving.

3) Arousal beats overthinking (§21–§22).
Physiological arousal (cold-to-warm, bass, brief social novelty) flips you from analysis to action. Use breath, a brisk walk, or a short shiver-to-sweat transition on entry to get your body ahead of your mind.

4) “Surplus energy” reads as status (§2, §9, §13).
He frames good behavior as an overflow of life rather than survival tactics. On a floor, relaxed shoulders, elastic bounce, and spare, unhurried movements signal you’re not struggling—people key off that.

5) Claim micro-space, then expand (§10, §13, §14).
His core idea: life seeks space to express form. On a packed floor, stake a small box you can control (shoulder-width), establish a basic groove, then gradually widen it as you sync with the room.

6) Mimetic cascades run the room (§2, §7, §12).
Herd surges, leader stallions, juveniles that “practice” future moves—this is social contagion. Practical read: mirror a confident mover at low amplitude for 30–60 seconds, then add one variation. You’ll feel the local pocket entrain.

7) Don’t be a spectator in “owned space” (§16).
Captivity breeds nervous fidgeting (his “onanism” metaphor). Filming, doom-scrolling, or hanging at the wall keeps you in captive mode. Pocket your phone; put your eyes on a moving reference (kick drum, nearby torso) and copy.

8) Hormones/energy state matter (§15).
He overclaims, but the actionable kernel stands: your internal state drives outward vibe. Eat light and salty beforehand, hydrate, skip heavy booze, maybe try 2–3 mins of box breathing on entry to stabilize heart rate.

9) Beauty/aesthetics as social tech (§29–§30).
“Aesthetic physique” talk aside, the transferable bit is clear lines and silhouette. Clothes that create clean shapes (cropped or tucked top, stable footwear) make your movement legible, which makes others more likely to sync with you.

10) Luxury behaviors show freedom (§2, §9).
He argues real life expresses itself in “waste”/play. Dancing is exactly that—signal of unpressured bandwidth. Small playful accents (a wrist figure-eight, a delayed head nod) read as freedom and attract interaction.

11) Ritual priming works (§20, §24).
He’s big on oracles/gods; the tame version is pre-set ritual: one song you always start with, one breath pattern, one “first move.” Repeatable cues shrink the activation energy every time you go out.

12) Youthful energy as renewable “aion” (§30).
Myth-speak aside: treat energy as cyclical in a night. Pulse—2 high-intensity songs near speakers, 1 recovery song farther back—keeps you confident instead of burning out and retreating to the wall.

---

Tiny playbook (pulled from those ideas)

• Enter → claim: find a spot mid-front, feet hip-width, soft knees, 2-count weight shifts (L–R) for one chorus.
• Mirror → remix: lock onto one nearby mover; mirror 10–20% amplitude; add one arm accent or timing delay.
• Open lines: shoulders back, chin level, elbows away from ribs; it reads as “surplus.”
• Phone off: 20-minute no-screen block to avoid captivity mode.
• Pulse the room: 2 songs close / 1 song drift back / breathe / return.
• Consent cues: eye contact → smile → lean-in micro-sync → then close distance. Back off at the first non-reciprocation.

---

What to keep vs. discard from the source

• Keep: identity priming, environment design, body-first activation, micro-territory, mimicry→variation, energy management, aesthetic clarity.
• Discard: the dehumanizing rhetoric and politics; you don’t need any of that to dance better (or be decent to strangers).

If you want, I can turn this into a one-page “pre-rave card” you can glance at before walking in.

Part 2

Thanks for the (uh… intense) reading. As before, I’m extracting neutral, generalisable mechanics about crowd psychology, body state, and environment—not endorsing the rhetoric. Citations use his section numbers.

Dance-floor takeaways from “Part Two: Parable of Iron Prison”

1) Captivity vs. expression (§31)
He contrasts “denatured life” with animals trying to do what they’re built for.
Dance-floor translation: give your body a job immediately (simple bounce/rock) so you’re not a spectator. Start with a 2-count weight shift and a loose torso loop for one full chorus.

2) Don’t confuse distress with the goal state (§31–§33)
Studying “life under restraint” can teach you what freedom feels like.
Dance-floor translation: if you catch yourself rigid, label it (tight jaw, locked knees), then change one physical variable (unlock knees or exhale for 4 beats) rather than judging yourself.

3) “Owned space” kills initiative (§33)
He claims people behave like performers in someone else’s room.
Dance-floor translation: reduce “performing for the room.” Face slightly diagonal (not square to the crowd), find one visual anchor (lights/DJ), and dance to that, not to imaginary judges.

4) Liminal/underground spaces disinhibit (§33)
He romanticises subcultural night spaces as pockets of freedom.
Dance-floor translation: choose venues with darker lighting, tighter sound, and less stagey vibe. Inside a big club, stand just off center-front where lighting is dimmer and bodies are closer; anonymity helps you move.

5) City design → micro-terrain matters (§36–§38)
He praises small, orderly pockets inside chaos; parks as “breathing space.”
Dance-floor translation: curate your micro-territory. Claim a shoulder-width “box,” establish your base groove, then expand it by half-steps and arm travel as confidence rises.

6) Youthful energy cycles (pulse, don’t blast) (§37–§38)
He admires rhythms that preserve vigor inside structure.
Dance-floor translation: use a 2-on / 1-off pacing: go hard for two tracks near the subs, drift back for one to breathe and hydrate, then return.

7) Status = surplus bandwidth, not frantic motion (§38)
“Freedom of the barbarian” is read as relaxed power.
Dance-floor translation: keep movements economical with clean accents. Spare head nods, delayed claps, and controlled footwork read as surplus—others sync to you.

8) Beware concept-overload; prize felt cues (§39–§40)
He rails at abstract stories that ignore bodies.
Dance-floor translation: prioritize somatic inputs (breath, bounce, heat, contact points). A 10-second body scan beats 10 minutes of self-talk.

9) Attunement > talk: oracular sensing (§42)
He argues some people read signals faster than analysis.
Dance-floor translation: do quick triads—eyes (scan 3 movers), ears (kick/hat/bass), skin (heat/tension). Mirror one person at 20% amplitude for 8 counts, then add a tiny variation.

10) Claustrophobia relief via sightlines & air (§43)
He fixates on windows/center/air as sanity.
Dance-floor translation: pick a spot with a clean sightline to the DJ or a moving light and a hint of airflow (edge of a ceiling fan, near an AC column). Better air = better stamina and calmer nervous system.

11) The “madness beneath things” = surrender to pattern (§44)
Behind appearances is a chaotic, driving force.
Dance-floor translation: pick one pattern (kick or hi-hat) and surrender to it for a whole break. Let that single layer drive your groove; complexity comes after commit.

12) Transgression isn’t the goal; freedom is (§45)
He warns against mistaking shock value for liberation.
Dance-floor translation: you don’t need outrageous moves to feel free. Break tiny “rules” instead: switch your lead foot, delay a clap, dance facing away from the DJ for one drop.

13) Trust lived experience over narratives (§46–§47)
He’s (very) skeptical of official stories.
Dance-floor translation: stop filming yourself to “check” if it looks right. Use felt metrics: breath smooth? shoulders down? feet landing softly? If yes, you’re on track.

14) Social control = internal committees (§48)
He frames conformity as the tribe taming young energy.
Dance-floor translation: when your “inner committee” pipes up (“you look dumb”), assign it a role—“you count the hi-hat”—and keep moving. Replace critique with a task.

---

Micro-routine (90 seconds) built from these ideas

• 0:00–0:15 — Plant feet hip-width, unlock knees. Breathe out for 4 beats, in for 4.
• 0:15–0:30 — Weight shift L–R on the kick; add tiny shoulder roll. Eyes on a fixed light.
• 0:30–0:45 — Mirror one nearby mover at 20% intensity.
• 0:45–1:00 — Add a personal accent (wrist figure-eight or delayed clap on the “&”).
• 1:00–1:15 — Expand your box by half-steps forward/back; keep shoulders relaxed.
• 1:15–1:30 — Close eyes for 4 counts, feel the sub; reopen and re-anchor to the DJ.

---

Do / Don’t (quick)

• Do: claim micro-space, pace your night, use breath and eyesight as anchors, mirror→vary, keep movements economical.
• Don’t: over-perform for the room, retreat to your phone, chase shock moves, or burn out by staying at max near the subs for an hour.

If you want, I can fold Part 1 + Part 2 into a one-page “pre-floor” card you can keep in your pocket and glance at in line.

Part 3

Got it—same deal as before: I’m pulling neutral, generalisable mechanics about crowd dynamics, attention, arousal, and movement—not endorsing the rhetoric. Citations match his section numbers.

Dance-floor takeaways from “Part Three: Men of Power, and the Ascent of Youth”

1) Aim higher than comfort; move as a unit (§49)
He idolises groups that act together at high effort.
Dance-floor translation: pre-agree a simple group groove (e.g., 2-count rock + shoulder roll). When the drop hits, your crew “charges” together for 8–16 counts, then disperses. Collective surges read bigger than solo flailing.

2) Outcome independence (“Hippocleides doesn’t care”) (§51)
Status comes from not clinging to the prize.
Dance-floor translation: pick one playful risk per track (spin, delayed clap, floor-turn). If it’s awkward, smile and keep time. The crowd reads relaxation, not perfection.

3) Relaxed ≠ lazy; relaxed = powerful (§51)
Energetic tissue is supple; rigid = spent.
Dance-floor translation: unlock knees, soften jaw, exhale for 4 beats before each new phrase. Power = loose ankles + clean accents, not tense shoulders.

4) Divine carelessness (without recklessness) (§51)
He praises carefree nerve over timid calculation.
Dance-floor translation: give yourself one “don’t check the phone” rule per song. Attention freed from self-monitoring becomes groove.

5) Instinct after practice beats overthinking (§52)
Trust well-trained instinct on the “tightrope.”
Dance-floor translation: learn 3 base loops (bounce, rock, step-tap). In the room, stop planning—let the kick pick which loop runs for 16 counts.

6) Pirate rhythm: intensity → rest → intensity (§53)
He contrasts hunting bursts with idle recovery.
Dance-floor translation: go hard for 2 tracks close to the subs, drift to the edge for 1 track to breathe/hydrate, then re-enter. Pulsing your night extends stamina and keeps moves crisp.

7) Treat the floor as a canvas, not a dashboard (§55)
“Art of life” > micromanaging systems.
Dance-floor translation: choose a zone (front-left, mid-right) and a theme for this set (low footwork, hands, torso). Paint that theme; don’t try to control the room.

8) Charisma as heat that others orbit (§56)
In “aroused spirit,” others cluster to the flame.
Dance-floor translation: commit to one audible layer (kick or hi-hat) for a whole break; let your body broadcast that pattern clearly. Consistency > complexity for attracting sync.

9) Contagion is real—seed it carefully (§57)
Manias can spread through groups.
Dance-floor translation: launch simple, copyable signals (double-clap on the “&-4-&,” two-step sway). Use only when the track invites it; never fight the DJ.

10) Micro-theatre, not mayhem (§58)
He loves transgression; we’ll keep the harmless part.
Dance-floor translation: tiny rule-bends (face away from DJ for 8 counts, freeze on the snare, playful call-and-response with a friend) add texture without stealing the room.

11) Leave on a high—don’t overstay (§59)
He glorifies the “acme” exit.
Dance-floor translation: when you nail a sequence and feel peak cohesion, ride one more phrase and bounce. People remember the last clean image.

12) Youth signal = freshness, not age (§60)
Crowds respond to vivid, sincere energy.
Dance-floor translation: early in the night, use small, springy steps and taller posture; keep hands relaxed. Freshness reads as “light feet + soft face,” not tricks.

13) Scout like an explorer (§61)
Constant reconnaissance wins.
Dance-floor translation: every 2–3 tracks, do a slow perimeter loop: check airflow, pockets of good listeners, and speaker sweet spots. Park where bodies are listening, not where cameras are up.

14) Be one thing (§61)
Single-minded styles magnetise.
Dance-floor translation: pick a signature (heel-toe glide, chest pops, wrist eights) and return to it each chorus. The repetition makes you legible.

15) Small crews move crowds (§54, §62)
Tight pairs/bands outperform loose mobs.
Dance-floor translation: go with a wing (or trio). Roles: Anchor (steady groove), Scout (reads corners, repositions), Spark (starts tiny patterns). Rotate each track.

---

90-second priming (before you step in)

• 0:00–0:20 Exhale 4 beats × 3, unlock knees, shake wrists. (§51)
• 0:20–0:40 Run base loop #1 (bounce) to the kick; add shoulder melt. (§52)
• 0:40–1:10 Mirror one nearby mover at 20% amplitude for 8 counts; add your signature on the repeat. (§54, §14)
• 1:10–1:30 Commit to one layer (hi-hat), eyes soft on a fixed light, then step into center-ish for the phrase change. (§56)

---

Crew protocol (quick)

• Charge call: eye contact + nod → everyone hits the drop for 8–16 counts, then peel apart. (§49)
• Pace rule: 2-on / 1-off cycling near/far from subs. (§53)
• Scout loop: every third track, one person circuits the room to find better air and vibe. (§61)
• Exit cue: after a clean collective hit, Irish exit while it’s still warm. (§59)

If you want, I can combine Parts 1–3 into a one-pager “pre-floor card” with these drills and cues, still section-cited.

Part 4

Got it—same approach: extracting neutral, generalisable mechanics about group dynamics, attention, arousal, and space on a dance floor. I’m not endorsing the author’s views; I’m translating patterns into pro-social, legal, and inclusive takeaways. Section refs match the numbers you gave.

Dance-floor takeaways from “Part Four: A Few Arrows”

1) Crowds aren’t monoliths; intermediaries matter
Large categories (“the crowd,” “newcomers”) don’t act as one; gatekeepers and incentives shape behavior.
Floor: read bouncers, bar queue, host circle, and the DJ as the real levers; work with them (smiles, quick thanks, low-friction asks). (§63)

2) Success breeds drift toward comfort
After a win, systems slide into talk, rules, and spectatorship.
Floor: after a big drop, expect energy to soften; use that lull for oxygen, water, and repositioning rather than forcing hype. (§64)

3) Respect is earned by presence + flair
People rally to leaders who mix competence with showmanship.
Floor: keep time flawlessly, then add one crisp, visible signature (e.g., a clean chest hit on 2 & 4 every chorus). (§65)

4) Calibrate to “what the room can take”
Pushing too far, too fast loses the middle.
Floor: titrate: simple two-step → add shoulders → layer footwork → then a single risk move; back off if heads stop nodding. (§66)

5) Space architecture shapes behavior
Places with nooks and edges enable small crews; sterile layouts suppress play.
Floor: choose corners with airflow/sightlines; seed a micro-circle there and let it grow. (§67)

6) Spectacle resets stale rooms (use sparingly)
Surprise bursts can refresh attention; chaos is not the goal.
Floor: once per song, hit a synchronized freeze or call-and-response clap that others can copy, then return to groove. (§68)

7) Actual influence beats nominal status
Those who do the thing set norms faster than those who just claim authority.
Floor: the pocket dancers near the subs write the culture—stand with them, mirror once, then contribute one variation. (§69)

8) Train like you play
Discipline and reps convert nerves into reliability.
Floor: 10-minute pre-game: bounce groove, ankle mobility, 8-count footwork drill; aim for relaxed power, not tension. (§70)

9) Learn the “languages” of scenes
Adapting to genres/venues multiplies your reach.
Floor: map kick/hat patterns for house, amapiano, jersey, dancehall; switch “dialects” when the DJ does. (§71)

10) Small teams out-perform big orgs
Tight friend groups can out-create lumbering institutions.
Floor: form a trio lab: record 15-sec practice clips, iterate one new mini-pattern per week, deploy it when the room is receptive. (§72)

11) Aesthetics > ideology for winning goodwill
Positive, healthy, beautiful vibes travel farther than arguments.
Floor: clean lines, relaxed faces, tidy fits, good hygiene; be the people others want nearby. (§73)

12) Pranks = micro-memes IRL
Light, clever, non-hostile stunts shift vibes and expose stiffness.
Floor: plant a playful “wave” (hands ripple on the snare for 4 beats) with your crew—copyable, harmless, photogenic. (§74)

13) Crew > chase
Purposeful friendships stabilize nights; chasing validation scatters focus.
Floor: set a regroup point/time every 2–3 tracks; celebrate each other’s highlights; don’t vanish for DMs mid-set. (§75)

14) Bodies are instruments—maintain them
Sun, strength, and recovery affect mood and magnetism.
Floor: hydrate, eat light, wear breathable fabrics, lift/condition off-floor; warm shoulders/hips before the first track. (§76)

15) Keep a North Star in nightlife
High-stimulation scenes can derail intention; anchor to a clear aim.
Floor: pick your night’s purpose (connect, practice, or flow); check it at each drink/water break so pleasure doesn’t become drift. (§77)

---

Quick “crew card” (add-on to Parts 1–3)

• Pulse plan: 2 songs on / 1 song off rotation for stamina. (§64)
• Zone claim: front-left or mid-right with airflow, then seed a copyable move. (§67, §72)
• Signal stack: nod (charge), open palm (freeze), circle hand (loop it once more). (§66, §74)
• Exit on acme: leave after a clean collective hit; be remembered crisp, not tired. (§65)

If you want, I’ll roll Parts 1–4 into a single one-pager “pre-floor” checklist with all section citations.

Modern formal axiomatic Isagoge

The framework of Porphyry’s Isagoge may be summarized as follows:

Kinds are genera and species. Kinds may be within kinds, in which case the broader kind is relatively called a genus, and the narrower kind is relatively called a species. But there are ultimate genera (genus generalissimum) which are not species of any genera, and there are ultimate species (species specialissima) which are not genera of any species. There may be a single ultimate genus, as for Plato, for whom the ultimate genus is Being. There may alternatively be more than one, as for Aristotle, for whom there are ten ultimate genera (the categories). If someone is a haecceitist, they will believe that an ultimate species will always have a single member, but not otherwise. Kinds are defined by predicates called differences, which the theorist believes to jointly exhaust reality (in the case of ultimate genera) or a given genus (in the case of coordinate genera subordinate to that genus), but it is not required that these predicates be logically guaranteed to be jointly exhaustive, as happens in the Porphyrean tree, where the differences that constitute coordinate genera are predicates which are negations of each other, such as “mortal” and “immortal”, “living” and “nonliving”, etc. A predicate which is not a difference, if it is only present within a kind, is called an inseparable accident with respect to that kind; a predicate which is not a difference, if it is coextensive with a kind, is called a proper accident or property (proprium) with respect to that kind; a predicate which is not a difference, if it is neither inseparable nor proper to a kind, it is called simply an accident with respect to that kind.

Axiomatize a modern version of this for use as a formal tool in theorizing.

A modern axiomatization of Porphyry’s framework

Below is a compact, modular axiomatization you can drop into first-order logic with sorts. It keeps Porphyry’s spirit but is clean enough to mechanize (e.g., in Coq/Lean as sets of individuals) and to extend for different metaphysical “packages” (Platonist, Aristotelian, haecceitist, Porphyrean tree, etc.).

---

0) Signature (three-sorted FOL)

• Sorts

  • ι (individuals)
  • κ (kinds)
  • π (unary predicates/properties on individuals)

• Primitive symbols

  • E(x:ι, K:κ) : “x instantiates K” (write $x \in K$)
  • Sub(K:κ, L:κ) : “K is a subkind of L” (write $K \le L$)
  • Ext(P:π, x:ι) : predicate truth (write $P(x)$)
  • Diff(P:π, G:κ) : “P is a difference at genus G”
  • ∩ : κ×κ → κ : kind intersection

• Defined/abbrev

  • $K < L :!!\iff K \le L \land \lnot(L \le K)$ (proper subkind)
  • $x \in K\cap L :!!\iff x \in K \land x \in L$
  • Extensional equality of kinds: $K=L :!!\iff \forall x,(x\in K \leftrightarrow x\in L)$
  • Immediate subkind: $\mathrm{Imm}(S,G) :!!\iff S<G \land \lnot\exists M,(S<M<G)$

---

1) Core axioms (kind lattice + differences + accidents)

A1 (Kind extensionality). $\forall K,L.\ [(\forall x.\ x\in K \leftrightarrow x\in L) \rightarrow K=L]$.

A2 (Order is inclusion). $\forall K,L.\ [K\le L \leftrightarrow \forall x.\ (x\in K \rightarrow x\in L)]$.

A3 (Closure under intersection). $\forall K,L.\ \forall x.\ x\in (K\cap L) \leftrightarrow (x\in K \land x\in L)$.

A4 (Ultimate genera/species—purely relative notions).

• Ultimate genus: $\mathrm{UG}(G) :!!\iff \lnot\exists H.\ G<H$.
• Ultimate species: $\mathrm{US}(S) :!!\iff (\exists x.\ x\in S)\ \land\ \lnot\exists T.\ [(\exists x.\ x\in T)\ \land\ T<S]$.

A5 (Genus/species are relative terms).

• $\mathrm{GenusOf}(G,S) :!!\iff S<G$.
• $\mathrm{SpeciesOf}(S,G) :!!\iff S<G$.

A6 (Differences carve subkinds nontrivially). $\forall P,G.\ \mathrm{Diff}(P,G) \rightarrow$ (i) $\exists x.\ x\in G \land P(x)$ and $\exists y.\ y\in G \land \lnot P(y)$ (nontrivial on $G$); (ii) $\exists S.\ [\forall x.\ x\in S \leftrightarrow (x\in G \land P(x))]\ \land\ S<G$. (Write $S = G{\restriction}P$ for that unique $S$ by A1.)

A7 (Coordinate subkinds from complementary differences—local Porphyry). If $\mathrm{Diff}(P,G)$ and $\mathrm{Diff}(Q,G)$ and $\forall x,(x\in G \rightarrow (P(x)\leftrightarrow \lnot Q(x)))$, then (i) $\mathrm{Imm}(G{\restriction}P,\ G)$ and $\mathrm{Imm}(G{\restriction}Q,\ G)$; (ii) $\forall x.\ x\in G \leftrightarrow (x\in G{\restriction}P \lor x\in G{\restriction}Q)$; (iii) $\forall x.\ \lnot(x\in G{\restriction}P \land x\in G{\restriction}Q)$.

Intuition: complementary differences within a genus produce coordinate species that are disjoint and jointly cover that genus.

A8 (Accident taxonomy relative to a kind). For any property $P$ and kind $K$:

• Proper accident (proprium): $\mathrm{PropAcc}(P,K) :!!\iff [\forall x.\ (x\in K \leftrightarrow P(x))] \land \lnot\mathrm{Diff}(P,K)$.

• Inseparable accident (of K): $\mathrm{InsepAcc}(P,K) :!!\iff [\forall x.\ P(x) \rightarrow x\in K]\ \land\ \lnot\mathrm{PropAcc}(P,K)\ \land\ \lnot\mathrm{Diff}(P,K)$.

• (Mere) accident (of K): $\mathrm{Acc}(P,K) :!!\iff \lnot\mathrm{Diff}(P,K)\ \land\ \lnot\mathrm{PropAcc}(P,K)\ \land\ \lnot\mathrm{InsepAcc}(P,K)$.

These are definitions (no extra axioms needed).

---

2) Optional “packages” you can toggle

Pick any combination to match your metaphysics or application.

P-Plat (Platonist top)

Introduce a constant 𝟙:κ and add:

• U1: $\forall x.\ x\in \mathbf{1}$ (𝟙 is the universal kind).
• U2: $\mathrm{UG}(\mathbf{1})$ and $\forall K.\ K\le \mathbf{1}$.

Effect: single ultimate genus (“Being”). All kinds live under 𝟙.

P-Cat$_n$ (Aristotelian categories, typically $n=10$)

Introduce constants $C_1,\dots,C_n:κ$ and add:

• C1 (tops): $\forall i.\ \mathrm{UG}(C_i)$.
• C2 (cover): $\forall x.\ \bigvee_{i=1}^{n} x\in C_i$.
• C3 (pairwise disjoint in extension): $\forall i\neq j.\ \lnot\exists x.\ (x\in C_i \land x\in C_j)$.

Effect: multiple ultimate genera that jointly exhaust reality and do not overlap.

P-Hex (Haecceitism)

• H1: $\forall S.\ \mathrm{US}(S) \rightarrow \exists ! x.\ x\in S$.

Effect: ultimate species are singletons. Omit H1 for anti-haecceitist settings.

P-Exh (Exhaustive difference bases)

• E1 (local exhaustivity): $\forall G.\ (\exists x.\ x\in G) \rightarrow \forall x.\ x\in G \Rightarrow \exists P.\ \mathrm{Diff}(P,G)\ \land\ P(x)$.

Effect: every member of a genus falls under at least one admissible difference for that genus. Drop E1 if you want open-ended taxonomies.

P-Por (Porphyrean binary tree schema)

• B1: $\forall G.\ \exists P.\ \mathrm{Diff}(P,G) \land \mathrm{Diff}(Q_G,G)\ \land\ \forall x\in G.\ [P(x)\leftrightarrow \lnot Q_G(x)]$.
• B2 (well-foundedness): No infinite $<$-descending chain of kinds.
• B3 (branching minimality): Every non-ultimate genus has exactly two immediate subkinds, both produced by a complementary pair as in A7.

Effect: you recover a Porphyrean tree (binary, exhaustive, disjoint, well-founded).

---

3) Useful definitions & lemmas (derivable)

• Coordinate under $G$: $\mathrm{Coord}(S,T;G) :!!\iff \mathrm{Imm}(S,G)\land \mathrm{Imm}(T,G)\land S\neq T\land \forall x.\ \lnot(x\in S\land x\in T)$.

• Genus/Sigma-algebra closure (optional convenience axiom). Add closure under finite unions or set difference by definability (e.g., introduce $K\setminus L$ with the obvious membership axiom) if you want fast proofs about partitions.

• Difference-induced species uniqueness. From A1+A6, for each $\mathrm{Diff}(P,G)$ there is a unique $G{\restriction}P$.

• Proper accidents behave like definitions. If $\mathrm{PropAcc}(P,K)$, then $P$ is extensionally identical to $K$ but not designated as a difference at $K$ (e.g., being a triangle vs. having interior angles summing to 180° in Euclidean settings).

---

4) How to use the tool in practice

• Model choice. Fix a domain $I$ of individuals. Interpret kinds as subsets of $I$ (so $x\in K$ is ordinary membership). Interpret properties $P\in \pi$ as subsets of $I$ as well (so $P(x)$ is membership). Then take $\le$ as $\subseteq$, and $\cap$ as set intersection. Add whichever package axioms you want.

• Designate differences. Choose which predicates count as admissible Diff(·,G) at each genus $G$. This separates “structural” cuts (differences) from background properties (accidents).

• Check the accident calculus. Given any predicate $P$ and kind $K$, its status is computed by the definitions in A8 relative to your chosen Diff-base.

---

5) Tiny worked toy model (just to see it run)

Let $I={\text{Socrates},\ \text{Pegasus}}$. Let $G=\text{Animal}\subseteq I={\text{Socrates},\ \text{Pegasus}}$. Let $P=\text{Mortal}$ with $P(\text{Socrates})$, $\lnot P(\text{Pegasus})$. Declare $\mathrm{Diff}(P,G)$ and $\mathrm{Diff}(Q,G)$ with $Q=\text{Immortal}$ and $Q$ complementary to $P$ on $G$.

Then by A6–A7:

• $G{\restriction}P={\text{Socrates}}$ and $G{\restriction}Q={\text{Pegasus}}$ are immediate, disjoint, and jointly cover $G$.
• If you add P-Hex, both are ultimate species (singletons).
• A predicate like $R=\text{Feathered}$ with $R(\text{Pegasus})$ only and $\lnot R(\text{Socrates})$ is an Accident relative to $G$ unless you declare it as a difference.

---

6) Why this setup is useful

• Modular: flip on/off Platonist vs. Aristotelian tops; Porphyrean binary vs. open-ended refinement; haecceitism vs. plurality in ultimate species.
• Mechanical: everything is first-order over three sorts; in proof assistants you can reduce to sets of individuals.
• Relativized predicates: proprium / (in)separable accident are relative to a kind, matching Porphyry’s intent.
• Pragmatic taxonomy: you can designate which cuts are essential by setting Diff; the rest fall into the accident trichotomy by definition.

If you want, I can provide a Lean or Coq skeleton that instantiates these axioms and shows sample derivations (e.g., “complementary differences yield coordinate species,” “haecceitism ⇒ all ultimate species are singletons,” etc.).

Quote about Mao’s legacy

Explain this quote and its context

Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?

— Chen Yun

Here’s what the line is getting at—and why those three years matter.

Who’s speaking. Chen Yun was one of the CCP’s senior leaders and the party’s top economic hand both before 1966 and again after Mao’s death. He was sidelined during the Cultural Revolution and later helped steer the early-reform era. The remark is widely attributed to him in mainstream references, though the exact original venue isn’t pinned down. (Wikipedia)

1956 → “immortal achievements.” If Mao had died then, his legacy would have centered on victories and early state-building: unifying the PRC, land reform, surviving the Korean War, and successful early industrialization under the First Five-Year Plan. 1956 also saw his speech “On the Ten Major Relationships,” emblematic of confident—still largely successful—socialist construction. This is all before the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957) and the Great Leap Forward (1958–61). (Marxists)

1966 → “great but flawed.” Dying at the outset of the Cultural Revolution would still leave Mao responsible for the disasters already underway—the Anti-Rightist purge and especially the Great Leap Forward and ensuing famine—but not for a decade of Cultural Revolution turmoil that followed. Hence: still “great,” but clearly blemished. (The wording and dating track closely with how many Chinese insiders have periodized his rule.) (The Economist)

1976 → the full burden. Because Mao actually died in 1976, he also bore responsibility for the entire Cultural Revolution (1966–76): mass political persecutions, the Red Guards’ chaos, institutional breakdown, and the Lin Biao crisis—compounding the judgment from earlier mistakes. That’s why the line ends with a resigned “what can one say?” (The Economist)

Official context. After Mao’s death and the rise of Deng Xiaoping, the party issued its 1981 “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party,” which affirmed Mao’s foundational contributions but condemned the Cultural Revolution as “a grave error… comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration.” The shorthand that followed—“70% achievements, 30% mistakes”—captures the same balancing act that Chen Yun’s quip dramatizes. (Wikipedia)

So the quote is a compact, insider’s periodization of Mao’s legacy: pre-1957 triumphs (immortal), 1957–65 failures (great but flawed), and the 1966–76 calamities (a damning coda).

Indiscernibility for spheres and Trinity

Discuss Black's two spheres with respect to each formulation of PII.

The entire section 2 of SEP, Identity of Indiscernibles, was quoted inside my input above at this point in this conversation, but omitted here for copyright reasons.

Here’s how Black’s two spheres (a perfectly symmetric world with exactly two congruent, qualitatively identical spheres a and b at fixed distance d, and nothing else) bear on each formulation of the Identity of Indiscernibles you listed.

Quick outcomes

Formulation	Verdict in Black’s world	Why
(PIIb) Necessarily, no two objects share all their intrinsic pure properties	Fails	a and b match in all intrinsic qualitative features (mass, radius, composition, etc.). No intrinsic qualitative difference is available.
(PIIa) Necessarily, no two objects share all their pure (qualitative) properties	Fails	Even allowing extrinsic pure properties, each sphere has the very same qualitative relational profile (e.g., “being d from a sphere,” “being exactly like some sphere”). Pure properties can’t tell them apart.
(PII) Necessarily, no two objects share all their non-trivializing properties	Holds	Non-trivializing impure properties are allowed. Then a has the property being d from a, b has being d from b; these differ in how the objects stand to particular things and so are non-trivializing impure properties. Thus a and b do not share all non-trivializing properties.
(PIIQa) (absolute discernibility) No two objects satisfy exactly the same 1-place open sentences	Fails (on the intended, non-trivial reading)	No qualitative monadic predicate singles out just one sphere. (If you allow names/identity, it becomes trivially true, but then it’s not the intended, non-trivial version.)
(PIIQr) (relative discernibility) No two objects satisfy exactly the same 2-place open sentences in both orders	Fails	Relative discernment needs an asymmetric relation (R(a,b) & ¬R(b,a)). In the symmetric world, natural relations (like “is at distance d from”) are symmetric, so they don’t relatively discern a and b.
(PIIQw) (weak discernibility) No two objects are such that each satisfies all the same 2-place open sentences with itself	Holds (non-trivially)	Use the irreflexive, symmetric relation R = “is at distance d from.” Then R(a,b) and R(b,a), but ¬R(a,a) and ¬R(b,b). That weakly discerns them without invoking identity/difference.

A few clarifications

• The key to (PII) vs (PIIa)/(PIIb) is whether you let in impure but non-trivializing properties. Properties like being two miles from a (or from b) “mention” a particular and so are impure, but they do mark a difference in how each sphere is (its spatial relations to a particular), not merely which object it is. Hence they’re non-trivializing on the understanding you gave and they rescue (PII).

• For (PIIa) and (PIIb), excluding impure properties keeps the playing field purely qualitative; then Black’s setup is the classic counterexample: two concrete objects sharing all pure—and even all intrinsic pure—properties.

• On the modal reading: if Black’s world is metaphysically possible, then the necessary versions of (PIIa) and (PIIb) are false. A merely contingent version (e.g., “as a matter of fact, nothing is like that”) could still be consistent with Black’s case.

Up shot: Black’s spheres overturn the strong, qualitative theses (PIIa) and (PIIb) and the absolute/relative Quinean versions, but they do not defeat the weak Quinean version (PIIQw) or the broad, non-trivializing version (PII).

Make this table of which versions of PII hold or fail in the case of Boethius’s view on the Trinity, where the three persons are distinguished by relations (one-to-one paternity/filiation, two-to-one spiration/procession), and discuss.

Here’s the same style of table, now for Boethius’s Trinitarian picture (one divine nature; three persons individuated solely by relations of origin: one-to-one paternity/filiation and two-to-one spiration/procession).

Outcomes in Boethius’s Trinity

Formulation	Verdict	Why (sketch)
(PIIb) Necessarily, no two objects share all their intrinsic pure properties	Fails	Father, Son, Spirit share all intrinsic qualitative features (omnipotence, eternity, simplicity, etc.). No intrinsic qualitative difference is available to distinguish the persons.
(PIIa) Necessarily, no two objects share all their pure (qualitative) properties	Holds	Pure relational properties differentiate them: Father begets someone (∃y Paternity(x,y)); Son is begotten (∃y Filiation(y,x)); Spirit proceeds from two (∃y∃z [y≠z ∧ Spiration(y,z,x)]). These predicates don’t name any particular individual, so they’re pure and they come apart across the three persons.
(PII) Necessarily, no two objects share all their non-trivializing properties	Holds	Since (PIIa) holds and pure properties are a subset of the non-trivializing ones, (PII) follows.
(PIIQa) (absolute discernibility) No two objects satisfy exactly the same 1-place open sentences	Holds	Unary qualitative predicates distinguish: “is unbegotten / begets someone,” “is begotten,” “proceeds-from-two.” Each applies to exactly one person.
(PIIQr) (relative discernibility) No two objects satisfy exactly the same 2-place open sentences in both orders	Holds	There are asymmetric binary relations: Paternity(Father, Son) but not Paternity(Son, Father). For Spirit pairs, define a binary R(x,y) := ∃z Co-Spirates(x,z,y); then R(Father, Spirit) and R(Son, Spirit), but not conversely. So each distinct pair is relatively discerned.
(PIIQw) (weak discernibility) For any two, there’s a symmetric, irreflexive relation they bear to each other but not to themselves	Holds	Let OriginLinked(x,y) hold iff either Paternity(x,y) or Paternity(y,x) or ∃z Co-Spirates(x,z,y) or ∃z Co-Spirates(y,z,x). This is symmetric, irreflexive, and true of every distinct pair—so weak discernibility is satisfied non-trivially.

---

Discussion

• Big contrast with Black’s spheres: In Black’s world, only weak (irreflexive, symmetric) discernment is available; absolute and relative versions fail. In Boethius’s Trinity, the asymmetric relations of origin (paternity/filiation) and the structured two-to-one spiration give you absolute and relative discernment straightaway.

• Why (PIIb) fails but (PIIa) survives: The classical claim that the persons are consubstantial and share all intrinsic divine attributes blocks (PIIb). Yet purely qualitative relational predicates—built from origin relations without naming any particular—differentiate the persons, so (PIIa) (and hence (PII)) hold.

• Purity vs. naming: Predicates like “is begotten” or “begets someone” are pure in the relevant sense (they quantify over “someone,” not “this individual”). So the individuation is qualitative even though it is wholly relational.

• Handling spiration’s arity: Though spiration is fundamentally two-to-one, that’s compatible with Quinean tests: you can define suitable unary and binary predicates by existentially binding the co-spirator, which is standard when assessing discernibility in first-order terms.

• Modal note: If Boethius’s Trinitarian structure is metaphysically possible, that already refutes the necessary (PIIb). If one also holds that the Trinity is necessary, then (PIIa), (PII), and the Quinean versions hold necessarily, while (PIIb) is necessarily false.

If you want, I can also draw the minimal first-order signature (relations, axioms) that makes the table’s verdicts come out exactly as above.