Introduction
For clarity, many definitions are made in the context of this pamphlet. These may be considered to be 'Calxist definitions' and do not necessarily assert a common usage consistent with any particular dictionary, however are usually clarifications of commonly used terms within the Calxist school of thought.
Chapter 1: The Calxist Proof
Logic is all too often thought of as an abstract concept, however herein it is concretely defined as 'The correct processing of information' (see Appendix A). The simplest and most global means of logical thought is that of deductive reasoning and the proof. Deductive reasoning integrates a number of premises and draws a number of conclusions, usually multiple instances of deductive reasoning form a proof, which performs the same function. Often more specialized methods of logical deduction such as the mathematical operators are developed for use in specific applications, however they must first be proven by this most elemental means.
Therefore in order to draw any sort of logical conclusion, one must first start with a set of valid (already known) premises. In the case of problems in which behavior is being generated, one such premise is the goal. The goal is that which should be striven for, or more concisely that which the behavior is meant to accomplish. Such a problem is often termed a choice problem, because it is used to logically select a particular choice from a set of possible choices. A simple example of such a choice problem is:
Man A puts a gun to the head of Man B and asks the question “If you answer yes, will I shoot you?” Man B does not wish to die and must choose an answer (yes or no).
In the case of this problem, the logical answer is no. This is because an answer of 'yes' will, assuming the problem's validity, result in the death of Man B; therefore this would be an unfavorable outcome because it is known that Man B does not wish to die (in fact, this can be said to be Man B's goal). An answer of no, while not guaranteed to result in the living of Man B, at least leaves a chance for a favorable outcome. It is worth noting here that the behavior of Man B was generated without absolute knowledge of the answer to the question (The answer of no is still uncertain), however it was still logical.
The Calxist Proof is in fact a choice problem, where the circumstance is the world in which we live, and the goal is simply termed the goal. This is because a goal is essential to logical decision making (behavior generation); however we have no knowledge of a universal goal which to work relative to (It is simply the recognition of and action upon this fact which sets a Calxist apart). A Calxist is defined as one who applies logic not only to means, but to ends (see section in Chapter 2 on logical means to emotional ends).
Without knowledge of the goal, the only behavior which can be generated in order to strive for or 'pursue' the goal is to discover the goal, since this is required for logical behavior generation in direct service of the goal. Two 'special cases' are often brought up with regard to this proof:
There is no goal
The goal is not to discover the goal
At this point it is worth noting that Calxism does not claim the existence of 'the goal', only that we should behave as if there is a goal, and that this makes special case #1 irrelevant. Special case #2 at first seems a bit trickier, however referring to the definition of a goal ('that which should be striven for') we see that any 'goal' falling under #2 is not actually a goal at all. Without discovering the goal it cannot be striven for because correct or logical decision making must be relative to it, except by 'poking in the dark' (which is entirely neutral, and not striving at all), therefore it cannot be a goal.
Chapter 2: The Human Condition
Noticing that the Calxist proof is a simple logic [choice] problem with no inherent connection to humanity is essential to an understanding of Calxist philosophy. The Calxist proof is universal to any logic system, or system capable of correct processing of information, a requirement which humans are clearly capable of meeting. However at current humans are the only implementation of a logic system known, and so must be the tools used in pursuing the goal. [All] Evidence suggests that Humanity is the result of the processes of biological and chemical evolution (See Appendix D), which is consistent with human nature.
The region of the human brain often referred to as the 'new brain' is credited with the human ability to constitute a logic system (see On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins and Appendix D), which enables us to greatly increase our Darwinian fitness by generating complex new behaviors within a single generation; and passing them on to the next. However this detachment from evolution also makes the 'new brain' a double-edged sword for our Darwinian fitness, because it allows the brain to draw conclusions which do not necessarily increase Darwinian fitness (such as those contained herein). It seems logical that as the new brain became more dominant, a means of compensation termed here as emotion developed which keeps the logical processes relative to the goal of increasing Darwinian fitness (It is important of course to avoid Lamarckian comments here, see Appendix D for further commentary) and thereby allows for the Darwinian potential of the 'new brain' to be utilized.
Central to the Calxist commentary on human nature are the emotional goals, alluded to in the last paragraph, or those goals which are imparted on the human logic system by emotion. It is important to note that as with [most] other human systems, emotion is not perfect in its function. Not every outcome of emotional influence directly correlates with an increase in Darwinian fitness, and this can be attributed to the lack of goal direction in evolution as well as simple 'randomness' (see Appendix B). A vast majority of humanity follows these emotional goals (termed loosely here as the logical means, emotional ends paradigm), and as they are an attribute of the individual they vary on an individual basis. Many things are often in common between the emotional goals of humans, attributable mainly to the fact that they are the same species (see Appendix D), and many of these similarities fall under the title of Morality. Morality is defined herein as 'that which does not offend emotion', and is often thought of as a universal code of behavior for all humans, an advantageous behavior in an evolutionary context (social behavior mention?), due to the unspoken fact that the majority of humans follow their emotions (see Appendix A for further discussion on Morality, and Chapter 3 for a discussion of religion).
Two 'mottos' concisely describe the Calxist treatment of human nature: “Calxist first, Human second” and “A happy worker is a productive worker”. The first is the simple statement that humans are the tools by which the goal may be pursued, and that this is the first priority. The second is a recognition of the fact that not only can emotion not be ignored, but that emotion is an essential part of human nature and that without its satiation humans are less productive (it is also worth noting that Evolution is a useful tool as well [Appendix D], but not to be followed blindly [Chapter 3: Nazism]).
Chapter 3: Calxism in Relation to other Philosophies
The first and perhaps most important discussion on the Calxist philosophy's relation to other philosophies is that of religious orientation. A common classification of religious orientation is qualifying '[A]Theist' with '[A]gnostic'. However this system seems to assume an illogical decision making process in that being classified, as it creates ridiculous classifications such as 'Agnostic Theist' and 'Agnostic Atheist' which make religious conclusions without premise (Agnostic meaning 'without [religious] knowledge') but also ignores the case in which one cannot come to such a definite conclusion due to a lack of information/premise (usually referred to simply as 'Agnostic'). As a conscious adherent to logical thought, a Calxist cannot be classified by this system and must simply be classified as 'Agnostic', recognizing Atheism as a religion.
Religion as both an ingenious means of control over humanity and an amazing product of the meme evolution (See Appendix D and ?). Religion appeals to many emotional attributes of the human, some common examples including:
Satiation of human curiosity, termed here as a 'lust for understanding'. Note that understanding is not necessarily truth, as is seen in the case of religion.
An appeal to the want for safety and comfort (heaven, love of god, etc.)
An effective appeal to the natural desire to maximize energy intake/expenditure ratio as well as lust for pleasure (heaven)
Appeal to a lust for pleasure coupled with fear of pain (hell)
Appeal to individual desire to be a part of a greater whole, and for a significance to life.
All of this and more makes religion very prevalent, quick spreading, and sought after among humans. However the truly ingenious use of evolution is as a means of control, such as in the creation of institutions such as the Catholic Church. Mainly through the exploitation of appeals to and satiation of pleasure/pain (heaven/hell) as well as a derived appeal to the concept of 'Morality' such institutions are able to exploit the populous in a very effective, long-lasting, and self-propagating manner.
Another interesting study is that of [Secular] Humanism and Nazism (source on Humanism similar to http://usabig.com/autonomist/humanism.html, on Nazism?). Humanism embraces the 'logical means emotional ends' paradigm with varying degrees of consciousness that amounts to a self-centered (with respect to one's own kind, rather than one's self) submission to human nature, following it blindly usually as a derivation from Nihilism. This blind following of a perceived natural order is very similar to that of Nazism, which moves a step further by consciously acknowledging and following religiously 'Natural Law' (as they often phrased it). Although the Nazi interpretation of 'Natural Law' is clearly somewhat skewed, the biggest fault of the Nazis and Humanists is the failure to question postulates instilled in humanity by evolution (rather than logic).
Chapter 4: Practical Application
Calxism essentially states the obvious in clear terms which make the behavior which one should generate obvious: “To pursue the goal” can be expanded into “To strive for that which should be striven for”. In this way Calxism makes no religious assertions and specifically does not answer the old question “what's the meaning of life?”, but rather asserts that logical behavior generation may progress without an answer to such a question (See the section in Chapter 1 on 'choice problems').
As the motto "Calxism without action is not Calxism at all" summarizes, Calxism is not a philosophy compatible with sedentarism