Lady Jane Grey and her works.

video|right|300px right|300px 
            Lady Jane Grey is a philosophical writer living, at time of writing, in the city of Stormwind. She can be found within Cathedral Square, the Mage District, and any decent bars that may be open. To date, she has written four books, all of which can be found below. A self professed hedonist, in both the philosophical and colloquial senses, the Lady Grey is always on the look out for fun, excitement, and drama to watch and gossip about. Whilst she is willing to debate almost everything, Lady Grey acknowledges that not all would agree with her vies.  That said, should one ask for them she will give them.  When debating, she prefers the use of the socratic method to prove her point, disprove her opponent's or just annoy people.
==On The Existence Of The Mind==
A thought has been lying heavily upon my mind of late.  That thought is the question ‘what exactly is my mind, anyway?’.  Is my mind a physical thing, a part of my body perhaps?  Maybe it is an entirely separate thing unto itself that merely inhabits the body.  If the former, then there is issue of such things as ghosts and shades.  There are numerous tails from sources of great credibility that tell of the risen dead, but not as an animated corpse – as a spectre.  To me, these show that surely there must be something beyond the body.
So then, let us entertain the idea that these spirits are composed purely of the mind, as they do appear to retain personality, knowledge and other such traits of a living mind.  I call this Substance Dualism.  This would mean that our body is little more than a set of clothes for these spectres.  However, in such a case, how then are these bodies controlled?  Ghosts, whilst having some ability to interact with the corporeal do so at great expense and limited effect.  Why would this be different when inhabiting a body?  Besides, were it to be a simple as a ghost wearing the body there is nothing I can see that would stop a ghost from inhabiting an empty body.  If this could happen, why would it not?  It follows then that the mind is not entirely distinct from the body, but nor can it be of the body. 
We know that it cannot be wholly one or the other so, let us perhaps imagine then that mind is formed of two or more parts; one of the spectral and one of the physical, and maybe more beyond.  We must then envision how this works; how we split the mind into several parts.  Well, let us pause a moment and analyse what it is that we call the mind.  Our emotions, our memories, our thoughts, our sanity, and our self-control all seem evident enough to be part of one’s mind. 
Let us examine these in order I have stated them; so first our emotions.  These are present in all things that have a mind that can be discerned, dare I say it that emotions are a requirement for a mind.    Now, our memories whilst they might appear to be present in all minds, they most assuredly are not.  A new born child or  an animal beneath  us in intelligence has no memory beyond perhaps association, and even these are not present at birth.  Therefore, these are things that develop over time, surely.  Perhaps as one ages, one develops new parts to the mind as one does no parts to the body.  It is my belief then, that the spectral form of the mind is not present at birth and must grow.  Next are out thoughts, which I feel are as our memories.  Perhaps they develop faster than memories, but I cannot see thought in a newborn or a simple beast.    Sanity seems to be physical in the same way that emotions are, but self-control is perhaps the last part of the spectral mind to form.  It is evident to me that self-control is present only in those of maturity, and even then, it is not omni-present.  Clearly, it must be the last thing to develop. 
Having said this, I see an issue already that can be raised against my point.  Self-control is a part of the spectral mind, I say, which is present only in things of sentience as evidenced by the lack of animal ghosts.  However, self-control is present in some animals and not always present in ghosts.  To this, I say that, as all people are different, as are all animals and spirits.  It is not the rule that animals display self-control nor is it the rule that ghosts lack it.  Thus it is that we have established which parts of the mind are present in the spirit and in the body, and which are present only in the spirit.
I see, clear as day, then that the mind is composed primarily of two parts: the spirit and the body, two parts of the same thing, one of which shall grow over time and the other is given at birth.  If this is the case then handily we have explained how spirits exist but are lacking the complete form of the mind whilst are still able to control a body.  
==A Rant Concering Morals And Ethics==
            Let me begin this by saying outright that people, in essence, are barbaric brutes.  If we leave a person to their own devices from birth, they are cruel, crude, and simple.  However!  We do not do that, instead people are raised amongst others and, one hopes, are taught to be polite and courteous.  People, whilst not inclined towards etiquette, can be taught to follow it and when this is done people can reach such peaks of moral excellence and ethical clarity that we may call a select few saintly.  These people are rare and far between but I do not feel that must be the case.
            So, let us now decide not what is moral and ethical, but through what means one should set out a moral system.  Should I, perhaps, say that there are a set of rules or virtues that one must follow to be moral?  Or maybe I should say that one should do something as insipid as to ‘follow their heart’?  To both I say: nay!  If we take the former and lay out rules to follow always, we should fall into a worry when we encounter something not planned for or we should fall into a case where the rules are wrong.  Let us assume that everyone agrees murder is wrong and set that as a rule to which all must follow, what then must occur is that one must let live someone who shall cause further immoral acts by their hands.  Clearly in this hypothetical situation, sparing their life is immoral as it caused further immoral acts to occur.  To this, I already here the cries of those who demand rigid and fixed laws to follow.  They say, why not vague laws?  Why not have a set of simple and general laws, which encompass others?  To this, I say that the vaguer a rule, the less it rules.  By which I mean, as we remove specificity of a law, the more it can be abused to suit immoral acts.  No, we cannot rely solely upon rules, for they must be specific but they are never entirely correct in every circumstance. 
            So let us discuss what should happen were we to use entirely one’s heart or conscience to decide morality.  How dare we suggest such a thing?  How very dare we?  Who are we to say our conscience and heart is infallible?  We are not of terribly great wisdom, we are not of totally encompassing knowledge; so there is not a single reason at all that I can see to suggest that one’s heart, one’s intuition or one’s heart can at all decree what is moral.  No, one cannot rely on feelings for morality for one can be found wrong or lacking.  Perhaps though, if one applies their rationale one can find what is right.  Of course, this will not work as we are not all knowing, but maybe it would help.  A person who thinks and strives to do the right thing, and fails, is a better person than he who does it by chance.  It is of better qualities in a man, I think, that he may believe he has reasoned out the correct thing to do and been wrong in the place of guesswork.  Maybe this is a clue to how one can be more moral and ethical.
            Let us now then discuss whether the same morals and ethics can be asked of all people.  I believe I can hold dwarves, men, elves, orcs and all others to the same standards even if some are more inclined than others to barbarism.  All are sentient and have the capacity to strive for betterment and so they should.  Let us then turn this to individuals and not just different peoples.  Can I hold two men, from different stations in society, to the same judgement?  Well, why couldn’t I?  All men, if removed of their worldly possessions, to be considered equal before my eyes.  So say I that thus, removed of physical differences, all species are equal before mine eyes.  The only differences beyond the physical trappings then, are those that people make for themselves.  So I shall hold all to morality, ethics, and etiquette. 
            Now, let me ask myself should I feel the right to dictate what I believe is moral upon others?  I have already said that we are not infallible and can err; so I have no right to preach to my readers; but I feel I have a duty to at least try to spread the guidelines one can use to be moral and let mine be known so that should others wish they can follow in my footsteps.  A poet once said “no man is an island” and he was right, no one is a singular entity and were they to be so morality and ethics would be a great deal simpler; but I will say that men are independent.  All men should thus strive for their own personal philosophy on ethics and morals.  None should decide to follow the teachings of others - even, my dear reader, mine are to be ever questioned. 
            So, to return to the matter I started with: how to be moral and ethical, despite being born a savage brute.  We have proven this far that purely laws are of no use, relying on intuition is ridiculous, all people can be treated equally herein, and what is true for one person can be considered true for another in most situations.  So, what combination based mostly on rules and in rationale can we use?  Perhaps we could say to do as we please so long as none are harmed?  But sometimes harming another is required to better them.  Maybe adding more guiding rules to use for judgement, but as the number increases the ease of abuse, the fallibility and the complicatedness grows.  Something simple must be developed.  Simple, yet effective and all encompassing.  Are there any things that one cannot deny?  Water, food, accommodation perhaps?  To which I say there are some who choose to eschew such things so clearly these are not things all men must possess.  I suggest then that so long as what one does should influence not another’s freedom.  I suggest then that people, to rise above from such brutal and cruel things that they are born to be, should act to foster and protect the freedom of choice of their fellows and perhaps when there are many an option that does not hinder this freedom of choice, one should use their intuition to decide as it makes no difference to any others.  In this matter, I feel to have ensured that one can easily decide what to do, it allows one to harm a person for the better (such as forcing a child into discipline) whilst protecting the rights of all. 
==On how One Should Live Their Life==
            In one of my earlier books, I discussed how to live ethically and morally, but I advised everyone to form their own ideas on it also.  That book concerned mainly with the people not the person; this book shall concern itself with the person and teach you how to form your own ideas if you wish to learn. 
            Let us begin then by saying what you, the individual are.  You are a being in possession of Self-Determination, Will power, and choice.  You must use these.  Do not let yourself be constrained unwillingly by prior laws, religions, and codes!  You must choose for yourself.  Throw off the shackles of other people.  Learn to live as you choose to live, for no one else has the right nor the power to make you live otherwise!  Your life is yours, do not waste and do not let others live it for you.
            Further, no action you choose should you regret.  If given the chance to relive your life, you should want to make the same choices each and every time and be happy with that. You only live once and to live it in regret and unhappiness is a waste of it.  Move out of the shadow of past actions if you already regret and learn to act as it pleases you best. 
            Regarding laws and religions; I say it now and I say it clearly – they mean nothing to you!  They are not your laws, they never Will be if you don’t wish for them.  The laws of others who theirs alone, should you wish to follow them you may but you are not to be forced into this.  You must choose. 
            Everything without Choice is also without worth inherent to it.  It all means nothing, in of itself.  There is no difference between anything, nor is there purpose or meaning to life.  It is yours to prosper and be happy in and nothing more.  You grant meaning to the world, you must decide what has worth and what does not, for no one else can do this for you.  Choose! 
            Again I say, you must choose!  You must rise up above the title of mere mortals, for you are above man!  You are a super man should you wish to be it, and so you should!  There is nothing in this world that can stop you, if you choose to keep on.  The Will triumphs over all!
==Upon The Existence of reality==
            Now to some, this may seem the most trivial and pointless of questions to pose, but it must be posed anyway: does the external world exist?  Many people might say that it obviously does because one can see and touch it, and one can otherwise experience it.  To this though I must make two points.  When one is asleep and dreaming, does one not also see and perceive all that one dreams?  Further, when one is deluded or otherwise tricked one might perceive something to be the case, when in fact it is not true.  In either case then, if the real world is said to exist because one perceives it, then so too should dreams and delusions be counted as real.  Clearly, this is not the case; so how does one know for certain the world does exist?
            So, if as implied earlier one cannot rely upon sensory data, is there anything one can rely upon?  We know for a fact that one has a mind, so that may be our first foundation.  For those unsure of the veracity of this, attempt to doubt the ability to doubt and one can see that there must clearly be something; besides, even were we to be deceived there is still something being deceived.  So, with that let us attempt to construct more things of which one can be certain.  Things of purely mental construct that have no grounding in the physical world, surely.  Rationale, logic, reason, and even arithmetic can be counted as such.  For if they cannot, then how ever did I think of all this before putting pen to page?  Let us expand on this, though I cannot be sure of the chair in which I sit as I write nor of the hearth that warms; I can be sure of the idea of chairs and hearths.  Where these ideas come from, however, is not clear; but that they must originate from somewhere is certain.  Either, I create these ideas, they are given to me by something or they are of real physical things.
            Let us consider these then in order.  If they come from my mind, then I am creating these ideas out of pure imagination.  If I am the source of all my ideas, I should have some influence over them and have the capacity to generate wholly new ones.  Of the former, I cannot say for certain but of the latter I can definitively say I do not have that ability.  At best, I may combine or re-arrange parts of prior ideas to form new ones, but I cannot create a wholly new one.  For example, try imagining a new colour. 
            If they are given to me by something, what could this thing be?  Clearly its morality does not align with what is commonly thought to be moral – it is willingly deceiving me, giving me no reason for this, and manipulating me.  What thing then has this power and then uses it so?  I refuse to believe something of power sufficient to dominate my mind so easily is also as petty enough to have nothing better than to do so.  I have no real rationale for this, but it just doesn’t make sense for something of such power to do so little with it.
            This leaves us then with these ideas come from the physical world.  If they do so, what then is the source of this?  I shall apply the logic that the simplest argument that requires the least hypotheses and conjectures is most likely the correct one.  As such, the simplest argument that requires the least hypotheses and conjectures is that these ideas come from that of which they are ideas.  Obviously, these might not be arranged or laid out as I think they are nor might I be perfectly accurate as to what I perceive; but it is then all but certain that what I perceive is truthful in the majority. 
However, regardless of whether or not the external world does exist, one must act as though it does.