Circular Reasonings for Life!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjBZ6rKftGs&feature=youtu.be

…[B depends upon] reasonings in argument A.

And those are further warranted by argument B.

I don’t know about you, but for me the more that I explore this the more sense it makes. Hence the circle is not a closed loop or arbitrary tautology.

So part of Argument A warrants Argument B, and part of Argument B warrants Argument A.

The accuser must not believe in cell biology obviously. This seems to follow the patterns of most biological theory.

Now: Look at the accuser’s arguments:

1.       Argument A is inconclusive.

2.       Argument A requires a warrant.

3.       Argument B warrants Argument A.

4.       Argument B is warranted be Argument A.

Or:

1.       A warrants B.

2.       B warrants A.

Or the more knit-pick:

1.       B warrants A.

2.       A warrants B.

Only those in power can afford to be Arbitrary and to impose their preferences, but there we go.

So HERE in is the circularity in the opponent’s own reasoning:

1.       Argument A cannot warrant Argument B because it is inconclusive.

2.       It requires a third argument.

3.       Argument A is inconclusive because it is circular.

4.       Arguments A and B are inconclusive together because they are circular.

5.       They are circular because Argument A is inconclusive. (Were A conclusive, it would function in the same way as the third argument was MEANT to function: As the definite and stable Absolute that the remainder of the system would depend on. As the Logos.)

There is no Logos.

We never arrive at that argument that is totally independent but not Circular. This is because INDEPENDENCE *depends upon* circularity. Only when one draws a circle back to the starting point can some thing be SAID TO BE independent. But one can choose not to, and there it is SEEN AS dependent. But the larger system becomes a larger circle. That is all.

So the argument is:

1.       Argument A is inconclusive.

2.       Argument A occurs in the System that includes Argument B.

3.       Argument B is inconclusive. (Imperfect according to the dogmatic epistemology.)

4.       The System is circular.

5.       The System is inconclusive.

Fair enough. But no system is therefore ever conclusive, because any independent system could be expanded to look like it is dependent upon a larger independent system that is nonetheless equally circular. It just looks like it is not going to be.

Obviously this is very generalized but the point stands. The idea is for this not to be a dogmatic Absolute but to see how the specific instance is not a problem.

So Argument A is a component of the System.

As below, so above. The System can be described as being equal to its parts. So the circle is:

1.       Argument A is inconclusive because it is circular.

2.       The System is circular because Argument A is inconclusive.

Or, if Argument A is equated with the System, (as below so above):

1.       The System is inconclusive because it is circular.

2.       The System is circular because it is inconclusive.

You see?

The question of whether or not Arguments are never circular is not a problem now, for before they were believed to either be Absolutely circular or Absolutely not. By eliminating the Absolute, we solve. It is neither. And both. Depending upon whim. And it could thus be both at once because it is observed multiply simultaneously, occurring in multiple worlds of experience.

The equation of Argument A with the entire System can be challenged: The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts!

The counter-argument: Then that means that Truth is a function of Quantity rather than quality. Simply by having PROVIDED more information we win. The argument for The Whole being Greater is saying that because of the SIZE of the system, the degree of magnification, to use a Wattsism, it is different from the sub-system, which of course BECOMES the system once we skooch in close enough to see it as the Whole. Then the Whole is seen hierarchically as greater than that sum of ITS parts. But this is Absurdly Hierarchical and arbitrary. It is an appeal to SIZE. The Whole is only superior to the parts become it is its self GREATER. At every step in the growth of an argument, the opponent can choose to bring it to a logocentric hault and to say: This is now the Whole. All that had BEEN the whole before now were mere parts. And the longer that the argument grows, the more opportunities are allotted to do this. So the Power to say ‘This is Greater’ depends upon the Size of the argument, a function of the Time that it takes for the Argument to grow to BE that size. And the greater the argument the more power it has because the more it subsumes previous Wholes that had themselves possessed Power over smaller wholes.

So Truth is a function of Power, as Nietzsche said, and Wholeness is a measure of size. Therefore we win by the sheer SIZE of the argument.

Dm.A.A.