Interlocutor:

Interlocutor:

“ iv.      i and ii imply that I am crazy. (a + b = c.[But what is c here? Is it that I am crazy? Either states that I am crazy given certain conditions that they share in common. Does the one (i[a]) depend upon the other (ii[b]) to make a point ([c])? Demonstrably yes. 13 proves 14 and 14 proves 13. [But do they depend upon EACH OTHER to PROVE C? Well if both are an expression OF C, in a Heidegerrean way, then yes. And C depends upon them as its manifestation.] But we must go through the cycle to see it this way. How do they depend upon each other, though? Is it not RATHER that ii and iii combined imply i? Demonstrably this is true as well. One is left wondering if in fact all warrants are hegemonic and hierarchical, based upon a naive epistemology rooted in tradition, that ignores that all reasoning in the absence of a Domineering Logos (Watts, Derrida) is circular because Life is one of mutual interdependence, mutual arising, and cyclical nature (Watts.).)

                                                             v.      14(i): If I am not sane, I am crazy.

                                                           vi.      13(ii)*: If I am not sane, but I believe myself to be, then I am crazy.

                                                          vii.      Since 14 all ready implies that I am crazy, granted that I am not sane, then my not being sane is sufficient to my being crazy in 13, regardless of whether or not I believe my self to be.

                                                        viii.      14 thus implies 13.” This makes no sense to me.

Speaker: Well, it is quite obvious.

You might have miss-read the bracketed statement to be an unwarranted assertion from whom I derived deductions in v through viii. Yet that is by your force of habit as a reader. In fact if any thing the obverse is true: The bracketed statement contained the deductions from v through viii, input after the fact, and hence* in bracketts. Bracketts indicate that I put this in as a second thought, usually.

Now, of course deductions and warrants are synonymous. When I made that claim it was not its self an unwarranted assertion; you just read it that way because you had not yet seen the entire picture. By the end I am sure that you will agree with me. But it is not even that my reasoning DEPENDS upon pretending this to be the case. Like I said, I meant this non-dual statement (that warrants are deductions, and that it is arbitrary how one treats them, as one or the other) as an APOLOGY for having even tried to define what is or is not a warrant or deduction. It was purely for YOUR consideration.

*Try not to cling to the semantics here.

Interlocutor: So you are saying that the bracketed statement (A) is warranted by v through viii (B).

Speaker: In a manner, yes.

Interlocutor: But you ALL so claim that B could just as easily warrant A.

Speaker: That is correct.

Interlocutor: And the bracketed statement (A) all so states that good reasonings are circular.

Speaker: Many of them, yes.

Interlocutor: And THAT is circular! Because A, then circular reasonings are good. You could call that C. And because C then A. I mean: Supposing I agree to what you said in brackets. Then I should all so believe that v through viii are not only warrants for A but deductions too, so they do not need warrants. But that is OKAY because everything is circular any way!

Speaker: Yes.

Interlocutor: What the hell???

Speaker: It’s trippy. Yeah.

Interlocutor: But what if I DON’T accept that? What if I refuse to accept A until you prove B?

Speaker: Then you are being will fully ignorant. For all is cyclical. Yes. A warrants B. B warrants A.

Interlocutor: But how does A warrant B?

Speaker: B warrants A. That we have established. A claims that all reasonings are circular. So A warrants B as well. And that is a circle. Which proves that B is true*. So A is true. So all reasonings are circular. So that this is a circle ought not to bother you. It all works.

Interlocutor: But if all reasonings were circular then this would go on infinitely!

Speaker: Actually it only ends the moment that you complete the circle.

Interlocutor: Only?

Speaker: I mean merely. Look. All reasonings are circular. If you go straight long enough you end up where you were. Only what leads to infinite regression is refusing to complete the circle. You keep going further and further on a line. THAT goes on forever. In theory only though. Because you might find that sooner or later your own most dearly prized linear narratives bend in on their selves as well. So just breathe out and accept the snake that eats its own tail as your condition where thought is concerned.

[Note what happens here. In fact every thing in brackets is not even an argument but I thought. They are not even related to one another in a binding way; parts of them could be true and parts un-true. Yet the Interlocutor sought a weakness the moment that the Speaker began his second paragraph, generously (on the part of the Speaker). The Interlocutor sought to exploit this generosity by attacking the circular argument. Yet by so doing he trapped his self, because he acknowledge all of the bracketed statement as ONE FACT. So by a kind of judo the Speaker was able to use that fact mathematically to prove its self.]

*Because A warrants B, but all so because this is a circle. Though the latter is not direct. If the circle is established to be valid, though, then that would directly prove A to be true. All so, speaking grammatically rather than mathematically, the full stop might be dropped to say “And that is a circle which proves that B is true,” as the prior sentence had all ready established, though the Interlouctor is still tentative to accept it because he is still waiting for B to be proven true as the starting phrase (ironic, considering that this is precisely what has just been proven.).

Dm.A.A.

Dm.