PreludeNew

Reasoning :

Three kinds of reasoning processes are discussed here. A case will be made for the proposition that there are two forms of reasoning that are most often evident in day to day affairs, and a third will be suggested. The first is termed here as Foundation Reasoning, wherein facts, evidence and premises proceed to conclusions. Thus, conclusions are based on facts introduced into evidence. 'All the known facts are presented to an impartial panel, wherein by deliberation, conclusions are drawn.' Or in a more ordinary vein, before taking a trip it might be prudent to get the best information possible from people who have been to the destination and from travel books, rather than relying on promotional advertisements, where a particular conclusion benefits objectives.

The second logical method is termed Authority Reasoning, in which conclusions proceed evidence, facts and premises. An example might be the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'Global Warming'. This determination may support the proclivities of certain types of people who profit from the causes of the phenomenon. The conclusion as a generality proceeds the evidence. Thus, only evidence that supports the conclusion that there is no such thing as Global Warming may be accepted, and all evidence to the contrary may be ignored or denied. The term Authority Reasoning is used because the pre-existent conclusion is the authority upon which reasoning is based.

And the third reasoning process would be called Symbolic Logic which would employ Foundation and Authority Reasoning as well as Symbolic Logic, in which the individual creates individual language and meaning. The essential premise is that there exists meaning and communication in nearly everything. Thus, the language and meaning of any quality, entity, event or condition is given its content by the interpretation of the individual as it occurs, rather than pre-existing. However, there becomes an obvious dual reality. The population of the world and everyone that the individual knows will proceed along in terms of a shared understanding with pre-assigned definition and meaning. And so the individual must be aware that Symbolic Logic is a private language and will not be appreciated or necessarily considered legitimate or as anything but crazy by others.

Foundation Reasoning :

Foundation Reasoning means that conclusions are derived from grounds, foundation, facts, evidence and premises as given and collected, to which the conclusion should be derived, regardless of the personal predilections of the reasoner. Foundation Reasoning is the logic and rational of the Ego, in that since the body is subject to accident, misfortune and ills of every kind, the Ego must reason from true, accurate, actuality and fact. Unsound reasoning can lead to catastrophe. Foundation Reasoning is equated with the Whole, in that the Whole is Conservative as self-preserving, in which reasoning must and should be as accurate and reliable as possible.

Foundation Reasoning can be considered as akin to Inductive Logic, wherein reasoning proceeds from the particular to the general, or the individual to the universal. Particulars represent the pre-existent state of evidence as individual items, facts, premises or reasons. Particulars as individual bits of evidence are inducted into a collection of grounds from which general conclusions are drawn. An example might be that from a vantage point near the entryway to a party, all the various styles, colors and fashions of the party goers could be seen as they entered the affair. After everyone had arrived it could be concluded as a generality, from the evidence of the particulars, that all the attendees were male. Another example concerning reasoning alone might be that using the particular premises that birds, moths and beetles can fly, and each of these entities have wings, the general conclusion might be reached that most creatures with wings can fly.

Authority Reasoning :

Authority Reasoning means that facts, evidence and premises are selected and disregarded based upon prejudice toward conclusions already reached or held, wherein conclusions are rather, based on Authority such as experts, officialdom, God, specialists, establishments and the like. If they said it, it must be true. Authority Reasoning means that the conclusions of reasoning generally conform to Authoritative Imperatives. These imperatives are pre-existent conclusions that take the form of principles, standard, ideals, values, rule, law or propositions. Authority Reasoning is logic of the Part, where the Part serves itself rather than the Whole, and where the authority is Metaphysical Ideals such as God, Gold and Guns. If the Part disregards the Whole, logic cannot be based on facts, but must be corresponded to the objectives of Identities, and wherein the Authority of aspirations, ambitions or ends supplants evidence and facts. The money was worth the risk was written on the tombstone.

Authority Reasoning is said to be akin to Deductive Logic, which means to reason from the general to the particular or from the universal to the individual. The generality consists in regularities such as classes, propositions, circumstance or principles which are regular, stable, consistent or constant, such as most dogs have similarities of appearance in common, or water on its own almost always runs down hill. If all cats are blue, then any individual cat should be blue also. If one encounters a stranger and is not sure how to deal with them, one may reason from the general to the specific. One may compare this person to classifications and stereotypes. By comparing this particular individual, in terms of various traits such as dress, accent, demeanor or body language to the general category of information one has, one may make a probable determination concerning the character of this individual.

Ipseities would use primarily Foundation Reasoning and Symbolic Logic, wherein Authority Reasoning would be understood as the means of reasoning by many of the agencies of MonoCulture, and a form of reasoning which is essentially equates to propaganda. Symbolic Logic is the creation, adoption or use of Interpretive Context, based on the assumption that phenomenon, circumstance or events are a vehicle of intentional and intelligent communication, via the means of symbols or signs termed Semiotic Language, originating from some other-dimensional source. Or it is the consideration that what is interpreted as signs or symbols would have happened anyway, but may have gone unnoticed, if it had not a context for interpretation, as the creation of the Interpretive Context of Symbolic Logic.

The use of Semiotic Language is found in the cultures of indigenous peoples, religion and spirituality, as the sometimes shared languages of signs, symbols and pageantry. For instance, the cross is a universal symbol in Christianity, with a generalized meaning recognized to most Christians. When say a symbol is formed by some natural means like a shadow on a rock of a perfect cross, this could be construed as Semiotic Language.

New Prelude (9 of 17) Next Page