Exactly, and getting away from merely attempts to establish this definitely, has been insufficient, according to Your own perception of the futility of ever recurring blocks in attaining clarity.
Ever recurring blocks? What are you talking about Meno? You are making all kinds of assumptions that don’t belong. All I am establishing is that we can only choose one alternative whenever we are choosing between MEANINGFUL differences. Show me where this is false. You are trying hard to prove this author wrong, but he wasn’t wrong so you can’t do it. Your reasoning in an effort to prove that my definition is insufficient is completely flawed.
Therefore, the reductive requirement toward distinguishing a difference which has been overlooked. And that difference is mirror imaged within more generally set processes: such as occurs in entropy.
There is no difference that has been overlooked. Sometimes we look back and sometimes we don’t when making a decision. There is nothing reductionistic about this definition. There is no disorder or entropy by saying that when making a choice, it could only be that choice because we are compelled to move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction or preference. Prove to me that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction (or lesser satisfaction) when a more preferable choice is available to you. That’s the only way we will be able to stay on track. Just to remind you: this is an invariable law of our nature whether it was during prehistoric times or modern times. Natural laws don’t change with time, although the environment changes with time.