Right, but, taking the last man argument and the prisoner’s dilemma in conjunction to necessity, it is not ascertained that ( and this is only for the sake of argument) the progression of knowledge to the last man, will consist of the most agreeable decision.
There can not be agreement by a solitary figure, however much useful information has been acquired.
The last man in his prison cell is prone to base his nest last argument not in terms of an objective way to solve his predicament, but on a differing one, namely having to make a choice of the very earliest argumentative type of understanding: in or out, a solitary quest between staying within the confines of his own barbaric feelings about containment or abandonment.
That is how his final responsibility introduced intontje realm of the unanswered question: either stay in or go out.Reductionism and simplification, deconstruction, have signed , sealed , and delivered this ultimatum, and there may not be a single , unified authority to deliver the message singularly.
Time is of the essence , to go back to the arliest possible recycle, and change things there, and not leave it on the hands, of a single authority whose main concern is one to do with guilt / lack of responsibility. For that is what reduction entails: into a participation mystique of tribal organization.
[/quote]
Agreement by a solitary figure? An ultimatum? A single unified authority? Guilt/lack of responsibility? Reduction into a participation mystique of tribal organization? None of this applies.