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 into the 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 earliest 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.
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.
----???------???-----???
But You are making this statement singularly, and that is exactly my point.
What statement are you talking about, and what difference does it make if I am making it singularly?
(And keep in mind I am in Partial agreement, only that a hypothetical begs for substantive reasoning, and as hypothetical as motivated reasoning-it may demand for justification down the line: referentiality requires it!
The reasoning couldn’t be any more substantive, and it’s justified. Referentially? In what way do you mean?
That is the only trace that is left unresolved, and even a minute amount of it is like taking a minute amount of poison.
Huh? How can that be the only trace that is left unresolved when nothing has been explained? I’ll ask you the same question I asked surreptitious75. What is the discovery?
That is why partially re-integrated difference, requires to be taken into account.
You keep talking about there being a difference that needs to be reintegrated. I’m still not sure what you’re referring to.
Maybe I’m negating a logical extension into this, what may be a secondary derivative, and You may wish not to go there, however I see plenty of pressing utilization , whereby to reduce what may turn into a bubble, based on Artemis’ idea of a reverse triangle.(pyramid); It’s a.concern, nevertheless.
Thanks. Peace
How can you negate a logical extension when there is no foundation upon which you can do this? What secondary derivative are you using that I may not want to go to? What pressing utilization do you see that could turn into a bubble? You speak very abstractly.