Probe-lemmatic
After probing a problem, one might realise that after nailing the main premises, one then has a choice of contentions that can be derived from the premises. The choice of contentions is itself a problem.
And so it is that after having left the premises alone for more than two and a half years, I am frequently being asked to look at them, make a choice of contentions, and come up with even more contentions from the choices I have made. As someone once said, a lemma is simultaneously a contention from premises and a premise leading to more contentions. And two lemmas (or lemmata, to be pedantic, but not 'lemmings') form a...
What to choose is itself determined by how to choose, or what criteria we could use to choose whatever has to be chosen. And who to choose is likewise determined by what we think we should look for in choosing.
The interrogators often pose the problem this way, "You cannot choose from existing choices; rather, do away with all such entities of privileged status, treat them all as heads at the same level, and then choose again." What then can you choose? What should you choose? And if you contend that you have no right to choose, there is no defence against being assured that you have such a right.
To me, I must simplify. I will look for competencies and the character to wield those competencies. And if there is culture, I will think of it as a plus. And if there is not, that will be sad. But I have many many many stepping stones to look at before a solution is reached.
And what if I am part of the problem?
And so it is that after having left the premises alone for more than two and a half years, I am frequently being asked to look at them, make a choice of contentions, and come up with even more contentions from the choices I have made. As someone once said, a lemma is simultaneously a contention from premises and a premise leading to more contentions. And two lemmas (or lemmata, to be pedantic, but not 'lemmings') form a...
What to choose is itself determined by how to choose, or what criteria we could use to choose whatever has to be chosen. And who to choose is likewise determined by what we think we should look for in choosing.
The interrogators often pose the problem this way, "You cannot choose from existing choices; rather, do away with all such entities of privileged status, treat them all as heads at the same level, and then choose again." What then can you choose? What should you choose? And if you contend that you have no right to choose, there is no defence against being assured that you have such a right.
To me, I must simplify. I will look for competencies and the character to wield those competencies. And if there is culture, I will think of it as a plus. And if there is not, that will be sad. But I have many many many stepping stones to look at before a solution is reached.
And what if I am part of the problem?
Labels: Argument, Logic, Odd Thoughts, Problem Solving
etched with acid at 2:34:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home