From the assumed angle of strictly assuming the fallacies for what they are (ie "fallacies"), they make little sense as they are subject to eachother and themselves. You seen a thread or two giving the simple "form" of how they contradict eachother and themselves.

The Negation of All Fallacies:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=25376&hilit=the+co ... +fallacies

The fallacies do not exist except as as a means to providing what could be called a "negative context". Negative context being what a context, ie localized portion of one reality (ie a "part"), is fundamentally "not". We observe this in real life in observing any object, a tree for that matter. We see the tree for what it is by what it is "not"; ie the air around it, the grass, the dirt, etc.

This however implies a contradiction at first glance considering the premise "all is context", as this necessitates one context is equivalent to another context which is equivalent to another context which is equivalent to another...etc...all in light of the fallacy of equivocation being negated.

This context being a self referencing loop (ie context through context as context), in light of circularity being negated as well.

So one context is not another context but all contexts are variations of eachother with each fallacy representating a key context through which we assume as the point of origin for the proposition.

Thus... what to do? the fallacies do not exist yet they exist as contexts (assumed loops that isomorphize into variations of whatever loop is present and repeat themselves through these variations).

The fallacies as negative contexts as a means of "imaging" (ie imagining) a basic form through multiple states. They act as a means of approximating one loop through the observation of many loops which loop through eachother.

For example: "The statement is true because the boss told me so and the boss is the boss".

Fallacy of authority under the proposition of the undefined context of the boss, which also observes fallacy of circularity which all circularity necessitating a slipper slope. It is false because it depends on a purely assumed context.

The "statement is true" is thus limited by the predicate of "the boss told me so".

So "the statement is true because the boss told me so and the boss is the boss" is traditionally viewed as false within logic strictly because the predicate answer as an undefined assumption negates the validity of the proposition of this statement. However, "because" is an inversion of "therefore", no different than "<---" is inverted as "--->"; therefore you can also argue that "the boss is the boss and the boss told me so, therefore it is true" necessitates the statement being grounded in a beginning false assumption.

The fallacies thus point to why a statement is false because one specific aspect of reality is assumed. The same occurs for bandwagon, or for looping as pure assumption, or for slippery slope where the definition continues to a point where it becomes indefinite and thus assumed....etc.

-Ad hominum can be observed as assuming the character as a foundational variable.

-Straw man can be observed as assuming a generalization of the argument as a foundational variable.

- Even the fallacy fallacy where an assumption of absence of form (ie connected assumptions) is based on an assumption of a specific form or methodology as a means of connecting and separating assumptions as variable contexts...

You see the problem with the fallacies? They are grounded in pointing to assumptions, when inversely the argument is always still assumed.

If I changed the propostion to:

"The statement is true because the boss told me it is true and his job is analysis of company data."

May be viewed as valid to some as it gives further definition...but still fallacious. It still assumes "job" as an assumed authority, the "job" is still a circular context (the job is valid assumption because we assume job is valid), and undefined.

Even "fallacy", upon a simple Google search, is observed as "mistaken belief" or a failure in "reasoning"...ie rationalizing or observing a ratio of how qualtities fit into eachother.

So by default fallacy observes where an argument becomes indefinite, but all arguments are by default in definition as they are assumed assertions that act as a context.

They gain validity by being dynamic in nature, ie always a continual definition through further contexts with each new context being an inherent cycle.

Thus all assumptions are contexts that are indefinite by nature of being inherent variables where they strictly are empty contexts. The looping allows for a form of clarity as clarity is form, but this empty contextual nature of assumptions necessitates them always being isomorphic or inversive by nature. The reas

Loops are necessary for isomorphism as inversion, this is perpetually present because of the na the nature of variation necessary for an inherently static circularity to maintain itself as a dynamic boundary of change.

Aristotle an identity laws actually set the foundation for looping with "P=P"...which is why aristotelian laws are self negating as an approximation of looping.

Example:

The cat is the cat.

C ---> C

Or

(C=C)

The cat is the cat because the cat is furry and furry is what cats are.

(C ---> C) <--- ((C ---> F) ---> (C <--- F))

Or

(C ---> C) <--- (((C ---> (F--->F)) ---> (C ---> (F--->F)))

Or

(C=C)= ((C=(F=F))=(C=(F=F)))

***Notice how as the definition progresses each context as "( )" repeats itself.

*** "--->" as a directional symbol observes "If and only if" as a Directional quality where one variable is directed towards another. If cat then fur if fur then cat. This is true as form, however "if then is always contradictory as it is assumptive by nature. If cat does not necessitate fur, while fur does not necessitates cat.

*** "--->" as a Directional symbol observes "equality" as a Directional quality as well. "Cat therefore cat (--->)" and "cat because cat (<---)" simultaneously observes as "cat therefore/because cat" as car equals cat.

*** "--->" can have further symbolic annotations as well but it represents a basic foundational grounding in "direction as form through dynamic change as multiplicity, with multiplicity being the inversion of assumption(s) into finite entities." Finiteness is Directional my nature thus necessitates direction as inherent within analysis.

Looking at the above statement it becomes obscure, because their are so many loops to assume, with assuming an assumption being a loop itself. Thus we intuitively, for simplicity, ignore this basic looping at the detriment of forgetting it was there to begin with.

However when we assume any context and identity, we always assume a loop as that loop is a self referencing assumption.

So to simplify the statement:

- The cat is furry

(C <---> F) or (C = F)

***<---> observes a simulataneous (C ---> F) and (C <--- F) where both are fundamentally the same thing looping itself through a variation.

Thus contradiction...is never really possible, however contradiction as the seperation of assumptions (multiplicity) necessitates an inherent fragmentation of the loop into loops. Contradiction however is effectively "voiding" as void because it really is not even there, the contradiction allows for progression with the loop containing contradiction through form.

This statement above may be considered obscure, hence an example is needed:

The simple P=P can be observed as a looping of P with "=" being void of identity. It is not until void is voided, though recursion as form that "=" gains any identity at all. The voiding of void, or in religious terms "from nothingness came forth being".

So "=" effectively means nothing in (P=P) where all we assume from identity is a loop.

However:

((P=P)=(P1=P1)) observes not only does "=" gain an identity through looping but even then the loop with "=" as a center connector is empty. It is the inherent formless middle where inversion as isomorphism occurs.

And it continues:

(((P=P)=(P1=P1))=(P3=P3)) where we see the "inherent middle" assumption at the beginning as the "inherent void" which allows the progression to the other assumptions.

Or for greater clarity:

[(P=P)=[(P1=P1)]=(P3=P3)] where we see the "inherent middle" as the middle and the as the inherent void. Inherent middle and inherent void are thus the same with the middle observing recursive form and void being inversive and isomorphic through one to many.

All logic is thus grounded in an inherent void variable that effectively is not just assumed but fundamentally empty of meaning except as recursive inversion. It is an inversion variable, transitive by nature with no form.

" • " as inherent void is thus a function. "( )" is thus an inherent middle.

1. P•

2. (P•P)

3. (P•P•)•

4. [(P•P)•P1]•[(P•P)•P1]

5. {[X]•[X]•}•

6. Etc.

Look at all the meta contexts required for just a simple proposition, with this simple proposition being a particular if we observe the first two examples directed towards this one as a final. Inversally this example can be observed as a general statement directed towards a particular.

^^^^This statement can be applied to any of the above examples as well.

Even particular and general are loops. Many to one, one to many...one and many.

With the problem of keeping track of all the meta-loops comes again a problem of language.

Where (((P=P)=(P1=P1))=(P3=P3)) may be valid assuming all of these "contexts within contexts", with "context being loop" and "loop being assumed form"...we end up with a problem of hyper complexity. Too many contexts, to many loops.

Annotating one context as "( )" and then moving to "[ ]" and then moving to "{ }" results in more demarcations and effectively can overload any system or pscyhe just by necessitating a simple answer.

So an answer such as (((P=P)=(P1=P1)=(P3=P3)) may be looped back to an empty context of (Q).

It is the nature of looping as fundamental an empty context both intuitively and rationally that enables logic to exist fundamentally as it does...or maybe more accurately put "being itself".

Loops are a fundamentall archetype of the zietgiest and individual and represent a qualtitative (infinite) and quantitative (finite) grounding in the basic dualism between the mythos (anthropormiphization as romantic irrational reasoning) and logos (symbols as objective rational reasoning) that stems to the socratic dialogues where "arete as a way of life" and "the good" are encapsulated within Platonic Forms.

Loops are inescapable as they not only are the fundamentals of our consciousness, they are consciousness. "Self awareness"...the awareness of awareness...another loop... God is a loop. Man as a god... is a loop.

Going back to (Q), this statement is always definite and indefinite simultaneously under "assumption of inherent middle" and "assumption of inherent void". Its definite nature is derived from progressive looping as multidimensional linearism...is indefinite nature grounded in it is always an empty context.

So we are left with (Q) as both definite and undefined, form and function(formless).

So we are now left with Empty Context necessitating both "the assumption of inherent middle" and "the assumption of inherent void" as simultaneous. Empty context is now a variable of itself, leaving use with "the assumption of inherent variability" where the empty context is both a form as a variable and function of variation. Each Empty context is it's own self negation as a truth statement.

****This is where the fallacies, each as contexts, applies.

If I assume "Cat", I assume a variable considering there are many different types of cat.

Same with "tree"...

And something as simple as "+"....

Each is a generalization, each is a particulation. Each is a form each is a function.

So the inherent middle and void exists through a variety of symbols and are variables in themselves with the variables always being an inherent middle and inherent void, with variables being subject to further variables and variation.

Thus we assume three core assumptions, by default:

1. Inherent Middle

2. Inherent Void

3. Inherent Variability

To assume these statements as true, in that they are giving form and function to eachother and underlie all of logic/reasoning/math/physics/etc.

There is one final assumption that must be made for a complete system (if the system is to be "complete")

4. "The Assumption of Inherent Image"

It is all made up and imaginary, ie "the giving of image". Period. It is assumed as is where not the just the form of the argument but the symbols it is derived from as well as the symbols themselves are imaginary. They exist as forms.

So identity is grounded in an inherent recursive inverse void as a variation but continuous middle that is imaginary.

Hence identity is just made up, you dont have your contradictions as they are voided...and all is well.

## A Logical System with No Contradictions or Fallacies

### Re: A Logical System with No Contradictions or Fallacies

Does it have phalluses?

### Re: A Logical System with No Contradictions or Fallacies

1+2=3

The above is a context that is composed of contexts, hence is empty in and of itself unless it progresses

(+1)

(+2)

(+3)

{[((+1)(+1)){[(+2)]+1]+3}•

***[((+1)(+1))(+2)]• observes 1+1=2 as a context composed of contexts. This context must progress and can do so in any variation.

"•" empty context.

___________________________________________________

Thus a logical system is always present as contexts within contexts but it is always empty.

{[[(+2)]]}• is an inherent middle context, yet as replicating contexts in both directions from itself it is inherently void.

Or

"The cat was eaten by the dog therefore no cat"

[[((D)(e))(C)](-C)]•

Or looking at math through the traditional sense:

{[[((1)(+))(1)](=)](2)}•

Arithmetic is an assumed context of interpretation, as well as language. The "rules" are merely how one context directs itself to another, each context is an assume point of observation, with each rule as a context derived by "how" it is directed to another context.

The above is a context that is composed of contexts, hence is empty in and of itself unless it progresses

(+1)

(+2)

(+3)

{[((+1)(+1)){[(+2)]+1]+3}•

***[((+1)(+1))(+2)]• observes 1+1=2 as a context composed of contexts. This context must progress and can do so in any variation.

"•" empty context.

___________________________________________________

Thus a logical system is always present as contexts within contexts but it is always empty.

{[[(+2)]]}• is an inherent middle context, yet as replicating contexts in both directions from itself it is inherently void.

Or

"The cat was eaten by the dog therefore no cat"

[[((D)(e))(C)](-C)]•

Or looking at math through the traditional sense:

{[[((1)(+))(1)](=)](2)}•

Arithmetic is an assumed context of interpretation, as well as language. The "rules" are merely how one context directs itself to another, each context is an assume point of observation, with each rule as a context derived by "how" it is directed to another context.