<aside>
In process @Earthstar One (MKM)
</aside>
Commitment to sound reasoning exists within a painful paradox. When reasoning attempts to be inclusive of others, logic is more challenging and, when successful, outcomes improve. There seems to be a limit though. The more dedicated a reasoner (or organization) is to fairness, the more cumbersome, convoluted, and eventually disorienting their reasoning process might become. The premise of operating in a sane way is brought into question by one’s own equanimity. And that should (likely does) trouble you terribly.
I call this the Sane Person Paradox.
Given the above rather discouraging analysis, reasoning and fairness in the “real world” outside of our imaginations seem to be inherently at odds.
A common conclusion/solution applied to this paradox (where sane is actually odd) is that humans require hierarchies. Operating within a social order supports us in resolving the difficulty of reasoning together with others. While we and/or others are in effect “put in our place,” the upshot is we have solid ground on which to proclaim our own sanity.
On another level though, we also experience that sanity based on external approval, ties us to the pressures to conform. That likely and ironically has us insanely clinging to the next “fix.” Sanity experienced this way is constructed on an illusion of mental buttressing. It’s quite simply (and potentially false) perceived social order projected onto collective reasoning.
There’s a different approach that works just as well as hierarchies, one that’s used commonly by children who reach intractability when at play. They reason fairly and spontaneously using Rock-Paper-Scissors, known the world over by a variety of names and symbol combos.
Rather than project social order, this quick game resolves the paradox. It does so by grounding through bivalent narration control. No need for each kid bringing themselves to the collective reasoning with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. They execute Rock-Paper-Scissors, wherein they use three logical equivalents which can be “played” by two independent choosers, to ground the pair or larger group’s logic. In real effect, they seek and easily obtain narration control for “reasonable” change.
This sort of function — bivalent narration control — is incredibly valuable yet little understood. I refer to what is, effectively, an insanity quick fix the Queens’ Resolve.
Let me explain.
What is happening during the fair and spontaneous resolution of reasoning described above can also be understood as a return to true-sense anchoring. Similar conditions are grounding (system) and embodiment (self). True-sense anchoring is the condition of communication between system and self, grounding and embodiment.
Last year I introduced a technical, interdisciplinary definition of true-sense anchoring in light of natural language and three-value logic in a paper Might true-sense anchors repair the representational capacity of natural language? A multidisciplinary puzzle. I realized recently that its difficult layers can be effectively collapsed, and communicated in a basic way that many will find useful, through the bivalent narration control example given above.
With Rock-Paper-Scissors and quick resolution of the narrative toward collective action, we can recognize the same complex representational capacity as in true-sense anchoring but in more general and hopefully relatable terms.
Doing the hard work to understand not only the Sane Person Paradox but ti decipher its tricky solution is worthwhile. Humanity needs not lose heart and give up on sound reasoning as something within our reach, both as individuals and collectively!