<aside>

In process @Earthstar One (MKM)

</aside>

Commitment to sound reasoning exists within a painful paradox. When reasoning attempts to be inclusive of others, it is both more logically challenging and improving of outcomes. Yet the more dedicated a reasoner is to fairness, the more cumbersome, convoluted, and eventually disorienting their reasoning process tends to become. This makes one’s own equanimity terribly troubled as the premise of operating in a sane way is brought into question.

I call this the Sane Person Paradox.

It would seem, from the above rather discouraging analysis, that reasoning and fairness are at odds. A common conclusion/solution applied by many is this — 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 some level though, we also experience that sanity based on external approval, ties us to the pressures to conform, which has us ironically insanely clinging to the next “fix.” Sanity experienced this way is constructed on an illusion of mental buttressing. It’s quite simply (and potentially underminingly) 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 fairly and spontaneously reason 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. Instead of each kid bringing themselves to the collective reasoning with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, the kids agree — we use three logical equivalents explored by two independent choosers to ground our logic to grant narration control for “reasonable” change.

It’s function is so important yet undervalued, I like to call what is effectively an insanity quick fix the Queens’ Resolve.

Let me explain.

What is happening during fair and sponteneous resolution of reasoning is a return to true-sense anchoring. Last year I wrote about the function of this to interdisciplinary natural language and communication in a paper Might true-sense anchors repair the representational capacity of natural language? A multidisciplinary puzzle

Individuals in modern cultures tend to be predominantly focused on their own choices and the attainment of influence. From that orientation we are in a position also to fail to perceive or comprehend how and why reasoning processes are also at work beyond our own logical faculties and focus on ourselves and our influence actually limit our effective participation.

Some refer to others who seem to be reasoning beyond our own logical abilities as having the ability to play 4- or 5- dimensional chess.

Here, within OKIC and its natural language connection to true-sense anchoring, the logic of participatory centering (as opposed to influence as an individual) and the extended dimensionality of chess-like thinking can be understood as co-existing.