GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin; You ignored my question, so I'll re-ask it:

So, if we were standing outside tonight and I said, "Look, the moon." How would you know when you were looking at the moon -- unless it matched some notion of the moon?

Kevin Solway wrote:You can't know that anything is "contained within the boundary" unless there is something other than that which is contained. That "something other" is that which is outside the boundary.

Actually, the "something other" may be the same something, but in a different state (e.g. - ice and water).

Also, you wrote "You can't know . . ." I agree, but this may point to a limitation of OUR KNOWING and not a limitation of reality. How could we know?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:You're not observing the Totality, and describing it from your observations

I most definitely am observing it and describing it from my observations.

The familiar story of the Blind Men and the Elephant comes to mind. Laird says Kevin isn't seeing the (whole) elephant and Kevin says that he is seeing the elephant and describes the (part of the) elephant he sees.

And Kevin, since all there is is the elephant, then everyone is always only seeing the elephant; so what's the big deal?

clyde wrote:if we were standing outside tonight and I said, "Look, the moon." How would you know when you were looking at the moon -- unless it matched some notion of the moon?

We do have a model of the moon in our minds, in the form of a memory, but the word "moon" may be refering to the real moon rather than the model of it, in which case we see past the model.

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:You can't know that anything is "contained within the boundary" unless there is something other than that which is contained. That "something other" is that which is outside the boundary.

Actually, the "something other" may be the same something, but in a different state (e.g. - ice and water).

Different things always have a boundary between them, by definition. Two different things, like ice and water, can't be the same thing.

Also, you wrote "You can't know . . ." I agree, but this may point to a limitation of OUR KNOWING and not a limitation of reality. How could we know?

Boundaries are always mentally constructed things. And it is logically impossible to have a boundary that doesn't have two sides.

Laird: how do we know what is and isn't possible?

Kevin: It's impossible for a line to have only one side.

It's very easy to know such things.

That's not an answer to my question: how do you know that? You say it's "very easy" but how is that?

As for whether it's impossible for a line to have only one side: I can imagine a two-sided line that has nothing beyond one of the sides.

Kevin: Logic demands that a line has two sides. That's all the proof you need.

Laird: Weak. First of all who said that a boundary was a line?

Kevin: I did, along with the dictionary you quoted.

The dictionary that I quoted also said "something", indicating that it need not be merely a line, and in the case of three dimensions one would be foolish to attempt to create a boundary out of a line - some sort of curved plane would be more appropriate.

Laird: Secondly, how do we know that it's necessary that at the outer limits of the universe there is actually "another side" to the "line"?

Kevin: Because a line has two sides.

Even assuming that I accepted that you have the "correct" definition, how would you know that this definition actually applies everywhere? It's entirely possible that at a certain extreme point, the universe stops having what can be defined as boundaries and starts (and ends) having a final limit with nothing beyond it.

Kevin Solway wrote:If we define the Universe to be "everything" (synonymous with the Totality) then there is no such thing as "outer limits".

An idle assertion of what you would like to believe, rather than anything based on observable reality.

Laird: This is not something that can be proved in isolation from reality.

Kevin: Logic is part of reality.

Logic can't prove anything ultimately because ultimately it rests on fundamental axioms whose truth is taken as self-evident but in which taking the reasoner might ultimately be mistaken.

Laird: Logic is not a process of observation, it's a process of reasoning.

Kevin: Logic is indeed a necessary part of the process of conscious observation. Without A=A you wouldn't be able to identify anything.

That's not logic, that's identification.

Kevin: You've forgotten that we are talking about observation of the Infinite, and not a definition of it. I explained that you can observe it in the same way that you can observe the wind - in that you have a certain experience of it, just as you can have an experience of the wind.

Laird: Please describe that experience.

Kevin: Read about the experience Nirvana, or heaven, or God, from the Masters, and you'll have a good description of the experience of the Infinite.

I'm not asking for third-party references, I'm asking for you to describe your experience of the Infinite.

Laird: I don't deal in "proofs" as you do, but I can certainly back my assertions

Kevin: The only way you can back your assertions is with solid proof. Without that, you have nothing.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding as to when it's possible to provide a "solid proof": the reasons that I have given you are more than sufficient.

Laird: It's a model because it consists of various definitions

Kevin: It is everything. The All. It's not complicated.

Oh, so now it's "not complicated" when earlier you accused me of not understanding it. If it's "not complicated" and given that you've described it to me countless times, then why would I have difficulty understanding it?

And it's more than just The All. It has characteristics that you model in words: infinite in all spatial directions; infinite in both temporal directions; singular; uncaused; container of all causes.

Laird: It's arbitrary because other definitions that are just as sensible can be proposed

Kevin: A more sensible definition for "Everything" than "every thing"?

That was dishonest of you: you snipped what followed from my quote, which was: "such as that a boundary might include two sides but might alternatively simply be a limit with nothing beyond it." So clearly I wasn't talking about the definition of "everything", I was talking of definitions that you use to construct your model of the Totality from, in particular the one that you use to deduce that it's infinite.

Laird: Such as that a boundary might include two sides but might alternatively simply be a limit with nothing beyond it.

Kevin: As I say, unless you can prove the existence of a line that doesn't have two sides, you are just talking about something logically impossible and ridiculous.

I can imagine a line that has nothing on one side at the outer edge of the universe. Too bad if you can't. Prove that it's impossible and ridiculous.

Bear in mind too that I'm not putting my money behind either option - for all I know the universe really is infinite: all I'm saying is that we can't know for sure one way or the other, your silly little word games notwithstanding.

Laird: It's divorced from reality because there's no way for you to actually discern which definition makes the most sense - i.e. whether your model is truthful/accurate or not.

Kevin: Firstly, it's not a model,

You're in deep denial. But that's what I've come to expect from QRS anyway, as I wrote in my opening post to this thread.

Kevin Solway wrote:and secondly, you are ignoring the fact that it is always the conscious mind of the individual that decides what makes the most sense. There is no other way.

Sure, and if you decide to put your faith in an infinite universe because it makes the most sense to you then good luck to you - all I ask for (and I'd let the matter drop) is that you recognise that it's exactly that: faith, and not knowledge.

Leyla: Now, I think it's possible for a line to have nothing on both sides, but not a boundary.

Kevin: It has "sides", so that's not nothing.

Left side | Right side

Leyla: Yes, but (unless you put those words in there) those sides have nothing that distinguish them as different things aside from their relative relationship to the line from the observer’s point of view. Hence, nothing on both sides.

James: Is the line itself any different? It is a word that has been "put there"

Of course it’s different. The line itself is not a word, it’s a perceptic (visual) image. In this case, it’s a visual image imposed on flat space by the individual drawing it.

The word line indicates in human verbalisation the perceptic “line,” whether occurring in nature or synthetically (for the sake of distinction) devised on a piece of paper or computer screen. However, the word “line” is also an audio image when spoken. Hence, without reason (that is, as a pure audio perceptic) the meaning “line” would then be a pattern of perceptics associated with the sound of the word rather than an abstract distinction in itself in the mind, much like the meaning a dog attaches to its name or the term “good boy.” The dog associates sounds with other perceptic messages (think Pavlov) occurring regularly in its perceptual experience with the boundary “at the same time.” The kind of memory Weininger is not talking about.

James wrote:In any case a line in nothingness does not have sides, it has "all sides" as one can divide the nothingness into two 2 dimensional entities, from any angle of sight.

Well, a line which has “all sides” (that is, a 3D conception of line) isn’t really a line, by definition. More like a pipe or cylinder, or something of the sort. A perceptic (2D) line has no actual depth as it is purely a manifestation of light/shades. Such a (2D) line necessarily divides both nothingness and somethingness into 2 dimensions, therefore, without any other “angles of sight.” So, with a (2D) line, you can have nothing on both sides and with a 3D cylindrical object you have what I call the boundary of an object, whether what’s inside that boundary is solid lead or more empty space (“nothing”) through which water can be made to flow, for example.

Is there any depth to the lines on this page, as if they were tangible objects in themselves, or do we assign such depth to lines arbitrarily?

Leyla:I think it's possible for a line to have nothing on both sides

James: If the line is within anything, even nothing, then this nothing mentally becomes something, and "the other side of the line" is this nothingness.

Well, it mentally becomes the 2D something “nothing” in relation to the line, much like the blank spaces on these pages, no?

Kevin Solway wrote:Boundaries are always mentally constructed things.

What follows from this is: we project boundaries on reality which has no boundaries, therefore reality has no actual things (e.g. - no moon) as things are defined by their 'not-thing'. It also follows that if reality has no actual things, all talk of and so-called pointing at things is based on models.

Oh, and even the boundaries are projected, not actual things, and models.

Laird wrote:

Laird: how do we know what is and isn't possible?

Kevin: It's impossible for a line to have only one side.

It's very easy to know such things.

That's not an answer to my question: how do you know that? You say it's "very easy" but how is that?

We know it in the same way that that we know that a thing is itself, and not other than itself (ie, A=A).

As for whether it's impossible for a line to have only one side: I can imagine a two-sided line that has nothing beyond one of the sides.

It still has two sides, and each side is a "thing".

some sort of curved plane would be more appropriate.

The principle is the same - there are two sides. If you look at a curved plane in cross-section it is a line.

how would you know that this definition actually applies everywhere?

All boundaries are mentally created, and always have two sides.

It's entirely possible that at a certain extreme point, the universe stops having what can be defined as boundaries and starts (and ends) having a final limit with nothing beyond it.

There would still be two sides to the boundary, and each side is a thing.

Logic can't prove anything ultimately because ultimately it rests on fundamental axioms whose truth is taken as self-evident but in which taking the reasoner might ultimately be mistaken.

It's not possible to be mistaken that a thing is itself.

Logic is indeed a necessary part of the process of conscious observation. Without A=A you wouldn't be able to identify anything.

That's not logic, that's identification.

That's all that logic is - identification.

I'm not asking for third-party references, I'm asking for you to describe your experience of the Infinite.

You'd have to pay me money to do that. Those other descriptions are good enough.

It is everything. The All. It's not complicated.

Oh, so now it's "not complicated" when earlier you accused me of not understanding it. If it's "not complicated" and given that you've described it to me countless times, then why would I have difficulty understanding it?

Mental block.

And it's more than just The All.

No, it's just the All.

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Boundaries are always mentally constructed things.

What follows from this is: we project boundaries on reality which has no boundaries

Not exactly. We are part of reality, and we create boundaries, therefore the boundaries are an inherent part of reality. That is, the boundaries are indeed part of reality, only that they depend on mental construction for their existence.

Oh, and even the boundaries are projected, not actual things, and models.

The boundaries are only models if they result in a simplification of what is really there. It is not necessary that they do, so long as one does not grasp at them.

Kevin; To say that boundaries are part of reality is not to say anything at all, as everything, even illusions, delusions, fantasies, etc. are “part of reality”. You have already posited that boundaries are mental constructions; i.e., boundaries are dependent on our consciousness and do not exist apart from our consciousness; the same can be said of illusions, delusions, fantasies, etc.

Now, what is the difference between a mental construction and a model?

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Imagine there lived an intelligent fellow back in ancient times who was inspired by the current scientific theories of the time to reach an understanding of the scientific method. He might have been inspired by navigational theories, for example, which assumed that the sun traveled around the earth, or that the earth was at the centre of the universe. These theories, although subsequently proven to be faulty, were enough to stimulate his thinking and cause him to arrive at good understanding of how the scientific method works. Now, having reached this advanced understanding, it no longer matters to him whether these initial theories are correct or not. He has transcended the need to place stock on any particular scientific theory, for he is in tune with something greater.

Similarly, the logical truths that I have used to springboard me to a more advanced understanding are no longer important to me on a personal level. It no longer matters to me whether they are true or false.

So according to you in the above quote, the correctness of your initial theories doesn't matter to you, and yet in the final chapter of Wisdom of the Infinite can be found this quote:

It should also be noted that the conclusion that "everything is an appearance", as articulated in this chapter, is built upon a whole series of truths which ultimately rest on the core truth that all things are finite and caused. As such, both the conclusion and the core truth live and die together. One cannot use a logical conclusion to falsify one of its own premises, at least not without falsifying the conclusion itself. Thus, to the degree that "everything is an appearance" is correct, to that very same degree "all things are finite and caused" is also correct, and vice versa.

So it seems that the correctness of the initial theories - and of the intervening ones - is vitally important to you after all because your most supreme conclusion depends upon them.

You are still fixated on the finger and ignoring where it is pointing. Everything in the book is the finger pointing. The wisdom to which it is pointing can't be found in the book, just as it can't be found in any book.

Once a person finds this wisdom, the pointing no longer matters to him. He has successfully fulfilled the function of the pointing. Because of this, the validity or otherwise of the pointing's direction is no longer an issue for him.

This also happens to be further evidence that you are involved in a process of modelling reality: a "series of truths" about reality that rely upon each other can reasonably be described as a model.

They are a series of correctives which comprise the pointing.

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:As it happens, they can no more be proven false than 1+1=2 can, but again, such things don't really mean anything to me nowadays.

Oh, just like having other people know that you believe that you're enlightened "doesn't really mean anything to [you] nowadays". Sure, sure. Just like Paul McDermott doesn't care that he's famous, no doubt.

It might be true that he doesn't care. Who are you to judge him?

Laird wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Your argument is taking advantage of the fact that if we were to start from a particular point in time and move forwards to an infinite future, we can never reach the end of this future. While that is true, it cannot be applied to the matter we are discussing here. We cannot move forwards from an earliest point and travel an infinite amount of time to reach the present. It is literally impossible, both theoretically and practically.

In other words, we can use the present as a starting point and move infinitely into the future, or infinitely into the past. But we can't use a most earliest point or most latest point to try and reach the present. No such points exist.

And this is precisely the problem - not simply that we cannot find an earliest point but that even if we could, we would still have "reached" an infinity by arriving from the infinite past to the present moment, and we both agree that that's impossible - as you write above (substituting "start" for "end"): "If he really does embark on this journey from the very [start] of infinity and has to travel an infinite amount of time to reach our present, then it could be successfully argued that he will never reach us." Precisely. That's another way of looking at my argument in a nutshell.

The trouble is, we can't have both an earliest point and an infinite past at the same time. If an earliest point exists, then the time between that point and the present will be finite. If time extends infinitely into the past, then there can be no earliest point. It's either one or the other, not both.

Since your argument demands both, it is incoherent.

Laird wrote:

DQ: I don't know where you grabbed these assertions from, but they have nothing to do with Kevin or myself. For example, where on earth did you get the "three spatial dimensions, and no more" bit from? From the ether?

Laird: OK, so how many spatial dimensions are included in the totality then?

DQ: That ultimately depends on how we choose to divide the Totality up. But the important point is that nothing is excluded from the Totality, by definition. So if there are more than 3 spacial dimensions, they will also be part of the Totality.

However you look at it though, it will be comprised of a fixed number of dimensions. That is a limitation aka boundary. The Totality reasonably meets your definition of a "thing".

Since I define a "thing" to be a portion of the Totality, the Totality itself can never be a thing.

-

clyde wrote:Kevin; To say that boundaries are part of reality is not to say anything at all

It is saying that we don't project boundaries onto reality.

Now, what is the difference between a mental construction and a model?

A model is an approximation that we use for purposes of induction, or prediction.

Not all mental categories are used for this purpose. For example, the mental distinctions "left" and "right" are not necessarily models that are used for induction and the making of predictions. Likewise with the distinction "I".

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:Kevin; To say that boundaries are part of reality is not to say anything at all

It is saying that we don't project boundaries onto reality.

Kevin;

First, you cut my sentence and replied to half of what I wrote. For completeness, what I wrote was,

clyde wrote:To say that boundaries are part of reality is not to say anything at all, as everything, even illusions, delusions, fantasies, etc. are “part of reality”.

The point of this sentence is that since all things are part of reality, to say that boundaries which are things are part of reality adds no information.

You have clearly stated that boundaries are mental constructions, so how is that you see boundaries in the world if you don't project your mental construction onto reality?

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:Now, what is the difference between a mental construction and a model?

A model is an approximation that we use for purposes of induction, or prediction.

Not all mental categories are used for this purpose. For example, the mental distinctions "left" and "right" are not necessarily models that are used for induction and the making of predictions. Likewise with the distinction "I".

You failed to answer my question and your definition of model is half right. I agree that a model is an approximation. We use models for all sorts of so-called purposes, not merely the ones you named.

Are you using the term 'mental categories' and 'mental distinctions' as synonyms for 'mental construction' or is there a difference?

Please define "left", "right", or "I" and we can then judge whether your concepts of left, right, and I are models or not-models.

clyde wrote:The point of this sentence is that since all things are part of reality, to say that boundaries which are things are part of reality adds no information.

It adds the very important information that while boundaries are dependent on consciousness for their creation, they are not projected onto reality, but are an inherent part of it, since consciousness and its creations are a part of reality.

You have clearly stated that boundaries are mental constructions, so how is that you see boundaries in the world if you don't project your mental construction onto reality?

Consciousness and reality are not two different things, and it doesn't really mean anything to project reality onto reality.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:The point of this sentence is that since all things are part of reality, to say that boundaries which are things are part of reality adds no information.

It adds the very important information that while boundaries are dependent on consciousness for their creation, they are not projected onto reality, but are an inherent part of it, since consciousness and its creations are a part of reality.

Kevin; I agree that each and every thing is a part of reality, but repeating that boundaries and mental constructions and consciousness and this and that and each and every thing is part of reality, still doesn't add any information. Information requires differentiation (the result of the function of boundaries).

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness and reality are not two different things

Are they perfectly identical and those are merely two different names? Is that my experience of consciousness, your experience of consciousness, the sum of all consciousness, a Universal Consciousness? Does it include the unconscious?

If they are not perfectly identical, how are they "not two different things", what are the differences, and where are the boundaries?

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness and reality are not two different things

Are they perfectly identical?

Consciousness is part of the whole of reality in the same way that a wave is part of the ocean, and is distinguishable in the same way as well.

Is that my experience of consciousness, your experience of consciousness

There are different waves in the ocean.

Does it include the unconscious?

The unconscious is not conscious, but consciousness is caused by the unconscious.

what are the differences

See above.

and where are the boundaries?

Wherever you draw the boundaries.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Consciousness and reality are not two different things

Are they perfectly identical?

Consciousness is part of the whole of reality in the same way that a wave is part of the ocean, and is distinguishable in the same way as well.

Again, you state "a thing (consciousness) is part of reality". By "perfectly identical" I mean a complete one-to-one match and you're saying that consciousness is a part of reality (like a wave is part of the ocean) and imply that consciousness is not the whole of reality (like a wave is not equal to the ocean, you know, like A=A without any extraneous bits). Therefore, consciousness is not perfectly identical with reality. For instance,

clyde wrote:Does it include the unconscious?

Kevin Solway wrote:The unconscious is not conscious, but consciousness is caused by the unconscious.

Clearly the unconscious is not conscious, but the unconscious is part of reality. (See, I remember.) So there must be a boundary between consciousness and unconsciousness. But "consciousness is caused by the unconscious", so how did the unconscious cause consciousness and how did that boundary, which is a mental construction, occur?

clyde wrote:Therefore, consciousness is not perfectly identical with reality.

That's right, but it's just as much a part of reality as all the other parts.

clyde wrote:So there must be a boundary between consciousness and unconsciousness. But "consciousness is caused by the unconscious", so how did the unconscious cause consciousness

That's what the theory of evolution is about. It happens through causation.

and how did that boundary, which is a mental construction, occur?

There are causes, but I don't know exactly what they are.

It's like asking how it arose that I can distinguish a wave from the rest of the ocean.

Kevin; I don't know too : )

DT: You need to think about the concomitance of the unbounded, the undifferentiated and timelessness.

Laird: First of all I think that it's nonsensical to claim that reality is undifferentiated: without differentiation life would be impossible for a start.

DT: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I certainly haven't claimed anything of the sort. As far as I can see above, we were talking about the unbounded, undifferentiated, infinite nature of the concept of totality.

Laird: Well, as Kevin has made clear, he believes that reality and the Totality are one and the same. So when you talk about the "undifferentiated ... nature ... of totality" you're essentially putting up the argument that I took fault with: that "reality is undifferentiated". I don't understand why you're not sure what I'm trying to get at.

Reality and totality are one in the same, necessarily. However, you aren't talking about reality per se, you are talking about that which is real. So here, when you take fault with "reality is undifferentiated", you actually mean that which is real as opposed to reality itself; and of course that which is real is differentiated. Reality itself however, cannot be.

This argument is pure reification. The concept of totality is on the very edge of dualism and monism. Its monistic aspects simply cannot be treated dualistically. Reality per se is not a thing in a dualistic sense and cannot be categorised as physically concrete in the same manner. Reality is not that which is real and that which is real is not reality.

As well as reification, this argument also commits another fallacy of ambiguity, namely composition/division, where one assumes that something that is true of the whole is true of its parts, or vice versa

Laird: Secondly, I can go with unboundedness in the spatial dimensions and with timelessness in the forward direction, but it just plain doesn't make sense in the reverse direction. And yes, I have thought about it.

DT: So time in the reverse direction makes sense?

Laird: I suppose that it's a possibility but one that I'm not particularly trying to canvas. Perhaps my phrasing was unfortunate - perhaps I should have said "it just plain doesn't make sense to apply timelessness to the past".

Does it make sense to apply the past or even the future to timelessness? That's what’s happening here. It's a category error.

And unbounded spatial dimensions is impossible too, just like it's impossible for anything finite to be completely boundless in the sense we're talking about.

DT: So there you have it. The rebuttal of your syllogism was related in that it employed and exposed the very same category error you employed, that of limiting limitlessness.

Laird: I don't see how I'm "limiting limitlessness". On the contrary, I'm arguing that limitlessness itself is what makes a nonsense of the idea of a beginningless past.

Then, again, you are misunderstanding the context of limitlessness that we are talking about here. As such, you attempt to apply temporal and topological categories to it, forming fallacious arguments.

The idea of a past cannot be applied to timelessness, never mind a beginningless past or even a beginning. The idea of spatial relations cannot be applied to spacelessness. That’s how you are limiting limitlessness and in doing so, completely misunderstanding what the concept of totality represents.

I said all this earlier but you snipped it and didn't answer:

"You keep on applying conceptual boundaries - be they spatial, temporal or whateveral - to the concept of unboundedness. Does that make sense?

If someone was not understanding how one cannot apply any concept of differentiation (which necessitates limits) whatsoever to the concept of limitlessness, how would you explain it to them beyond pointing them towards a dictionary?"

Kevin: You need to provide a proof that there can be a boundary that contains something, but absolutely doesn't have anything else outside or apart from it.

Laird: On the contrary, I need prove nothing: I am merely putting up an alternative definition to demonstrate that alternatives are possible and that your asserting that the universe mandates that a boundary has two sides has nothing to do with whether the universe actually does mandate that. It is up to you to prove that it does.

Kevin: Logic demands that a line has two sides. That's all the proof you need.

Laird: First of all who said that a boundary was a line? Secondly, how do we know that it's necessary that at the outer limits of the universe there is actually "another side" to the "line"? How do we know that the "line" doesn't just end there? This is not something that can be proved in isolation from reality.

This is just intellectual dishonesty and arguing for argument’s sake.

Empirically, we know that the universe is expanding, which necessitates something for it to expand into. You know that. But of course, the empirical 'universe' of time and space is not what we're talking about.

Logically, drawing any boundary necessitates distinction. To be able to draw a distinction, at least two aspects which lie either side of it are necessary. Draw me a distinction that doesn't have at least two aspects distinguished between.



With regard to your arguments, Kevin is doing you no favours by poetically playing with this ambiguity between monism and dualism, as well as the understanding of the supposed difference between the real of the empirically concrete and the reality of the psychologically concrete. I don’t know, maybe he thinks he’s doing you a favour in some other way.

Dave Toast wrote:With regard to your arguments, Kevin is doing you no favours by poetically playing with this ambiguity between monism and dualism, as well as the understanding of the supposed difference between the real of the empirically concrete and the reality of the psychologically concrete. I don’t know, maybe he thinks he’s doing you a favour in some other way.

It's a particular style I've gravitated towards, which differs from David's approach. Whereas David gives people a bit at a time, my preference is to give people the whole story at once, and then deal with individual issues as they arise.

I think it's a matter of personal preference - and I'm not sure if one method is any more effective than the other. In the end one has to use words to communicate, and if the listener is not courageous and imaginitive in how they interpret those words, little is accomplished.

Yeah I'd noticed mate.

Personally, i think this method leaves itself open to misinterpretation if the backwards engineering of addressing issues as they arise is done in a manner which is anything but comprehensive i.e. explaining the definitions and principles invloved in the backwards engineering as well as explaining the conclusions derived. Otherwise those not au fait with the definitions and principles will likely misunderstand the conclusions presented in the explication. It's most often a more advanced process as backwards engineering is generally harder than bottom up.

Your style does seem to favour the more advanced reader and/or getting those less advanced to think their way through it. As with anything, pros and cons.