It has come to my attention through the prodding of my spirited opponent that my first abstention argument is in need of serious attention. While I still stand by the final conclusion of that argument, my way of actually arriving at said conclusion was far from “smooth” or “elegant.” Consequently, I was forced to spend approximately 400 posts debating and quibbling over this unclear process. The purpose of this new post is to clean up, simplify and summarize what has been stated previously.
2.0 FIRST FORM
After much pondering and consideration, I realized that my main problem was that I was only reducing bits and pieces of the argument to abstract form, instead of the entire thing. If I had attempted to do this from the beginning, then we likely could have saved several hundred pages of debate. The complete abstract form that I have arrived at is as follows:
(-) [perform action Q on] [entity Y] = (-) [perform action Q on] [entity Y].
This equation is perfectly balanced, because every term may be canceled out through basic mathematical operations. It is the same as saying: 1 = 1.
Now then, our givens (according to the issue at hand) are:
Q = eat.
Y = blood.
That much is easy; however, what about the value of our negative symbol? What words (or group of words) have the ability to turn our entire equation negative? Consider the following:
NO = (-).
Abstain from = (-).
Do not = abstain from.
When we use either set of words, then our equation becomes negative. Without those words, our equation would be stated in positive terms. Therefore, we can set them equal to each other because they have the same function.
Substituting the given values into our equation, we obtain:
(NO) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (blood)] = (Abstain from) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (blood)].
In raw language, this translates into:
Do not eat blood = abstain from eating blood.
My opponent has agreed that this tautology is valid.
3.0 SECOND FORM
The first form is fine and dandy yes, however, my opponent does not adhere to the first form—my opponent adds something extra to his ‘tautology.’ My opponent tacks on a “source” for the entity on which the action is being performed. It takes the following form:
(-)[perform action Q on] [entity X] [originating from source Y] = (-) [perform action Q on] [entity X] [originating from source Y].
Once again, this equation is perfectly balanced. We added a “source” term to the left side, and we added a “source” term to the right side. Everything may still cancel out through basic mathematical operations, leaving us with 1 = 1.
The same rules apply for our negative values as before:
NO = (-).
Abstain from = (-).
Do not = abstain from.
However, we have now introduced a new term and a new variable into our equation, i.e., the source of X. According to the issue at hand, we may assign this new variable the value of “blood.”
Q = eat.
X = minor fraction.
Y = blood.
Substituting our values into our equation, we obtain:
(NO) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (minor fraction)] [originating from source (blood)] = (abstain from) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (minor fraction)] [originating from source (blood)].
In raw language, this translates into:
Do not eat minor fractions from blood = abstain from eating minor fractions from blood.
My opponent has also agreed that this tautology is valid.
3.1 Special Case (Y = X)
When the new term is added in, the role of “blood” changes. In the First Form, action Q was performed directly on entity “blood.” In the Second Form, action Q is not necessarily performed on entity “blood.” It might be performed directly on entity blood, but if and only if X = Y.
X = blood
Y = blood.
blood = blood
X = Y.
If we substitute in Y for X, we obtain:
(-) [perform action Q on] [entity Y] [originating from source Y] = (-) [Perform action Q on] [entity Y] [originating from source Y]
Substituting in our values for our variables, we obtain:
(Do not) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (blood)] [originating from source (blood)] = (abstain from) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (blood)] [originating from source (blood)].
In raw language, this translates into:
Do not eat blood from blood = abstain from eating blood from blood.
To explain this concept in layman’s terms, we might talk in terms of leaves from a tree.
You begin with a full leaf.
You cut the full leaf in half with a pocket knife.
You perform an action on one of the portions.
Therefore, you have performed an action on leaf from source leaf.
In this case, Y = X, i.e., leaf = leaf.
4.0 CONDITIONALLY VALID TAUTOLOGY
The arguments that I have presented above are examples of valid tautologies merely as stated—the sides in each equation are perfectly balanced. However, none of the above arguments are precisely what my opponent uses.
4.1 Opposing Form
My opponent does not use either of the above forms—he actually uses a combination of the first form and the second form:
(-) [perform action Q on] [entity Y] = (-) [perform action Q on] [entity X] [originating from source Y].
If we plug in all of the previously variables assigned in Section 3.0 above, then we obtain:
(abstain from) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (blood)] = (do not) [perform action (eat) on] [entity (minor fraction)] [originating from source (blood)].
In raw language terms, this proposition can mean
abstain from eat(ing) blood = do not eat minor fractions from blood.
We can see that this is the exact form that my opponent uses, except that three of the variables are “turned off.”
abstain from ____ blood = do not ____ ____ from blood
1. First blank from the left – answers the question, “WHAT TYPE of abstention is required?”
2. Second blank from the left – answers the question, “do not DO WHAT?” If equivalence is desired, then the first and second blanks should be the same action.
3. Third blank from the left – necessary to answer the question, “do not do something TO WHAT from blood?”
If we do not provide answers to these three questions, then the statement is neither practical nor understandable. The book of Genesis gives a good example of the need to answer these three basic questions.
“you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Gen. 2:17 NIV)
The statement from the above verse tells us the type of abstention, i.e., eating, and it tells us the source from which some entity is not to be eaten, i.e., the tree of knowledge. It does not tell us, however, exactly what that entity which was not to be eaten actually was. The constituent that Adam was not supposed to eat, with the tree of knowledge as the source of that constituent, is elaborated on for us by Eve in chapter three.
“but God did say, 'You must not eat FRUIT from the tree that is in the middle of the garden…” (Gen. 3:3 NIV, emphasis mine).
Now all three questions have been answered for us.
What type of abstention? eating (touching was also included)
Do not eat/touch what? fruit.
Fruit from what source? tree of knowledge.
Plugging these answers in, we obtain:
do not eat fruit from the source “tree” = abstain from eating fruit from the source “tree”
do not eat fruit = abstain from eating fruit
My opponent seems to think that he can achieve victory through vagueness. Up until this point, he has refused to answer any of these above three questions in his own argument, or even to acknowledge their necessary existence. It is understandable that he avoids them though—providing answers to these questions exposes his argument for the sham that it really is.
4.2 Conditionality
Now, let’s simplify my opponents original, abstract argument by dividing out the “(-)” and the “perform action Q on” terms.
[entity Y] = [entity X] [originating from source Y].
[entity (blood)] = [entity minor fraction] [originating from source (blood)].
Or in abstract and raw language terms respectively
Y = X from Y
blood = minor fraction from blood.
We will now make another assumption for the sake of clarifying our argument:
All entities in the universe, excepting the entity known as God, have a source of origin.
Blood is a non-God entity.
Therefore, blood has a source of origin.
Since this is a conceptual truth, we may ‘add it’ (it was already there, just turned ‘off’ from view) to our original argument
[entity X] [originating from source Y] = [entity Y] [originating from source Z].
[entity V] [originating from source W] = [entity W] [originating from source X].
[entity T] [originating from source U] = [entity U] [originating from source V].
ect., ect. ad infinitum going down, and continuing on to the ultimate source “God” going up. Holding my opponent’s argument “true as stated” would essentially mean that every entity in the universe is equal to every other entity in the universe, which is absurd.
It is thus NOT a valid tautology UNLESS my opponent proves that in ALL cases, entity Y = entity X. If we do allow Y to equal X, then we come to another interesting conclusion:
[entity Y] [originating from source Y] = [entity Y] [originating from source Z].
If we use simple division on our terms, then we find that:
[originating from source Y] = [originating from source Z].
Therefore:
If Y = X, then the source of Y = the source of X.
Using this revelation, we may rewrite this always valid case of my opponent’s original equation as:
[entity Y] [originating from source Y] = [entity Y] [originating from source Y].
Please note that this is the ONLY valid form of my opponent’s proposition. In terms of the issue at hand, this means that my opponent must prove in ALL cases that every conceivable minor fraction from blood actually is blood.
Example:
Y = blood.
X = electron.
Y = X.
Canceling out terms and substituting in the values, we obtain:
[entity Y] [originating from source Y] = [entity Y] [originating from source Y].
[entity Y] = [entity X].
[entity (blood)] = [entity (electron)].
Does the electron = blood? For my opponent’s tautology to be valid, he would have to answer YES and then show why he answered so.
4.3 Special Case
My very zealous opponent has indirectly requested a special case be tested by my valid tautology. I will oblige him below.
Givens:
use = action Q
abstain = action P
the concept “abstain” is contrary to the concept “use”
“use” = (-) “abstain”
Q = (-)P
Equation:
Now we will plug all of these givens into my First Form tautology, which both my opponent and I agree is valid.
(-) [perform action Q on] [entity Y] = (-) [perform action Q on] [entity X] [originating from source Y].
(-) [perform action ((-)P) on] [entity Y] = (-) [perform action Q on] [entity X] [originating from source Y].
(NO) [perform action ((-)abstain) on] [entity Y] = (NO) [perform action (use) on] [entity X] [originating from source Y].
[perform action ((do not) abstain) on] [entity Y] = [perform action (use) on] [entity X] [originating from source Y].
Partial Abstract/Raw Language Form:
(do not)(abstain from) entity Y = (use) X from source Y
Using the conceptual truth that all entities have a source of origin except for God, we may include:
(do not)(abstain from) entity Y from source Z = (use) X from source Y
Reducing to fully abstract form, we get:
QY from Z = QX from Y
And again, this statement is true IF AND ONLY IF Y = X, e.g., if minor fractions = blood. To date, my opponent has not been able to prove this.
5.0 CONCLUSION
After some 2000 words and eight pages of text, I feel confident in presenting a new tautology:
A person may fail to abstain from Qing only that which he actually Qs.
where “Q” is some action, e.g., eat, kick, kiss, ect.
Therefore, when a Witness ‘eats’ minor fractions he only fails to abstain from ‘eating’ minor fractions. He does not fail to abstain from blood unless it can be established that the minor fraction eaten holds conceptual equality with blood. It would then be a case of failing to abstain from eating blood from blood.
No comments:
Post a Comment