Apologia

Half way through writing my first entry to this blog I realized the daunting scope of the task at hand. How does one, I pondered, circumscribe the basic features of such enormously complicated topics, in a way that is both intellectual (and scientifically) honest, and yet also simple, accessible, and intuitive?

As seems to be the case with many topics of large proportion, and to some extent with inference-based logic in general, the predicates that one uses to infuse the underlying premise tend not only to drive the conclusions, but to do so in oftentimes misleading or, in the worst of cases, disengenous ways. Remarkably, and perhaps surprisingly, the base deception of many arguments in the public domain at present lie firmly planted in their (often unstated) predicates, while the facts become merely tools to massage the movement of the argument in a such a way as to reinforce the hidden underlying assumptions.

While this is undoubtably true, it is also true that developing a logical format capable of exploring relevant aspects of a problem requires the formation of base predicates. Predicates that in the case of energy dynamics, are frequently incomplete, and often must serve the greater purpose of attempting to illustrate and/or disentangle the intricate relational fields that have developed between the primary, or sometimes seemingly ancillary variables at play.

Because of this, and because of the scope of the topic itself, it seems essential to view any particular analytic observation within the scope of its own predicates. That is, to realize that no particular analysis of this size can capture the entirety of the problem as a inert snapshot, or static picture of a living, changing dynamic relationship. That the understanding of large conceptually interactive systems do not lend themselves properly to static forms. That each logical investigation must by its nature suffer from relative relational and conceptual inconsistencies, that can only be posed within a framework that may only “make sense” relative to the interiority of an ever larger framework. As such, a weblog can attempt merely to serve the role of illumating aspects of the problem in hopes of promoting a deeper, more empirically incisive understanding of the relational fields and formative predicates that are used to circumscribe an elusive, though increasingly critical, logical imperative. This is the frame from which this blog departs.