Reasoning 2 - Contextual Conversion

We will now add Non-Partial Conversion.

Using the example previously ...

📌 I walk in the morning

You can break the sentence above into several different parts (modules) like this …

• 🧩 I walk + in the morning

• 🧩 I + walk + in the morning

• 🧩 I + walk + in + the morning

• 🧩 I + walk + in + the morning

• 🧩 I + walk + in + the + morning

The more we can divide it into many parts, the deeper (more complete) the contextual conversion becomes.Non-Partial Contextual ConversionEach meaning of "I", "walk", "in", "morning", "day" is connected more broadly to reality.

• "I" 👉 not just linked to yourself or a friend or someone else, but 👉 linked to "my activity", for example: "I eat cake" which must be consistent (unchanging - if there is "I", then there is the act of eating cake, not drinking or anything else).

• "walk" 👉 not just linked to the event of moving feet to a destination, but 👉 linked to a "broader state than just moving feet," for example "walking down the corridor" which must be consistent (unchanging - if walking, then certainly down the corridor, not elsewhere).

• "in" 👉 not just linked to a specific location, but 👉 linked to a "broader state than just location", for example "in a crowd" which must be consistent (unchanging).

• "morning" 👉 not just linked to a state or a specific time that characterizes "morning", but 👉 linked to "the state of the morning", for example: "a bright morning", which must be consistent (unchanging - if "morning", then there is brightness, not otherwise).

• "day" 👉 not just linked to a calendar date or daily activity, but 👉 linked to "the state of a day", for example: "a long day", which must be consistent (unchanging - if discussing "day", then there is a state perceived as “long”.

MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY OF MEANING

How to ensure the consistency of non-partial meaning❓It must be understood as a unity.

So "I" not just as "someone else", but can be linked with "I eat cake", must be consistent with "walking" (down the corridor) + "in" (a crowd) + "morning" (a bright one) + "day" (a long one).

• 👉 That it must be consistent, if there is "I" there must also be "eating cake" + "walking down the corridor" + "in a crowd" + "a bright morning" + "a long day".

⭕️ Don't let it happen that "indeed if there is I" it is ensured "eating cake" but "not on a bright morning" ❌.

✅ If you can find meaning with a broader arrangement and sync with each other, then it is closer to universal truth.Another thing to be aware of in conducting contextual conversion is to reason about scale. To not be confused by the many details present, we focus on the core. THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE, BUT TO FIND THE CONNECTING POINT SO AS NOT TO BE DRAGGED INTO OTHER IRRELEVANT THINGS.SCALINGIn the rules of scaling, one must seek the "cc" (Concurrentia Causalis - concurrency of relationships) that is core.We provide a case study .. which comes first, "the chicken or the egg"?

To understand this connection, there are many elements to consider, from "chicken feathers", "chicken legs", "rooster or hen", "chicken location", "chicken food", "close to radiation or not", "given chemical food or not", "chicken in mating season or not", and many more ...

Not to mention the "egg", whether it is "rotten", "cracked", "half-boiled", "omelet" and many other possibilities, just to ensure "which comes first, the chicken or the egg❓"

Here the need for scaling without reducing arises, to avoid the "fallacy of composition" (making an irrelevant comparison - considered too minimal to represent a larger case). How to scale it correctly❓

THE CORE ISSUE

The issue is "which came first". We seek its "cc" (contextual equivalence), becoming "which came first" = "which is the cause/effect".So even though the details of chickens & eggs are extraordinarily numerous and cannot be completely dismissed, having a scale model for the issue of "which came first, cause or effect", the details can be easily filtered to determine what to ignore and what to use, with the right filter truly focusing on the core, not falling into the minimalistic category nor reducing.

META Dialectics

〰 CHICKEN: alive, moves, makes sounds and produces eggs

〰 EGG: alive, does not move or make sounds and let’s assume it produces chickens

• From both, it can be compared that the potential of the chicken is broader than the potential of the egg, so because the cause is broader than the effect, the chicken is the cause, and the egg is the effect, thus ensuring "the chicken precedes the egg".