Unassailable Premises

  • add references to all of the below, either as (1) references to my articles or (2) references to published literature #projects/youtube

  ethos-I logos pathos
ethos-me ethics (ethocentrism) logo-ethics pathetics
logos ethology logology (logocentrism) pathology
pathos ethopathy logopathy pathopathy (pathocentrism)


Ethically Considered


📍 Ethics - the endogenous direction of the subject by himself. That is, the premises which must be publicly visible by any subject on viewing the action of another who has admitted them.

  1. All criticism which cannot be enacted has no meaning.
  2. All criticism which can be enacted must be so in a process, which comprehends:
    1. A problematic, consisting in uncertainty and ambiguity
    2. A method, consisting in steps
    3. A solution, consisting in certainty and univocal speech
  3. All methods for the processing of criticism proceed as admission, correction, and fixation.
    1. Admission is the formal-public disclosure of one’s taking responsibility for the content of the criticism.
    2. Correction is the material-public presentation of information which denies the content previously under criticism.
    3. Fixation is establishment of a process to prevent the content under criticism from appearing anew.
  4. What does not proceed from “meaning well” is irrelevant to public pedagogy.
  5. What cannot be directly referenced through a determinate act is outside of public actuality.
    1. A meaning which cannot be publicly shown is not a public meaning.
    2. An intention without an active aspect is irrelevant to the consequences of the action.
  6. Anyone is “public” if and only if they can synthesize their experiences into a premise which anyone else would admit.


📍 Logo-ethics - the above with respect to logos. That is, the premises about any logos, or informational content, which must be publicly visible by any subject on viewing the action of another who has admitted them.

  1. Anything without a reference is not worth saying.
  2. Whatever violates subjectivity cannot be true. Subjectivity is violated when
    1. Information is incorrect (knowingly as a lie, unknowingly as ignorance, and indifferently as bullshit)
    2. Existentials are made categorial. That is, when any set of people is universally predicated. (E.g. “All black people are…”)
    3. Subjectivity is objectified. That is, when any person’s infinite content is determined as finite. (E.g. “He could never do that because…”)
  3. Whatever pathologizes beyond its logology content is suspect. Pathology exceeds logology when
    1. Information cannot be understood without emotion
    2. Substance cannot be acted on without emotion
    3. Clarification cannot be understood without emotion.


📍 Pathetics - the above with respect to pathos. That is, the premises about pathos, or the evocation of emotion, which must be publicly visible by any subject on viewing the action of another who has admitted them.

  1. Whatever logologizes without pathology is inhuman. Logology exceeds pathology when
    1. Terms are definable only in and by scientific discourses.
    2. Copulations are not conceivable outside average-everyday experience. That is, premises overwhelm emotion.
    3. Reason assumes audience familiarity with scientific discourses.
  2. Emotional evocation without purposive reference to the logos is specious.
  3. The adventure of collective feeling cannot exceed the journey of collective knowing.

Logically Considered

📍 Logology - the premises whereby any premise is admissable. That is, the ground on which any subsequent premise can validly stand.


  1. All thought is premissive
  2. All premises are copulative
  3. All copulations can be coordinated coincidentally as Reason
  4. Reason is speculative when it induces progressively integrated conclusions from premises which it has analyzed out of its experiences.
    1. Reason is always speculative.
    2. Because it cannot know everything.
    3. And is compensating for its finitude through infinite speculation.
  5. Reason is materialistic when its speculative wholes concern the consequences of itself for “having.”
    1. Reason is always materialistic.
    2. Because it is seeking to objectify its premissive subjects.
    3. And to have a concluding premise in-hand is to have one such object.
  6. Reason is pragmatic when its speculative consequences for having are judged through their practical enaction.
    1. Pragmatic reason opens all premises to criticism.
    2. Because pragmatic truth is face-to-face in lived experience.
    3. Thereby, pragmatic truth always begins and ends with active recognition.


📍 ethology - the premises whereby any subjectivity is admissable. That is, the ground on which any subsequent premise about myself can validly stand.

  1. I am exposing myself. I can make no claims beyond this, nor promise any more than this will or can be done.
  2. Truth claims are incidental to my architecture.
  3. I’m not doing anything over and above exposure.
  4. Self-exposure requires dialectic with an object. It requires caveats admitting where dialectic falls apart (e.g. race, gender, class, etc.)
  5. As critical, the project demands social concern, which I conduct from a purely subjective, often comparative, vantage-point.
  6. As exposure, I do nothing but appropriate for-me.


📍 pathology - the premises whereby any emotional evocation is admissable. That is, the ground on which any evocation of emotion can validly stand.

  1. Everything worth saying is informative. Informative speech
    1. Is instigated by a premise. That is, a determinate problem produces the speech as explicandum.
    2. Is mediated by a premise. That is, a determinate method can solve the problem.
    3. is concluded by a premise. That is, a determinate solution solves the problem as explicans.
  2. Everything worth saying is substantive. Substantive speech
    1. Can be affirmed in practice as a determinate action.
    2. Can be denied in practice as a determinate opposition to an action.
    3. Can be explicated (neither affirmed nor denied) in practice as speculation.
  3. Everything worth saying is clarifying. Clarifying speech either
    1. makes one wonder, as feeling joy in existence.
    2. makes one know, as feeling truth in existence.
    3. makes one hate, as feeling injustice in existence.

Emotionally Considered


📍 ethopathy - the relationship between myself and the emotions I evoke.

  1. My feelings’ determination of pathos can only proceed in proportion to my experiences’ conditioning pathos.


📍 logopathy - the relationship between logos, or logical content, and pathos, or emotions evoked.

  1. Feelings’ overdetermination of inhuman content is irrational.
  2. Feelings’ underdetermination of human content is irrational.
  3. Reason’s determination of feelings for any content is rational.


📍 pathopathy - emotions’ self-determination. That is, the abstract limits of any emotions’ being evoked at all.

  1. Pure feelings evocable by any content are always either positive, neutral, or negative.
  2. Impure feelings evocable by any content are always either subjective, individual, or objective.
    1. Subjective feelings concern the relationship of subjects to each other.
    2. Individual feelings concern the relationship of subjects to objects.
    3. Objective feelings concern the relationship of objects to each other.
  3. Feelings as such are both pure and impure. (e.g. a positive subjective feeling = joy about philanthropy; a negative subjective feeling = hatred towards greedy capitalists; a neutral individual feeling = indifference towards ecological crises)/



📍 indeterminate, contentful premise: major premise for any deductive hermeneutic syllogism

  1. Method carves up the world - the more one knows-how, the more refined are one’s slices. (Aristotle/Hegel/Marx/Dewey)
  2. The unexamined life is not worth living. (Socrates, Augustine, Peirce)
  3. The cash-value of a belief is it’s consequences for practice [as the ideal end of inquiry.] (James/Dewey/[Peirce])
  4. All falsehood is a partiality which mistakes itself for a totality, the truth of which is freedom. (Hegel/Adorno)
  5. All history existing hitherto is the history of (existential, class, libidinal, moral) struggle. (Hegel, Marx, Freud, Durkheim)
  6. Wonder is the beginning of wisdom; play is the beginning of freedom. (Plato/Theatetus, Schiller).
  7. “I” am responsible for the man I am, the Self I give. (Descartes, Kant, Brandom, Buber)
  8. Love is unconditioned givenness of the Self to Other, admission of Other into the Self. (Jesus, Hegel, Levinas, Derrida, Marion, Pope John Paul II, Maurin, Day, Merton)
  9. For all your thinking, you cannot cease being a man. (Hume, Montaigne, James, Nietzsche)
1 method - life - practice
2 freedom - struggle - play
3 I - love - you


📍 determinate, contentful premise: minor premise for any inductive hermeneutic syllogism

  1. Society is a work of the One and the Many.
    1. We must improve ourselves.
    2. We must improve Wholes.
    3. Improvement is unending.
  2. Secret knowledge is always waiting to be revealed.
  3. There are indefinite limits to human knowledge.
  4. Historical conclusions are never definite.
  5. The One is the only True Whole.
    1. All other Wholes are false.
    2. Whoever claims a True Whole has an agenda.
  6. An internal logic is always at hand.
  7. Categories are illusory, names irrelevant.
  8. Men are more important than things.
    1. Things are more trying than men.
  9. The tangible is always better than the intangible.
  10. No one can say more than their own experiences warrant.
    1. No one’s perception allows them unconditional speech.
    2. No particulars can furnish unconditional generals.
  11. An ulterior motive is always possible. (Doubt is always reasonable.)
  • more clearly divide (combine) the premises under determinate and indeterminate; these are not accurate and require further pruning #projects/youtube



📍 semiosis - any act of hermneusis which falls into it through its insufficiency

  • e.g. hearing what one speaks; one begins acting as hermeneut when they realize the insufficiency of mere hearing - that is, when realizing that sound must mean, that it is purposive
  • the semiotic syllogism thus concerns Peirce’s sign-interpretant-object triad; each conclusion is one such insufficiency of another
  • NB: a practical syllogism is the transition (⇒) between each semiotic

deductive semiotic syllogism (“first semiotic”)

  1. Pᴹ: object
  2. Pᵐ: doubtful memory-experience composite
  3. C: insufficient sign (⇒ research)

inductive semiotic syllogism (“second semiotic”)

  1. Pᴹ: sign-working
  2. Pᵐ: interactive object
  3. C: becoming-certain memory-experience composite (⇒ action)

abductive semiotic syllogism (“third semiotic”)

  1. Pᴹ: memory-experience composite
  2. Pᵐ: breaking-in sign
  3. C: interrupting object (⇒ attention)


📍 hermeneusis - any two acts of semiosis in which the second completes the first

  • e.g. (1) hearing one speak to you and (2) thinking of what they mean - hearing is completed by thinking, but thinking was only instigated (and thereby was made possible for a further completion) by hearing

deductive hermeneutic syllogism (“first hermeneutic”) 📍 instantiating a determinate universal: reading it into an individual → content filled in by the universal; universal completes the individual (e.g. Marxism, psychoanalysis)

  1. Pᴹ: determinate universal
  2. Pᵐ: indeterminate individual
  3. C: idiolectical particular conclusion

inductive hermeneutic syllogism (“second hermeneutic”) 📍 instantiating an indeterminate universal: practicing it → content filled in by the individual; individual completes the universal (e.g. Foucault, Wittgenstinian semantic pragmatism)

  1. Pᴹ: determinate individual
  2. Pᵐ: indeterminate universal
  3. C: dialectical particular conclusion

abductive hermeneutic syllogism (“third hermeneuetic”) 📍 universalizing the inclusive whole whereby a conclusion already-achieved was possible: forming a hypothesis of law, of habit (e.g. statistical inference, average-everyday pragmatism) → content is problematized through formal machination

  1. Pᴹ: particular conclusion
  2. Pᵐ: indeterminate individual / determinate individual
  3. C: determinate universal / indeterminate universal

semiotics ⟷ hermeneutics relationship

  • sᵃ → sᵈ → sⁱ : deductive hermeneusis (“truth by way of descent”)
  • sᵈ → sⁱ → sᵃ : inductive hermeneusis (“making an argument”)
  • sⁱ → sᵃ → sᵈ : abductive hermeneusis (“reasoning to hypothesis”)

⇒ {induction → deduction → abduction} hermeneutic circle

This line appears after every note.

Notes mentioning this note

Here are all the notes in this garden, along with their links, visualized as a graph.