I am painting with a broad brush here. So as not to bloat the concepts, I will omit the exceptions, special cases and disclaimers. This is fuzzy logic (bottom up thinking) Which can be “The best answer to date” (level 1), “This idea seems to work for the moment” (level 2) or the less definitive “Could be” (Level 3)
Fuzzy logic is a form of multi-valued logic derived from fuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is approximate rather than precise. In contrast with “crisp logic”, where binary sets have binary logic, the fuzzy logic variables may have a membership value of not only 0 or 1 – that is, the degree of truth of a statement can range between 0 and 1 and is not constrained to the two truth values of classicpropositional logic. Oh Really!, you think so huh?
In fact what is accepted as truth in top down thinking is only Level 1 as determined by bottom up thinking. It is NEVER complete, and could be entirely wrong if hijacked by religion, education or other societal programming. If this societal programming occurs during the critical period of growth (birth-age 7 or puberty) it can become imprinting, a PERMANENT inability of the mind to accept new concepts. A person can know, but not understand a concept that does not fit into this framework. They become idiots (not used as a pejorative but as a clinical term, I am, after all, striving to be professional) The implications of this imprinting are profound. Bottom up thinking is regarded as psychotic by mental health and meta-physical bullshit by the general population. Not only is creativity crushed by this imprinting but it has resulted in a society composed of zombies (stupid people, doing stupid things for stupid reasons) living a meaningless existence in an ant warren. An example of this is physics, in which the nature of the universe being of a wave nature is known but not understood. To date I am aware of a dozen people who understand, and half of them are dead.
I recently became interested in the aboriginal framework of reasoning. I have heard is described as circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
I don’t see it that way, I see it as “wheels within wheels” and not even “what goes around comes around” but “what goes around comes around goes around etc”. For instance a 260 day calendar would seem to make no sense unless one considers that the gestation period is 260 days. Thus if a woman conceived on Tzolkin 10 she could expect the birth on Tzolkin 10, As this was synchronized with the Haab (365 day calendar) no calculation was needed. This imprinting is canabilastic in nature, like the zombie, it want’s to eat your brains. It is the Ayn Rand Beast. The Beast OPL