Lastly, “Thinking”.

We have two main “branches” of “court-room” Thinking –
(1) Formal Argumentation;
(2) Moral Reasoning.


We also have two “everyday-thinking-modes”:


We have “Support” books for all kinds of “Thinking”,
some with less than 100 words,
others with more than 300 words –
– none are both simple & easy.

Nevertheless –
every ‘branch and sub-branch of “Thinking”
is “cumulatively-learnable
and reasonably-immediately do-able”.


It is generally thought ‘best’ to start practicing “formal-thinking”
as “logical-argumentation”:
being ‘wary’ of
‘hidden-unwanted-runaway-consequences‘ :-

All men are mortal,
Socrates was a man,
Therefore, Socrates was mortal” –

{But since Socrates is ‘no more’,
“therefore” Socrates is
‘no longer’ a ‘man’,
‘not in any need of being ‘mortal’, either}
such ‘splitting-of-hairs’
brings further
“thinking” and “disciplining”
opportunities –
each needing an ongoing addition of
more ‘terms’ [words]
to one’s Vocabulary :

diversion; procrastination; problemising;
red-herring-ing, white-elephanting, non-sequitur-ing;
consistency; relevance ‘versus’ irrelevance;
ambiguity ‘versus’ equivocation [*]

We have, however,
: )
already established, in the 2nd-place of our ‘new-foundation-ing’ essentials,
a goodly number of “Bewares!” –
such as in People Skills‘s
“The 12 + 1 ‘Roadblocks to Good Inter-Communication”
“The Three (3) Principles
of Good Communication and Honest Argumentation” –
{ (1) Clarity (2) Charity (3) Self-Corrigibility.
[*] ‘Deeper’ in fact,
‘equivocation’ is a sub-form of a
Class of Fallaciousnesses
named Ambiguities.

—— 0425 ——– break for Lone-Sustainworthying Maintenance ——

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *