Relating to Moral Philosophy

Assuming the consequence; an expression I see in terms of the logical fallacy of 'begging the question';

instead of proving terms by themselves, its possible that in a systemic case (terms being requisite) that something may follow from a position of balance or appreciation; the fallacy in this case or potential fallacy is that a factual or systemic basis is extended into resolution; e.g. insofar as no factual or systemic change is made, one cannot rightfully conclude that deductions are real

Moral philosophy in the context of the idiosyncracy of Heideggar, incl. the emergence of a western concept of being and becomingness (in my mind mirrored in eastern philosophy, perhaps with greater success) points towards the idea that in the context of assuming the consequence, the fallacy of becomingness is not inherently the fallacy of being: the basis for truth is not simply fact or validity, but the way in which a logic, whether moral or otherwise, consequents the trend of seeking universals or the identity of individual systems or coherents;

That is, while begging the question implies circularity and non-substance (in which case the fallacy is that the argument is specious), assuming the consequence has the same error, with the exception that the problem is that an implicit system assumes a system will follow; in fact, either the system has no basis, or the process of reasoning must be as balanced and logical as the system or framework adopted

In relation to categories, one may say for example that in the first case spheres are circles but not all circles spheres (via typology) [it would be begging the question to say spheres are circles because circles are spheres] however one cannot say that a circle will roll on a two-dimensional plane counterposing it, whereas the sphere seems adequate; likewise in systems, dimensionalism implies singularity; the circle-ness of spheres becomes more adequate in representing the class circle within the context of two dimensions conceived in the experiential sense of being pan-dimensional

Similar themes occur in the seemingly sadistic work of the founder of semiotics, who says very little about any related field

Extranea

life may improve in skill without great reward; yet reward at all may be an improvement; in this case, is skill called mastery? Or in such a position, must one know that this is a simplification to 'I suffer, I must beg', as a a poet at first must find some verse false, and find his heart in his voice, or no life walking in the world?

writing bones isn't always finding the print that drips in others' eyes I find, as though by winding my way through forests of transcience, or some selfish declaration I'm mostly missing my own breath, unless by words I mean a garden, or in speaking I've already accomodated a heart that hurts willingly, or knows the war of following after something more significant than this, as though I know others' voices in my mind, not that they are mine, but rather that my voice follows therefrom, and cannot steal them or attribute its own voice to its mouth, or a mouth it seeks, yet knows commonwise there are ways to fall into a mold in which I speak and do not feel, others finding my garden only bones, which are fragmented from their own path in following a trail beneath the most perfect winters which I'm convinced at times give birth to love 'love rose from winter like a garden'

as much as few know both fish and abyss, the place of attributes and logichems is as rote in idea as one cannot know inspite of following some great storm

so much from inscriptions