>Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 217's
>second paragraph is meant to forbid.
This, yes?
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
constitute proof that it is true. Definitions in lower-powered
Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.
So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?
I do honestly believe I need a better definition of the nature of CFJs
too though. I think Principle of Explosion would be extremely hard to
pull upon anything that has explicit hierarchy like the Ruleset, but
CFJs have no such explicit hierarchy, so I assume they're all at the
same level, so if there's contradiction, Principle of Explosion could
be summoned.
Unless CFJs themselves aren't to be considered really pure "Platonic"
items. Just official "Educated Guesses" on what is.
