Thexia  << click to return
Why is Why



This is almost the secret...or is that sacred...... Question.

on a 'scales of Importantcies' that describes those things that are less or more important.
It is not that Why is Why is the most important item on the importanties scale, not only that...
nor that it is the most significant item on a scale of 'Significancies'
but that all of the scales of logic not only of the human mind nor the the physical universe or even the realms of all human minds...
at toped by this question.... why is why.

I am attempting to answer it first of all by giving some orientation to the question.
Why you might ask...
need I say..... That seems to be a sensible question to ask under the circumstances.
Need I say..... The circumstances of this attempt to answer the question why is why.

So are we all arrived at a good attempt at answering the question why is why?

1. In order to answer a question, the question must be -understood- by the answerer as well as the questioner.
2. The mechanism for communication of the question and answer must be determined and established in full clarity.
3. The use of language determines that 'definitions' must be made to establish clear communication
4. The words 'WHY' and 'IS' must be defined.
5. The definition of WHY is 'definite question'   per Ian Moore's school of thought.
6. However an online dictionary states the definition of WHY as: 'for what reason or purpose.'
7. Clearly there are discrepancies in definition of the word 'WHY', there are many interpretations.
8. Thus one needs to determine exactly what the question means, before it can be answered, and this is subject to discrepancies.
9. However there can be a compromise to simply agree to take the question 'why is why' on a more relaxed definition of something like this ' why are there questions' or 'explain the purpose of 'why' not just the word why... but why do we have questions... what are they for... really...  why would that which has brought us in to being chosen or has gone down the route of installing why's and their answers into our minds. Here are other questions of a similar nature... what is the mind
what does the mind do... what is the mind constructed of.
10. I can only assume that we are in agreement.

so..... why is why ?
On a 'day to day' use of language...

well..... 'because'

is probably a quite reasonable answer
that is not a simple rebuff of the question by way of humour, but it does contain reasonable logic...
 
why is a question that does not carry an article with it, whereas the question ....why does the ball bounce?  Does have an article.
in the same way that 'because' does not carry with it an article, and would be in the form..... because the ball is rubber. if it had an article.
and so...
'Because' is a reasonable answer to 'why'
however the question 'why' in this case does have an article..... and this uses 'is why' as its article...... 'why is why'

and so 'because' is only a reasonable answer and therefore is not a full answer.
a full answer would have to contain information for good communication and 'interpreting the question and answer'
although 'because' is an answer that could be 'reasoned' and thus a 'reasonable answer' it by itself cannot be a full answer.
That is why I have written what I have written on this page so far..... and not simply written 'because'

If I was asked why did you start to answer the question... why is why.... with explanations and not just answer the question 'why is why' I could not really have answered 'because' as this would not have answered the question .......as the question contained an article.

and so it is clear why I have written what I have written on this page so far and can now... answer the question... why is why

why is a question of logic
the question why is why asks.... what is the logic of logic

this is a 'definite question' as defined by Ian's school of logic

This question is simple to answer.
All meaning is lost with the absence of logic
all structure is logic
meaning, structure and understandings are only possible in the presence of logic.
This can be mis-interpreted as meaning that logic is paramount above all human facilities... such as 'love' or 'being'
and thus what I have said is not so because 'a person can know without logic, a person can feel the truth, and understand by simply being.
No, the meaning I make is that 'being' and 'loving' and 'understanding' are at the pinnacle of logic.
It is not necessary to define 'love' here in order to fully answer the question 'why is why' as this was an example of how 'meaning, structure and understandings are only possible in the presence of logic' can be mis-interpreted. and thus not required to directly answer the question 'why is why'. it is worthy of an opinion by way of interest, for example 'desire toward', 'will toward' or 'wish' or perhaps   ---'be'

and this ---'be' is why I has specifically pointed out why it is not needed to define 'love' in order to answer the question 'why is why' and explained as 'the most senior logic is ---'be' and thus facilities of 'love' or 'being' are included in the answer to 'why is why' as we have agreed to use 'day to day' definitions as the question of the definition of 'love' is subject to discrepancies as explained in points 5 to 9 above.

Thus there would be no understanding of the answer to why is why if why did not exist.
Thus there would be no question to ask if there were no why.

There is another word in this question, the word 'is'.
'is' if we may go through using Ian's school of thought definition is: "  'extant', 'existing', 'present', 'perceived' 'attentioned' 'awareoned' there is a great correlation with the word 'so'. My usage of 'awareoned' is an attempt at a simplification of 'that which one is aware of currently' but even this is not a full definition of 'awareoned' as this implies an individual is being aware of something, whereas it means all that which has had or is having attention.
The concepts of 'being' and 'attentioned' are parts of the definition of 'is' as according to Ian's school of thought." this is the end of the definition of 'is', I have written this expiation that this is the end of the definition of 'is' for clarity.

This answer to the question why is why may seem lengthy or humorous or procrastinating, nevertheless it is purely an integral part of the answer.

Definite answers have been made to the question 'why is why' and yet a 'fundamental resolution' which is the definition of 'answer' per Ian's school of thought, has still not resulted.

Thus ’answer’ is a fundamental resolution' of the question and definition of 'answer'. Such words are resolved by logic and result in 'understanding' which is defined in Ian's school of thought as 'awareness of logic' and awareness is likewise defined as 'attentioned' which is defined in  the same manor as 'awareoned' and is therefore defined as ' all that which has had or is having attention.

Thus that cycle of definitions is closed with the exception of the word 'logic'.... and the answer to the question why is why can proceed.
I have left the definition of 'logic' until last as without some day to day definitions we cannot proceed as previously explained.
The definition of 'logic' per Ian's school of thought is 'resolution'
no resolution can exist without logic, and yet logic may be resolvable without having been resolved.
Thus the definition of logic must contain 'resolvable'
we could therefore conclude that all of the words that I have used on this page so far would need to be defined before the question why is why could be answered.
thus the concept of using 'day to day definitions' of words becomes  a  task of  defining all 'day to day' words in order to fully answer the question why is why.

We also have the logic to resolve that 'what is it that is doing the understandings of the answer to why is why' so that a communication of the answer can proceed.
For example this communication is in 'English' and yet there are thousands of forms of English.
And there are those that would require an answer to be in 'Brail' or those that would require the answer to be in a humorous or in a simpler format.
Thus presentation in all ways is of vital importance to the communication of the answer.... even the word 'communication would need to be defined.
This last sentence demonstrates that the length of the answer is also important, as a 50,000 page manual may not hold the attention of someone and so they would not receive the answer.

Nevertheless the answer can be said or written and not be understood by someone. The question 'would everyone have to be able to receive the answer and understand the answer in order for it to be 'the answer' ' would need to be answered in order for the question why is why to be answered, unless it were assumed that the answer to that question is known.
In this case not.
Thus an assumption would have to be made, with one exception that the answer to that question is not required because the question of the question itself has been
explained as part of the answer, as it is here.

Thus the answer whether understood or not.... to the question why is why is all that has been written on this page so far and a pulling together of the 'definite answers given so far' and a continuation to a 'fundamental resolution' that has not resolved.

Thus a consolidation of the following is required for the answer.
All meaning is lost with the absence of logic
all structure is logic
meaning, structure and understandings are only possible in the presence of logic.

Answer is the resolution of logic
thus the question means what is the resolution of the logic of the resolution of logic
thus the answer to the question why is why all that I have written is and the answer.

Why is this so? You may ask.
Well if the answer to the question why is why was the answer
then it would not have contained the explanations here and so would not be the answer.

This however leaves the question why is the question asked or even thought.
And the answer to that is also the answer.

It could then be said then that the answer is the cause of the question.
It could also be said that the cause of the answer is the question.
And yet the answer is certainly the cause of the question but the question is not the cause of the answer.

Thus understanding differences may occur if the logics are not attentioned.

And so the answer to why is why is the answer and the answer is written here.

The mind is 'logics of being' as defined by Ian's school of thought.
This document may contain mistakes.
Nevertheless it is the answer to why is why.

Logics of being are because the answers
logic of being is because of meaning
and thus logic of being is because of logic of being

and thus logic of being is self cyclic
and therefore logical as logic is the logic for logic.

Although logical includes that which is logic and that which is illogic.
Thus it is not logical to say that the reason for logic is beyond logic.
Thus the logic for logic is logical.
Thus the logic for logic can be derived through logic if that which is deriving it can derive logic to that extent.
Thus it is so that there is a scale of logic ability, unless it is considered that all logic is always derivable.
thus ' that which is the answer is logic'
thus the answer is logic
thus the answer to all questions that the answer is the answer to is logic
thus the answer to the question why is why is logic
this communication could be communicated via an equation using more symbolic language that demonstrates its logic.

The answer to the question why is why is all that has been written here and logic

and so, if we answer the question without the need for explanation then the answer to why is why is 'logic'.


Best wishes
Ian

2014