{
  "author": "Maclain Hunter",
  "title": "Reason’s Reasoning",
  "identifier": "hunter-reasons-reasoning",
  "sourceKind": "authored-foundational-record",
  "content": "Reason’s Reasoning by Maclain Hunter\n\nPremises:\n\nP: Logos (Reason) and non-contradiction of Logic.\n\nQ: Coherent engagement with/between Reason and reasoning (including Reason and Reason’s own reasoning in the absolute sense; including “neosis neoseos” ala Aristotle).\n\nR: Reasoning without contradiction, engaging Logic/Logos (by Logos or contingent minds).\n\nS: Assume different permutations of {P, Q, R} being true or false. Only P, Q, and R all being true ends in the Coherence of Reason, reasoning, and coherent engagement. If P is True but Q and R are false, or any similar combination, the incoherence tautologically arises between Reason, reasoning, and rational engagement - which is untenable.\n\nT: Premise S and its reductio show that P, Q, and R must be true, not for merely the sake of this proof or a personal belief, but for the general and transcendental Coherence of Reason, reasoning, and rational engagement. \n\nProof: \n\n{P, P -> Q, P -> R, P -> (Q <-> R), S, S -> T, T -> ((P & Q) & R)} |= P <-> (Q <-> R)\n\nConclusion: {P, Q, R, S, T}: \n\nThe reasoning of Reason is mandatory for non-contradiction as much as coherent reasoning by contingent minds is mandatory for non-contradiction and for rational engagement with Reason. This aligns well with Aristotle’s notion of “neosis neoseos”. \n\nTruth Table Analysis: \n\nTTTTT⎪T TTT TTT TT TTT  T TTT TT  TTT TT  TT TTT \nTTTTF⎪T TTT TTT TT TTT  T TFF FT  TTT TT  TT TTT \nTTTFT⎪T TTT TTT TT TTT  F FTT TT  TTT TT  TT TTT \nTTTFF⎪T TTT TTT TT TTT  F FTF FT  TTT TT  TT TTT \nTTFTT⎪T TTT TFF TF TFF  T TTT TF  TTT FF  TF TFF \nTTFTF⎪T TTT TFF TF TFF  T TFF FT  TTT FF  TF TFF \nTTFFT⎪T TTT TFF TF TFF  F FTT TF  TTT FF  TF TFF \nTTFFF⎪T TTT TFF TF TFF  F FTF FT  TTT FF  TF TFF \nTFTTT⎪T TFF TTT TF FFT  T TTT TF  TFF FT  TF FFT \nTFTTF⎪T TFF TTT TF FFT  T TFF FT  TFF FT  TF FFT \nTFTFT⎪T TFF TTT TF FFT  F FTT TF  TFF FT  TF FFT \nTFTFF⎪T TFF TTT TF FFT  F FTF FT  TFF FT  TF FFT \nTFFTT⎪T TFF TFF TT FTF  T TTT TF  TFF FF  TT FTF \nTFFTF⎪T TFF TFF TT FTF  T TFF FT  TFF FF  TT FTF \nTFFFT⎪T TFF TFF TT FTF  F FTT TF  TFF FF  TT FTF \nTFFFF⎪T TFF TFF TT FTF  F FTF FT  TFF FF  TT FTF \nFTTTT⎪F FTT FTT FT TTT  T TTT TF  FFT FT  FF TTT \nFTTTF⎪F FTT FTT FT TTT  T TFF FT  FFT FT  FF TTT \nFTTFT⎪F FTT FTT FT TTT  F FTT TF  FFT FT  FF TTT \nFTTFF⎪F FTT FTT FT TTT  F FTF FT  FFT FT  FF TTT \nFTFTT⎪F FTT FTF FT TFF  T TTT TF  FFT FF  FT TFF \nFTFTF⎪F FTT FTF FT TFF  T TFF FT  FFT FF  FT TFF \nFTFFT⎪F FTT FTF FT TFF  F FTT TF  FFT FF  FT TFF \nFTFFF⎪F FTT FTF FT TFF  F FTF FT  FFT FF  FT TFF \nFFTTT⎪F FTF FTT FT FFT  T TTT TF  FFF FT  FT FFT \nFFTTF⎪F FTF FTT FT FFT  T TFF FT  FFF FT  FT FFT \nFFTFT⎪F FTF FTT FT FFT  F FTT TF  FFF FT  FT FFT \nFFTFF⎪F FTF FTT FT FFT  F FTF FT  FFF FT  FT FFT \nFFFTT⎪F FTF FTF FT FTF  T TTT TF  FFF FF  FF FTF \nFFFTF⎪F FTF FTF FT FTF  T TFF FT  FFF FF  FF FTF \nFFFFT⎪F FTF FTF FT FTF  F FTT TF  FFF FF  FF FTF \nFFFFF⎪F FTF FTF FT FTF  F FTF FT  FFF FF  FF FTF \n\n(VALID)\n\nQED",
  "formal": null,
  "structuredAuthoredProof": null,
  "authoredSteps": null,
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-03T01:29:52.110Z",
  "originalAuthoredAt": null,
  "propositionMeaningBoundary": "Atomic identifiers retain their meanings in the exact source. No arbitrary truth assignment establishes an ontological or empirical premise; the formal witness checks the written inference."
}