“dilemma – a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between
two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.”
What we determine depends on context. We question or scrutinise what we are convinced of, to be more certain. There are the issues of perception and perspective, context, and language.
Further more, proof needs support from something other than itself that can back-it-up, another proof for the previous, which in turn needs another proof to support it, and so it goes, on and on. It is regression ad infinitum towards a broader and more fundamental or basic basis.
The unsatisfactory and incomplete nature of certainty is described in Munchausen’s trilemma. Trilemma refers to the three possible inconclusive and unsatisfactory scenarios to sceptic pursuit:
1) Infinitism – regression of proof needing further proof goes on forever;
2) Circularity – original statement to prove is included in subsequent proofs;
3) Foundationalism – what stands because it is not questioned, where an assumption can be used as proof if it is unchallenged or agreed.
“On” the Arch of language as projected actuality
Those philosophical concepts termed as numbered, 1)Infinitism; 2)Circularity; and 3)Foundationalism, are there to be recognised in their actuality, projected in space, as they occur and manifest in our projected reality.
The Arch of language crowns our linguistic realm, and carries the trilemmas that bound our certainty in the mind. Parts of our make-up in their actuality, and including our own self as actuality, to be in relation with our whole self.
“I” hangs under the dome of the Arch of language
We rise to and make a stand under the dome of the Arch of language. Introduce spread to vertical sense and depth by including your own self as actuality, again to further consider our whole, more and more apart from or more a part of and more of a part of, or apart from and less.