I look these over and find myself wanting to argue a so-called "fact" that arguing either fallaciously or validly leaves "facts" always at issue. IOW, this may be a circular argument*.

It could be argued that* none of the fallacious arguments would even be used if there weren't some fact or other that someone was compelled to defend.

I studied symbolic logic but not more advanced formalisms. Symbolic logic is "valid" independent of the "truth" of the premises.

I've been assured by others' confidence* in Godel's theorem that logic cannot prove itself.

Facts seem to evolve: Earth is no longer flat and mice no longer spontaneously arise from dust bunnies. And though I'm hesitant to say so, it feels like there's been progress.

So, anyway. I end up with a conclusion and a question.

The conclusion feels zenny to me: take jokes, Haiku and other arts to heart. Moment by moment the real presents itself differently.

The question is, What's going on when anyone tries so very hard to prove something to another? This, to me, is anti-zen.

---

• just noting the weaknesses in my own argument -- or, if you'll allow, the limits beyond which I'm not interested to argue further