Developing circular arguments are ambiguous.
Where is the margin?
Since the value of something tends to be observed at the margin (determining the useful value of a measurable existence), the arguable ambivalence of a circular argument becomes the focus of debate. Like Ted Cruz says, it is then a function of winning the argument to determine objective reality (since what it is actually depends on–is determined by–its perception).
The measurable margin becomes as much a work of art as it is a science. What happens is we have an absurdist play, purposing the probability into a Ted-Cruz or Donald-Trump “reality show.”
Since the probability that something will happen is inherently speculative, just below the horizon (eventually knowing what the truth is when we come around to it), the circular argument is a work of art “intending to” imitate life. So, then, “the truth” about reality is an intending argument. It’s really wide open–arbitrary, Objectivists like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio say, for example–until somebody wins the argument and effectively purposes the probability.
Today, for example, Senator Warren grilled Yellen about determination of “living wills.”
The living will is a Dodd-Frank provision to effectively purpose the probability of TBTF banks coercing us into paying them big bonuses for doing harm. The risk of doing harm is a derivative value. It derives from being SO BIG (on purpose–to “make markets more efficient”) that they cannot be allowed to fail (which is quite different from not being prone to failure, which they deliberately are, to get the payoff). TBTF banks (SIFIs) develop a risk proportion (what advocates describe as “evolution”–which has a natural-model identity) intending to do “the harm” that triggers the “protection payment” (a racketeering scheme that is “the art of the deal” if there ever was one).
Elizabeth Warren wants to know if TBTF banks are conforming to the law, which is designed with purpose. Its actual purpose can be quite different form its intended design, or is it? It’s a work of art intending to imitate life.
Who can really tell what is actually going on here? (It’s like the absurdist play, “Waiting for Godot.” When does Godot really show up, and when he does, what then? The absurdity actually being played out is like Depp playing Trump. It is a role playing the work of art that plays the role of imitating life. It is a double dose of absurdity that a playright like Beckett accurately sketched into the image of “Godot.” While the author and the producer may not intend to infer Beckett’s Godot, it can’t hardly be avoided because it is a work of art–a reality show–that imitates life.) We tend to then infer a probable purpose, which is to form an effective model, and using the scientific method it is every bit possible to predict the probable outcome using a predictive model.
Senator Warren infers that the living-will provision of Dodd-Frank is too ambiguous. (It’s kind of like waiting for Godot to show up, isn’t it, when the thing you are trying to predict, or prevent, or cause without purpose, is already here!) Warren said to Yellen that while the FDIC says that the self-regulatory model of the living will was determined by the bureau to not be credible, the Fed has determined that its member banks are in compliance with the law.
“Given” the arguable ambivalence, who is going to determine that? (Looks arbitrary to me…so how about if The People–what elitists call “the mob”–decide!)
We can’t have mob rule, right! So we leave it to the technicians (the bureaucratic model) “yielding to” a circular argument (a problem) that is always waiting for a solution (Godot!) which (like Kant said) is obliged to (fully accounting for) the outcome NOW–existing on demand, just waiting for the mob to passively resist the elitist model and aggress the added identity that naturally obtains, having a naturally pluralistic identity, giving purpose to the probability as it emerges at the margin.