whoever said that arbitrarity was this enemy? whatever metalogic that governed my feelings of miasmatic muddlng needs to be examined. what is this concern for? what do I wish in this stead? overarching logic is a myth of gargantuan proportions- or rather, the separating boundary between logic and chaos itself maybe really needs to be understood as arbitrary. distribution of the logical.

arbitrarity not necessarily uncoupled with meaningfulness, however. who included transitivity in the order of logic? who decided on these propositions of transitivity? Yet Alice is taller than bob, bob is taller than charlie, and so on and soforth. or more importantly, why do I assume that logic is uniform across rhetorical logic, mathematical logic, political logic, and so on?

what I need to do- be okay with these constructions- or rather, be okay with construction itself, content with boundaries, lines, divisions. a pre-social hobbesian state of nature is not really pure nor an untainted mythical origin-state, and a dream of an egalitarian distribution is valid although the dream of a nonexistent distribution isn't. that would maybe be like trying to have relationships outside of politics.