Saintly Thoughts

The (Inherent) Problem of Inherencies

An inherency may loosely be defined as a correlative concept of an idea or action which necessarily results or follows from that idea or action.  Generally, one only employs the idea of the inherency if the correlative is not immediately obvious from the logical flow of the argument underlying the aforesaid idea or action, but which yet is inescapably bound up with it.  This makes the problem of the inherency a dicey one for rationalists; because, while it may be explicable on the basis of experience (this is how we come to realize the problem of the inherency), it does not follow from the formal argument.  This means that any self-contained argument, as applied to the world, is itself subject to a meta-argument as an inherency can leak in to affect the desired result from any quarter.  While the inherency itself may be conceived of as perfectly rational (this is not itself a formal condition of the inherency, but may be generally posited with the understood proviso that such condition is itself subject to the possibility of underlying inherencies) in that it follows from the ancillary conditions of our argument or position, the effects leading to this inherency may be so subtle and esoteric that even if/though rationally explicable, one would need to understand the nature of the system in its entirety to foresee any given inherency.  The necessity of understanding the system as a whole negates the usefulness (in part) of the model.  And (I posit) the more complex the phenomena we attempt to understand by means of a model, especially as applied to the puzzle of the human person, the more likely such inherencies are likely to arise.  Thus, even within a rationally explicable system, one is still required to resort to faith: either that whatever unintended inherencies attach to ones given model are mostly irrelevant to the desired outcome, or that one has a general understanding by subtle and esoteric means of the important inherencies by pre-rational, sub-rational, or super-rational means.  Logically, then, the position of any faith-claim (no matter how crazy and obscure) might logically preempt what are considered more sound methods of analysis under the existing scientific paradigm, especially as applied to broad and complex phenomena.  If one could effectively model the entire world-system, one might be able to combat such inherencies, but given that such modelling is impossible, we shall never be free of the inherencies.  Let the rationalists despair and the super-rationalists rejoice, for the world is an insane place!  [of course, experience can preempt such claims, but what paradigm to we employ within which to analyze the lessons of historical and personal experience?]