Law of Absolute and Relative Laws

The principle that laws themselves—the rules that govern reasoning—operate in two modes: absolute laws (principles that hold for all reasoning, in all contexts, for all beings) and relative laws (rules that are valid within particular logical systems, for particular purposes, under particular assumptions). The law acknowledges that some logical laws are truly universal—the law of non-contradiction (something cannot both be and not be in the same sense), the principle of identity (A is A). Other laws are system-relative—the law of excluded middle (every proposition is either true or false) holds in classical logic but fails in intuitionistic logic. The law of absolute and relative laws reconciles the search for universal logical foundations with the observation that different logical systems have different rules. It's the meta-law that governs all other laws.

Law of Absolute and Relative Laws Example: "They debated whether the law of excluded middle was truly universal. He argued it was an absolute law, essential to all reasoning. She pointed out that intuitionistic logic rejected it, yet intuitionists reasoned perfectly well. The law of absolute and relative laws said: it's absolute within classical logic, relative across logical systems. Both were right, which is why meta-logic is necessary."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Law of Spectral Laws

The principle that laws themselves exist on a spectrum between absolute and relative, with infinite gradations and multiple dimensions. Under this law, no logical law is purely absolute or purely relative—each occupies a position in spectral space defined by its universality, its domain of application, its historical development, its cultural embeddedness. The law of non-contradiction is near the absolute end (few systems reject it entirely); the law of excluded middle is more relative (many systems modify it); most logical laws are somewhere in between. The law of spectral laws recognizes that logical laws are not a binary set but a continuous field, with some principles more foundational than others, some more context-dependent, all part of the spectral landscape of reason.

Law of Spectral Laws Example: "She mapped logical laws using spectral analysis, placing them on spectra of universality, foundational status, cross-cultural presence, and historical persistence. The law of identity was high on all spectra; the law of sufficient reason was lower on universality, higher on cultural specificity. The spectral coordinates showed why some laws felt absolute and others felt optional—they were differently positioned, not differently valid."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 16, 2026

Law of the Ad Hoc Validity

The principle that arguments, explanations, or solutions constructed for a specific purpose, without broader application, can be valid within that specific context even if they fail elsewhere. The law acknowledges that ad hoc reasoning—devised for the occasion, not generalizable—has its place. In emergency response, ad hoc solutions save lives; in scientific discovery, ad hoc hypotheses guide research; in everyday life, ad hoc explanations get us through the day. The problem arises when ad hoc validity is mistaken for general validity—when the explanation that works for this one case is treated as a universal law. The law of the ad hoc validity reminds us that context matters, and that validity is not binary but situational.

Example: "His excuse for being late—traffic, then a train, then a stray dog—was ad hoc, invented for the occasion. But it was valid ad hoc: it explained this specific lateness to this specific boss on this specific day. The law of the ad hoc validity said: it works for this case; don't try to generalize it. His boss accepted it, which was all that mattered."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Valid Ad Hoc

The principle that ad hoc constructions—explanations, arguments, solutions devised for a specific purpose—can be genuinely valid within their limited domain. The law is a defense of pragmatism against purism: not everything needs to be universal to be useful. A theory that explains one phenomenon, even if it fails elsewhere, is valid for that phenomenon. A solution that works once, even if not replicable, is valid for that once. The law of the valid ad hoc reminds us that validity is not all-or-nothing; it comes in degrees and contexts. The valid ad hoc is the workhorse of practical life, even if it doesn't make it into textbooks.

Example: "She jury-rigged a fix for her broken printer using tape and a paperclip. It worked exactly once, for exactly one document, then fell apart. The law of the valid ad hoc said: it was valid for that document, at that moment. It wasn't engineering; it was survival. Sometimes survival is enough."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Possible Ad Hoc

The principle that ad hoc constructions are always possible—there is always some explanation, some solution, some argument that can be devised for the specific case, regardless of whether it generalizes. The law acknowledges human creativity: faced with a novel situation, we can always invent something that addresses it, even if that something has no broader application. This is the source of both human ingenuity (we can solve unprecedented problems) and human folly (we can justify anything). The law of the possible ad hoc reminds us that possibility is not the same as validity—just because we can invent an ad hoc explanation doesn't mean it's true.

Example: "He needed an excuse for missing the deadline and, applying the law of the possible ad hoc, invented one on the spot—a family emergency, a computer crash, a mysterious illness. It was possible, plausible, and completely fabricated. The law said: ad hoc is always possible. His boss said: next time, plan better. Both were right."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Ad Hoc Possibility

The principle that ad hoc constructions open up possibilities that didn't previously exist—they create new explanations, new solutions, new paths forward that weren't available before. Ad hoc reasoning is not just a fallback; it's a creative act, generating novelty in response to particular situations. The law of the ad hoc possibility celebrates this creativity while warning that not all possibilities are good ones. Ad hoc possibility is the source of innovation (the temporary fix that becomes permanent) and of deception (the lie that works once). It's a tool, neutral in itself, powerful in application.

Example: "Her ad hoc solution to the scheduling conflict—swapping shifts with a colleague, then covering for someone else, then working through lunch—created a possibility that didn't exist before: everyone got what they needed, for one day only. The law of the ad hoc possibility said: this is what ad hoc does—it creates possibilities. The schedule went back to chaos tomorrow, but today worked."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Absolute and Relative Ad Hocs

The principle that ad hoc constructions operate in two modes: absolute ad hocs (solutions or explanations that are so perfect for their specific case that they achieve a kind of universal validity within that case) and relative ad hocs (temporary fixes that work for now, in this context, but won't survive beyond it). The law acknowledges that some ad hoc solutions become permanent—the temporary fix that becomes the standard, the one-off explanation that becomes the theory. Others remain forever ad hoc, useful only in their original context. The law of absolute and relative ad hocs helps distinguish between the ad hoc that transcends its origins and the ad hoc that remains forever local.

Law of the Absolute and Relative Ad Hocs Example: "His ad hoc fix for the leaking pipe—a clamp and some rubber—worked so well it became the permanent solution. The law of absolute and relative ad hocs said: this ad hoc transcended its origins; it became absolute for this pipe. His later ad hoc fix for a relationship problem—flowers and an apology—remained relative: it worked once, for that fight, and couldn't be generalized. Both were valid in their way."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026