THREE-POINT METHOD OF EXCEPTIONS This is the general methodology for finding exceptions. It is generalizable to all of the most general cases (by virtue of being general), including metaphysical theories, and logical and inductive forms of argumentation, and may suffer under arguments coming from specific forms of methodology (by virtue of methodological differentiation). However, the four types introduced are not the only types, only a sampler of common sub-types for the overall grouping. The actual method is in fact too general to fit into only four categories of differentiation, but I feel that these examples go a long way towards proving that there is a common method of ‘three-points’ which antecedes the conditionality of the exceptional case. At the end I introduce a categorical argument, or list of distinguishing conditions which is an attempt to define in what way the case is limited fundamentally to three points of differentiation. The three points are designed to fit even the longest tailoring of measurements, while also not fitting many imperfect cases. The method may depend on using the right tools, the right context, or the right data. It follows from a more intuitivistic argument which holds that once restricted to Cartesian Coordinates, and once Cartesian Coordinates are absolutized through the use of polar opposite categories within the quadrants, and pure neutrals are ignored, the trek of an argument does not go further than three points, because at most the delineation encounters two opposites and one neutral, or two neutrals and one opposite, before it begins to contradict itself. Remember, however, that these are cases which only apply to exclusions. They do not apply to many other cases that do not involve exclusion. Another exception, which actually fits neatly into the overall coherent system, is that higher-dimensional data may adopt some method other than Cartesian Coordinates. But by far, that is an outlier. Now, an illustration followed by examples. ABOVE: 3-POINT EXCEPTION ILLUSTRATED. [NOTE: Non-traveling motes exist in Nathan Coppedge’s coherent categorical deduction method]. EXAMPLES USING THE THREE-POINT METHOD OF EXCLUSION: A. Conjunctive (Coherent) Exception 1. I received at least one phone call. 2. I received 16 phone calls. 3. The phone calls already happened (they were not new calls). B. Disjunctive (Incoherent) Exception 1. I did extra homework. 2. Extra homework may or may not be worth extra credit. 3. I may or may not receive extra credit. C. Conditional (Causal) Exception 1. History repeats itself. 2. What is new is not repeated. 3. If it did not happen before, it is a relatively rare event. D. Disconditional (Absolute) Exception 1. The process is infinite. 2. What is infinite qualifies everything. 3. If something does not have a property of the process, the process has no consistent quality. Exceptional Condition 1: (exclusive, open = general inclusive) Exceptional Condition 2: (inclusive, closed = specific about generalities) Exceptional Condition 3: (exclusive, closed = all remaining specificities) Exceptional Condition 4: (inclusive, open: not present / non exclusive / infinitely specific) Infinitely specific is usually determined by subjectivity, but sometimes determined by an objective system. Even if so, it rarely defines all the cases, and therefore, remains entirely non-exclusive by the terms of incoherent exclusion, e.g. because all such data are coherent, or else may be reasoned to be applied cases (even systemically) such as unconditional non-exceptions, which by terms of exclusion are either non-binding or non-absolute. Other philosophical backgrounds: there is no 100% isolated case. Even a God concept has a concept of not-God. Every of the smallest dots in the dither has at least one neighbor. Therefore, infinite specificity cannot be categorized as an exclusion while maintaining the standards of an exclusive system (the beginning of a triangle is only two lines meeting at a point---and it may do so without referring to the second dimension, if there are others). So much for intermediates. If a universal system is exclusive, this means, it is the system itself which is exclusive, not the data operating in the system, unless exclusions are a universal rule (which can’t be proved, if exclusion means multiple categories of the property defining the definition). Nathan Coppedge, SCSU 2/5/2015, p.