In Conclusion ...

 A
t the risk of creating greater confusion, I am going to put something from the end of this file at the beginning so that you will know where you are going (even if it is not understandable at present).

Imagine logic as a tree. The most fundamental concepts are nearest the trunk with deduction proceeding out toward the leaves. One could say the same for the root system.
Now, put them together in the normal way and extend the branches and roots to infinity.
Bend them around till they meet and connect them there ---at infinity. The basic construction of logic is that of a conic section, infinitely extended, and connected in two places: at a point where the section is infinitely small and at infinity where the two pieces are infinitely large. [go back to End]
Anywhere in between is the 'observable finite'.

Also, at each node in a branch or root, logic bifurcates into a 'quantitive' and a 'qualitive' stem. So each node has three and only three parts: one incoming stem and two outgoing ones.
Now it may be easier to understand why confusion would result when any determination of what is fundamental is attempted. You might pick any stem and assert that it is the most fundamental one. Each appears to be like any other. With one exception.

At the stem representing a state of 'nothing'.

Here, is the simplest stem and the one most often used, i.e. it is like the trunk of the tree.
To speak of any other "stem" we must first accept the existence of this one
(the most fundamental).

Hence, we begin there.

```

``` ```
```  