S.L.E. — STERLING LOGIC ENGINE INPUT: International Stoic Forum Email Debate (2016)

S.L.E. — STERLING LOGIC ENGINE

INPUT: International Stoic Forum Email Debate (2016)
PARTICIPANTS: Malcolm, Grant Sterling, Nigel

---

POSITION 1: MALCOLM

Claim: Some human goods — specifically Buberian I-Thou mutuality — are “only partly in our power” and deserve a formal category beyond preferred indifferent.

CORRESPONDENCE AUDIT
Malcolm correctly identifies that genuine mutuality cannot be produced by will alone. His error is in the conclusion he draws. He treats the felt value of I-Thou encounter as evidence that it belongs in a special moral category — something between good and indifferent. This assigns moral weight to an External outcome (whether the arc jumps between two poles) based on its felt importance.

LOGIC ERROR
By Th 10, only virtue is actually good. By Th 12, things not in our control are never good or evil. The I-Thou encounter depends on another person’s response — an External. Its felt significance does not alter its ontological status. Malcolm’s argument confuses phenomenological intensity with moral category. A thing can feel profoundly important and still be Indifferent.

PATHOS DIAGNOSTIC
The desire for a new category (“partly in our power”) is generated by assenting to the impression that something deeply felt must be genuinely good. This is a Correspondence Failure. The impression “this matters enormously therefore it must be a good” does not correspond to reality as defined by Th 10-12.

FACTUAL CORRECTION
I-Thou mutuality is a preferred indifferent. One can pursue it rationally, open oneself to it, and rightly prefer it — while recognizing that its absence does not forbid eudaimonia and its presence does not guarantee it.

STATUS: Logic Error confirmed. The category Malcolm seeks already exists: preferred indifferent.

---

POSITION 2: GRANT STERLING

Claim: Good and evil are factual categories, not definitional ones. I-Thou mutuality is a preferred indifferent, not a good, because eudaimonia is possible without it.

CORRESPONDENCE AUDIT
Sterling’s argument corresponds to the 58 Propositions throughout. His test is precise: does this thing guarantee eudaimonia if present and forbid it if absent? If not, it is not a good — it is a preferred indifferent. He applies Th 10 and Th 12 correctly and refuses the incoherent category of “partly in our control.”

LOGIC ERROR
None detected. Sterling’s position is internally consistent with the foundational axioms.

RESERVE CLAUSE NOTE
Sterling’s acknowledgment that virtue itself requires interaction with others preserves the social dimension of Stoicism without conceding that relational outcomes are goods.

STATUS: Correspondence confirmed. Eudaimonia available.

---

POSITION 3: NIGEL

Claim: Technical logical language is an obstacle to Stoic practice. Plain English is sufficient. The debate itself may be a form of intellectual pride — a Stoic vice.

CORRESPONDENCE AUDIT
Nigel makes two separable claims.

Claim A — Plain language is sufficient for Stoic practice. This is partially defensible. Th 6 and Th 10 can be understood without symbolic logic. However, Nigel’s dismissal of technical precision carries its own error: precision is what prevents Correspondence Failures. Vague language allows false impressions to pass unchallenged.

Claim B — The debate may be driven by pride. This assigns the motive of vice to another person’s intellectual behavior — an External. By Th 12, another person’s motivations are not in our control and assigning moral fault to them on the basis of impression is itself a Correspondence Failure.

LOGIC ERROR
Nigel’s critique (“Steve tilts at targets that are not there”) is an evaluative claim about an External — another person’s reasoning process. Nigel assents to the impression that Steve’s arguments are motivated by pride and treats this as settled fact. This may or may not correspond to reality.

PATHOS DIAGNOSTIC
Nigel’s frustration with technical language generates the impression that precision itself is the problem. In fact, imprecision is what allows preferred indifferents to be mistaken for goods — which is the very error the debate is trying to correct.

FACTUAL CORRECTION
Technical precision in Stoic logic is not pride. It is the tool by which Correspondence Audits become possible. Without it, the SLE cannot operate. Nigel’s plain English approach, applied to Malcolm’s position, would leave the category error unresolved.

STATUS: Partial Correspondence Failure. Claim A is defensible in practice but epistemically incomplete. Claim B assigns vice to an External without verification.

---

OVERALL VERDICT

Sterling’s position is the only one that fully corresponds to the 58 Propositions. Malcolm’s desire for a new moral category is a Correspondence Failure generated by phenomenological intensity being mistaken for ontological status. Nigel’s critique of technical language, while practically motivated, undermines the very precision that makes Stoic auditing possible.

The turnaround, in all three cases, is the same: preferred indifferents are worth pursuing. They are not goods. Eudaimonia does not wait for the arc to jump.