It doesn’t need to be a problem though.
You may have to jump “up” a level or two and leave the linear assumption functioning at a lower level to solve it.
You can still use reasoning and a clue to know WHEN it’s appropriate to leave the initial linear formula and work from a more specific or more general scope, is when you reach an impasse or a regression.
You can bang your head against a wall when you reach a first order limitation. In a computer, that’s a “run condition” and it burns out chips.
I’m assuming regress is only a problem when the deliberation model is not robust enough to handle the kinds of feedback or feedforward loops that result in infinite regress or paradox.
You are correct. Prior to defining, I am showing you the framework from within which my definition will come from.
RIght now, I am showing you what is in my cart. The horse is not moving yet.
Now, as you are working within a philosophy paradigm, I will present rational deliberation from a Philosophy reference standard.
Now, in my ontology (that is, my framework from within which I generate my theory (or acceptable reasoning pathways), the solution to these dilemmas is qualitative and NOT quantitative.
Oh, it’s not necessarily “in opposition”. It could be orthogonal to each other or running in parallel but not crossing.
Depending upon how slavery is defined, we may already be doing so at present.