An approach to systematizing Truisms.

 The latest list of Truisms is as follows:

TRUISMS
(X->Y)_/[place, time, manner] (events have implicit localizers)
X_/A :: X_/[A] (attributes remain constant)
X_/A_/GOOD :: X_/B_/[GOOD] (virtue is transferred between attributes of an object)
(X->Y)_/GOOD :: Y_/GOOD (efficient actions have virtue)

X->person::person_/feeling (affects cause feelings)
person_/feeling::person->Y (feelings cause actions)
(person->Y)_/[GOOD] (actions are efficient)

X*::X (contrast is resolved)


JUST-IN-TIME TRUISMS
Nar([Z]),Z (the implicit MAY become explicit)
Nar([Z]*)::Z (the blocked implicit MUST become explicit, eg "ready")
Nar(X),Nar(Y),[Nar(Z)] (lists - patterns are expected to continue)
A, B, [Nar(A,B)] (tropes - familiar pattern are expected)

***************************************************************

I have been trying to figure out some kind of logic that would reduce these to a fewer number of more fundamental parts, with little progress. I was saying to Barb: "I would like to understand how these Truisms are interrelated".

So here is an approach that should have been obvious:

Truisms are relations between narrative structures that relate topics in a "topic tree" to each other. The Truisms can be analyzed as behaviors between topics in the context of their position in the tree.

Not sure how this may work out but I can come back with at least one fruit from this tree approach (ha ha pun). 

The first Truism says: events have context. We have that events 'X-v>Y' are the simplest connection between two topics 'X' and 'Y'. First, the event name 'v' has some presence in the tree, with the typical attributes (and parts?) of any topic. But second, it connects 'X' and 'Y'. So the Truism takes the form of activating the common denominators between 'X' and 'Y' in the tree. For 'X' to act on 'Y' they must share enough context for the verb to make sense. Bob cannot slap Mary if they are in different places.

This dingy little piece of "fruit", incomplete as it is, shows the possibility of using a tree structure to explain the Truisms.  But it is an awkward formalism because other Truisms seem to corresponds to quite different tree mechanisms and principles of tree modification. It would be surprising if such quite different mechanisms would manifest as similar usages of the word "but".