Welcome kingbum and thank you for your willingness to enter into dialog.
Let me take a number of items you list in turn.
...My big thing right now is with the increase in seismic activity we have had worldwide,
That's an illusion of sampling. The world isn't having more earthquakes. It's measuring more earthquakes because more seismographs are being installed in more places they've never been before. If more earthquakes started happening on Iceland, in areas other than that where the volcano is erupting, it might be a reasonable to think there was some connection.
... how it seems to be following eerily the same eruption pattern Laki did in 1784...
That similarly is illusory. We know rather little about Laki aside from its aftermath - the evidence left lying around after the eruption stopped. There's very little which we can say about the current eruption which it holds in common with Laki. Beyond the facts that
1) Its on Iceland in an area split by a crustal spreading center
2) we have a fissure eruption producing a moderate volume of fluid magma
3) there are moderate amounts of gasses typical to Icelandic eruptions being released (SO2, F, CL, CO2, CO, water vapor, et. al.)
... we really can't conclude the current eruption will evolve anything like Laki. It's complete speculation to think so.
....given the reduction in TSI and the increase of both ice and SO2 in the atmosphere how can we logically assume that the ice cap in the arctic won't recover more.....
It's important to avoid the mistake to conclude a small number of events (2) can permit one reliably predict a change. 2013/2014 don't yet imply a recovery. There need to be quite a few more of them - at least 3 or 4 - before we can start talking recovery. There would also need to be significant increases in coverage - volume did increase year over year 2013/2014 - but still not so much that they made it back to pre-2007 levels. 2013/14 Area and Extent are in a dead heat. That outcome was driven by weather and feedbacks to the 2012 melt, which it seems was way outside of the trend.
Further, the impact of aerosols from the current eruption will not be enough in scale, or importantly
persistent enough to seriously influence the ice. Smoke from the wildfires in Canada and Siberia are more likely to affect the state of the ice than volcanic gasses, even if we reach "Laki" levels of emissions.
....just look at Antarctica and the record extent its at and near record area
Once again correct in fact, but incorrect in underlying assumption - that the increase of Antarctic ice signals some sort of recovery in the system. The best research suggests that ice in the Antarctic is in rather dire straights - a number of large shelves have disintegrated over the last few seasons, and warm southern water has undermined and mobilized sheets of ice coming off of the west antarctic sheet. The "recovery" is the product of a feedback which has tended to isolate the Antarctic from intrusions of warmer air from lower latitudes. The effect isn't more ice so much as it is greater volatility. The heat entering the system is still increasing.
....all of that ice must produce an albedo effect and at what time does all this become like a domino effect? Its just something that's bugging me
The "dominoes" are neither massive enough nor numerous enough to change the trend. Albedo is just one component of the system as a whole, which affects heat transfer. There are many other aspects of the system which would require significant positive change to affect.