the emptiness of logic

[clyde]

For logic to exist there must be (at least) two states. Reality is (ultimately) non-dual, so there are not two inherently existent states. Therefore, logic does not inherently exist; that is, logic is empty.

Do no harm,
clyde

[BMcGilly07]

Logic is a formula utilizing empty sets to arrive at truth values. You plug in the info and presto change-o we've got a truth value, if the data fits the set.


Nothing inherently exists.

[Kelly Jones]

Logic is a logical thing. Illogic is also a logical thing, for that matter.

Not sure what Clyde's point is. Maybe that illogic is more logical than logic?

-

[ChochemV2]

What do you call what you're using right now to "disprove" logic?

[clyde]

Kelly; You are projecting your thoughts on my words. My point was explicit: logic is empty.

ChochemV2; I call what I was doing “using a thorn to remove a thorn”, not ‘disproving’ logic.

[Steven Coyle]

Clyde,

"Using a thorn to remove a thorn" is Buddhist terminology.

If logic is empty, this would make compassion empty as well.

Since all phenomena is empty, every action is non-dual.

[clyde]

Steven;

The phrase "using a thorn to remove a thorn" seemed apropos.

[Steven Coyle]

Ah, well, it seemed you were trying to forgo logic, in favor of compassion.

Ice cream, Bob Dylan, and Buddhism always brings a smile.

[clyde]

Huh?

[ChochemV2]

Let me see if I'm getting this correctly:

Reality exhibits only one state, that of truth, however, for logic to be worth something there needs to be a "true" and a "false"?

If I'm correct then I further don't see why it matters whether logic inherently exists in the universe. As long as we (humans) don't perceive truth all the time it will be a useful tool for discerning truth from fiction.

[clyde]

I did not state that “[r]eality exhibits only one state,” but I agree that the usefulness of logic depends on at least two truth values.

[Steven Coyle]

Huh?

Now, clyde. You shouldn't go erasing vital content from your posts, and making me look like an ass.

I was replying to clyde when I wrote those things. :-/

[clyde]

Steven;

You edited this post, removing a question about "clinging to Buddhism", after I had responded to the post and the question.

Clyde,

"Using a thorn to remove a thorn" is Buddhist terminology.

If logic is empty, this would make compassion empty as well.

Since all phenomena is empty, every action is non-dual.

Why did you edit your post and remove the question?
It caused my answer to the now removed question seem . . . odd.
So I removed my answer to the removed question.

I thought perhaps you were being playful and was responding in kind.
In any case, no offense was intended.

clyde

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly; You are projecting your thoughts on my words. My point was explicit: logic is empty.

What do you mean by "empty" ?

And for that matter, what do you mean by "logic" ?

-

[Steven Coyle]

Clyde,

I removed the question while you were posting your reply. I couldn't recall what the question was, as your reply kinda threw me, so I didn't edit.

Didn't mean to make you look odd, or anything, or anyone.

[clyde]

Kelly;

By “empty” I mean without independent existence.

By logic I accept what you meant by

Logic is a logical thing.

clyde

[clyde]

Steven;

We're OK then : )

[Kelly Jones]

By “empty” I mean without independent existence.

What do you mean by "independent existence"?

By logic I accept what you meant by

Logic is a logical thing.

Well, that's circular. Can you tell me your understanding of logic?

And also, what do you think illogic is?

And also, if you think illogic is also without independent existence?

-

[clyde]

Kelly;

By “independent existence” I mean that a thing exists without dependence on any other thing, including without cause or conditions; if such a thing exists, it would be eternal and unchanging and unknowable.

Logic is defined in the dictionary as a system of reasoning. You wrote,

Logic is a logical thing. Illogic is also a logical thing, for that matter.

What did you mean by logic? By illogic?

clyde

[Kelly Jones]

Just because people use the same word, doesn't mean they're using the same meaning for that word. That's why I wanted to find out what your definitions were.

Logic is just when a thing is identified as itself. While consciousness doesn't make logic logic, it's necessary for logic to arise, given the definition that consciousness is appearances, and logic is when appearances are identified as themselves.

Reasoning is a thought process with logical output. While it's in progress, it's not known to be logical or not.

So, are you saying that all things have the nature of independent existence?

What is your understanding of the phrase "codependent origination" ?

-

[clyde]

Kelly;

You asked,

So, are you saying that all things have the nature of independent existence?

Please read carefully what I wrote,

By “independent existence” I mean that a thing exists without dependence on any other thing, including without cause or conditions; if such a [independent] thing exists, it would be eternal and unchanging and unknowable.

No, I was hypothesizing that if there were an independent thing, it would be unknowable. So all the things we know are dependent, impermanent and changing. And all those dependent, impermanent and changing things come into existence based on causes and conditions, which are themselves dependent on other causes and conditions. This mutual dependence as a condition for arising is called “codependent origination” or “dependent co-arising” or other similar terms.

clyde