What is Logic?

[Matt Gregory]

Hi again all,

I've been studying propositional logic a little bit lately, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what logic is.

I know it's been going around the grapevine that logic is identical with the process of recognizing A=A, but I don't think that's entirely true. I think A=A is part of it, but it seems to me that the most fundamental action of logic is implication: if P then Q. A=A can't even really be put to use without it: If A=A, then (whatever). Or, if (whatever) then A=A.

Sure, we can say that "if P then Q" = "if P then Q", and surely if we're even going to say "if P then Q", then we must have if=if, P=P, then=then, and Q=Q, but I think it's hard to say which is more fundamental. I guess it depends on what the word "fundamental" means. (And it is noteworthy that I can't even figure out this problem until I know fundamental=?)

On the other, other hand, these two mental processes seem kind of inseparable, really.

Maybe this is root of the distinction between ultimate and conventional truth. It does seem like A=A is kind of still and empty like ultimate truth should be, and "if P then Q" suggests motion and effective action.

[jupiviv]

If logic is said to be the fact of any thing's existence, then any thing can be said to be logic, or at any rate a part of logic. The totality of all logic is the totality of all things.

I don't think it's correct to restrict logic only to consciousness, since clearly unconsciousness isn't beyond or separate from logic. Thus, logic itself is neither conscious nor unconscious, yet includes both.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

it seems to me that the most fundamental action of logic is implication: if P then Q. A=A can't even really be put to use without it: If A=A, then (whatever). Or, if (whatever) then A=A.

Then we might as well say the most fundamental operation is negation, leading to differentiation. After all, A is only A because it's not B or the alphabet at the same time. Some argue that the "law of identity" is really another way of writing or summarizing the Law of Non-Contradiction.

But what you're really asking Matt, is about the functioning of truth, the act of some truth having following from a true premise (Russell remarked that somewhere too). It's like the whole thought system arises dependently: to have negation, to have A, to follow through and having a notion (and motion) of thought. This is ideal and perfected thought of course. In reality nothing is itself since it will always be found to be something else. Causality ruling with change?

[David Quinn]

Hi again all,

I've been studying propositional logic a little bit lately, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what logic is.

I know it's been going around the grapevine that logic is identical with the process of recognizing A=A, but I don't think that's entirely true. I think A=A is part of it, but it seems to me that the most fundamental action of logic is implication: if P then Q. A=A can't even really be put to use without it: If A=A, then (whatever). Or, if (whatever) then A=A.

Sure, we can say that "if P then Q" = "if P then Q", and surely if we're even going to say "if P then Q", then we must have if=if, P=P, then=then, and Q=Q, but I think it's hard to say which is more fundamental. I guess it depends on what the word "fundamental" means. (And it is noteworthy that I can't even figure out this problem until I know fundamental=?)

On the other, other hand, these two mental processes seem kind of inseparable, really.

Maybe this is root of the distinction between ultimate and conventional truth. It does seem like A=A is kind of still and empty like ultimate truth should be, and "if P then Q" suggests motion and effective action.

Yes, as a stand-alone proposition written on a page, A=A is largely empty of substance. It really only gains its substance when the mind understands it and applies it intelligently.

We can think of the "if P then Q" movement as a creative act, with the resulting creation (Q) needing to be assessed as to whether its connection to the starting premise (P) conforms to the A=A template. If it does, then the whole process remains within the bounds of logic, even though there may be intuitive and creative leaps involved.

As an example, I might reason that if I spend all my money today, then I (being an unemployed bum with no friends) will have none left for tomorrow. This reasoning conforms with A=A because the premise (spending all one's money) and the conclusion (having no money left) contain identical information.

[Cory Duchesne]

Hi again all,

I've been studying propositional logic a little bit lately, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what logic is.

I know it's been going around the grapevine that logic is identical with the process of recognizing A=A, but I don't think that's entirely true. I think A=A is part of it, but it seems to me that the most fundamental action of logic is implication: if P then Q. A=A can't even really be put to use without it: If A=A, then (whatever). Or, if (whatever) then A=A.

Sure, we can say that "if P then Q" = "if P then Q", and surely if we're even going to say "if P then Q", then we must have if=if, P=P, then=then, and Q=Q, but I think it's hard to say which is more fundamental. I guess it depends on what the word "fundamental" means. (And it is noteworthy that I can't even figure out this problem until I know fundamental=?)

On the other, other hand, these two mental processes seem kind of inseparable, really.

Maybe this is root of the distinction between ultimate and conventional truth. It does seem like A=A is kind of still and empty like ultimate truth should be, and "if P then Q" suggests motion and effective action.

I realized what logic was when I sincerely asked myself what knowledge was. What is knowing? What does it mean to know? What I realized was that the question had inescapable, built-in assumptions and that the very act of doubting confirmed what I tried to doubt. Namely, if you try to doubt the appearance of a leaf, you are stuck in a loop (a duality) that can't be broken. The very act of doubting an appearance, confirms it. So as David correctly implies, opposites contain each other. The moment you try to escape into doubt, you are giving existence to what you are doubting; namely, an appearance. As you open the mind up to more complicated problems, the answers get more complicated, but it all begins with that circular loop. Logic, for me, is circularity - quite literally, an inescapable circuit. We can see cultures as a shared logic, a consciousness that when shared creates a vast complicated circuitry; things giving reference and grounding to all other things. The tricky issue with logic is obviously science (objective reality) where it's not so much the appearance you are doubting, but the story behind the appearance. This is the great stumbling block of the modern age.

[Dennis Mahar]

unlocking logic, the breakthru'.

By establishing the ways in which things become illogical one can then establish what is logic.
5 ways for a relay of information or situation to become illogical.
1 Omit a fact
2Change sequence of events
3 Drop out time
4 Add a falsehood
5 Alter importance

Logic must have the conditions.
All relevant facts must be known
Events must be in actual sequence
Time must be properly noted
The data must be factual, which is to say true or valid.
Relative importances amongst the data must be recognised by comparing the facts with what one is seeking to accomplish or solve.

Logic depends on data.

One can always know something about anything.
It is a wise man, who confronted with conflicting data, realises that he knows one thing-that he doesn't know.
Grasping that he can take action to find out.

In order to.....analyse the data
for the sake of....logic.

Logic is ready-to-hand equipment for the sake of.

Logic,sanity,intelligence go hand in hand as abilities to recognise differences, similarities and identities.
Two or more facts or things that are totally unlike are different. They are not the same fact or object.
Two or more facts or things that have something in common are similar.
Two or more facts or things that have all their characteristics in common with one another are identical.

The recognition of 'emptiness', all things lack inherent existence, based in inherent existence having never been found,
becomes the 'Ideal Scenario' or the 'Ideal explication of any and all situations'.

This 'Ideal Scenario' once familiar,
stands up to any and all situations as 'outstanding measure'.

Dependent arising cannot be refuted.

[jupiviv]

Dependent arising cannot be refuted.

It can. Since all things are dependently originated, there is nothing that a thing's origination depends upon.

Likewise, since all things lack inherent existence, there is nothing that can be said to lack it.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Dependent arising cannot be refuted.

jupiviv,
It can. Since all things are dependently originated, there is nothing that a thing's origination depends upon.

Likewise, since all things lack inherent existence, there is nothing that can be said to lack it.

Clearly,
to say that depends on an array of causes.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dependent arising cannot be refuted.

It can. Since all things are dependently originated, there is nothing that a thing's origination depends upon.

Jupivian nonsense! A thing's origination is not another thing. That would be like introducing bigger eggs and chickens out of thin air.

Likewise, since all things lack inherent existence, there is nothing that can be said to lack it.

Only when you image "all things" to be another thing. Which would still have it lack inherent existence.

[Leyla Shen]

Dependent arising cannot be refuted.

It can. Since all things are dependently originated, there is nothing that a thing's origination depends upon.

Jupivian nonsense! A thing's origination is not another thing. That would be like introducing bigger eggs and chickens out of thin air.

Likewise, since all things lack inherent existence, there is nothing that can be said to lack it.

Only when you image "all things" to be another thing. Which would still have it lack inherent existence.

Baffling.

To my mind, both of Jupiviv's statements amount to exactly, "A thing's origination is not another thing."

Can you elaborate on why you understand them to mean the opposite, Diebert?

[Leyla Shen]

Matt wrote:

Sure, we can say that "if P then Q" = "if P then Q", and surely if we're even going to say "if P then Q", then we must have if=if, P=P, then=then, and Q=Q, but I think it's hard to say which is more fundamental. I guess it depends on what the word "fundamental" means. (And it is noteworthy that I can't even figure out this problem until I know fundamental=?)

The laws of thought (A=A, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are different aspects of the same fundamental, "logical thought".

Any expressed idea which meets less than all three of these laws is therefore illogical; it must be shown to meet all three laws, as David's example in this reply to you so elegantly demonstrates.

[jupiviv]

A thing's origination is not another thing. That would be like introducing bigger eggs and chickens out of thin air

That was my point. Since all finite things depend on each other, there can be no ultimate *finite* origin/foundation of any given finite thing.

Likewise, since all things lack inherent existence, there is nothing that can be said to lack it.

Only when you image "all things" to be another thing. Which would still have it lack inherent existence.

Actually, things don't lack inherent existence precisely because the totality of all things is not a thing, and the lack of inherent existence either applies to the totality of things or to nothing at all. You can neither attribute nor deny a quality that can never exist in anything to begin with. If you do(like in Buddhism) then it can only be to show people that their thinking is incomplete by mocking/parodying it. In other words, a philosophical commedia dell'arte.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That was my point. Since all finite things depend on each other, there can be no ultimate *finite* origin/foundation of any given finite thing.

Since as you say there's no "ultimate *finite* origin/foundation", how would dependent arising or origination be "refuted", as you claimed? There's no other origination or arising.

Actually, things don't lack inherent existence precisely because the totality of all things is not a thing, and the lack of inherent existence either applies to the totality of things or to nothing at all. You can neither attribute nor deny a quality that can never exist in anything to begin with.

Appearances lack inherent existence because of their fully dependent arising. Everything that arises dependently therefore lacks inherent existence.

the lack of inherent existence either applies to the totality of things or to nothing at all

Why? It applies to perceived things. The totality does not exist somewhere, inherently or not but things are born and fade away. That's why totality is at times called emptiness. It lacks every quality, nothing "applies" to it and it has no inherent existence either.

[jupiviv]

That was my point. Since all finite things depend on each other, there can be no ultimate *finite* origin/foundation of any given finite thing.

Since as you say there's no "ultimate *finite* origin/foundation", how would dependent arising or origination be "refuted", as you claimed? There's no other origination or arising.

Only the idea that dependent origination is a separate, finite law or mechanism to be recognised is refuted.

Actually, things don't lack inherent existence precisely because the totality of all things is not a thing, and the lack of inherent existence either applies to the totality of things or to nothing at all. You can neither attribute nor deny a quality that can never exist in anything to begin with.

Appearances lack inherent existence because of their fully dependent arising. Everything that arises dependently therefore lacks inherent existence.

If any appearance depends on other appearances then the other appearances are also dependent on it. So where does the dependance lie? If you say it lies everywhere, then what does it really mean to be dependently originated?

the lack of inherent existence either applies to the totality of things or to nothing at all

Why? It applies to perceived things. The totality does not exist somewhere, inherently or not but things are born and fade away. That's why totality is at times called emptiness. It lacks every quality, nothing "applies" to it and it has no inherent existence either.

If being born and fading away is said to be a lack of inherent existence, then what does it mean to lack inherent existence? Where is inherent existence present so I can understand what its lack means?

[jupiviv]

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Dependent arising cannot be refuted.

jupiviv,
It can. Since all things are dependently originated, there is nothing that a thing's origination depends upon.

Likewise, since all things lack inherent existence, there is nothing that can be said to lack it.

Clearly,
to say that depends on an array of causes.

The array of causes also depend upon saying that, so where's the dependence?

[Dennis Mahar]

The array of causes also depend upon saying that, so where's the dependence?

semantics

enlightenment means to walk in the middle,
things are empty of their own essence.
and things exist.

the way all things are identical is all things lack inherent existence.
the way all things are different one to the other is dependent arising.

not the same,
not different.

anyway,
because Logic is of the nature:
in order to for the sake of,
and its usefulness is to accomplish or solve or get a satisfactory end,
as a means to an end.

The Buddha and Nagarjuna's end was concerning suffering.

A housewife intent on a special dish is perfectly logical in producing that dish.
She has her grip on identities, similarities, differences well in hand.
She will find exactly those ingredients necessary for that dish.
To subtract or add ingredients causes 'not that dish'.
Cooking heat and duration of cook determines 'the dish'.
in order to for the sake of.

Logic,
In order to for the sake of
as a means to an end
to what end.

An 'Ideal scenario' has to be kept in mind,
to compare any given scenario to,
so as to spot the illogic in the given scenario that isn't producing the ideal scenario.

eg
WTF is Tommy Lee Jones for?

If I love talking to a particular person and that person is 'taken away' to other project loved,
and that person has little time for me because of time constraints.
That is not my ideal scenario.
You can't always get what you want.
My ideal scenario is my shit not hers.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Only the idea that dependent origination is a separate, finite law or mechanism to be recognised is refuted.

Not sure if any refutation is required since one has to use the idea of dependent origination to refute separateness, finitude and mechanism. Does it refute itself then? No, it just refutes the ideas of separation, finitude and mechanism. After that there's no need anymore to refute those and we have cessation.

If any appearance depends on other appearances then the other appearances are also dependent on it. So where does the dependence lie? If you say it lies everywhere, then what does it really mean to be dependently originated?

It means causality and understanding of the empty nature of all things. The dependencies just appear to us like raindrops: but where does the rain lie?

Where is inherent existence present so I can understand what its lack means?

It lies inside the square circle. Here, let me draw one for you.

[jupiviv]

Only the idea that dependent origination is a separate, finite law or mechanism to be recognised is refuted.

Not sure if any refutation is required since one has to use the idea of dependent origination to refute separateness, finitude and mechanism. Does it refute itself then?

It does refute itself, at least if you think of it as an idea in the conventional sense. After all you can using it as a mechanism to refute other ideas, like free will.

No, it just refutes the ideas of separation, finitude and mechanism. After that there's no need anymore to refute those and we have cessation.

It just refutes the deluded/incomplete versions of those ideas, and those ideas in turn can be used to refute a deluded version of it.

If any appearance depends on other appearances then the other appearances are also dependent on it. So where does the dependence lie? If you say it lies everywhere, then what does it really mean to be dependently originated?

It means causality and understanding of the empty nature of all things. The dependencies just appear to us like raindrops: but where does the rain lie?

The dependencies appear wherever dependent origination lies, but it doesn't lie anywhere in particular. So where are the dependencies? We could just as easily call them in-dependencies and say the same thing.

[jupiviv]

the way all things are identical is all things lack inherent existence.
the way all things are different one to the other is dependent arising.

Both of those statements could mean that things are different, or identical, or both, or neither, or neither both nor neither, or neither neither both nor neither nor both both and neither. The middle path is infinitely more to the middle than you presently imagine it to be.

anyway,
because Logic is of the nature:
in order to for the sake of,
and its usefulness is to accomplish or solve or get a satisfactory end,
as a means to an end.

Logic itself has no nature, otherwise it wouldn't be logic. What you're talking about is the consciousness of a particular kind of logic.

[Dennis Mahar]

logic has the nature 'lacks inherent existence',
a form that deals with form,
in order to for the sake of,

there's only existence.

the conversational being-towards on this forum presently,

concerns declarations that there's 'other-nature' and 'lacks inherent existence' besides.

That 'what gets created' out of 'lacks inherent existence' is a fruitless, interminable, despicable sojourn in a God-forsaken country.

That what has been thrown is sinful past.
That the present, the fallen to, what it has come to, is a matter for withdrawing from.
That the future is primacy,
a questing,
being towards formlessness.

Pack up all your cares and woes,
here I go,
Singin' low,
Bye, bye blackbird.
No-one cares or loves or understands me,
All the hard-luck stories they all hand me,
Pack the bag and shut the light,
I'll arrive late tonight,
Blackbird,
Bye, Bye,

The 'vision quest' Of Pam if you like,
Putting all the eggs in one basket.
Romance?
The Ideal Scenario would be sex at Chapter 2,
Forward estimates put the moment momentous at around Chapter 127,

[ananda]

Many Here Consider Logic is truth,
Logic is not truth,
It is a way to decide the next step.
and

Mind is not Logical, it is illogical.
Conscious or unConscious is Not Logical.

It is Just an Association by which mind works not by logic.

[Dennis Mahar]

You've given us a difference and an identity,

that means you're gaming in the ballpark of logicing.

what Gives?

[Cahoot]

Many Here Consider Logic is truth,
Logic is not truth,
It is a way to decide the next step.
and

Mind is not Logical, it is illogical.
Conscious or unConscious is Not Logical.

It is Just an Association by which mind works not by logic.

When you consider all factors and elements that comprise a situation, life cannot help but unfold logically.

If an action appears illogical, then the impact of conditions either known or unknown to the observer has been underestimated, or not considered at all.

For instance, it may seem illogical for a man to drop a well-paying occupation in favor of working as a fry cook, living in a shack and perfecting his surfing skills. However, once all the facts are known about the situation, including the proclivities of the man, then it can be seen that his actions are logically consistent with all conditions of the situation, since the hopes, desires, fears, attractions and aversions of his personality are key, integral conditions.

Life seems illogical because very rarely does one have knowledge of all the conditions that comprise a situation. Judgement about what is logical, and how to proceed logically, is most often based on scraps of information.

That someone remains a slave and professes unhappiness because of the slavery, when freedom is possible, may seem illogical. However, it is not. It simply means that there is a combination of other conditions more powerful than slavery affecting the situation. Once all factors are known, the inevitability of any effect reveals.

A more comprehensible method of discerning logic is to look at a situation from the other direction. Base conclusions on the premise that everyone does what they must, always. Then the logic of what at first seemed illogical has a higher probability of being discerned in the backtracking.