Logic's flaw

[Pam Seeback]

Out of respect for the continuity of the original intent of the thread on discussing Jupta's barriers to spiritual growth, I am starting a new thread here with the intention of discussing the logic of logic's flaw.

My intention is not to pick on Kelly, but since she is appears to me to be the resident "god of logic", it is logical to me to hone in on one of her logical fallacies in order to make my point. In the above mentioned thread Kelly said: "MA wants to get rid of reasoning before it has finished its work, so she can experience happiness (unconsciousness)." Setting aside the erroneous conclusion of my spiritual goal, which in and of itself is proof that logic is flawed, my question for Kelly and anyone else who believes in the flawlessness of logic to deliver one out of whatever is their definition of delusion, I ask for an answer to this question:

How does one know what the finished work of logic is or will be while they yet remain unfinished with logic?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Pam, do you understand why there was some laughter about the topic you posted a while back: the insane thinking of duality wisdom? Even if the "work" would be finished (and lets doubt that) the point is that the quality and dualism of reasoning cannot diminish.

[Pam Seeback]

You said: "even if the "work" would be finished (and lets doubt that) the point is that the quality and dualism of reasoning cannot diminish." As I see it, you missed my point. Kelly implied in her statement that the work of reasoning leads to "being finished." She didn't imply doubt, she implied certainty. The truth of logic is that it provides for the continuance (unfinishing) of sane sentience, it has no power to extend beyond this reach. I am asking for this honesty, that is all.

If I am causing laughter then hail to me for causing at the least, a cathartic release, and at the most, pause for ego reflection.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You said: "even if the "work" would be finished (and lets doubt that) the point is that the quality and dualism of reasoning cannot diminish." As I see it, you missed my point. Kelly implied in her statement that the work of reasoning leads to "being finished." She didn't imply doubt, she implied certainty. The truth of logic is that it provides for the continuance (unfinishing) of sane sentience, it has no power to extend beyond this reach. I am asking for this honesty, that is all.

The essence of all reasoning and logic is to weed out error, including what she called "delusions and false thoughts". That's how it always functions: doubt, reflect, dig, compare, establish and discard. That's why I wrote that it cannot diminish: it's born out of sentience so it can cut its very outgrowth or shadow. But it doesn't lead to any end of sentience or anything beyond it. There's no reason to think the mind never will come up with a delusion or false thought again. Perhaps someone slips you a drug, whatever. In that sense there's no "finish" for an active mind but at best a state of utmost caution: eyes all around.

[Pam Seeback]

Your take on logic rings as truth to me, which is why I reject the relationship between logic and ultimate reality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Your take on logic rings as truth to me, which is why I reject the relationship between logic and ultimate reality.

Sure as long as your rejection is a reasonable, logical one. All what is left, unrejectable, must then be ones "ultimate". But even establishing the idea of something as "ultimate" remains a highly logical move. So to go above and beyond logic, one has to abandon "ultimate reality" as well. The relationship lies in the affirming or rejecting itself, it's not something out there to affirm or reject.

[Pam Seeback]

After giving some thought to some of my recent posts of late on the subject of logic, I have come to the conclusion that they were more reactionary (to Kelly's presence) than reasonable in nature. I do have respect for Kelly's obedience to her "bloodied" version of logic, one has no choice but to walk their current path of renunciation, but I do not have respect for its results. Sarcasm and psychological profiling are two fires that I do not see as being productive aspects of the logical mind. I allowed these two fires to affect me, not Kelly's fault, entirely my own.

I do believe that the fire of reasoning the things of God does come to an end and when it does, it is possible not to fall back into one's old ways of the reactionary, emotional self. Here's where I step into what could be construed as 'the feminine' and if so, so be it. What I am seeing happening within me, and given my current slip into passion, I acknowledge is at its beginning stage, is that rather than having to reason my way through to the cause of my aroused mental state, I can attend instead to the arousal itself. In other words be conscious of the "feeling flow" toward an object before it becomes a thought of the object and allow that feeling flow to come to rest. This is not, as Kelly projected, a wish for happiness, but rather, as a way to be awake in renunciation that cuts existence off at its root, the root of "rising up." After all, is it not because of the "rising up" of the body that we become attached to form? Does it not seem logical then that ultimately it will be through direct attention to this "rising up" of the body that we become unattached to form? Reason is not abandoned while in the world, it's just that it is no longer needed as a "spiritual sword."

[Cahoot]

I haven’t read the book about logic and intuition that this article links, but it looks interesting.

A Simple Logic Question That Most Harvard Students Get Wrong

http://www.businessinsider.com/question ... ng-2012-12

[windhawk]

The End of Philosophy, and the Task of Thinking.

[ardy]

Yes Kelly is hard to move from her seat of logic and who are we to say she is wrong? Logic is powerful and rarely used as we get daily reminders of from our politicians.

Will logic take you to enlightenment as Kelly believes? I am not sure but everything I have learnt in my time with this subject points to a failure of logic when any sort of a breakthrough comes.

So what are we dealing with here? Faith, acceptance of some higher purpose [almost certainly ego], compliance with a master or is it just intuition of something that logic cannot point to?

I ain't sure about any of this, but I will certainly NOT be following Kelly down the logical rabbit hole.

[ardy]

That's why I wrote that it cannot diminish: it's born out of sentience so it can cut its very outgrowth or shadow. In that sense there's no "finish" for an active mind but at best a state of utmost caution: eyes all around.

Diebert van Rhijn: Please explain the bold statement a bit further will you?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That's why I wrote that it cannot diminish: it's born out of sentience so it can cut its very outgrowth or shadow. In that sense there's no "finish" for an active mind but at best a state of utmost caution: eyes all around.

Diebert van Rhijn: Please explain the bold statement a bit further will you?

Well, I could try. The processes of logic and reason are naturally growing out of sentience or consciousness. The main function I'd attribute to these processes is that of a chisel, trimmer or rake. To falsify, divide and discard, not to fix, establish or erect. Then with "outgrowth or shadow" I mean the weeds of being or becoming, the false self, the ghost that haunts us. Since this spook represents ignorance, its whole effect is that of falsehood and deception with the purpose of hanging on to its own unjust appearance. Since each and every activity or experience, all interpretations and reasoning about those, can all become affected, we need the sharpest, most effective, most skillful tool available - one which cannot easily be ruled by the same shadow. This is why reasoning on existence and self is the Way to get to the most truthful mirror, one that enables to self-reflect to the extent of addressing ignorance at the root. For that reason, it will also be the most undesired activity in its most dedicated form as it offers no excitement, no credits, no praise, no compliments on intelligence (since it's about obvious, general stuff), no pay-off, no peace and not much personalization. It's upsetting but it will not be diminished since it will always grow in the fertile grounds of the mind like everything else, all by itself, as long as it's not actively suppressed.

[Dennis Mahar]

You've got your perpetrator, rescuer, victim drama happening big time there D.
Same shit different day.

that word natural is a top rated emotional hook.
voted by advertising copyrighters as a surefire moneyspinner.
schmaltzy.

[Cahoot]

After giving some thought to some of my recent posts of late on the subject of logic, I have come to the conclusion that they were more reactionary (to Kelly's presence) than reasonable in nature. I do have respect for Kelly's obedience to her "bloodied" version of logic, one has no choice but to walk their current path of renunciation, but I do not have respect for its results. Sarcasm and psychological profiling are two fires that I do not see as being productive aspects of the logical mind. I allowed these two fires to affect me, not Kelly's fault, entirely my own.

I do believe that the fire of reasoning the things of God does come to an end and when it does, it is possible not to fall back into one's old ways of the reactionary, emotional self. Here's where I step into what could be construed as 'the feminine' and if so, so be it. What I am seeing happening within me, and given my current slip into passion, I acknowledge is at its beginning stage, is that rather than having to reason my way through to the cause of my aroused mental state, I can attend instead to the arousal itself. In other words be conscious of the "feeling flow" toward an object before it becomes a thought of the object and allow that feeling flow to come to rest. This is not, as Kelly projected, a wish for happiness, but rather, as a way to be awake in renunciation that cuts existence off at its root, the root of "rising up." After all, is it not because of the "rising up" of the body that we become attached to form? Does it not seem logical then that ultimately it will be through direct attention to this "rising up" of the body that we become unattached to form? Reason is not abandoned while in the world, it's just that it is no longer needed as a "spiritual sword."

Could you elaborate on the meaning of “rising up.” Would substituting the word “attachment” for “rising up,” and substituting attachment for “existence,” change the meaning of the paragraph?

[Cahoot]

Out of respect for the continuity of the original intent of the thread on discussing Jupta's barriers to spiritual growth, I am starting a new thread here with the intention of discussing the logic of logic's flaw.

My intention is not to pick on Kelly, but since she is appears to me to be the resident "god of logic", it is logical to me to hone in on one of her logical fallacies in order to make my point. In the above mentioned thread Kelly said: "MA wants to get rid of reasoning before it has finished its work, so she can experience happiness (unconsciousness)." Setting aside the erroneous conclusion of my spiritual goal, which in and of itself is proof that logic is flawed, my question for Kelly and anyone else who believes in the flawlessness of logic to deliver one out of whatever is their definition of delusion, I ask for an answer to this question:

How does one know what the finished work of logic is or will be while they yet remain unfinished with logic?

The ignorance anchor detaches and drops to the bottom of the ocean.

With the ignorance anchor gone, the logic anchor is the last anchor left.

It anchors the ship to duality.

Setting sail requires hauling it up and setting the ship adrift on the natural winds of balance. Wind eau natural.

Along the way, situations automatically deploy the logic anchor from time-to-time. How often depends on lifestyle.

[Pam Seeback]

Out of respect for the continuity of the original intent of the thread on discussing Jupta's barriers to spiritual growth, I am starting a new thread here with the intention of discussing the logic of logic's flaw.

My intention is not to pick on Kelly, but since she is appears to me to be the resident "god of logic", it is logical to me to hone in on one of her logical fallacies in order to make my point. In the above mentioned thread Kelly said: "MA wants to get rid of reasoning before it has finished its work, so she can experience happiness (unconsciousness)." Setting aside the erroneous conclusion of my spiritual goal, which in and of itself is proof that logic is flawed, my question for Kelly and anyone else who believes in the flawlessness of logic to deliver one out of whatever is their definition of delusion, I ask for an answer to this question:

How does one know what the finished work of logic is or will be while they yet remain unfinished with logic?

The ignorance anchor detaches and drops to the bottom of the ocean.

With the ignorance anchor gone, the logic anchor is the last anchor left.

It anchors the ship to duality.

Setting sail requires hauling it up and setting the ship adrift on the natural winds of balance. Wind eau natural.

Along the way, situations automatically deploy the logic anchor from time-to-time. How often depends on lifestyle.

I don't know if you read my last post in the "Qualities..." thread, but I would liken the arousal of all name-and-form consciousness to a momentary "pretend bridge" of meaning, or as you so poetically put it, as an anchor to duality. I include not only logic, but the idea of attachment and balance.

[Dennis Mahar]

Cute bedtime story.
characters in a plot.

[Pam Seeback]

Mr. empty and meaningless
I'll give you your dues
what's on the menu indeed
name-and-form must play the game
infinite plots in the book of pretend,
from Dr. Suess to the Pali Canon,
as the Bard said, the world is a stage
and even that is a story of a whole lot of nothing;
being okay with pretend is the key
walking on water, having faith in nothing but faith itself
knowing that the moment cannot help but tell its story
"let there be light, and there was light."

still say emptiness is not bliss
absolutes are for suckers

[Dennis Mahar]

Didn't say bliss wasn't conditional.
a possibility generated.

Feeling says: bliss
Thinking says: shut up bozo, it's a dangerous world.