GENIUS FORUMS

Oh, brokenhead...

This is all true. The difficulty in talking to Kevin (or David or Dan) is that they rely on logic…

Ye gods. Perish the thought.

If they did [gave up relying on logic, essentially], the raison d'etre of this website falls into question.

!

Let me guess---that would be because they gave up relying on logic?

How do we get them to see that the rational man does not limit himself to pure logic because pure logic itself is limited?

Just exactly what do you think a rational man is limited to if not (pure) logic?

Logic is limited to (or, as) itself. That is, it cannot be illogic and logic---or a banana and logic---at the same time.

This does not imply you have to contravene logic, but merely recognize rationally that it cannot answer your deepest questions.

Honestly, you leave me stupefied.

You could try, rather than rationally recognising that logic cannot answer your deepest questions, recognising the irrationality in your questions?

brokenhead: If they did [gave up relying on logic, essentially], the raison d'etre of this website falls into question.

Leyla Shen: !

Let me guess---that would be because they gave up relying on logic?

The part in blue that you attribute to me is not what I said. It is not "essentially" my meaning, though I'm sure the subtle difference is lost on you. What I was saying was if QRS yielded the point that pure logic cannot map out or adequately decribe existence in its Totality. The point was made in Jason's post, if you read that. That is what I was referring to.

Just exactly what do you think a rational man is limited to if not (pure) logic?

The extent of his capacity to recognize and understand the truth.

Honestly, you leave me stupefied.

It's the way I found you.

You could try, rather than rationally recognising that logic cannot answer your deepest questions, recognising the irrationality in your questions?

You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. That is the limitation in your approach. That's why, in a word, you are stupefied.

brokenhead wrote:The part in blue that you attribute to me is not what I said. It is not "essentially" my meaning, though I'm sure the subtle difference is lost on you. What I was saying was if QRS yielded the point that pure logic cannot map out or adequately decribe existence in its Totality.

Why not? They refer to it in precisely the same manner as you have here; purely logically as the “Totality.” Are you saying they have claimed some other sort of “omniscience”?

The point was made in Jason's post, if you read that. That is what I was referring to.

Well, if you weren’t so argumentative…

The extent of his capacity to recognize and understand the truth.

Since it is apparently not your position that logic is the basis of truth, Is it your position that faith is? Some arbitrary balance between the two? How does one discern the truth in faith?

I, for example, see absolutely no reason to put my faith in non-existing things. Only things which exist require my faith in them, since they are changing and impermanent.

It's the way I found you.

Of course you did. Those who have uncompromising faith in things which do not exist tend to find the world quite rigid and unchanging, since it conforms to their dogmas rather than to living, breathing reality.

L:You could try, rather than rationally recognising that logic cannot answer your deepest questions, recognising the irrationality in your questions?

b: You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. That is the limitation in your approach. That's why, in a word, you are stupefied.

Your personal need for a creator god has no bearing on the logical veracity of the Totality. It is complete, even unto the creation of the universe, imagined deities of absolute faith inclusive and notwithstanding.

Leyla Shen wrote:

brokenhead wrote:How do we get them to see that the rational man does not limit himself to pure logic because pure logic itself is limited?

Just exactly what do you think a rational man is limited to if not (pure) logic?

Logic is limited to (or, as) itself. That is, it cannot be illogic and logic---or a banana and logic---at the same time.

It can, actually. One man's sign of the divine can be another man's trap and limitation.

This does not imply you have to contravene logic, but merely recognize rationally that it cannot answer your deepest questions.

Honestly, you leave me stupefied.

You could try, rather than rationally recognising that logic cannot answer your deepest questions, recognising the irrationality in your questions?

So, no thinking? Do you ignore what you don't know? If you knew everything, thinking would serve no purpose. Those "irrational" questions give thought life.

Or, as Paul Simon once put it, One Man’s Ceiling is Another Man’s Floor. Nevertheless, a ceiling is always a ceiling and a floor a floor. One man’s banana, however, can only ever be another’s logic if he is insane.

Tumba, tumba, tumba, Mardi Gras…

"divine focus" wrote:

So, no thinking?

Whatever gave you that idea? What kind of thinking is it that occurs without logic?

Do you ignore what you don't know?

Never. I can only ignore what I do know, necessarily.

If you knew everything, thinking would serve no purpose. Those "irrational" questions give thought life.

Thinking without logic isn’t what I call thinking.

Leyla Shen wrote:I, for example, see absolutely no reason to put my faith in non-existing things. Only things which exist require my faith in them, since they are changing and impermanent.... Those who have uncompromising faith in things which do not exist tend to find the world quite rigid and unchanging, since it conforms to their dogmas rather than to living, breathing reality.

I see no reason to put my faith in non-existing things, either. So we agree on something.

Also, You are pissing in the wind, Leyla. If you have a disagreement with people who see the world as rigid and unchanging, then I suggest you take it up with them. It has nothing to do with me. But I see you think it does, which goes to show your ignorance in general of what I mean by faith.

You are typical of someone who does not comprehend faith or the natural human hunger for the divine and for knowledge beyond the confines of material existence, for answers to the deepest questions. You think yourself superior to true seekers because of your blind faith in logic. "Their faith... their dogmas..." You ask a question and then cannot listen to the answer, you feel impelled rather to argue with it. You are not putting yourself in a position to learn anything, because you feel yourself to be in possession of the answers and therefore superior to anyone who attempts to respond to your questions. Your lack of respect for other views is glaring. Your only reason for participating at GF is to stomp on other contributors and to cavil until the cows come home.

You cannot know everything that exists or has existed, this is happening, will happen, has happened, or can happen. This is just a fact. Yet you feel no compunction about declaring that others, presumably people who have faith, such as myself, traffic with the nonexistent, with beliefs that have no basis in reality. I have news for you. Disdain is like a giant neon sign above one's head that reads "ignorant." You seem to regard faith as execrable as being fooled by a magic act. If that's not ignorance, I don't know what is.

But I'm sure you'll tell me.

Leyla Shen wrote:One man’s banana, however, can only ever be another’s logic if he is insane.

And what is it with the banana references? Siggy would have a field day with that.

Whatever gave you that idea? What kind of thinking is it that occurs without logic?

You can't be serious! Logic is a tool. It's isn't the entire tool box. Are you saying that a child, who has yet to develop the capacity for logic, cannot think? If you limit yourself to logic - or any one particular mode of thought - you cannot possibly fathom the real world or man's deepest interactions therewith.

Never. I can only ignore what I do know, necessarily.

You think you are being clever here by being logical. But you have merely shown that pure logic has made you miss the point. Missing the point is something you seem to excel at, but makes you quite difficult to discourse with.

Suppose you are lying in bed one night and here a strange sound, like some one walking, in another part of the house. You cannot identify the sound. Do you know what the sound is? No, because you cannot identify it. Suppose you decide to go back to sleep. You have just ignored something you did not know. Consequently, you clever quote above is a false statement, necessarily. What it shows is that you misunderstood the question, maybe even intentionally, preferring rather to be clever than respond.

Oh, and ignoring that footfall in your darkened house might have cost you your life, if it was a dangerous intruder.

Thinking without logic isn’t what I call thinking.

Of course it is thinking - it would be thinking without logic. But we're not advocating that. Can you not see this point? Really? We are saying, rather, that limiting thinking solely to logic is not rational.

Maybe an analogy might help. Let's say you were in your car and were very thirsty, but had nothing to drink. And let's say you knew where a stream was, and that it was the closest place you could get water or anything to drink. You drive quickly to where the stream is, but find it lies several hundred yards on the other side of some woods past the side of the road. Relying totally on logic is like relying totally on one mode of transportation. You wouldn't sit there in your car and refuse to get out and walk to the stream, simply because a car is the fastest and most comfortable mode of transporation you know of, would you? No. You would get out and walk slowly and in the midday heat because the car would take you no further. By not relying on the one mode of transportation, you are able to quench your thirst.

Did the parable help?

Remember, you are the one who said the world is always changing. Sometimes, it takes intuition and leaps of faith to navigate it.

brokenhead wrote:limiting thinking solely to logic is not rational.

Thinking without logic is impossible. If you want to argue that thinking is possible without logic, then provide an example of thinking that doesn't use logic.

By not relying on the one mode of transportation, you are able to quench your thirst.

In that case it would be logical to not rely on one mode of transport. You have used logic to arrive at this position, so this is not an example of thinking without logic.

Even intuition uses logic, otherwise it would be useless.

Definitions of Logic

Most people recognize a 'logical' person as one who relies exclusively on certain ways of thinking, ways of looking at problems, ways of confronting problems. Everyone knows that to solve. say, a plumbing problem or a structural problem this sort of 'logic' is the best way to proceed. But speaking popularly, we also know that this 'logic' and the sort of person who employs it, this style of approach and being, is not so useful in many other areas, and so popularly other terms are used: intuitive, receptive, meditative, contemplative. All these 'ways' may conform to some sort of process that has logical features, but it is not recognized and is not described as 'logic'.

With your last post you have completely opened up the whole question of 'logic' and, it would seem, could invite other approaches. Clearly, at least I think so, when brokenhead takes issue with the word 'logic' I am pretty sure I understand exactly what he means.

Whole parts of our consciousness do not function 'logically', and if you used that term you would broaden it far, far away from its accepted meaning. If for example I have a dream filled with tremendous psychic content, a message perhaps from some part of myself, we would generally admit that this arises not as a result of 'logic'. In that sense---and to work a Jungian angle---we would have to say that almost the entirety of life, everything that happens, all that happens, is not logical but alogical. Actually there is no word to apply to it because it is beyond any possible definition.

Our minds can use logic, but logic is not, it seems, a part of the universe that swirls around us. Yet, everything that happens mathematically is logical insofar as math is logical. Aomeone said that the whole creation is 'sung in mathematics'. But isn't it true (it is a question) that everything about the way life happens is not logical? It is a strange puzzle in fact.

Kevin, I go into this in depth in my correspondence course. I hope you will please subscribe and so improve your knowledge base.

See the last definition on that search page:

Logic: Broadly, the art of non-contradictory identification, using the laws of logic, which are the: 1) Law of Identity (A is A); 2) Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be ~A); and 3) Excluded Middle (B can be either A or not ~A).

This is logic, the nature of the known universe.

Kevin wrote:Thinking without logic is impossible.

Let's everybody calm down. Let's listen to Kevin. Thinking without logic is impossible. What does that mean.

Leyla sequential assists without knowing it. Helps Stephen see through insanity of mother with stout logic. Rewind to an hour ago: Stephen hears mother say ('mutteruncons')(sublingual) to herself, after Stephen comments on her inaccurate detailing of circumstance - "Needs to see rope" (a reference to the 'wise person isn't afraid of rope, fool is, seeing snake.')

Stephen should continue to feed Mum bananas to keep his sensation (oral) circuit open.

Ver'y Interesting.

Alex Jacob wrote:we would have to say that almost the entirety of life, everything that happens, all that happens, is not logical but alogical. Actually there is no word to apply to it because it is beyond any possible definition.

Fair enough but the moment any bit of life or content of your mind, thoughts, dreams or feelings is gonna mean something, signify something at all for you, logic has arrived.

This is because the art of signification is all about non-contradictory identification. The moment one would contradict or undo the identification - the sign dissolves back into the sea it arose from. One could call that sea alogical perhaps but really it defies even that.

Steven Coyle wrote:Leyla sequential assists without knowing it. Helps Stephen see through insanity of mother with stout logic. Rewind to an hour ago: Stephen hears mother say ('mutteruncons')(sublingual) to herself, after Stephen comments on her inaccurate detailing of circumstance - "Needs to see rope" (a reference to the 'wise person isn't afraid of rope, fool is, seeing snake.')

Stephen should continue to feed Mum bananas to keep his sensation (oral) circuit open.

Ver'y Interesting.

How long have you known this Stephen?

Steven Coyle wrote:Leyla sequential assists without knowing it. Helps Stephen see through insanity of mother with stout logic. Rewind to an hour ago: Stephen hears mother say ('mutteruncons')(sublingual) to herself, after Stephen comments on her inaccurate detailing of circumstance - "Needs to see rope" (a reference to the 'wise person isn't afraid of rope, fool is, seeing snake.')

Stephen should continue to feed Mum bananas to keep his sensation (oral) circuit open.

Ver'y Interesting.

Steven Coyle, cyber-graffitist, goes to the wall like a cosmonaut to his rocket.

Steven Coyle wrote: Stephen should continue to feed Mum bananas to keep his sensation (oral) circuit open.

bwhahaha - hilarious.

token_head,

First rule of Fight Club...

Co_re,

Yeah

Diebert writes:

"Fair enough but the moment any bit of life or content of your mind, thoughts, dreams or feelings is gonna mean something, signify something at all for you, logic has arrived."

But would all attach the word 'logic' to it, and would the term function in the way it generally does? Or that it does for Kevin? I think that using the term 'logic' and 'logical' (as he uses it and as it is generally used) means something very different than the possible meaning, the expanded meaning, you are interested in presenting.

And what about those henids, Diebert?

"This is because the art of signification is all about non-contradictory identification. The moment one would contradict or undo the identification - the sign dissolves back into the sea it arose from. One could call that sea alogical perhaps but really it defies even that."

I think I get what you mean. And it is interesting of course. We may have and be able to use a number of systems of significance, systems of ordering, perceiving. Is a henid in some sense a 'signification of non-contradictory identification'...that grates on someone else's?

You'd better cut back on the shrooms, Diebert...

;-)

Alex Jacob wrote:Most people recognize a 'logical' person as one who relies exclusively on certain ways of thinking, ways of looking at problems, ways of confronting problems.

I don't think so.

I would say that a "logical person" is one who uses logic at every single opportunity where using logic is useful.

If a person used logic in a manner that was inappropriate then their behaviour would in fact be illogical.

Everyone knows that to solve. say, a plumbing problem or a structural problem this sort of 'logic' is the best way to proceed. But speaking popularly, we also know that this 'logic' and the sort of person who employs it, this style of approach and being, is not so useful in many other areas, and so popularly other terms are used: intuitive, receptive, meditative, contemplative.

It is not the tool (logic) that is to blame, but the person using the tool.

If a person uses golf clubs very badly — let's say that they hold their clubs upside down and don't even know that they're supposed to hit a ball with them — do we then call them a "golfer". We would be more likely to call a person a golfer if they use their clubs well.

It should be the same with the tool of logic. A logical person would be a person who uses logic well, and not a person who uses it badly.

Clearly, at least I think so, when brokenhead takes issue with the word 'logic' I am pretty sure I understand exactly what he means.

I think I know what he means too, but his issue is really with the practitioner rather than the tool itself.

If for example I have a dream filled with tremendous psychic content, a message perhaps from some part of myself, we would generally admit that this arises not as a result of 'logic'.

Logic is a tool that can be used either consciously or unconsciously. The more logical a person is (in the sense that I use the term), the more sensible and useful will be their intuitions, since the intuitions will say what is, rather than what is not.

Our minds can use logic, but logic is not, it seems, a part of the universe that swirls around us.

Logic is inherent in consciousness. Once we can identify a thing as itself, rather than something else, we have logic.

But isn't it true (it is a question) that everything about the way life happens is not logical?

Things don't happen because of logic. The sun doesn't shine because of logic. Life didn't evolve because of logic. Nevertheless, logic describes all these things.

On the other hand, there is a sense in which everything about the way life happens is perfectly logical. Is it not logical that the present is determined by the past, and the future by the present? Is it not logical that a cause has an effect?

brokenhead:

And what is it with the banana references?

Potassium deficiency?

L: Whatever gave you that idea? What kind of thinking is it that occurs without logic?

b: You can't be serious!

Yes, I am!

b: Logic is a tool. It's isn't the entire tool box.

Logic is rudimentary to thought; it’s most basic form being A=A.

Are you saying that a child, who has yet to develop the capacity for logic, cannot think?

Children (without any severe brain damage) are born with the capacity for logic in the form of A=A, as are all animal forms. That’s what distinguishes us from vegetables, rocks and air, for example.

If you limit yourself to logic - or any one particular mode of thought - you cannot possibly fathom the real world or man's deepest interactions therewith.

You’re speaking gibberish. One literally begins with the ability to identify and differentiate. Thinking is the faculty of applied logic---applied to all that comprises existence. Thinking is not intuition, premonition, feeling, sensation, ad infinitum. It is thinking. What’s your definition?

L: Never. I can only ignore what I do know, necessarily.

b: You think you are being clever here by being logical.

Boy, you’re quite self-righteous, ain’t you?

But you have merely shown that pure logic has made you miss the point. Missing the point is something you seem to excel at, but makes you quite difficult to discourse with.

“The point,” my dear, is still in question.

Suppose you are lying in bed one night and here a strange sound, like some one walking, in another part of the house. You cannot identify the sound. Do you know what the sound is? No, because you cannot identify it.

Are you fucking serious???? [laughs]. God’s sake. If I hear a sound and I don’t know what it is beyond being an unidentified sound, I can IGNORE this unidentified sound or I can investigate it. It’s really that simple!

Suppose you decide to go back to sleep. You have just ignored something you did not know.

No, I ignored a very particular thing! I ignored an unidentified sound.

Consequently, you clever quote above is a false statement, necessarily. What it shows is that you misunderstood the question, maybe even intentionally, preferring rather to be clever than respond.

Bullshit. Try thinking.

Oh, and ignoring that footfall in your darkened house might have cost you your life, if it was a dangerous intruder.

Would you like to know what happened to the last person who stepped on my property uninvited?

Of course it is thinking - it would be thinking without logic. But we're not advocating that.

“We”? How about you each take me on as individuals?

What you are advocating is that there is some such thing as thinking that isn’t limited to logic, and you have failed to show it---because you can‘t.

Do you even have a definition for thinking?

We are saying, rather, that limiting thinking solely to logic is not rational.

How about the collective you provides a definition for rational? See, I think thought is rational. However, if part of your definition of thinking excludes logic--it ain’t going to be rational.

Did the parable help?

About as useful as your analogies. Give yourself a shake and get rid of the defensive condescension. If you think about it, you should be able to give me a definition of thought that should clear the whole matter up, no?

Remember, you are the one who said the world is always changing. Sometimes, it takes intuition and leaps of faith to navigate it.

That’s right, the world is always changing. One can have faith in things, but one always needs logic in order to think about them.

If I come across anything new and different (which happens fairly frequently), the first thing I have faith in is logic, since it has served me quite well. I use it to investigate and affirm or deny such things as intuition and such matters of faith. How about you?

Carl G wrote:Steven Coyle, cyber-graffitist, goes to the wall like a cosmonaut to his rocket.

LOL

Kevin Solway wrote:I would say that a "logical person" is one who uses logic at every single opportunity where using logic is useful.

If a person used logic in a manner that was inappropriate then their behaviour would in fact be illogical.

Only you can say their behavior was illogical. You would have seen things differently--that is, "logically." If others agree with you, that doesn't make you more logical. They simply share similar beliefs as you.

Leyla Shen wrote:No, I ignored a very particular thing! I ignored an unidentified sound.

This is called "unknown." It is sensed in some way but unidentified. The "unknown" in the sense of something not even sensed has no meaning, since what is sensed is absolute. In other words, the absolute is all that is sensed; therefore, what is sensed but "unknown" is simply unidentified. In ignoring what is unidentified, what is "irrational," what doesn't comport to the order you have established, growth is stifled. Since the absolute is infinite, the "unknown" must be infinite, since the known is not.

divine focus wrote:If others agree with you, that doesn't make you more logical. They simply share similar beliefs as you.

What "other people" think is irrelevant as to whether a person is a logical thinker or not.

Alex Jacob wrote: But would all attach the word 'logic' to it, and would the term function in the way it generally does?

Any coherent thought or system of thoughts involving a concept or idea, no matter how sharp into focus or blurry in the distance it appears would very naturally and by definition involve logic.

It's not a matter of just bolting on some arcane definition but one has to realize that by hanging on to a certain way of defining things any world-view can be upheld while still remaining technically within the bounds of a dictionary. A whole culture is basically a commonly agreed on way to see and define things, including any double-plus speak that seeped into language.

The only way to break that loop is to review ones definitions and as such logic and identification. Going as default by the usual doesn't strike me as very wise.

Is a henid in some sense a 'signification of non-contradictory identification'...that grates on someone else's?

It might as well be.

Since you're into Christianity these days: Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. - New Testament, 1Cr 13:12

Leyla-

Have you read The Emeror's New Mind?

I'm starting to understand what Alex meant by bite marks on his ankles. Just don't jump any higher, OK?

If you think I am being condescending, I think you are the most condescending member here. Your own mindset keeps you from understanding what I am trying to tell you. Look back on my posts. I am not telling you it is desirable to contravene logical thinking. Look up contravene if you don't know what it means.

I'm not going to respond to you point-by-point because frankly, I just don't care enough whether you get what I've been trying to tell you. The attitude of your replies tells me you have not, and furthermore, have no intention of grasping what I've been saying or even really trying. You want me to believe you are somehow superior because you see that A=A.

Once and for all, I get that logic is a necessary component of human cognition. It is not necessary for you to keep telling me how useful you have found it in your life. We all find it useful. We all rely on it. But is it logic alone that is the underpinning of, for example, an inspiration? If so, why did it take a decade for Einstein to work out the logic behind his inspiration of General Relativity? How did he know it was correct before he could demonstrate it mathematically?

I get that thinking entails logic. If you were to have it Kevin's way, thinking without logic is impossible. If so, then I must be using logic in this discourse. You are not following it. If we were having this exchange in person, it would be coming down to who can shout the loudest. I'm starting to feel that I would lose that match.

divine focus:

May I remind you of the context:

b: This does not imply you have to contravene logic, but merely recognize rationally that it cannot answer your deepest questions.

L: Honestly, you leave me stupefied.

You could try, rather than rationally recognising that logic cannot answer your deepest questions, recognising the irrationality in your questions?

df: So, no thinking? Do you ignore what you don't know? If you knew everything, thinking would serve no purpose. Those "irrational" questions give thought life.

It follows, then, that irrational (or, if you prefer, "irrational") questions are the unidentified sound in the dark, which might inspire, but do not comprise, thinking itself.

In that light, do you see your addressing me on the subject as a thoughtful activity, or a moment of such inspiration?