This part is to present some basis of logics which will be useful for understanding the other parts. After some reminders of known things, I expose a new quadripolar logic, which, in the second part on epistemology, will help us to understand the basic error of traditional science. There also are some notions, simple or subtle, on the limits of logic and theories.
(Permalink) If we say: «Sabrina don't answer the phone, thus she is not at home» we do a logical reasoning. We start from a fact we can observe: «Sabrina don't answer the phone», and, with the use of reasoning: «thus», we arrive to an interesting conclusion, but that we could not observe: «she is not at home». So logic is what allows, knowing certain aspects of reality, to deduce other aspects, unknown or out of reach. This is obviously very useful, in every aspect of our lives: at home, in society, into science or techniques, and even in nature, which is always logical.
The rules of logic (and, or, if, thus...) were described by the Greek Aristotle, in the 4th century before Christ. From where its name of Aristotelian logic (more commonly called Boolean logic). They were not modified since. However numerous persons have a bad feeling in front of the supremacy of the «rational» logic, and oppose to it the intuition, the «heart», meditation, or the «non-Aristotelian logics». The purpose of this first part is to introduce these alternatives, in an exact, clear and understandable way, after a reminder on Aristotelian logic.
(Permalink) Recently (20th century) the Sets Theory attempted to rewrite from the basement the whole logic and mathematics. Without entering in, the Set Theory considers objects which are:
1) completely separated and distinct the ones from the others.
2) from which we can say, with a total confidence, without nuance, if yes or no they are a part of the set we are speaking about.
Starting from here, the Set Theory claims to demonstrate the Aristotelian logic, the numbers, calculus and all the mathematics, from the simplest to the most complicated, including «vectorial spaces», kind of mathematical virtual spaces which will show very useful in the third part on metaphysics.
What I state here is that the above conditions are in fact two choices, which select the results they are said to demonstrate. So Aristotelian logic is not «demonstrated» by the Sets Theory, it simply works with objects which have the two above properties. I say that it is valid for these objects, but not valid for other objects with different properties.
On the other hand this depends only on the objects, not on the direction of the wind, our fancy or our capitalist interest, as would like those who use such egocentric arguments to dispute morals and escape its obligations, as we shall see in chapter I-8.
(Permalink) We know today several other logics, based on alternatives for the choice 2 (Yes or no), and thus different of Aristotelian logic. Let us pass them in review.
It relates to objects 1) perfectly separated from each other and 2) Which we can say without nuance neither ambiguity if such or such of their property is true or false. Mathematics are built on it. In electronics, it is the digital computing.
In the case of objects which only satisfy «more or less» the criterion 2, we obtain more or less true or false statements (what is expressed by a percentage, for instance a tank more or less full). In electronics, this is called analog computing.
As in the previous case, but this time the criterion 2 is no longer a percentage, but a probability to have the statement completely true or completely false. In electronics, this was sometimes called stochastic logic.
A roughly true or false criteria 2 leads to this logic, which discoverer is the Iranian Lofti Zadeh, and which flexibility was a noticed breakthrough in industry or automatic control of vehicles.
Fuzzy, probabilistic and gradual logics can still be reduced to Aristotelian logic, as soon as we use numbers to measure the criterion 2. But we shall see later cases where these logics cannot be reduced to Aristotelian logic, when it deals with non-measurable objects, such as for instance emotions or moral facts.
On the other hand in the examples which will follow it seems that it is necessary to give up any reference to Aristotelian logic or mathematics which results from it. What I try to bring new in the bargain is to still regard these new cases as fully valid logics, non-Aristotelian logics quite as valuable as the Aristotelian logic or the fuzzy logic, but which apply to objects with different properties (choice 1 or 2 at the beginning of this chapter, see choice 3, 4...): non-Aristotelian objects.
The most typical case is that of the Christian communion between God and the individual, which seems to lead to a paradoxe: God would be unique and indivisible, while in the same time existing in a very large number of individuals. In fact, this looks paradoxical to us only because we think that God and individuals would be Aristotelian objects, separated and independent, as in the choice 1 above. If they are not, so they don't obey to Aristotelian logic, and there is nothing paradoxical or unexplainable to see them «mixed». We just have to admit the fact. Physical sciences also are confronted to this kind of objects, like quantum entangled partices, which look as two separated objects, but which «communicate instantly» just like in the Christian communion.
My first approach of the non-duality was with Hatha Yoga, where, to hold a posture, there are at the same time activity (some muscles work) and relaxation. Here again, this contradiction is only an appearance: we think that activity and relaxation are contrary, and thus mutually exclude each other (choice 1) as two enemies who cannot hold the same place together. In fact if we simply accept that these two «opposites» can exist simultaneously, and even may collaborate, then the problem disappears, the headache also and the mind can get relaxed in turn. Many very significant notions result from this: non-violence, non-action, non-self... These notions, which completely violate the choice 1 by linking apparently different or incompatible objects, are not «difficult» neither «abstract» nor «highly esoteric», they are very easy to understand once we accept them without trying any more «to understand how the opposites are not excluded each other».
This time we entered resolutely in a field where Aristotelian logic is no longer of any help. Not only the basic choices 1 and 2 are different, but in more we can no longer do any measurement. There is no way to reduce the situation to Aristotelian logic. However there is nothing arbitrarian. This is really a full fledged logic, which results does not depend on our culture, taste or personal interest. These logics allow in the same way to do reasoning, and to discover objects or facts which were unknown. So, they still match the definition of logics seen in the beginning of this part.
When we do an Aristotelian reasoning, or analytical thought, our mind imitates a computer: we execute instructions, and we retain intermediate results in our memory. But the non-Aristotelian reasoning uses the natural working on the brain, that of neural networks, which are able to consider a great quantity of data, and return a result in a fraction of a second, without intermediate steps. These faculties are used into things like instinctive shooting, and they are often called global thought, synthetic thought, or intuition. We can invoke them with meditation, which is quite simply a state of mind where we stop doing Aristotelian reasoning on the situation.
It is very fortunate that we have these faculties, as non-Aristotelian reasonning is the only way to apprehend many important aspects of life and society.
But now let us go to the most important non-dual logic recognized today:
With my opinion and according to the most serious sources on the subject, the Yin and the Yang are not objects or «forces», but terms of a logic, which can apply to very diverse objects (energies or others) just like the true and the false of Aristotelian logic (choice 2). However Yin and Yang do not exclude each other as in choice 1; that is they always are simultaneously present, but in a non-dual way, each one respectful of the other and collaborating with it. They even not are a compromise (as in a gradated logic) where they would deprive each other of their force; quite to the contrary each one is magnified and achieved by the presence of the other, completely contrary to the two terms of Aristotelian logic, which exclude each other.
Some classical examples to meditate:
a) The cold Yin and the hot Yang.
b) The Yang male and Yin female.
c) The Yang authority and the Yin freedom.
d) On the other hand, a very common mistake is to confuse Yin and Yang with good and evil, which arises serious problems, mainly to offer a «metaphysical justification» to evil. The refutation of these deviations will be the made further in this part chapter I-5).
Yin-Yang dialectics cannot be reduced to a simple gradation between two extremes, like in a gradual logic, which would in turn be reduced to Aristotelian logic. Indeed there is no «dosage» of Yin and Yang, which remain always together fully present, one or the other being in front of the stage according to the situation. The Yin-Yang relationship is not measurable. The Yin-Yang dialectics rather expresses the quality of the relationship between these two terms: collaboration, non-conflict and even non-compromise. But when we know what does this mean, speaking of Yin-Yang dialectics is accurate enough to know what can happen, as much as with an Aristotelian reasoning.
So we still remain in a logical reasoning, just calling for different mind faculties, synthetic in place of analytical, known as intuition, which is developed by meditation. This uses the full power of the neural networks in our brains, instead of making them emulate Aristotelian logics. Nobody has the right to say that one kind of faculty has more value than the other. It is a serious form of racism to say this, or to reject from social life those who don't have the «good» form of intelligence.
If we come back to the two choices of the other logics, then Yin-Yang dialectics is valid for objects which choice 2 is, instead of true or false, non-dual Yin and Yang.
The Hebraic Qabalah is based on a Glyph, containing ten Sephiroth (Virtues, in the sense of power), of which three pairs are organised in Yin-Yang pairs (left-right). What we find new here, is that it also exists an inverted Glyph, as the shadow of the first, of evil dark Séphirot, called Qliphoth. A Qliphah appears when the force of a Sephirah is not balanced by its opposite countrepart. This can be understood with again the three examples a, b, and c given for the Yin-Yang dialectics:
a) The uncompensated hot Yang and the cold Yin are unpleasant, and they can kill.
b) The power on a gender on the other is sexism, male chanvinism or feminine suprematism.
c) Authority without a protective or compassionnate purpose gives a dictatorship, while freedom without discipline neither respect gives the limp democraties, the failures of the Hippy communities, and Huxley's Brave New World.
So, the Qabalah explicitly processes the unbalances, that the Yin-Yang dialectics only regretted.
(Permalink) If we take any of the three Yin-Yang Sephirot pairs, and its corresponding Qliphot pair, they form a square, with the good Yang in top left, the good Yin in top right, bad Yang in bottom left, and bad Yin in bottom right. We can also represent the diagram with a rhombus or a triangle, depending on the problem considered.
We represented the Yin-Yang with blue-red, and kept the black/white only for the good/evil. All the subtlety of the diagram is into the gradations between these influences, which are figured by the gradations between colours. A given situation of reality is on only one spot of the diagram, and thus has an unique colour.
When Aristotelian logic exhibits two exclusive values for the choice 2, true or false, this diagram has four poles (see the drawing) more all the intermediary degrees, represented on a surface. Let us call this quadripolar logic©.
From left to right we have the Yang and the Yin, between two opposite or contrary aspects, while from bottom to top their harmonisation gets greater: null in the bottom (antagonist duality or full exclusion of one of the terms) average in the medium (tedious compromise) and complete in the top. In the bottom, (duality), only the bad aspects are expressed; in the middle level (compromize), they neutralise each other, but the positive aspects also. Only in the top (non-duality) the good aspects express without the bad aspects. So it is often legitimate to say that we have the good in top and the evil in bottom.
A well known practical simplification is the idea of the Three Pilars:
But another one is also useful, that of the Three Levels:
At last Quadripolar Logic is «fuzzy» like the logic with the same name, and we can even not define measurements: it is transcendent. But it is however exact, in the meaning that we can build diagrams matching with some social, psychological or spiritual realities, allowing to understand them and thus to solve problems arising in such domains, and to save an enormous amount of human suffering.
Often people oppose courage and fear, or confuse courage with imprudence. In fact it is fear and imprudence which are bad, while courage and prudence are good, especially if they go together. This example has nothing spiritual, and ordinary businessman can understand it.
The black zone (7) is that of the build-up conflict, where negative aspects expresses without compensation. On the Yang side, the male predominance leads to rape (6) and prostitution (5). Hardly higher (4), the perverse free union is in fact a form of reciprocal egoistic exploitation. The average grey zone (3) corresponds to the compromise where negative aspects are compensated, but also positive aspects. Everyone has warranties, for instance from law (marriage). Finally in the white zone (1) the negative aspects are fully eliminated, and the positive aspects can enrich mutually in a true Yin-Yang relation. But already in (2) mutual respect makes legal warrantees useless: it is the free union of the utopists, promised to success and happiness.
We note that two very different places of the previous diagram have the same name: free union. However (2) can work, because the partners have mutual respect, when (4) is a sinister trap doomed to failure. These are homonymous situations, which are described in the same way, and differ only with their different harmonisation. In what do they differ? Only by the harmonious or conflictual mind of the persons involved, who however use the same words, and do the same promises. But a partner psychologically able to keep these promises places himself in (2), in top of the diagram, when an egocentric or irrespectuous partner places himself in (4), in the bottom of the diagram. This is a vertical confusion in the diagram. This can lead to painful misunderstandings: An immoral sensualist will make you experience (4) while claiming about (2), and a puritan nutter will fight (2) by confusing it with (4). Another example of homonymous situations would be the sexual liberation, against the increase of pornography.
Starting from (2) in the 19th century (masculine domination moderated by law) the women libs all used the same speech, but had very different results. The pragmatics had a moderate approach, which moved society toward (3). But dualist feminists (4) (the femnazis) went much too far in the right, toward a feminine domination, a female sexism. With this, they did not lowered the suffering into the society. This is an illusory revolution©. In more this flip-flop move brought hate, when only good will allows to climb. The illusory revolutions often destroy what we already had without bringing anything new. Often persons who use the same words have in fact different actions, depending on the way they distort the diagram.
(1) is the traditional fascism, immortalised by the famous Orwell's novel «1984» and nowadays represented (Year 2000, Europe) by the antidemocratic, simplistic and racist extreme right wing. (2) is illustrated by the not less famous Huxley's novel «Brave new world», which ends up exactly the same way as the first. (2) is currently represented (year 2000) by the new forms of fascism: grotty-punk movements, rap, drug, cop-like behaviour of youngsters gangs in town districts, etc. Whereas (1) attempts to make us suffer with unfair authority, arbitrarian or without object, the reciprocal (2) in turn attempts to make us suffer with arbitrarian constraints in the name of freedom (insecurity, violence, satanic music, anti-poetry tags...). The path 3> is only an illusory revolution like the one already seen.
In the above example, (2) and (1) are horizontally reciprocal situations©, where the simple inversion of the Yin or Yang character of the concerned object (here the type of behaviour) does not change anything to the degree of suffering or happiness of the protagonists, does not change anything to the situation itself. Horizontally reciprocal situations appear as opposite, or are described by contrary speeches, whereas they are basically the same thing, the two Yin or Yang faces of the same coin, and that they address persons with the same moral, psychological or spiritual level, but of different temperaments. The error consisting in believing that two reciprocal situations are contrary, incompatible or opposite is an horizontal opposition©. We can see on a simple example (the racists and the city gangs who justify each other), how works the synergy between two horizontally reciprocal situations.
It is necessary to clearly understand the dynamic effect of passing from a reciprocal situation to another, very similar to that of a pendulum. The more we deviate from the middle way, the more we cause a force in return towards the other extreme. The more we react in a stupid, sectarian or dualistic way (then in the bottom of the diagram), the more these forces are violent, and the more this swinging move goes far in misfortune. Thus the situation caused by the grotty-punk movement (malign excess of «freedom») at the moment when I write (1999), starts to produce the fruits that everyone may have logically expected: the come back of the moralists, immediately exploited by the «moralists».
Precise examples are given in the «General Epistemology» version of this chapter, on the flip-flop effects, which rule important effects of political life (revolutions and counter-revolutions) or psychological life (so called «generation conflicts»). We also see the way to use them, as with a seesaw, to «push» in the right moment, in order to stop those sinister and useless flips, and that the society (or us) may evolve in a smoother and much faster way. This is generally known as «the middle way», which is not a compromise, but a non-duality between extremes. Only the understanding of non-duality allows to master reciprocal situations.
(Permalink) As we noted in the previous chapter, quadripolar logic rules a great number of very important social situations. But a series of fundamental confusions forbids the diagram to work in our minds, or reduce it to oppositions which thus appear irreducible. We can legitimately call this: reasoning mistakes, as with Aristotelian logic. And the specific reasoning mistakes of quadripolar logic are very common and have dreadful and often catastrophic consequences in our daily life. From where a vital interest to study quadripolar logic, in order to detect the associated reasoning mistakes. And not in university, but in primary school, for everybody!
We already noted in the previous chapter two mistakes, horizontal opposition and vertical confusion:
However the coarsest mistake, the most harmful to the understanding of the situations described by the diagram, is to confuse the good/evil axis (top to bottom) with that of the Yin-Yang dialectics (right to left). Such a mistake leads to gross misunderstanding of the situations described by the diagram. All the ideological wars in the world have this confusion as a cause.
But, the very relevance, precisely, of quadripolar logic, is to clearly separate what is about the Yin or Yang quality, morally neutral, from the related good-evil problem. In short, we do not judge the Yin or Yang character of the situation, but its more or less harmonized character, cause for happiness and success, or, on the contrary, its dualistic opposition characteristic, which generates conflict and suffering. This separation is made with placing the Yin-Yang dialectics on the horizontal axis, and the good-evil problem on the vertical axis.
To easily understand what this means, I show the progressive distortion of the diagram, as a box which we crush:
Then, with the example of commonly confused values, such as male-order-force artificially opposed to woman-freedom-sensitivity, I show two shapes of crushed diagrams which are obtained, by the classical ¥ang fascism, and in the case of the new «libertarian» ¥in fascism.
We immediately note that we lose any possibility of interpretation, and that numerous dreadful misunderstandings become unavoidable.
In an extreme case, in the mistake known under the name of dualism, the diagram is not only crushed, but it is furthermore reduced to only two points, similar to those of Aristotelian logic, but rigged with good/bad values instead of true/false. The result of Dualism is to artificially oppose two ethic values or two human groups.
Those who make this mistake have an apparently logical and Aristotelian vision which even more rigidifies their mental and ideology.
The same crushed diagram also exhibits the mistake of confusion between values©: Values or important facts in life may be wrongly associated, such as for example the authority and the masculine, or freedom is seen like a female defect. These associations just appear as coarse confusions.
In the East the most common mistake is to hide the good/bad axis under the Yin-Yang dialectics. This is the Yin-Yang axis confusion, which leads to various forms of relativism, where moral and human values are artificially submitted to limited interests.
human rights would be a concept of western
intellectuals which cannot apply in the East». If the axis confusion is not
noticed, such a vicious reasoning appears like being highly spiritual and
Those who think like this thus deeply hide a subtle mistake under an apparently highly spiritual vision.
Quadripolar logic has the precious advantage, while placing the good/bad discussion and the Yin-Yang dialectics on two different axis, to clearly separate what belongs to the one or the other, an so to avoid any coarse or subtle confusion between the two. Other examples are available in the «General Epistemology» version of this chapter, with also the explanation of other very dangerous mistakes.
(Permalink) The most significant practical conclusions we have to draw from the diagram, it that to place ourselves on its right-hand side or its left-hand side is a personal affair or a little importance affair; what only matters is always to place ourselves the highest we can. However to go up in the diagram requires an effort at least in meditation, and, in some cases, years of work on ourselves, to acquire the required psychological, moral or spiritual qualities (altruism, self-control...). But Right now the safest path is the central vertical axis, the Middle Way where we can go up faster while creating the less suffering for us and for the others. But we must also understand that «middle way» means that the two Yin or Yang extremes are harmonized. This does not necessary means the middle of the diagram, it sometimes happens that extreme ways are more suitable, to the situation or to our means.
The most significant general conclusion is that Quadripolar logic and its diagram are a fully valid logic, as well as the Aristotelian logic. It is more powerful than the Yin-Yang dialectics, because it clarifies cases which remain confused in the latter. Just as Aristotelian logic requires a mind training (reasoning) the quadripolar logic also requires a training (meditation) about which we have to recognise an equal statute.
In fact, fuzzy logics such as non-duality, Yin-Yang dialectics or quadripolar logic, are using the natural functioning of the brain, its capacity, to give a synthetic response in only one operation, without analysis nor intermediary steps, what we usually name intuition, instinct, and that I name here synthetic reasoning.
A terrible mistake would be to oppose Aristotelian or analytical logics, with non-Aristotelian or synthetic logics. Refusing either of the two simply makes us blind to large parts of reality. So many scientists refuse to see all the human values, making of science just a caution for dangerous immoral or selfish ideologies. On the other hand many New Age people emphasize intuition and reject analytical reasoning, leading to an inefficient spirituality ridden with cults and fancy theories.
The synthetic though is imitated, in electronics, by artificial neural networks, when analytic though is imitated by usual analytic computers.
(Permalink) What determines which logic is to be used for a given problem?
All the logics we studied all have basically the same statute: relations between objects, which make possible to make various types of reasoning, and thus predictions. A logic or another applies according to the properties of the objects on which we reason, as seen in the beginning of this part.
Aristotelian logic applies to objects which are 1) clearly separate from each other, and 2) meeting a criteria completely or not at all. These are objects of mathematics, physics, techniques and economy, where Aristotelian logic could reign as a nearby absolute master and produce enormous results there.
Quadripolar logic relates to objects 1) separated or not 2) appearing according to two opposite aspects (Yin-Yang axis) more or less harmonised (dual/non-dual axis, or good/evil). We encounter this type of objects in politics, morals and society, and into the spiritual and esoteric fields.
The objects obeying to a given logic are its Validity domain.
While reasoning according to a logic which does not apply to the considered situation, we do the logic validity mistake©, which consequences are generally a catastrophe.
We however should not artificially create oppositions like Aristotelian logic being from the «material field» or «rational field» or «objective» whereas quadripolar logic would be from the «spiritual field» or «intuitive field» or «subjective». We can even less say that they exclude each other or that they have contradictory results: simply one is exact and the other is false, case per case, for any considered object.
(Permalink) The whole Aristotelian and scientific world claims to have developed the notion of rationality: to make exact logical reasoning starting from verified facts, objective, and to concretely apply the resulting conclusions. However words like «rational» or «objective» were extensively used for various blatantly non-scientific and very oriented propaganda: anti-ecology, atheism, materialism, capitalism, marxism, utilitarianism, technocracy, egocentrism, anti-morals, etc... therefore we cannot elude the discussion of knowing what these words mean exactly.
In fact it is enough to give a quadripolar diagram of this opposition:
We have in (1) the classical science, especially physics, which uses exact reasoning, mostly Aristotelian, and material observation to discover the outer world as it is. This brought us the material and technical progress.
We have in (2) an attitude based on sensitivity to basic human needs and feelings, in order to discover our inner world as it is. This brings us the basic values funding an humanly and socially fair behaviour, such as the human rights. We could build here a true spiritual science (often non-Aristotelian).
In (4) we have arbitrary beliefs, or dogmatism, which claim to be human, but which are not based on the observation of consciousness. Many social, political or religious statements are in this case, and all the cults.
In (3) at last we have the rationalism, deviation of classical science, also called scientism, which claims to be material science (1), but which makes arbitrarian statements (4) into the domain of consciousness, such as the negation of consciousness, of morals or happiness. For instance, ecology, understand the defense of our survival, is called an «irrationnal fear of progress», in order to delude the public opinion and make accept destructive projects (pollution, highways, nuclear, etc).
As for me, I follow the opinion of the Century of Enlightenment, or of great scientists like Einstein, who were dreaming of an universal science which would study physics (1) and mind (2) as well. They were unable to do so, from the lack of suitable tools, or because of the bias (3) of classical science. We shall see this in the second part on epistemology. Symmetrically, the exact spiritual science (2) of ancient India was unable to study material realities (1), and it comes today encumbered with cosmological or astrological beliefs (4), that His Holiness the Dalaï Lama demand to abandon if they don't match the discoveries of physics or astronomy (1). All these synthesis are the stake of an universal science which is still to be created.
So it is a mistake, and often a purposeful manipulation, to confuse rationality with the only Aristotelian reasoning, or with the only materialistic ideologies, anti-life or anti-morals.
To be «rationnal» or «objective» don't mean that we are pronuclear, broker or vivisector. The exact meaning of these words is that we want to understand reality, whatever it is material or about consciousness, starting from observation of facts, using reasoning, whatever they are Aristotelian, Yin-Yang, non duality or quadripolar, and that those reasoning are exact, on objects for which they are valid.
So all the logics are rational and objective, in the exact meaning of these words, explained above, understand that they always are means to reason on objects, and discover things into real situations.
Physics does not have a monopoly on reason. Material science has no right to edict moral rules, neither to dispute our motivations or our hopes. It is nor its role, neither its domain.
The aspirations of human beings, or ethics, are not beliefs. They are the realities of the domain of consciousness, which have as much relevance, and even more, than technical realisations. I shall even state that it is the technical realizations which are void of any meaning if they are not into the service of consciousness.
We shall correct in the third part the astounding statement of some materialistic scientistists as what consciousness would not exist, and when we shall create ethic in the sixth part we shall nab the incredible fascist pretention of scientistism as what consciousness would be irrelevant or worthless.
But now, we can say of a person who endeavours in every domain to find reality by avoiding reasoning mistakes and false presuppositions, hey, quite simply that this person is sincere, that he reasons sincerely, that he looks for truth sincerely. This is of course a nuance of sincerity which means methodical attention and honesty, not the «sincerity» that some criminals use as a defence in courts!
This is unfortunately not an absolute warranty that inattention errors will not happen, errors made sincerely in spite of all the necessary precautions taken. This is why sciences recognizes a result only if it is checked by several teams.
However this sincerity is efficient only if there is not another kind of unconscious error I want to point at now, such as an aversion which makes us more or less consciously refuse a true result from our reasoning, in spite of the evidences we possess. Or that an attachment makes us adhere to a false result, in spite of the troubles which will result from this. If such things happen, then we simply have to recognise that it is our mind which played us a trick, that its operation betrayed our will. Then let us call this with the name of psychological bias©.
The psychological bias is not a reasoning mistake; it is a much more profound defect of our mind itself, an unconscious process which makes us lie to ourselves, and this far before we start to consciously lie to others. The causes of psychological bias are not to be searched for into logics, but in psychology: the unfortunately ill working of our minds, which makes us prefer false conclusions despite the evidences, despite the suffering they will produce.
So, to be able to create a science of the mind, there is no other alternative than to choose to be sincere, and in more to control our psychological bias. We shall see this in the second part on epistemology.
(Permalink) This chapter explores some limits, known or less known, of reasoning systems (what we usually call doctrines, theories, ideologies, that logicians call axiomatic systems and spiritualists conceptual systems). All those systems are built on the same way:
-Basis statements (axioms), on facts a priori recognized like true.
-Logical reasoning, which will demonstrate:
-Results, such as mathematical theorems, moral principles, physical laws...
Every scientific, philosophical or spiritual systems work that way. But there are limits:
-A logical reasoning whatever it is cannot demonstrate its basis statements. Only observation of reality can do this. This is the role of epistemology, to which we shall consecrate al the second part. Logic allows only to predict still unknown facts from already known facts.
- It is perfectly legitimate to use non-Aristotelian logics in a logical reasoning, when we are dealing with non-Aristotelian objects.
- Certain realities are transcendent: we cannot describe them with reasoning. This is the case of the pi number, of the Big Bang, the divine creation, and many situations into spirituality or psychology. Non-Aristotelian logics are themselves transcendent compared to Aristotelian logics. So non-Aristotelian logics are often more efficient to reason on transcendent realities.
- A logical reasoning, or a given theory, can give an approximative view of a transcendent reality. But it cannot give of it an exact view, as this would require an infinity of logical reasoning, which mistakes would add up all along the process.
- However several different theories, see contradictory theories, can give more or less exact views of a transcendent reality. We can say that they are more or less valid for this reality, or for different parts of this reality. This happens in physics, and especially for the notion of the divine realm into the various religions. This makes ridicule any idea of religious war, as religions all speak of the same thing, with different theories.
-The fact that a theory is valid for a transcendent reality does not make sure that this theory is exact.
-Only the psychological bias makes us grasp to false theories.
-A theory can be false into different ways, even while being logically exact. But when a person becomes psychologically attached to such a false theory, then it is an ideology. Psychological attachment to a single statement is an opinion.
The art is about choosing a logical system which is suitable for the real situation. But only synthetic thinking allows to really use and master a logical system, in place of being locked in as in a trap.
The understanding of transcendent realities can begin to appear only when our conceptual mind starts to freely play from a conceptual system to another, on a given topic. We start to feel that there is «something» inexpressible but real and consistent behind all these equivalent logical buildings, which explains all of them, but which cannot be reduced to any of them. This is the very important realization of the non-conceptual mind, the key to the superior spiritual unfolding and of the ultimate understanding of reality.
This point is very important for any scientific or rational study of such transcendent domains, which can be undertaken only with the suitable non-conceptual mind. Conceptual statements about transcendent domains always contain ridiculous mistakes which remove any scientific or rational statute to them.
Several religions (esoteric Judaicism, Buddhism, Taoism) explicitly refer to non-conceptual mind, or call conceptual mind a «veil» which forbids to understand reality.
(Permalink) Even in mathematical systems (strictly Aristotelian) we meet cases where logical reasoning leads to paradoxes, indeterminations, indemonstrable statements.
In non-Aristotelian logics, this problem becomes general. Gradated logic is subjected to the famous butterfly effect, this one which forbids weather forecasts after some time. Info fuzzy or probabilistic logics, we cannot predict the state of a variable at a given moment. In the case of non-dualities, Yin-Yang dialectics or quadripolar logic, the two (or four) terms are always simultaneously present, one or the other becoming more important according to the situation.
I gather all these cases under the name of actualization indeterminism©. As anyway, into real situations, the statement will necessarily take a value. That we cannot predict.
Actualization indeterminisms are ruling quantum mechanics, when paradoxes seem to play an important role into the Big Bang or into the divine creation. Maybe, the more non-Aristotelian we are, the more complicated things go; but sometimes it is the reverse: a non-Aristotelian reality can solve an Aristotelian paradoxe, with actualizing more or less arbitrarily one of the two terms at the expense of the other.
We shall see further in the third part on metaphysics the case of a paradoxe which seems founder of something.
(Permalink) Non-Aristotelian logics are the answer to the questions of persons of heart, in the very beginning of this part: yes, there exist more gradated, more subtle logics, which are better in the domain of consciousness, and which are used by our brain: conclusions thus appear as a whole, what we call intuition.
So we can, in some extend, speak of «logic of the heart», as objects of the mind more often obey to non-Aristotelian, supple, intuitive, gradated logics. But, in the common language, to speak of «logic of the heart» just means that we reason on other basis, such as for instance love in place of egocentricity. This is certainly noble, but to say «logic» in this case is an abuse of language.
As to words like «logic of war», I say they are deliberated manipulations: no war ever resulted from a logical determinism, there is always a stupid act at a moment. And whoever has a clear cause to defend never needs to resort to television metaphysics.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.