# Logic is a particular form of thought

I am looking in which other way and aspect thought could be separated from being. For that, I have to determine what logic exactly is.

Logic based on the law of identity. This = That and That = It. Therefore This = It.
In gnostic, hermetic, occult models, in another law of thinking is suggested, what I will call progressive dissimilarity. In such a system, no part of a set of relating objects is equal to to another - there is no “=”. Nothing equals anything else. All things are progressed or prior forms of the same thing, i.e. being, and things are only existent as things because they differ from each other as much as psychologically possible on a given axis of meaning.

This other type of thought is not strange to any of us, because it’s what’s used in poetry, and in fact in every kind of amical conversation. Meanings shift within one word, very often a word which is negative at first becomes positive, and vice versa - progressive dissimilarity is inherent in every conception, and hence in every concept. The arbitrary fact is that concepts have been phrased in words, and that these words are used to identify.

“Oh yeah, and nobody knows what the fuck I’m talking about!?” - Tony Soprano

Let me give you an example of how this works.
First: Logic. Let’s do a basic operation.
7+7=2x. x=7!
Yippee.

Now let’s do this with progressive-dissimilarity, our alternate thoughtform.
7+7 = SYNTAX ERROR
Machine cannot operate same character twice.

The same character does not exist two times in one instruction set.
We can say 4+3, but that would probably become 3,5. A compromise, an in between. Instead of some magical operation causing what’s there to add up to each other, as if both are the same material. We could not add two people up and say we have two people. We would have person 1 and person 2. Either one is either, but we have to choose. Power relations are directly immanent in the grid, the matrix.

I think Heidegger’s problem is that no one but him (and that crybaby Satre) spends every waking moment thinking about being. It’s not a separation of being and thinking that produces the Law of Identity (which is not, of course, the sole foundation of logic) but context. Two things are equal for a given purpose.

The problem is thinking about Being as if it’s something to begin with.

There is nothing remotely deceptive about logic. We know that no two things are equal except that we make them so. We name the realtion “equality”, and being a relation, it doesn’t really exist anyway. No one’s blaming the objects themselves for not really being equal. Are they?

I am. If truth and beauty aren’t equal in the next ten minutes there will be hell to pay!

You! Truth! Shame on you for not being equal to beauty just because I assigned you to a and beauty to b and assumed as a premise that a=b, you bastard.

Great, just what I need. A form of thought which disallows basic math.

Okay, zeusy - you have a point. Hegel.

Noones blaming the Jews for getting gassed either, but that doesn’t make the whole operation less fascist, does it?
Being is something without speech. And, so, without logic. Experience is not logical if you don’t think about it.

There are no 10 of the same minutes. Define every minute! What! A minute? You logical vermin. Get out you demon get out!

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. That was SORT OF FUNNY !

To a purpose, you lazy thinker.

What’s the difference between a dog chasing its tail and some philosopher fixated on being?

I mean, if we find the tail-chasing dog ludicrously amusing, how should we address the aforementioned philosopher?

For, for all thinkers who haven’t even given the first thought about the fact that because logic has a use and purpose, there are other uses and purposes imaginable. But normally people do not learn new methods of thought, because the method of thought is the self, the ego, whatever you think if when you think of your personal interest. The complete subjective view of the world with the central figure of ‘I’. Only a desperate man or a scientist will follow through the real consequences of ideas. Instead of calculating the logical outcomes, which is within the capacities of any sober person, and for the rest perfectly manageable energy wise.

But all that is too weak. Thinking is like banking, you have to have inside knowledge to get somewhere.

I think it’s cynical that ludicrously amusing is a negative quality. But then logic is cynical.

I know this will make sense to everyone. And yet I did not even look what I chose.

I hate smilies.

But I would say that you are embarrassed that you are mentally hitting your head against the wall in confused consternation.

Normally, people do not learn much logic. Doing so is learning a new method of thought. Logic had to be invented. It doesn’t come naturally. Pattern recogniton - that is to say, induction comes naturally.

Sure. But so is football. Not everyone plays.

Riiiight. Well, not really. Political references generally leave me cold. Or confused. Or rolling my eyes. Or embarrassed.

Being is a ruse. We are. The philosopher should be able to get past that.

I’m not sure I get your point, here.

Perhaps you’re just trying to get Saully going, again.

We’re all friends here, I think.

well, there you go!

That’s because it’s not the only game.

I meant that you can’t blame the victims for not being blamed.

Past being? I don’t think so.

By a certain age (I forget - one or two? Six months?), Jake, everyone knows they exist. Then something happens to some people. Most of them seem to post on this site. They begin to doubt their own existence. They take seriously what began as a thought game by the likes of Descartes, Sartre, Heidegger and the like. Descartes moved on. Sartre just got laid and got over it. I hope. Heidi got stuck. And so have many others. But I really think it’s a question we can ask and answer and then get on with real philosophy.

Maybe not.

Nobody can sell or promise anything about how you’re supposed to be. Existence is all that’s important for you. Some may offer you explanations of thought and how it can be used to get something. Don’t be bothered with your precious peace of mind – you might make the mistake that it is a thing that someone can take away from you – then you’ll come of all disturbed trying to disturb others peace who are just going on their own way singing their own song.

Are apples fascists because 7 of them added to another 7 of them makes 14 apples? I’m sticking to pears in the future.

We can say what we like. If we say we have two people, it’s because they are in some relevant contextual way similar to each other. If they aren’t, we don’t refer to them as “people” but as some other relevant signifier.

For example: 12 people work in my office. We need 12 telephones, 12 desks. One of those people is paralysed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair. So we need 11 chairs, because we have 11 able-bodied people and 1 disabled person. Given that there are 10 women and 2 men, we can allocate more lavatory facilities to women than men. We choose the signifier based on utility; logic is the rules by which signifiers are manipulated.

Signifiers are tools, not people. There’s nothing wrong with manipulating them. The emancipatory aspect of continental philosophy shouldn’t emancipate us from the tools useful to philosophy.

[size=85]Edit: And a nice quote from Chomsky a few pages later:
Left intellectuals took an active part in the lively working class culture. Some sought to compensate for the class character of the cultural institutions through programs of workers’ education, or by writing best-selling books on mathematics, science, and other topics for the general public. Remarkably, their left counterparts today often seek to deprive working people of these tools of emancipation, informing us that the “project of the Enlightenment” is dead, that we must abandon the “illusions” of science and rationality - a message that will gladden the hearts of the powerful, delighted to monopolize these instruments for their own use.[/size]

Faust -
You’re plain wrong about Heidegger. Satre was a stupid asshole, Heidegger was not. You know, there are philosophers who mean something to somehone, and then there are those who don’t. Like, for example, Hume. I think he said nothing. You think he does. Vice versa with Heidegger.

Responses here are in your case funny but on the whole extremely narrow minded. While it is apparently completely obvious to anyone that logic is just a tool and not a necessary condition of consciousness (something many others here have been zealously denying before), the thought about another type of thought is too much trouble to even think about for a moment.

Screw this then, I’m off.

You use logic and similarity in your explanation of other types of thought; how can you explain what these are like, without saying what they are like?

Logic isn’t necessary for consciousness, but very much so for communication. The only example I can think of to the contrary are zen koans, whereby the illogic of the koan is designed not to communicate information but to loosen one’s attachment to structured thinking (he explained, logically).

for what it’s worth, i’m with Jake that there is more to thought and language than logic - but i’m not sure about being - it seems to me that a thing, in order to BE, must be equal to itself - in order for anything to exist in any common understanding of the term, it has to be logically determined to at least that extent - in order to get beyond it we need to deconstruct this formula for “being” (that a thing is equal to itself) and then we end up talking in poetry, which many people here seem to oppose as a mode of thought, but which i think is as legitimate a means of describing reality as logic, if not as frequently practical. But part of the reason it’s not as often practical is that we’ve been reared with the bias of logic built into everything we do (this is the process of instilling people with the same “structured thought” that the koans are designed to undermine) language CAN be used to deconstruct it’s own logic, which is why contradictions and paradoxes are such powerful instigators of thought, and why some poetry can FEEL so profound without really saying anything that makes a whole lot of sense. . .