When we think (logical thinking), we focus on something, first.
Without proper focuses, we wouldn’t be able to think correctly.
Focusing upon something is seeing it from certain view point.
It’s adopting certain perspective.
Then, to evaluate the object we’ve focused, it requires another focus, perspective.
With the secondary perspective, using it as a reference, a unit (vector), we can evaluate or compare, accordingly.
I think this is pretty easy to understand, yet MANY people forget about this when they try to think. You can find too many example in the ILP and elsewhere.
For example, A statement “Prostitution is wrong” is logically wrong because it lacks secondary reference focus for evaluating the first focus. It lacks evaluation method, thus the evaluation is wrong (and absurd).
Now, as we need (at least) two different and valid focuses/perspectives, it’s highly important to understand how we can focus.
When we focus on something, we are separating the zone of focus and the rest, consciously or not.
For example, when we focus on a black dot on a white paper, we are separating the dot by negating all white area and by affirming the black dot, so to say.
If it was a black dot floating in the empty space, we would still negate everything else and affirm the dot to focus on it.
In other words, to focus on something, it requires “background” that serves as negative back plane to support affirmative (positive) focus according to the arbitrary criteria we’ve used.
So, with the clear criteria that can separate things (or with the criteria that can distinguish the degree), we can focus and think about it.
However, certain types of criteria aren’t very easy to use.
They come with conditions and limit.
For example, criteria of sex is applicable to something that have sexual differences like some animals or words of certain languages.
Although we can experimentally adopt the perspective of “sex” to something normally considered to be without sex (and although it might be interesting), it’s usually futile,
And this, the applicability of criteria, or the condition and limitation of criteria, is what I would like to insist in this post.
As I’ve stated already, many of us aren’t very aware of the requirements of valid multiple focuses to think logically.
And even less people are well aware of conditions and limitations that go with criteria.
The end result is easily predictable. Blurred focus (if not totally out of focus) and faulty evaluations are SOOOOOOOOOO common in our thinking that I’d dare to say it’s almost insane (or totally insane) if we evaluate human thinking from purely logical perspective.
Now, when we aren’t aware of criteria (let alone conditions and limitations that goes with it), we are “presuming” a lot in our thinking.
For example, when we argue about “existence” of something, we are so vague about the criteria. Are we thinking about the existence at certain specific moment? Or certain specific duration? Or always? Are we thinking about the existence at certain location, or area(s), or everywhere?
I’d say, often, we are presuming that it’s a “permanent and omnipresent existence” when we think about “existence”.
But, I think this kind of presumption are causing lots of confusion in our mind and also many of so-called paradoxes are probably the result of these presumptions.
In short, we should check if our focuses are solid and within conditions/limitations of given criteria.
When we aren’t so sure about the focus, list up all sorts of criteria that would distinguish the object of focus. Then, verify, boil down, or expand the set of criteria and the conditions/limitations that go with them.
