The Grand Adventures of Logical Warrior VS...

so whats this thread about tl;dr version? Is it about how you had so many moals and beliefs and how you rotted away?

^You seem to be a real human with, among other things, a sharp intellect and capacity for logic... ;-)

Jimbo, please don't take any of this the wrong way, I have a great deal of respect and affection for ya...

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

but it’s really just an implied given that logic is of the highest value in communication

The explicit given is that definiitions are the base upon which communication is built, while logic enforces definitions, and has the purpose of persuasion. Persuasion can be a component of communication, but a better definition of communication is "the intentional recreation of an idea/experience in another."

While you and I and others may value logic, the point is that many also do not (that's my entire point in this case, full stop, purely an observation). There are actually very different cognitive modalities among people (a good summary can be found in TDF theory, where it is proposed that 2/3 of people do not follow a conscious linear pattern to arrive at a conclusion).

Logic - it's a good idea. It's also not embraced by all.

I suspect, as with much of this thread, when most people use the word "logic" they actually mean "reasoned".

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

fallacious logic

Grg. Attractive (contained in) Moe, Attractive (contained in) Toji, Moe = Toji is a violation of logic, or a logical fallacy, but what is "fallacious logic"?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

So you either have to “play by the rules” or not play the game at all.

Oh. You want formalized debate. I get it. Others may not know the rules or be willing to play by them. I understand your frustration. Realize, though, it's not your nor my place to tell them they don't get to come on the playground - we have mods for that grin. True, they don't get to play in *your* game. When you build your own board, you'll have your own rules - until then, most civil folks get to play here whether they are "logical" or not.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

which requires compromise, communication and, yes, logic.

Except...the more logical you are the less you have to compromise? Um, you're not married, are you?

grinI'm not sure where you live that society actually works the way you envision it (oh..."Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow"). From my perspective, emotional appeal gets way much more accomplished than logic in most societal activities. As you would know, Emotional Appeal is a fallacy. Darn effective, though.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

Logic CAN unite us all.

Fix'd. Nice idealism, not manifest. Too rigorous for some, not serving the interests of others. You will no more impose logic on Man than you will install Science as God - e.g., not in your lifetime (or at least, not in mine - you're a much younger person than I). Again, no judgment - observation.

As for the relative worth of Religion vs. Science, well, most rational people that hold both as important assign complementary, rather than dichotomous, uses for these in their lives. It's important to know there's a distinction between the two (an exercise in definitions, not logic). Trouble brews when they are confused. Science explains what is observed, no more, no less. Religion attempts to assign meaning (among other things).

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

Individual value systems are masturbation compared to sex of logic

QFT. grin

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

"dream logic"

...is internal consistency. That is not necessarily logic, though it does require a reasoned approach.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:

It would come down to finding an agreed definition for both and what falls under that label.

And that (definitions) is the true basis of communication. Logic is the tool that enforces definition.

PS: Solipsism is the only philosophy that does not require a leap of faith.

I can't bring myself to touch all of that text, but I've always felt Solipsism requires only that one be selfish to be embraced.

Also: the easy way out is not always the best way out, so saying solipsism is the only worldview which does not require a leap of faith does not make it a superior world view.

Moreover, it's not true... to believe that one's own mind is all that exists does depend on you placing your faith in that reality.

I doubt my own mind as much as I doubt the things I perceive. I suppose that isn't solipsism. I'm certainly not confident to say that my mind is the only real thing. ^^;

That’s sorta the direction Zen Buddhism takes—or at least, Zen Buddhism as I understand it. Rather than suggesting that the only provable thing is Cogito Ergo Sum, it reverses that notion and suggests that identity itself is the illusion. An objective reality exists, but human brains are wired so as to be unable to adequately exist within it—our identities are thus built behind a window perception that allows us to see & interact with reality without actually understanding what the hell it is. Buddha Nature is described as being the stage at which these windows cease to exist. The destruction of perception is analogous to the recognition that identity is illusionary—the universe exists just as we exist, but for some reason, we think we’re separate from it. [/tangent]

Merridian! O_O Let's be friends!

Hmm... sounds quite a bit like Kant's unknowable "things in themselves" mixed with some Taoist sentiment. Interesting.

I agree with the notion that Cogito doesn't quite go far enough because it doesn't consider the "I" to actually be just a small subset of a larger being, itself perhaps entirely fictional and only perceiving because that which does exist wishes the "I" to do so, such as a character's thoughts in a work of fiction. The self clearly exists even if only in the form of an idea though, and therefore we can conclude that something must really exist to contain the idea of "I" even if that something isn't the self we know at all.

@Yojimbo:

I read some of your posts, but not all. The inflammatory thing was more about tone than anything in the content. I submit that perhaps that just how I take it, perhaps in part because someone else has complained to me about making similar posts and I'm trying to stop doing so. Regardless, I'll stop bothering you about it.

To continue tangent little bit:

Buddhist take isn't so fundamentally different from "cogito ergo sum" - it is different, but not so much. Certainly it isn't case of "nothing exists" (then again it is but...well, this comes up soon enough). It eschews some specific or certain "identity". You are not your feelings, or thoughts, for these are illusionary things that masks the "I" from the real existence.

Logos/I/Whatever-you-want-to-call-it/Reality does exist - however All Is One. Real existence/non-existence is this giant field of consciousness/light/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. So while "I" exists it is at the same time WHOLE reality as All Is One. Thus by saying "I" exists is similar to drop of water within ocean saying "I exist separately" which of course is not true. It's just one big ocean.

Other thing is that ego and mind is flowing, ever changing phenomenom and thus you can't derive anything "firm" from this experience, no basic building platform apart from I/All. True mind is no-mind (free of wills, feelings etc.) as one Zen Buddhist saying goes.

These reasons are why "ego" is seen as illusion. Because fundamentally All Is One all separations between "me" and "you" and "hate" and "love" etc. are meaningless illusions of maya aka material world (though I'm not sure if buddhists use word maya for it).


I'll touch upon buddhism in my reply to Jimbo. While Buddhist thinking (especially Tibetan and Zen) has always appealed to me and I recognize a lot of it as true I heavily disagree with its certain conclusions and ideas. As Jung would take it Buddha gained knowledge about nature of Self but the interprepation/conclusion was false one. *shrug*

For one example the idea that the mind isn't real because it is ever changing phenomena is IMO wrong. Perhaps if "mind" was substance (in fact it was argument against these kinds of stances IIRC), but if it is seen as mind or, well, what it really is, as consciousness, this point is really moot because that would be the very nature of mind and using very nature of mind to refute mind's existence is bit... strange. It is only relevant objection if there is some "mind matter".

Other would be idea of "illusion" which I find nonsensical anyway.


As for Solipsism, it is philosophical impossibility. Anything exists in relation to something else (which is also something Buddhist "Nirvana/Nothingness" exemplifies). There's no life without death, no night without day, no darkness without light. There is no I without existence of Other for it wouldn't have anything to relate to. You know, this is one of big philosophical themes in NGE.

Solipst might claim "only I exist" but already by defining his own existence he has drawn border to his own existence and reality of Other. There is basically no difference between Everything and Nothing (again, see buddhist "no-mind" quote) and if solipst "I" is Everything it would also be nothing and his existence would collapse. Only thing that allows existence of I/Ego/Individual is existence of other. Someone with whom one can occasionally have meaningful connection and moments of "real existence". And of course far more usually/dominantly, lack of such thing and alienation (at least in philosophical sense). If this alienating border (in NGE: AT Field) would disappear it would all revel back to All/Nothing.


That's really rudimentary rundown (I've written such few times during last months for some reason) but even that should be enough to showcase impossiblity of solipsism. With no Other to relate to you won't exist. Kind of like woman's existence depends on existence of man for without man there ain't "woman".

oOoOoOo:

NemZ wrote:

Taoist sentiment

I've noticed a lot of similarites (perhaps cross-fertilization is a better word) between the two--enough that I end up merging many aspects of I Ching with what I know of Zen.

Xard: you cleared up a lot, thanks! Most of what you said I kinda figured already, but I wasn't too certain. It's good to get verification.

Xard wrote:

(though I'm not sure if buddhists use word maya for it).

I don’t think the Buddhists have a name for Maya, but seeing as how Buddhism itself was partially a reaction of the Hindu caste system, I don’t doubt that the term Maya is equally applicable to both schools of thought. Buddhism and Jainism borrowed heavily from Hinduism, disagreeing only on certain key aspects. As far as I know, Maya was never one of those disagreements.

Xard wrote:

While Buddhist thinking (especially Tibetan and Zen) has always appealed to me and I recognize a lot of it as true I heavily disagree with its certain conclusions and ideas.

Most of what I know of Zen Buddhism has come from a book of koans I got years ago. I wore out the binding and it was eventually destroyed (and I’ve never gotten around to replacing it). That being the case, I’ve always interpreted Zen as being one of the ultimate DIY philosophies, especially since something I got out of Zen was that role models are important, but one cannot follow in their footsteps to achieve Bodhi.

I don’t really see how an immaterial ‘mind’ would really come in contention with the idea of ever-changing-ness. Everything changes somehow—especially people! Personalities change as often as memories and interpretations do, as often as moods switch or perspectives grow. ‘Personality’ is certainly an aspect of the illusionary ego; I think that’s part of the whole point behind the immaterial mind’s nonbeing (man that sounds weird…). I think I’m just reading you wrong.

You must kill the Buddha.

Geez, this thread just exploded into something evil while I wasn’t looking… Anyway:

@ Yojimbo

In fact my opinion about your „text-bombing” was already owerwhelmingy positive when I posted last time; I wasn’t really serious. Your recent responses about it are valid too. IMO attempting to juggle around with one’s posts in order to gain certain advantages very rarely comes off as successful, though in some peculiar cases it is almost impossible to achieve anything without it.

IMO in this case the benefit of doing some self-handicapping or trickery in discussion is just negligible. And the notion that you indeed should have done so in order to keep that thread alive appeals way too much to lurking feelings of NGE-ingroup pride, call that a kind of elitism (e. g. presupposing that X or Y is too heavyweight for teh newbies).

At least, your style and attitude has inspired more than a few people to engage in fruitful discussions on IMDB and I’m sure there are much more non-commenters who found your writing enligthening, e. g. me.

Quote:

If a tree falls in the woods... and whatnot

See this post for a superb discussion. You might look at some of the many links embedded in the text as the writings over there are highly interdependent and complementary.

Holy shit.

Xard: Alright, I think I understand what you’re saying.

I’ve never really had a problem with the oneness/nothingness dichotomy. Both are ideas that are so incomprehensible in their magnitude that they’re exactly the same. As your own example illustrates (Shinji Ikari in… DA VOID) the feeling of being one with everything and being nothing would feel the same way,because... well... it’s the loss of identity.

Xard wrote:

This is very thing that I mean with consciousness not being "thing". It is living, janus-faced** process, something that freely creates itself every moment.

I understand what you’re saying, and I usually use the analogy of water for this kind of idea. But it still doesn’t really answer how that isn’t an ever changing thing—because by that definition, consciousness most certainly IS ever changing and fluid. It is separated from oneness/nothingness BECAUSE it is ever changing and transitory—that’s part what the idea of illusion in relation to time and space. They exist as perceptions of a being that cannot see the big picture.

Xard quoting Jung wrote:

Far from being a material world, this is a psychic world, which allows us to make only indirect and hypothetical inferences about the real nature of matter.

I always figured that the whole paragraph there is what Zen is trying to say. Our perspectives create this box that we inhabit, so we believe ourselves to be separate from the Universe/one-ness/nothingness.

Going back a post:

Xard wrote:

Anything exists in relation to something else (which is also something Buddhist "Nirvana/Nothingness" exemplifies). There's no life without death, no night without day, no darkness without light.

And here’s where logic tends to fail anyway, since what I’ve read about Zen implies that Bodhi is the point at which these dualities cancel each other out. You’re absolutely right about the fact that there is no life without death, but after attaining Nirvana, you become something that can’t really be expressed… except maybe as “god” or, well, “Bodhi”, neither of which are very good ways of explaining this state of existence/nonexistence.

Ultimately, my understanding of Zen becomes a deconstruction of the very nature of duality, since Zen—much like Taoism—is heavily concerned with the dualistic and transitory nature of existence. One of the differences I’ve noticed comes down to the fact that Zen is interested in resolving this ever-opposing and unbreakable wheel of dualism, whereas Taoism is more about mastering it.

@Philosophical debate/dissertation: Phenomenal work, guys. I read every word but, unfortunately, I only comprehend a small fraction of it. There's something about the syntax (or maybe it's the fuzzy definitions) of that kind of hard philosophy that just makes my eyes glaze over and it all turns to mush in my brain. I think I intuitively (haha) comprehend much of it, but trying to sort it out logically is a task I seem to be incapable of unless given proper motivation, so I'll refrain from replying to it unless someone wants to sum it up in a more easily digestible form...

@Xard, Miss O, Soljer, Nemz, Merridian, and Kutta:

Xard wrote:

btw Jimbo, get yerself Mari already ye hear me?

Xard wrote:

Koans of course are the most famous example: Quote: A kōan is a story, dialogue, question, or statement in the history and lore of Zen Buddhism, generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet may be accessible to intuition. A famous kōan is: "Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?"

Am I missing something? That koan makes logical sense to me.* I might say that perhaps what you mean is that it is initially comprehended intuitively. However, I think that intuitive comprehension can immediately transfer to logical comprehension and, indeed, I'm not sure how much discreteness there is between them; One seems to flow into the others.

*Amended to say "it makes sense to me depending on the interpretation of what 'what is the sound of one hand?' means". I think the intuitive reply is to fill in the blank with "(one hand) clapping", in which the logical answer is "it depends on what the one hand is clapping". If the intention of the koan is the relationship between the statement and question, one can logically read that "clapping two hands produces a desired effect, clapping one hand in that manner is impossible, thus, two things working together is better than one working alone."

Still, I wouldn't say none of this illogical, it simply depends on the interpretation of it, and, depending on that interpretation, a logical answer can be given.

oOoOoOo wrote:

See, as my bipolar worsened throughout adolescence, you can understand how my worldview was completely dismantled, no? I used to have very firm religious beliefs, very firm political ideological beliefs, etc. I find these days I have more questions than answers.

I can completely empathize (well, not with bi-polar, but the dismantled worldview). I grew up with firm religious beliefs and after I went through my ordeal, my worldview was shattered and dismantled (I talked about this in my Kinda-Sorta Eva Magnum Opus article). I basically went through two years of an Ingmar Bermgan-like crisis of faith and battling of personal demons. It's truly a frightening thing, and that's probably why I latched onto NGE so much because, as I said, it was like a rebirth. Not only did it allegorically portray my shattered psyche and 'dismantled worldview', but it gave me the tools I needed to build everything back up from scratch. I think that dismantling gave me the ability to expand my worldview, but because it became so large it became impossible to resolve by easy, child-like messages. I think when that realization happens you're inevitably left with questions but precious few answers. The few answers I find are like treasures I latch onto and completely assimilate into my being.

I suspect I'll never experience that level of "worldview dismantling" again, but I can certainly see how experiencing it would make one skeptical of reality itself.

Soljer13 wrote:

so whats this thread about tl;dr version?

Logic: All encompassing medium for communication and worldwide mode for understanding all things or overrated? Also, worldview philosophy stuff.

NemZ wrote:

I read some of your posts, but not all. The inflammatory thing was more about tone than anything in the content. I submit that perhaps that just how I take it,

I will say definitively that there was no inflammatory intention and I don't see any at all in those first few posts... at all.

Merridian wrote:

When trying to judge art, you’re going to need an objective (or majority-accepted subjective) standard by which to judge and rank it, but as far as simply enjoying the experience of artwork in general, logic doesn't necessarily have to be there.

Good post all around, Merridian, but I wanted to address this: You make an important distinction between experiencing/enjoying art and critiquing it; the two are very different. Because criticism is when you begin to express a subjective experiencing and turning it into an object to also be critiqued. This applies not just to criticism, but very much discussion; in fact, those objective "or accepted subjective" standards become essential because you're no longer dealing with an individual's "personal value standard" but the standards of two or more people. And this goes back to what I say about building that bridge of mutual understanding between two individuals where meaningful discussion can take place, and this, in turn, goes back to what I said about logic being the ultimate, universal bridge.

I might also point you to what I say above about the emotion of an artistic experience clouding logic but not preventing us to analyze that emotion through logic. Though, much like yourself, I often feel the best art and especially the most emotionally complex defies logic in that, as the Xard-quoted Lovecraft quote goes, humans have an inability to correlate all of their psychical contents.

Kutta wrote:

IMO attempting to juggle around with one’s posts in order to gain certain advantages very rarely comes off as successful, though in some peculiar cases it is almost impossible to achieve anything without it.

Just for clarity, what do you mean by “juggle around with one’s post”? Thanks for the comments/compliments though. As I believe I told you, I’ve copied my posting style (and logic) from other posters I’ve admired over the years; if some have a problem with it then, well, tough nookie because I’ve found it quite effective and have gotten an overwhelming majority of positive opposed to negative responses about it.

Thanks for the “tree” link. Right now, reading/keeping up with this thread is trouble enough, but I’ll bookmark it and read it later.

@Squirrel Ninja and Void Eater

Squirrel Ninja wrote:

Mozart was a child prodigy after all, no one can speculate why some people are just born excellent.

Well, see, I don't think it's a matter of being "born excellent"; there's science in place now which examines the differences in a brain who's raised with an understanding of music from an early age and one's that aren't; there's a definite difference there. I think it's possible to speculate where that creativity comes from, but how natural talent relates with learned talent is another matter. It would be an interesting experiment to raise 5 kids the same age and teach them all music in the same manner to see how the react individually. It's logically likely that learned knowledge reacts with other parts of the brain to trigger creativity; but what those other parts are and how that interaction takes place isn't something I could speculate on.

IOW, I think logic COULD explain where it comes from, but simply we don't have the relevant information to put it into logic yet.

Squirrel Ninja wrote:

But aren't you basing this on the assumption that their emotions and intuitions are inherently illogical?

No, not at all; I explained this in a reply to Miss O above, but while I believe emotions and intuition, or at least what triggers them and their various effects, work on logic, but the effect they have on us tends to make us illogical in the respect that we don't process that emotion and intuition logically. Not that I don't think we can, but merely that it tends to confuse matters.

It's like what Miss O said about different kinds of intoxication; if you're always intoxicated by the clouding effects of emotion, intuition, or drugs, then you lose the ability to see the objective clearly which will inevitably frustrate any propositions/arguments you might have. The tendency to focus on emotions as truth will inevitably frustrate seeing conclusions clearly. So you basically have something that works on logic, but frustrates the ability to use logic in those whom it's effecting.

(I hope this is clear enough).

Squirrel Ninja wrote:

If an artist wants their work to clearly express one point, I think that's fine... TS Eliot's bullshit, however, I find pretty inexcusable.

Well, you're always going to run into the differing processing minds of the public viewing it. The broader the audience you're aiming at, and the more defined the message you want to express, the better the idea to go the extra mile in making it clear (this can be done without dumbing it down to extremes). The smaller the audience and less definite the message the easier it becomes to invite differing interpretations. I think Eliot was a unique case; I disagree with many of his theories and eccentricities but much like Joyce's linguistic spasm that is Finnegans Wake he's talented enough to allow me to excuse even his disgusting tendencies. The irony about the Waste Lane notes is that I don't think they've really limited interpretations at all. They just helped draw the line between "interpreting the author's intent" and "Interpreting the audience's reaction", which isn't necessarily a bad thing, IMO.

VoidEater wrote:

Jimbo, please don't take any of this the wrong way, I have a great deal of respect and affection for ya...

Errr, that's not a comforting way to start out a post...

VoidEater wrote:

The explicit given is that definitions are the base upon which communication is built, while logic enforces definitions, and has the purpose of persuasion. Persuasion can be a component of communication, but a better definition of communication is "the intentional recreation of an idea/experience in another."

Fair enough, but even you say that logic and definitions are intertwined so I don't think it makes sense to separate the two. That said, perhaps "communication" was too broad in this sense when we're clearly talking about the kind of logical applications being used in the thread that spawned this one. IOW, people in that thread continued to use fallacous logic (Conclusions without arguments, false propositions and a complete lack of evidence to support them) and, in such cases, the only means to counter is with stronger logic.

VoidEater wrote:

While you and I and others may value logic, the point is that many also do not

Yes, but, as I said earlier, many may not value science despite the fact that they can have things that are important to them whose existence is attributed to science. IOW, people may not consciously value logic despite the fact they use it all the time, look for it in others, and consider it in their everyday life. The same thing goes for the people in that thread who, as I said, used (bad) logic to make their claims, but then denounced logic when it was used more effectively against them.

VoidEater wrote:

I suspect, as with much of this thread, when most people use the word "logic" they actually mean "reasoned".

Reason is a part of logic (known as the premise).

VoidEater wrote:

what is "fallacious logic"?

Logical fallacies. The most egregiously used in THAT thread would be begging the question

VoidEater wrote:

You want formalized debate.

Not at all. All of the debate I do online is informal, but that doesn't mean we throw logic out the window. Plus, it's important to realize when you are using logic (and, more importantly, avoid bad/fallacious logic) and when you can simply speak subjectively.

Saying "I think/feel NGE is" is different from saying "NGE is". The former implies not-necessarily-logical basis for opinions while the latter takes the position of a logical proposition or the conclusion itself. The latter is all over that thread. Since discussion is partly about making the subjective objective and finding standards by which to do that on, it's usually a good idea to work on the former "I think/feel" level before moving to a more rigorous logical form. The former allows us to "feel out" the other people and more innocuously and tentatively begin to establish those standards. When people come out firing with "NGE isn't deep", it's completely lacking tact and is what actually comes off as as jerk-ish much more so than a more sensitive approach would. It essentially elevates that individual value system above any other being used in the discussion so far, and this is especially egregious in cases where the basis for the elevation (the logical form) is, as I said, fallacious and plan bad. It's that "arrogance combined with ignorance" I talked about in the FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU thread.

VoidEater wrote:

the more logical you are the less you have to compromise? Um, you're not married, are you?

Errr, no, I don't think I said that. Two people can be equally logical and still have to compromise. I would say logic probably makes compromise easier and less hostile.

VoidEater wrote:

From my perspective, emotional appeal gets way much more accomplished than logic in most societal activities. As you would know, Emotional Appeal is a fallacy. Darn effective, though.

Yeah, but, again, just because that's the way something is doesn't mean that's how it should be. One good thing about this is that emotional appeal doesn't work as well in text. Text is dominated by logic because people don't get to cheaply manipulate emotional attachment as easy.

VoidEater wrote:

Nice idealism, not manifest.

When I say "unites us all" I mean that it is a universal medium that can be used by all and that everyone uses. I don't think that establishes it as God or it says that it is the ruling force over all life and communication or whatnot, merely that it's one of the universals and, based on the evidence we have, the most effective one we have at figuring out just how to navigate through life.

VoidEater wrote:

...is internal consistency. That is not necessarily logic, though it does require a reasoned approach.

Huh?