The limits of logic

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

There you go complicating it again...that is what your logic does it attempts to complicate things...by breaking things down into more and more parts. Intuition is plainly divine communication. When I took shrooms I SAW what intuition was. Again refer back to my Nikola Tesla quote. It is just communication from the divine. At high enough consciousness it is constant. Your intuition is always flowing...but you can only receive it if you are at the right level of awareness. 

Notice how I said "but not limited to"? Calling it divine communication is perfectly ok. The divine is simply the inarticulated infinity that is being felt. I just gave a partial articulated viewpoint like you said. There is nothing wrong with articulating things, unless your approach is that of the silent saint.

[Gesundheit2]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I visualized it as a continuum from something like naive realism to naive skepticism.

That's a really damn good way to put it!

[Gesundheit2]

7 hours ago, Razard86 said:

You can't access the limits or logic or even truly question it....until you reach its limits.

Actually, you can. Premature access of lofty spiritual wisdom and questioning of logic is possible because philosophers/spiritual teachers exist.

7 hours ago, Razard86 said:

You will know when you reached it....when you notice there is an infinite number of ways to view something. There are infinite points of view, some may have more factual backing but there are so many unknowns, and unknowns on top of unknowns. If you apply your logic with enough focus....you will realize infinity....and realize that logic is limited. I discovered the limit of logic this way through trying to create the perfect philosophy.

That's not the limits of logic. At best, it sounds like the limits of dogmatic thinking without it being applied to itself.

[Razard86]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Notice how I said "but not limited to"? Calling it divine communication is perfectly ok. The divine is simply the inarticulated infinity that is being felt. I just gave a partial articulated viewpoint like you said. There is nothing wrong with articulating things, unless your approach is that of the silent saint.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it...its just that....it never ends. You gave a partial articulated viewpoint....so did everyone that responded...and every viewpoint was different. This could go on to infinity if we just kept going....this is what I mean by the limit of logic. We could just keep conceptualizing and debating, and comparing, and it would just keep going.....everybody that has responded to this forum.....has proved my point. I'm actually surprised by how many have responded to this post.....it shows the power of how ingrained logic is in us. The West has done a good job of implanting this habit in us.

[zurew]

13 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Anytime you have a eureka moment....that is intuition. To define intuition, I'll use one of Nikola Tesla's quotes. "“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”.

In that case,i agree with you.

12 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Further more, if you tried to understand everything through the lenses of logic, then how would you verify the validity of said logic? Would you use logic to do that? That's like believing a snake oil salesman because he told you that he wouldn't scam you.

Yes but that systemic/structural problem is not exceptional to logic. I could argue, how do you want to verify if direct experience is valid? Through direct experience?

You can't test a method without using the method. The method itself creates a structure and using the method means you can test content within that structure. The structure cannot be validated/tested by the same structure. Every method/investigatory process has a certain baked in limited epistemological foundation in it.  

Direct experience can be used to test relative and absolute domain problems/questions but even direct experience is limited when it comes to relative domain problems. I don't think you would want to rely only on your anecdotal evidence, when it comes to relative domain problems.

So we can (and i think we should) recognize the limits of a certain structure/method and then we can decide what method we want to use depending on what kind of problem we want to solve or what kind of answers we want to find/get.

Edited May 28, 2022 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it...its just that....it never ends. You gave a partial articulated viewpoint....so did everyone that responded...and every viewpoint was different. This could go on to infinity if we just kept going....this is what I mean by the limit of logic.

and the cost of inarticulation is isolation. The Bodhisattva makes a compromise of engaging in the illusion with the hope of dragging people out. Here logic can be a tool, a limited one, sure, but apophatic theology (e.g. "it's simply divine") is also just another tool, limited in its own ways.

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@zurew I agree. There is nothing wrong with having a pragmatic point of view on logic (though one should also be aware of the limits of pragmatism). We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Logic in a sense is like a car. A car is limited in it's capacity to transport you from A to B (even the most advanced cars couldn't get you to Mars for example), but just because it can't get you literally EVERYWHERE doesn't mean that it couldn't get to your local super market. That'd be a weird conclusion to make.

So even though logic might be unable to take you to the highest truths, I wouldn't deem this to be a problem. It only becomes a problem once you get stuck within the paradigm of logic. This is what happens to a lot of hardcore rationalists who believe that reality is inherently logical and that logic is the ultimate path towards knowledge.

[Razard86]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

and the cost of inarticulation is isolation. The Bodhisattva makes a compromise of engaging in the illusion with the hope of dragging people out. Here logic can be a tool, a limited one, sure, but apophatic theology (e.g. "it's simply divine") is also just another tool, limited in its own ways.

You are arguing a point I never made. Inarticulation? That is silence....I'm presenting the limitation of logic for a reason. The sage Osho and many other Eastern teachers make this point as well, that if you rely on memory and logic you stop growth. Logic is circular, and it fits a tried and true path. Creativity is the opposite of logic, it dares to step out what is generally understood and question and even attempt what many would consider insane. If you research any of the historical inventions that were made (some were discovered accidentally) many started off as guesses with little to no evidence behind them. 

They dared to doubt the logical well accepted knowledge of the time and consider an alternative. Usually they also had predecessors who did the same and failed miserably and were looked at as quacks or crazies of their time. The path to your creativity, the path to growth is to reduce your attachment to logic and dare to question and go forth into the unknown. Its symbolic of life as well, many of the most successful businesses have travelled that path as well. 

Its why I said, intuition is the key...logic is rooted in memory, and usually utilized in a fear based way, whereas the one who is guided by intuition..releases such constraints.

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

You are arguing a point I never made.

It's called adding points (hence the "and"). Not everything is a rebuttal  

"It's simply divine" is in a sense less articulated than giving a list of explanations for a phenomena (using "logic") just by how open it is. Articulation is about pinning something down, breaking it into bits and simplifying it.

[Gesundheit2]

@Razard86 You seem to be dogmatically conflating logic and dogma.

[Nilsi]

On 26.5.2022 at 3:30 PM, Razard86 said:

At a certain point in my life I learned the limits of logic. Logic is your ability to take in information and make sense of it. Logic relies on memory, and it uses that memory to create a map of meaning. The problem is....if the memory is faulty....the logic will not be able to pick it up. You can only discover faulty memory by having an open mind, and the willingness to test the memory to see if it is true. 

This is why some of the most brilliant logisticians get stuck. They are unwilling to question their memory deep enough to tests its validity. They create biases against certain types of data....and become limited thinkers who are unable to create anything new. The proper way to go through life....is don't absolutely believe anything....question everything....but at the same time....trust your intuition to see you through.

Your biggest barriers to discovering what is true is implicit bias, cognitive dissonance, and ignorance. Intuition can alleviate this, and raising awareness can alleviate this because it can allow you to bypass those limitations...and access divine intelligence....but that is another topic for another time.

The West teaches the memory, logic, model of intelligence. As long as you operate from that model....you will be limited in your ability to learn. Question everything....the same you did as a child. Don't lose that child-like curiosity.

 

 

Logic is exactly not taking in information and making sense of it. Logic is taking a normative model of how thinking ought to be and projecting it on the information. Thats why logic ultimately has to break down. Logic is always a finite prototype.

[ZzzleepingBear]

My final thought on this is  topic.

Logic is the how, while the intuition is the why. It's a intertwined relationship of the two into one.

[Gesundheit2]

From the dictionary:

noun: logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

noun: intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

noun: dogma(s): a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[ZzzleepingBear]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

From the dictionary:

noun: logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

noun: intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

noun: dogma(s): a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

All these pointers are good in a logical way. But just the definition of intuition here feels a bit too limited imo.

My intuition can often be as a nudge of awareness of something. So to call it immediate understanding is only partially true, atleast for me. I can make a decision based on intuition, without understanding exactly why I made that choice, until after the event has passed. 

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

All these pointers are good in a logical way. But just the definition of intuition here feels a bit too limited imo.

My intuition can often be as a nudge of awareness of something. So to call it immediate understanding is only partially true, atleast for me. I can make a decision based on intuition, without understanding exactly why I made that choice, until after the event has passed. 

According to the dictionary, logic and intuition are polar opposites. They're both relative terms that are defined in contrast with each other, so they define each other, and neither of them can make sense without the other. Logic and intuition are two distinct ways of "deriving knowledge", or at least they're two different modes of thinking (conscious vs. subconscious).

To know something logically, no feeling is required. And to know something intuitively, no reasoning is required. At the same time, there are no clear distinctions between logic and intuition, they basically share the same core (knowledge), so non-duality applies, and language collapses.

That being said, it seems to me like when you say intuition that you're talking about something else entirely. It sounds like an absolute thing that exists independently of everything else. This can lead to problems because then we will be communicating past each other when in fact we're talking about different things to begin with without knowing. So that's why having shared definitions is crucial, and we can't really progress positively without it.

[ZzzleepingBear]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

According to the dictionary, logic and intuition are polar opposites. They're both relative terms that are defined in contrast with each other, so they define each other, and neither of them can make sense without the other. Logic and intuition are two distinct ways of "deriving knowledge", or at least they're two different modes of thinking (conscious vs. subconscious).

To know something logically, no feeling is required. And to know something intuitively, no reasoning is required. At the same time, there are no clear distinctions between logic and intuition, they basically share the same core (knowledge), so non-duality applies, and language collapses.

That being said, it seems to me like when you say intuition that you're talking about something else entirely. It sounds like an absolute thing that exists independently of everything else. This can lead to problems because then we will be communicating past each other when in fact we're talking about different things to begin with without knowing. So that's why having shared definitions is crucial, and we can't really progress positively without it.

I'm not in total disagreement here.  But I just want to adress what stands out a bit to me, for the sake of discussion.

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

According to the dictionary

This is the main thing. Even if we try to communicate with as much mutual understanding as possible. We can't explain away or pinpoint intuitiveness according to a dictionary. BUT. It makes more sense from a logical perspective, if we are trying to frame intuition according to a dictionary.

I how ever do agree that logic and intuition complement eachother, and so we might entangle ourselves in an impossible equation if we take side with any of the two. Since both of them are required atleast to some degree to form a thought at all.

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

That being said, it seems to me like when you say intuition that you're talking about something else entirely. It sounds like an absolute thing that exists independently of everything else.

To give you an example of the most recent intuition I had, that didn't require my immidiate understanding. I was about to go to the store for some groceries, and I always make sure to have more than enough money on the card for any regular grocery shopping. But this particular time, I had a sense that I should logg into my bank and check, without any real reason I could come to think of. I almost dismissed the idea, but the feeling of loging into my bank was stil present without being a intrusive or annoying thought. So I decided, oh well let's log into the bank fast and see what this is about. And to my surprise, there was almost no money on my card that day, since I used quite a bit the day or days before this incident.

As I re-read what I just wrote. Could "logging into my bank" be the immidiate understanding maybe?? To do exactly that, was very clear to me as part of the intuition. But as I see it, it would stil only be half of the equation until I act on such a intuition to see whats up.

2 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

This can lead to problems because then we will be communicating past each other when in fact we're talking about different things to begin with without knowing. So that's why having shared definitions is crucial, and we can't really progress positively without it.

While I do agree with this. I may add that my understanding of intuition, is that it's almost impossible to make a definition out of such a fleeting glimpse of direction that intuition may give. It can often come and go in various ways, and to different degree. While logic on the other hand, usually follow a more restrictive narrative of thoughts that can be constructed and re-constructed in any part of the process, with a matter of willingness. That's atleast my two cents on the matter so far.

[mostly harmless]

The premisses you start with are the fundamental weak spot of logic. 

Logic is useless when the question is really about meaning. 

 

 

[Razard86]

On 5/27/2022 at 7:32 PM, Carl-Richard said:

or feeling into the depths of your being, which includes (but is not limited to) "current and past events, and states of your body and mind (perceptual data and even abstract reasoning)". It's the 6th sense, but it's not separate from the other senses. It's a meta-sense, and it works best when you're aligned with your higher self. A related phenomena is the voice of conscience.

Well yeah you can describe it like that. It still all points to divine communication. Yes its a meta-sense, because it is big picture oriented. Our logic is our attempt to take the big picture it presents us with and bring it down to our level to make sense of it. 

What we like to call integration.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Razard86