We like logic. A logical interpretation is generally more convincing than an illogical one. The core structure of logic sets a pair of one cause and one consequence. This cause and consequence is a unidirectional connection. Then, a series of short unidirectional connections makes a long-range connection between the start and end. Being logically correct means that ‘the start and end’ or ‘the cause and consequence’ is tight – highly reproducible.
The sun rises from the east every morning. You agree with it. You do not need to know the mechanism. Except for people living close to the North or South Pole, this statement is perfectly granted and is reproducible. This happens to everyone, every day, without exception. Therefore, this statement is logically correct. If someone says the sun will rise from the west, this statement is illogical and incorrect – nonsense.
How about this: The sun will not rise or set tomorrow. This would be illogical and nonsense for most people. But this happens seasonally every year on both poles of the Earth. The statement has not changed. However, correctness and reproducibility have changed because the context that makes logic work has changed.
Logic is inevitably context-dependent because logic stands on reproducibility in a context. However, the context that logic relies on is often difficult to recognize because it is based on abundance, ubiquitous, vast or common at the place where logic is used. Abundance is recognized only when non-abundance is recognized. Only people who understand the sun may not rise or set every day are those who have those experiences. They are the only people who know both abundance and non-abundance. There is almost no chance for those who live in abundance to notice their abundance, and it is often even impossible to imagine the existence of non-abundance. Only by recognizing both states the own state is realized. Neither alone is cognizable - inexistence.
‘None’ (i.e. zero or void) cannot be recognized. The missing of something is only realized by knowledge of its presence in the past or future. Without language, which is a tool for representing something, ‘none’ cannot be recognized. Abundance (i.e. infinite in its environment) is not recognized without non-abundance – the situation of ‘none.’ These concepts rely on cognitive memorized comparison but not on sensible side-by-side comparison.
The sun rising from the east is logical without knowing why and how. At least, it looks like one single sun is rising every day, but no new ones are created. Then, where does the sun go at night? How does the sun rise from the east every morning? They were fair questions for curious ancient humans. Probably, only humans care about them, but all other organisms care about daylight and temperature, not the sun. Because we put a name, ‘Sun.’ Before the concept of a spherical Earth, the sun moves back to the east behind mountains at the periphery of a flat Earth. Perfectly logical! Then, the concept of a spherical Earth emerged. Our ancient interpretation is quite clever. The sky is like a spherical screen rotating around us. This is the mechanism causing the sun to rise from the east. Who is managing this? God. This perfectly makes sense and logically explains the repetitive event.
Importantly, this idea (the Geocentric view of the universe) is logical. It is predictable and reproducible for the naked eye's observation. The key context of the Geocentric view is that the Earth is the centre of the universe. There is nothing to doubt because the idea of Geocentrism is logical and aligns well with our senses. Who can imagine the Earth is moving since we are standing on it without sensing motion? That’s crazy!
Logic is derived from retrospective cognition of reproducibility and repetitiveness. From an event A to an event B. Whenever an event A happened, an event B occurred. Recognition of past events and their sequential correlation. This reproducibility is granted unless the context is unchanged. Therefore, logic has strong affinities with reductionism - dividing one apparently continuous process into short, small, fragmented pieces. One process is reduced into a series of short, small events. Each short, small event is reproducible. Thus, their series should be reproducible. The essential presupposition is that there is no change in their contexts.
Logical thinking (or analytical thinking) is a strategy for dividing an apparently connected start and end into a series of small logics, each with a cause and reproducible consequence. The first consequence is the second cause, the second consequence is the third cause, and so on. The best way to capture the concept of logical thinking is a flow chart, a series of yes-or-no judgments. Logical thinking is powerful in analyzing past events and building future predictions. Only one caveat is the context.
Imagine travelling—from my home in Montreal to a friend’s house in London, UK. Unfortunately, I cannot teleport. No direct instantaneous transportation. I do not have a private jet. There is no unique private route. I must take public transport. My route choice is infinite – uncountable detours if I do not mind the cost, travel distance and time. However, there would be always the best route based on the context. The context is not only personal but also external, like weather or accidents. I can select the best route from available options with a logical justification. However, there is no guarantee that my route will be the best. The context might suddenly change without any predictable signs. The best choice can be suddenly the worst one.
Comedians use this trick to break laughter. They use logic to tell a story but suddenly change the context without explaining it to the audience. The original logic helps the audience predict the goal and context. However, they change their context while keeping the original logic. Then, the original logic takes them to a place different from the anticipated goal. Mismatches of logic and context create laughter. To be nonsense, we still have to use logic. Without logic, our communication does not work. Miscommunications between the two happen when they are not in the same context.
Logic is a tool for communication with others. Logic is a reasoning tool for retrospective interpretation of past events to make sense of the past – based on reproducibility. Logic can be a predicting tool for future events based on past repetitiveness. Thus, logic becomes a tool to devise strategies to achieve goals and intentions. For all of these, the context needs to be shared between persons involved in communication and the context should be stable. Evaluating the context and its stability and uniformity is important since the changes in the context cause the failure in reproducibility. However, logical evaluation of the context always has limitations because logic cannot evaluate the context as a whole but extracted. Extraction from a whole creates unextracted. Unextracted (or unforeseen) is always a part of a whole but invisible.
Logic does not allow us to see outside of logic. Logic cannot validate the context on which it is based. The incorrectness of logic is realized when a prediction fails. Only after repetitive failures are realized/accepted do we start doubting the limit of the context that logic relies on. However, this is very challenging because the context creates vested interests that people rely on.
The uniqueness of human imagination is the ability to create a new context - the context beyond the current context. Imagination is empathy, curiosity, laughter and love. This means that illogical is the chance of the realization of the context. Unfairness and illogicalness are the essence of innovation that breaks the current logic and context.
Comments