”Reason can’t see, only logic sees__reason only feels and thinks, thus reason is highly fallible, compared to logic…”
“Rationality is not of reason. Rationality is of logic…”
All over the world are those who accept reason as the ultimate believer and knower of all information in the mind. They think logic is some simple add-on, created by a few thought laws of Aristotle. Others think reason is guided by principles and axioms, etc., but is still the ultimate decision engine of the mind. Oh, some do recognize the importance of arithmetic and higher mathematics, evidence and other such sciences of their innate beliefs__but few in the world recognize the higher importance of logic. Most, especially the innate believers, even realize there is such an innate agent as pure and natural logic, thinking it just some additional aspect of reason, as has been the recorded history down through the centuries, except by the few who did make the distinctions between the inner believing reasoning agent, and the outer seeing and knowing logic agent…
And herein lies the most major difference between all the world’s investigators of truths and knowledge systems. Believing is not knowing, and knowing is not accepting the fallacies of the believing agent of reason. At base, it’s as simple as knowing reason can never do logic’s job, and logic can never do reason’s job. Were either to attempt the other’s jobs, each would certainly destroy the other, as these are two entirely independent thinking agents, within the perception agency of all minds__and always have been, no matter how much history’s pseudo-mentalities have run them together. If anyone wants to discover the truths necessary to guide the lives of communities of diverse peoples, world wide, then this simple fundamental lesson of mental mechanics must be thoroughly understood__and not just by playing lip service to the idea__but truly taking the time to investigate its massive importance to effective thinking__on all levels…
Tis true reason can perform many tasks, but knowing is not one of them, as this would entirely corrupt the purpose of reason’s function__which is to learn the causes, and whys of the world. To say that reason can also do its own logic is a complete mental fallacy, as no epistemic agent can perform more than one task, within itself, at any one given time(limited by the +’s and –‘s of em’s)__without completely destroying the activity of its first task, i.e., if reason first starts by asking why, it can not switch to asking how, due to the cross-currents(the +’s and –‘s of em’s) of conflating the idea__which is solely the job of innate and direct objective logic. Further reason can never answer as to true or false, whether by reason or numbers, as this is entirely the domain of logic, and no reasoning agent is capable of finding truth and falsity, as per the ratios and numbers faculties(the +’s and –‘s of em’s)__only logic can. If you’ll notice, this leaves reason as an agent of the emotions, and logic as an agent of the intellect, and tis only the job of reason to operate subjectively from the innate feelings by direct perceptual seeing, precepts and percepts__while logic’s intellectual job is to operate from the higher mind through direct observation, precepts, conceptualism and external evidence and science, as the higher mind is geared almost entirely above the base instinctual emotions, whereas reason operates directly in conjunction with the instinctual emotions, thus making reason the subjective non-conceptual agent, while logic is the only truly operational objective conceptual agent__and the mind’s only knowing agent, while the reasoning agent is barred from ever knowing, by being locked in the emotional-reasoning, believing only, state__unless certain minds be assisted by the choice of a personally directed logic state use, mainly being framed by the innate reasoning state, of conflation of ideas…
Now of course, many of the world’s reasoners would/will highly object to this analogy, but they simply do not realize their own minds, from birth, have always automatically used the logic agent over the emotional reasoning agent, all their lives. They just fail to notice where and when the logic agent kicks in to do their mind’s higher tasks of finding truth and creating, using, blending and deciding concepts. Reason still demands it can know the truth, based on its innate instincts__and it can know many truths, but only by this natural hidden operational mechanics of such individuals logic capacities, kicking in automatically to save their thinking processes, without them even realizing it__then them in turn, thinking the automatic higher_reasoning to them_agent is the touchy-feely spirit or even worse_God_When in fact, it’s the simple logic agent which naturally exists as the deepest innate mechanics of all individuals… If the reasonists would simply investigate the long history of excellent mentalities, who’ve thoroughly studied all logic’s abilities and capacities__they’d centainly discover how to convert reason’s beliefs to sound logical understandings and scientific knowings__over the lesser state of falsifiable beliefs__which all go the infinite regress route, to absolute un-definability and un-decidability…
Just as an addition to this, I’ll add what I posted on ‘Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism…?'
A Scientific Methodology of Understanding All Conversations...
First I'm not using non-conceptualist as an insult, as it's the best method we possess as free individuals to understand the differences and distinctions between what is scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, and that's all it's for. If, through all the research I've done over the years, I had no way to sort truth from lie, fact from fiction, I'd never have been able to learn much, especially since new information crowds out old information__at rates far faster than we can store and remember it. I was lucky enough to have someone who taught me how to process information early on, and that someone was my professor, grandfather, and my father and mother were no slouches either, as they'd both studied under him or been extremely influenced by him. I later in life came across a cosmological scientist who used my grandfather's same system of conceptuality and non-conceptuality, which helped cement my method in later life. It's simply the process of realizing how the mind must have a mechanism, naturally given, to detect truth from lie, and it does. This process is to know that all factual information must have external and internal correspondence, to be scientifically factually, a candidate for any scientific method, theory, hypothesis, or possible factual proof__It's simply an unavoidable necessity...
All objective scientific facts have positive external possible proofs which match our internal objective conceptual processes(meaning we're picturing the outside world internally_also epistemically meaning we're picturing real identifiable internal epistemic agents, i.e., ratio, logic, will, judgment, etc._those we absolutely know operate individually as to finite objective function, through centuries of epistemic research...), within perception. All subjective non-scientific, which would also be the subjective non-conceptual, do not have positive external, or positive internal possible proofs, which are even possible of being represented by concepts__yet some are directly seeable within perception, such as real inner innate feelings, while still others such as myths, are neither positively seeable nor even conceptualizable__because they lack all outside of both body, and the mind's objective conceptualizing abilities' corroborations and proofs. Therefore, when you know this, you can easily sort fiction from fact__emotion from science__truth from lie__in just about all fields of study on Earth, just by either listening to, or seeing the content, structure and context of the choice of words, others use. We all have what gives us away, as to the intelligence level our words portray, especially to those as studied as I__and I'm not saying that to pat myself on the back__it's just it must be stated to explain it__and the science of it would be in the framing debates of linguistics, and the many schools and subjects of epistemology. Of course, specific facts must always be checked, but the general natural intelligence factor, of using the mind scientifically__holds for all fields. I could name and cite hundreds, throughout history, who've discussed this personal scientific understanding methodology, but these are my own chosen words, in two simple paragraphs__there it is...
Oh, the non-conceptualist is simply a person who does not use a precise scientific method, as per above, to understand what science is trying to say...
No comments:
Post a Comment