Not everyone is aware that there are rules of logic for correct reasoning just as there are rules of mathematics. Because reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion by relating ideas, the laws of logic are extremely important to understand. For just as we will reach entirely different conclusions if we relate two numbers by the laws of addition and subtraction, so will we reach different conclusions when relating ideas using different laws of logic.
Laws of logic are at work in our everyday lives on a scale that dwarfs the effects of even laws of mathematics. The effects of mathematical laws, for example, are in most every manmade product from the family car to the ink used to print these words. Our laws of logic, however, act as the standard of what we think is morally, socially, sexually, politically, economically, and even mathematically, reasonable or pure nonsense. Without standards of logic, civilization would not exist.
Western standards of logic were formalized by the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384-322 BCE). "Since Aristotle, the western world has followed the logical principles of Aristotelian philosophy," (8) as outlined in his book, The Organon. A similar system of logical laws in the East is the "Nyaya System" of the third century BC. Nyaya means "a way of leading the mind to a conclusion." (9) Its most famous text is the "Nyaya sutra ascribed without surety to a Gautama…His achievement was to give India an organon of investigation and thought.…Gautama is the Aristotle of India." (10)
Philosopher Francis Bacon and many others, however, have recognized that our present laws of logic are judgmental and can, therefore, harm rather than help us.
"The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors which have their foundation in commonly received notions, than to help to search out the truth. So it does more harm than good." (11)
The new sciences have also revealed that Aristotle's logic cannot describe certain natural phenomenon. To understand all the facts of nature, we need, as scientist Wolfgang Pauli said, a "new conception of reality," (12) one which accepts the "irrationality of rationality." (12) Or, as I would say, we need a new conception of reality not limited to Aristotle's laws of logic or his scientific method.
Let us first explore Aristotle's judgmental system of logic, after which I will introduce the Gnostic system of nonjudgmental logic.
The Three "Basic" Laws of Logic and How They Affect Reasoning
The three basic laws of logic are:
The law of identity institutionalizes the prevailing theory of nature stating that every member of a class, say class X, has the same nature as every other member of that class. From this we can conclude that every member of that class is, by nature, X, and only X. In symbolic terms, this simply means that X is X.
As obvious as X is X may appear, its consequences are not. The law of identity justifies generalizations, and therefore, the concept that reasoning in terms of absolutes and certainty is logical. If everyone agrees that X is X and only X, it is reasonable to generalize, and be absolutely certain, that every X is X.
Generalizations that describe single nature classes are necessary and good. How could scientists conduct experiments if they could not be certain of weights and measures?
Problems arise when we try to generalize about classes with more than one nature. Light, for example, is problematic in terms of the law of identity. According to this law, light is either a wave or a particle. Yet the new sciences demonstrate that light is both a wave and a particle.
Even greater problems arise when we think it reasonable to generalize that one standard of human nature applies to all humans. This leads to judgmental reasoning that can be destructive. For example, if one generalizes that the standard of human nature is a white, heterosexual, Protestant, male, and some do, then one can reason that blacks, homosexuals, Catholics, and women are inferior or even nonhumans. It is exactly this kind of judgmental reasoning that justified the genocide of American Indians, Jews, and Albanians; racism and bigotry in all its forms; and persecution by any name.
The law of identity also supports generalizations like there is only one best idea, belief or standard that correctly describes every class. This concept justifies those who think that their religion, country or economic system is the best. Most of us have felt threatened, and some have even been put in concentration camps, by those who reason that their beliefs and standards are best for everyone.
Language Problems
Created by the Law of Identity
A wise man once
said, "language exists on the surface of our consciousness. The great human
struggles are played out in silence and in the inability to express ourselves."
(12A) Let us now explore why this may be so.
The law of identity makes it logically impossible to communicate the idea that some classes can be more than one thing at the same time. For example, we can say that light is both a wave and a particle, or humanity is both human and godlike, but our language cannot convey what this means. According to the law of identity, X is X. Therefore, the plural form of X implies more than one X. This excludes being able to communicate the idea that light (X) is both wave (X) and particle (Y), or that humanity is both black and white. According to the law of identity, light is either a wave or a particle, and humans are either black or white.
It is difficulty to use the term 'humans' because our language cannot convey the idea of more than one human nature. When X is X, the plural form of human-humans-implies many human beings that share a common nature, not many humans with diverse natures. This excludes being able to logically communicate the idea that human diversity is natural because the law of identity allows for only one definition of human nature. The uncomfortable feeling that occurs when trying to say human natureS or humanitieS demonstrates that our present system of logic does not have the capacity to encompass diversity within classes.
How the Law
of Identity Undermines Free Will
The law of identity
makes free will impossible to practice when free will is defined as freely choosing
between rational alternatives.
The noted psychologist, Erich Fromm, believed that free will is contingent on freely choosing between rational alternatives. According to Fromm, "man's freedom lies in his potential to choose between the real existing possibilities. Freedom, in this sense, can be defined not as acting in the awareness of necessity [animals do that], but acting on the bases of alternatives and their consequences." (13)
Free will, then, cannot exist as long as the law of identity is applied to all classes. According to this law, there can be only one correct choice in every category of choices. This makes free will an exercise in finding that one correct choice, not choosing between rational alternatives.
In classes with one nature, like the shortest distance between two points, for example, only one rational option exists, a straight line between the two points. Because this answer, and only this answer, describes the class, we can claim to have found the correct answer, but not to have practiced free will. To practice free will, we need rational alternatives. The law of identity denies us these alternatives by limiting each class to one definition.
How the Law
of Identity Pits Science Against Religion
The seemingly irreconcilable
conflict between science and religion is rooted in the law of identity. For
if every class is limited to one best definition, we are limited to thinking
that truth has only one description. And because science recognizes only those
truths based on objective facts that are universally accepted, and religion
accepts truths based on personal and subjective experience, we cannot expect
that truth will be described by both in the same way. We cannot, therefore,
expect science to be compatible with religion as long as the law of identity
limits truth to one definition. The conflict between creationists and evolutionists
exemplify one of many seemingly irreconcilable conflicts between subjective
and objective truths.
We can go so far as to say that the law of identity generates almost every irreconcilable conflict. We can, for example, recognize that this law underlies the conflict between mind and heart, left and right brain, flesh and spirit, yang and yin, Adam and Eve, maleness and femaleness, and science and religion. For here, again, the first term in each category relies on objective facts, and the second, subjective facts. Therefore, we cannot expect both to define truth, wisdom, or reality in the one way that the law of identity requires.
In effect, irreconcilable conflicts are, in principle, a manifestation of the law of identity because it allows only one standard or definition of truth for every category or class of truth. This excludes any real possibility of reconciling two sides of any conflict that measure truth by different standards. Compromises may be reached between members of each of these categories, but never one solution that is totally right for both. Conflict resolution will never be equitable as long as what we believe is reasonable is limited to the law of identity.
What justifies the dualistic reasoning that divides and separates us from others, the world, and God? What justifies the dogmatic reasoning of radicals? What justified the beliefs of Nazis or the actions of Serbian Christians and Muslims towards each other? It is the law of non-contradiction, for it makes the concept of relating "all" ideas/reasoning in terms of either/or, yes/no, us/them, and I/it appear logical.
The law of non-contradiction states that each member of a class is not only identical to every other member in that class, or that X is X, as the law of identity states, but also that the nature of a class cannot be what it is not, say X and non-X. Symbolically, the law of non-contradiction states that X is not non-X.
According to the law of non-contradiction, it is reasonable to assert that a given quality either belongs, or does not belong, to a given class. For if there is a single nature that represents a class, everything in that class must exemplify that one nature. In effect, the law of non-contradiction divides everything into two categories. One category that encompasses that which exemplifies the nature of the class, and a second category that does not.
Dividing the world into these two categories lays the foundation for dualistic reasoning-relating ideas in terms of either/or, yes/no, us/them, black/white, right/wrong, and I/it.
Dualistic reasoning can be good. Computer technology relies on yes/no thinking. And science in the traditional sense relies on either/or reasoning. For instance, either 16 ounces is a pound or it is not.
Dualistic reasoning can, however, be problematic. It justifies the concept that we are separate and distinct from all else by teaching us to reason that we are either individuals or nature -- not that we can be both individuals and one with others and nature. This undermines the concept of new thought teachers that both individuality and universal oneness are irreducible principles.
It is true that the feeling of separation at times vanishes and we experience oneness. Our concept of separation blurs, for example, when we are in love or empathize with others or nature. Nonetheless, the law of non-contradiction, and the either/or reasoning it demands, so dominates us that even these flashes of oneness quickly fade and we soon feel separation again.
Some Aborigines, it seems, think of themselves as one with nature. The reason why this may be true is that they do not relate ideas according to the law of non-contradiction. They perceive themselves to be both individuals and one with nature.
The fact that some Aborigines feel one with nature, whereas we feel separate, implies that how we relate to others and the world is learned and is not an innate quality of human nature. As long as we accept the law of non-contradiction, separation will dominate our thoughts, and oneness will be limited to moments of love and occasional experiences of bliss.
The Jewish mystic, Martin Buber, in his book, I And Thou, recognizes that we perceive our relationships to others in terms of separation, rather than in terms of oneness, or in terms of "I-It," rather than "I-Thou.." Buber says, "There is no 'I' taken in itself, but only the 'I' of the primary word, I-Thou, and the I of the primary word, I-IT. When a man says I, he refers to one or the other of these…. When a primary word is spoken, the speaker enters the world and takes his stand in it." (14)
This sensitive mystic understood that each individual relates to others in one of two ways. Either he "meets" others and loses his sense of separation in relationship with them, in which they are no longer an "other," but rather a "Thou." Or he is aware of his and their difference and their separateness, in which case they are experienced as an "It." To be a "Thou" is to be accepted nonjudgmentally, with affection, care, even love, for a "Thou" is embraced by the "I" as one with itself. To be an "It" on the other hand, is to be perceived as a separate thing, rather than one with the self. In the "I" - "It" - relationship, the other becomes an object rather than a subject; an "It" rather than a "Thou." According to Buber, there are only two ways to be in the world: in a relationship of "I-Thou" or in a relationship of "I-It." There can be no "I" apart from one of these relationships. Either the "I" is relating to a person, an object, an animal, a tree, a car, or a sunset and is aware that the "I" is separate from whom or what it is engaged with (I-It), or the "I" is lost in the wonder of oneness with whatever or whomever it is engaged with (I-Thou).
Martin Buber is suggesting something very profound. Subconsciously our reasoning leads us to think of the "I" as separate and distinct from the person or object encountered. What he doesn't say is what causes our reasoning to separate us. I propose that it is our acceptance of the law of non-contradiction that justifies our relating to others in terms of I/it.
The law of non-contradiction covertly supports the separation of spiritually and intellectually dominant individuals and organizations. Stereotypically, those of us with intellectual personalities value facts and experience over the intuitions and subjectivity of those with a spiritual or artistic personality. Intellectuals, for example, consider reason the path to a better world. Some spiritual groups, however, teach that the mind must be quieted before one can grasp the truth. The result is that the intellectually dominant individuals and organizations separate themselves from spiritual individuals and organizations. In effect, the law of non-contradiction supports those who minimize views and beliefs that differ from their own.
Not only does the law of non-contradiction separate us from one another, it comes between many religious people and their God. Jesus, in John (17:21), for example, teaches that we are meant to be "one with the father." When we read this, we may feel we understand what Jesus means, but our minds cannot truly comprehend it. The reason is that by simply saying the word God, we separate ourselves from God, because the law of non-contradiction has trained the mind to reason that we are either humans or Gods, not capable of being both individuals and one with God. All one needs to do to experience this ingrained training is to say the word God, and the image that comes to mind is one of God out there, and we, here, i.e. separate and distinct entities. As long as the law of non-contradiction dominates our reasoning-except for occasional flashes of bliss, love and empathy-the acknowledgement of oneness with God, nature, and others will be the exception, and the feeling of separation will be the rule.
When applying the law of non-contradiction to human beings, we can also recognize that this law is the major source of personal and social problems. This law, and the reasoning it produces, was behind the persecution of "communist sympathizers" by the Committee on un-American Activities. It was the either/or reasoning of that committee which led to labeling everyone as either communist or noncommunist. This same dogmatic either/or reasoning is what justified the burning of heretics in the Inquisition and witches at Salem.
When applied to human beings, the law of non-contradiction also provides justification for intolerance to those who are different. In other words, when we use either/or categories to identify ourselves in terms of gender, nationality, race, religion, political preference, sexual orientation or economic status, we place ourselves in opposition to others. It is important to note that merely differentiating ourselves from others would not create a problem if we did not also believe that there was just one right or best way for human beings to be. If we accepted differences as natural, and did not add the negative judgment that one's own group was the right one, or at least better than all others, then we would not find ourselves in conflict with each other. But we do. Why we do is the legacy of reasoning according to the law of non-contradiction.
The Law of Non-contradiction
and Language Problems
The law of non-contradiction
limits our ability to communicate in caring ways because it allows only one
correct definition for each class of words. This "tends to pit classes
of words, like 'cooperation,' against other classes, like 'individuality,' so
that they clash like swords." (15)
We see the consequences of these clashes when a friendly conversation turns into a shouting match. For when a listeners' ideas differ from what is being said, he or she often feels challenged. This challenge, however, does not necessarily come from the speaker. Rather, it more often comes from a third source - the subliminal notion of the listener that he can be right only if the speaker is wrong. This notion is the product of the either/or reasoning that is justified by the law of non-contradiction.
The cliché, "never discuss politics and religion with relatives," illustrates that the either/or characteristics that the law of non-contradiction breeds into our language play a determining role in how we are understood. Having to explain that we didn't mean what others thought we said illustrates that the law of non-contradiction adds meanings to what we say that are foreign to what we mean. It can be said that the law of non-contradiction puts our language system in control of how we are understood.
The third law that institutionalized the prevailing principle is the law of excluded middle. This law states that not only is X, X, and that X is not non-X, it adds that X is X and nothing in between. For example, we cannot say that the flying horse, Pegasus, is a horse, because Pegasus is in between a horse and a bird.
According to this law, every quality either belongs, or does not belong, to a given nature. There is no logical compromise, or exception, and no middle alternative. It is this law which accounts for Aristotelian logic's hierarchical nature. For if there is a single nature for every class, that which has more of that essential quality will be judged superior to that which possesses less. Based on the law of excluded middle, the concept of the hierarchy of values is established.
Like the laws of identity and non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle is appropriate to apply to single nature classes. For example, it would be confusing to call unicorns horses. Even though they do have similar characteristics, unicorns are different from horses.
As long as a class is considered uniform, no particular problems arise with regard to what we observe of it. But we human beings typically define ourselves in terms of sexual, political, national, religious, economic, racial, and social differences. If human nature is defined in one exclusive way-which is precisely what happens when we identify in hierarchical terms-the implication is drawn that if those who are different from us are wrong, bad, or somehow inferior, then we must be right, good, and superior.
Hierarchical reasoning leads us to conclude that there is but one "best" in every category, which divides and alienates us from our fellow human beings. In practice, this concept justifies reasoning that "bigger is better," "my religion is the true religion;" and "if America isn't No. 1, who is;" and most every other claim that something is superior to all others.
Low self-esteem is also rooted in hierarchical reasoning. When we judge ourselves in relation to others, we may feel inferior to them because we are heavier or not wearing designer clothes. The whole idea of judging ourselves as inferior to others is created by the concept that one quality in every class is superior to all others.
Pride, negativity, social status, prestige, and elitist thinking, like low self-esteem, are also the result of hierarchical thinking. Ideas such as "keeping up with the Joneses" and "you can never have too much money;" and eminent domain, privilege, super heroes, super markets, and even heaven (as commonly interpreted) would be nonsensical without the concept of superiority. All hierarchical reasoning is justified by the law of excluded middle.
The Law of Excluded
Middle and Language Problems
The law of excluded
middle, like the law of identity and non-contradiction, also limits our ability
to communicate nonjudgmentally.
Most words are meaningless unless they can be related to another term. Up, for example, is meaningless unless we can relate it to its counterpart, down. Recognizing this opens us to the real possibility that the law of excluded middle covertly adds hierarchical characteristics to the words we use. When we use words like males, capitalists, or straights, for example, many of us subliminally relate these terms to their unspoken counterparts according the law of excluded middle. Consequently, some males may feel superior to women, some straights superior to gays, some Christians superior to non-believers, some capitalists superior to communists, and vice versa. The point is that the law of excluded middle subliminally leads us to relate to others in hierarchical ways. There is no natural reason for such hierarchical thinking. It is the law of excluded middle that makes relating ideas in terms of hierarchies reasonable.
In principle, then, bigotry in all its forms is the manifestation of the law of excluded middle. Said another way, the law of excluded middle is the prerequisite of the concept of superiority, which in turn, makes difference a problem when, in reality, difference is simply difference.
Many recognize that our present rules for correct reasoning are questionable. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965) recognized that Aristotelian reasoning-which he called "technical…. [is] a kind of means-ends rationality that gives yes/no answers to either/or questions. It abolishes contradiction, cuts through anomaly, and permits vague anxieties to be replaced by definite fears, which can supposedly be mastered. But, [for Tillich] the ethical, social, and existential issues of ultimate concern require a totally different kind of reasoning, a kind that encompasses several alternatives, and which answers not in terms of either/or, but of both/and. [He calls this reasoning] encompassing reason." (16) For example, we need to be both individuals and yet part of the society to which we belong; we need to be both rational and yet capable of deep feeling and passion, both loving and strong-willed, both innocent and yet capable of exercising power. When we use technical reason, where encompassing reason is more appropriate, we turn complex, multifaceted, and multi-dimensional issues into simplistic either/or choices, both of which choices may have negative consequences.
Biologist Jonas Salk expressed the need for a philosophy of reason which encompassed and reconciled both opposing alternatives of the Aristotelian either/or dichotomy. "We urgently need a philosophy of 'both…and' to qualify the present 'either/or'. Once it was either our survival, or that of other species and natural elements, so we conquered, multiplied and subdued. Now we face an ego whose intellect, reason, objectivity, morality, differences, competitive nature, power and 'win or lose' psychology desperately needs a being whose intuition, feeling, subjectivity, realism, ability to differentiate, cooperate, and influence and reconciling powers can contain it." (17)
Anthropologist Ruth Benedict's synergistic thinking goes beyond the either/or dichotomy in Aristotelian logic. Synergism is "the capacity of two forces, persons, or structures of information to optimize one another and achieve mutual enhancement." (18) Synergism holds in union and harmony what normally is taken to be opposite and irreconcilable.
Erich Fromm also called for synergistic thinking. Fromm "characterizes the productive personality as loving, caring, respectful, responsible and knowledgeable, and capable of holding in balance two opposing poles. On the other hand, masochistic loyalty and sadistic authority, destructive assertiveness and indifferent fairness are what characterize the non-productive personality in dealing with others." (19)
Abraham Maslow offers a similar analysis in terms of what he calls self-actualizing persons. Those of us who are not self-actualized find ourselves reasoning in the dichotomy of either/or choices. Self-actualized persons are those whose reasoning transcends this dichotomy.
Most Eastern religions question the credibility of the reasoning mind. They teach that "reasoning is less reliable as a guide to reality and truth than the direct perception and feeling of an individual properly prepared for spiritual receptiveness and subtlety by ascetic practices and years of obedient tutelage; that the purpose of knowledge and philosophy is not control of the world so much as release from it;.." (20)
Those who criticize Aristotelian logic, then, are clear that humanity needs to learn how to transcend judgmental logic: to learn how to reconcile conflicting positive alternatives, to develop the capacity to encompass these alternatives in a dynamic whole and to build consensus rather than dissension. Stopping problems before they begin is the ultimate form of conflict resolution. Learning to apply either/or logic only when considering single nature classes is the means to this end. Creating a new system of both/and-nonjudgmental logic-which applies to multiple nature classes is the means to a new beginning. As psychologist Erich Fromm said, "Only when man succeeds in developing his reason and love further than he has done so far, only when he can build a world based on human solidarity and justice, only when he can feel rooted in the experience of universal brotherliness, will he have found a new, human form of rootedness, will he have transformed the world into a truly human home." (21)
In summary, as long as we are limited to our prevailing rules of logic, we will too often be torn between what is spiritually wrong but rationally right.
We have explored the possibility that the judgmental character of our rules for correct reasoning, through our thoughts, creates the judgmental nature of our everyday reality. Accepting this, we can imagine that it is not the reasoning mind, as a whole, which is to blame for the human condition. But rather, it is our present judgmental rules of logic, the only rules we have, which are to blame. It is these rules-not the nature of the reasoning mind-which cause the disharmony between mind and spirit. It is also reasoning according to traditional rules of logic that makes the mind, by Eastern thought, less reliable than spiritual discernment. From this we can conclude that additional nonjudgmental rules of logic, warranted by the theory of nature that some classes have more than one nature, can expand the possibilities of the reasoning mind to mirror spiritual principles. And, in turn, the mind will be empowered to be harmonious with spiritual values and capable of accurately describing reality and truth.
I offer new nonjudgmental rules for correct reasoning, which I call "nonjudgmental logic." This logic supports oneness, limitlessness, and unconditional acceptance, or as some might call it, paradoxical, spiritual, or quantum thinking. Let us now explore the potentials of this logic.
At first, nonjudgmental logic may appear paradoxical, by which I mean, contrary to common belief, unbelievable, or even absurd, but may actually be true, in fact. This can be expected. The sense of absurdity that nonjudgmental logic invokes comes from subconsciously judging it on the basis of traditional logic which is contrary to nonjudgmental logic. The same sense of absurdity is probably felt when we try to understand Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics by judging them on the basis of judgmental logic. If we used nonjudgmental logic, on the other hand, we might be able to understand, because nonjudgmental logic, unlike existing logic, is compatible with the new Sciences. With nonjudgemental loigic for example we would understand time elapsing at different rates, at the same time, relative to speed.
Judging nonjudgmental logic, and our new sciences, by traditional logic, then, can be compared to judging apples on the basis of oranges. We must judge this new logic and science on their own merits, not preconceived ideas. Nobel Prizewinner, Wolfgang Pauli, recognized the need for a new system of logic when he said, "What must be regarded as irrational today may be described by rational theories in the future." (22)
The fact is that if we judge nonjudgmental logic within the rules of our present system of logic, we cannot understand nonjudgmental logic. In order to understand it, we have to get past judging it in terms of judgmental logic. This may not be easy because we tend to think that how we reason is inborn. But, this is not true. If it were, all humans would reason in the same way … and we don't. Most civilized beings, for example, judge that they are individuals in nature. Many Aborigines, originally at least, considered themselves and nature as one.
How we reason, then, is determined by our experiences, not our heredity. Therefore, we can logically assume that how we now judge may not be the only way to judge. And this being true, what we now judge to be reality may not be the whole of reality.
Note: Some argue that we would not need an additional system of logic if we carefully applied traditional rules to specific natures within multiple nature classes. I agree that this could work, but not until we accomplish two things; first we would have to redefine our concept of what we mean by words we use. Traditionally a word, say light, was assumed to have one nature and therefore could mean only one thing. This is however in consistent with the new physics, light is both a wave and a particle at the same time. My point is that when we use words like light we cannot assume it refers to one thing, it refers to both waves and particles.
Second we would also have to define what the plural form of a word means. Historically the plural form of a word meant two or more of the same thing. But this clearly does not fit multiple nature classes like light or humanity. Light is both a wave and a particle which are not the same thing. Humanity is not a series of clones, we are by nature individuals. In effect to use our present system of logic we must first create a classification system that can convey the idea of multiple natures within a class that is unique from our present concept of plurality. For as it stands, we have no way to define what a plurality of different natures within the same class means. And if we cannot define what we mean, we have no objective way to consider the diversity of natures in multiple-nature classes.
We would, for example, have to create a way to generalize without the need to classify each member of multiple nature classes by a different name. A classification system that could do that is difficult to imagine. Some multiple nature classes, like humanities, include numerous different natures. In effect, until we can create a language system that can generalize without sacrificing the unique qualities of each nature within multiple nature classes, an additional system of logical laws is required to fill the gap between our present system of logic and our expanding understanding of nature.
I would also argue that logic is a prerequisite of language. We have to think something before we can describe it. This, again, supports my case that new rules of logic are required to encompass the new facts of nature that science is unveiling.
There will be many who will resist the idea that there are hidden dimensions of reality. This resistance has little basis except habit. As our life evolves, we experience, even if we don't recognize it, new dimensions of reality almost daily. In adolescence, for example, we thought that the world revolved around us. However, as adults, we have learned that this wasn't true. What makes us think that our present experience as adults includes every dimension of reality?
Evidently Gnostic Christians encountered much resistance to their teachings about the wisdom of a higher logic/logos. "The Valentinians explain (1Cor 1:18) that the 'logos of the cross', the secret doctrine that reveals how the cross symbolizes Sophia's (wisdoms) [logic's] fall and restoration-seems only foolish to those who are perishing; that is to psychics [those of us in Stages II and III of consciousness]… Yet the psychics who regard the divine logos [unconditional logic] as 'foolishness' only show how foolish they are themselves. Paul explained in Rm 1:25 that the psychics have 'become fools', dominated by [Gnostic Christians who understand unconditional logic], the foolish demiurge, [meaning foolish ideas about the nature of God, they] vowed to 'destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of those who understand' (1:19). [Gnostic Christians] The 'wise', the pneumatics, [Gnostic Christians in Stage IV who understand the wisdom of higher logic], have no place in the present age: for them the 'wisdom [logic] of this age', … is itself mere foolishness (1:20)." (22A)
I ask you to do an experiment with me. It can give you the experience of what I call the hidden, nonjudgmental dimension of reality.
A void is created in our ability to understand when we cannot judge something. Nonjudgmental logic can fill that void.
The following is my attempt to explain nonjudgmental logic. Much license must be granted me because I am trying to explain nonjudgmental logic in the context of traditional logic, which is inherently contradictory to it.
The Three Basic Laws of Nonjudgmental Logic
The three new laws of logic I propose are:
Note: The laws I propose may appear to suggest that every action or choice is of equal value. This is not true. Nonjudgmental logic rests on the ecological principle that life affirms life. Therefore, only life-affirming acts are judged to be natural, moral and acceptable. Dr. Albert Schweitzer characterized morality in this way, "the fundamental principle of morality … [is] that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." (23)
The law of diversity states that members of a class with multiple natures need not be identical. In symbolic terms, this means that in multiple nature classes, class A, for example, can be A or B or C, depending upon how many members/natures are in the class.
The law of diversity draws our attention to the fact that there are classes whose members within that class have different natures, and therefore may not be said to be identical to one another. For example, according to the law of identity, all human beings have nature A. According to the law of diversity, however, some humans have nature A, while others have B, C, or D. People are different, and honoring that difference would lead to tolerance, and ultimately unconditional acceptance and love.
Remember that the law of identity-X is X-leads to prejudicial generalizations based on the "fact" that all humans are by nature identical. We can then understand that the law of diversity leads to unconditional acceptance of others because it is based on the principle that some classes, here humanity, have more than one nature, which in turn, justifies reasoning that many human natures are natural.
Understanding that diversity is natural calls into question the concept of generalizing about all classes, and in turn, prejudice itself. Prejudice arises when we improperly apply the law of identity and make generalizations about our country, our race, our religion, and "them." If, however, we apply the law of diversity to multiple nature classes, like humanity, we would accept each person for who they are, rather than on the basis of generalizations about the nature of humanity. In practice, we would understand that bigotry of any type is illogical and evidence of immature reasoning. Imagine Hitler trying to sell his bigotry to an audience that judged everyone by their merits rather than generalizations about race. Hitler would have been treated like the disturbed child that he was, not like a hero-figure worthy of being followed. And the same goes for racists, religious fanatics, political extremists, and all who would force their opinion on others.
The point is that prejudice flourishes under the law of identity, but pales when exposed to the light of reason emanating from the law of diversity. Simply said, the law of diversity teaches not only acceptance of difference, but logical, and therefore, genuine respect for difference. In the everyday world, the law of diversity would cleanse the heart and mind of prejudicial reasoning, because it teaches us that prejudice is the consequence of reasoning according to the law of identity, when it is appropriate to use the law of diversity.
The Law of Diversity
and Science
We must not overlook
the benefits the law of diversity has for science. Data from Einsteinian physics
and quantum mechanics cannot be understood within our present system of logic,
but could be understood in the context of the law of diversity and language
based on that law. Einsteinian and quantum data demonstrate that some classes
like time, light, and mass have more than one nature. This is contradictory
to the law of identity because it is based on the prevailing principle that
every class has a single nature.
The law of diversity, however, recognizes that some classes, like light, can have more than one nature. Recognizing this coincides with what Einsteinian and quantum physics demonstrate-namely that some classes have more than one nature. In practice, then, the law of diversity not only teaches us that bigotry is irrational, it provides us with a new logical context in which we can understand the new sciences, and perhaps even sciences that we have not yet imagined. Could what we now call the paranormal be one of these unknown sciences?
Expanding Language
Through the Law of Diversity
The law of diversity
lays the foundation for a new way to understand pluralities. When the law of
identity is applied to single nature classes, a plurality is understood as two
or more members of a class that have the same nature. In other words, the plural
form of X is XX or XXX…
When we apply the law of diversity to classes that have more than one nature, however, we can understand that a plurality in these classes can refer to two or more members that do have the same nature, as well as two or more members that have different natures. Here the plural form of X can be XXX, as well as XYZ.
This may be confusing, and rightly so. Our language now has no way to differentiate between single and multiple nature classes. We could, however, indicate that we are considering multiple nature classes by adding the capital letter S to terms that represent these classes, like lightS, timeS, humanS, and even pluralityS.
In practice, adding a capital S to multiple nature classes recognizes that terms like maleS, femaleS, whiteS, blackS, redS and yellowS apply to all human beings, not as the law of identity states that the word "human" applies to only those of us who share the same gender or racial characteristics.
Free Will Through
the Law of Diversity
The law of diversity
is the key to free will because it justifies as many rational alternatives in
multiple nature classes as there are natures in those classes. Empowering us
to freely choose between rational alternatives, the law of diversity can be
considered imperative to our exercise of free will.
In practice, when we apply the law of diversity to multiple nature classeS, like raceS and religionS, we would be able to choose between rational alternatives. For multiple nature classes have as many rational definitions as they have natures. The best politicsS, then, could be pure communism, democracy, monarchy, and anarchy.
And here is the best part. When we recognize multiple nature classes, we recognize that our choice is one of many rational alternatives, not the only correct one. In effect, the concept that only one description best fits the nature of the whole class will no longer justify those who reason that their race, religion or politics is superior to all others or that their reasoning is absolutely the best, and therefore, appropriate for everyone. Such reasoning will be considered illogical, pretentious, arrogant, ignorant, and dangerous.
The law of diversity, in principle, then, can be considered the gate to free will, being truly open and sincerely respectful of the truths of others. We will understand, in mind and spirit, and therefore own, what Neils Bohr, the physicist, discovered, namely that "the opposite of a most profound truth may well be another most profound truth." (24)
The law of complementarity, my term, states that members within a class with multiple natures may be different. In symbolic terms this means that A may be both A and non-A at the same time.
The law of complementarity would make it explicit that when classes are made up of members who are different, yet are members of the same class, it would be logically incorrect to assert that this class has either one nature or another. Rather, it would be logical to assert that the class consists of both nature A and nature non-A. For example, since males and females make up the class of humans, it would be illogical to assert that either one or the other exemplifies the class. It would be logical, however, to assert that both males and females exemplify humanity. The law of non-contradiction could no longer be used to justify dualistic either/or rationalizations if the law of complementarity was employed when considering multiple nature classes. Justified by the law of complementarity, relating ideas in terms of both/and would be the logical option.
When applied, the law of complementarity would make it logical to relate to others in terms of both/and, oneness, and I/thou. This new law would create the additional logical context in which we could rationally comprehend our inter-connectedness, as well as the discoveries in the new sciences, such as light being both a wave and a particle.
Spirituality
through the Law of Complementarity
In the first century,
"Holy" meant complete or perfected. Spirit, from the Greek word soul,
meant the "conscious self." (25) Together holy and spirit can refer
to those who have achieved psychological perfection. In first century Greek,
Holy Spirit refers to those who have rediscovered their capacity to reason like
the gods. For our destiny as rational beings was, in classical Greek philosophy,
to "make contact with divine reason, and like God, discern ultimate truths."
(26)
In metaphorical terms, using both/and, or nonjudgmental, logic elevates our capacity to reason to Godly levels. In this higher state of consciousness we will comprehend that life in us is both unique to us and, at the same time, shared with all others. Through nonjudgmental logic, we can understand that just as lightS is a multiple nature class, and therefore, both wave and particle, the lifeS we share makes us both individuals and one with all others.
The law of complementarity, then, can renew the mind in such a way that we could access our potentials to perceive ourselves, others and the world as one. Oneness, in this sense, is more than acceptance of others. It is our total absorption into others. It is total empathy, compassion, joy, respect, and pride in both others and ourselves in others. As mystics say, we are all one poured into different cups.
I believe the Ten Profound Theories in the Buddhist Doctrine of the World of Totalistic Harmony, Mutually Relating and Penetrating recognize oneness through both/and reasoning. For example, 1- The Profound Theory of Correlation teaches that "all things co-exist, simultaneously arising. They co-exist, furthermore, not only in relation to space, but also in relation to time; for past, present, and future, include each other. 'Distinct as they are, and separate as they seem to be in time, all beings are united to make one entity-from the universal point of view'. 2- The Profound Theory of Perfect Freedom according to which all beings, great and small, commune with one another without obstruction; so that the power of each partakes of that of all and so is limitless. 'Even in a hare there are innumerable golden lions'. One act, however small, includes all acts…. (5) The profound theory of complementary, according to which both the hidden and the manifest constitute the whole by mutual reinforcement. 'If one is inside, the other will be outside, or vice versa'. By complementary they constitute a unit…. (10) The profound theory of completion of common virtue, according to which a leader and his following, the chief and his retinue, work together harmoniously and brightly; for, 'according to the one-in-all and the all-in-one principle, they really form one complete whole'." (27)
In a consciousness of oneness the walls of separation built by either/or reasoning will disappear. In this consciousness we will know that by enhancing others and the world, we are enhancing ourselves. We will recognize ourselves in others, and therefore treat them like ourselves. We will no longer rationalize the suffering of others for we will suffer with them. As Buddhists say, "there is no other." The concept of separation is a delusion created by either/or reasoning. Both/and reasoning, based on the law of complementarity, is the key to recognizing that we are one. In John, 17:21-22, Jesus prays, "Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me, and I am in you,… I have given them the [way to the] glory you gave to me, that they may be one, as we are one." In Eph 4:26 Paul says, "we are all parts of one another." The idea of "doing on earth as it is in heaven" is truly possible when we see ourselves in others-oneness. (See 1Cor 12:12)
In the consciousness of oneness, we will be in mind, body and spirit, one with the all. We will no longer divide the world into spiritual or rational domains. Spiritual is rational when we reason in terms of both/and. This is living the Golden Rule; this is nonjudgmental logic.
In a consciousness of oneness, we will reach our highest potential. Psychic phenomena, the strength of a mother to lift a truck to save her child, the presence of an observer interrupting cause and effect, and perhaps those first moments when Peter walked across water towards Jesus (Matt 14:29, 30) are examples of some of the potentials of fully developed human beings. We can even imagine that ancient Egyptians were in a consciousness of oneness with nature, which empowered them, through their thoughts, to move the stones they used to build pyramids. We need to rethink the idea of "paranormal" in terms that it is little more than using nonjudgmental logic without being consciously aware of it.
I believe the greatest gift of the new sciences is that they demonstrate that what has been considered paranormal, can now be considered thought-determined. The whole idea that reality is a consequence of external cause and effect is questionable. Science demonstrates that reality can be influenced by simply being observed. I believe this is what Bishop John Shelby Spong referred to when he said "in sub-atomic physics; predictability [cause and effect] was battered, and the mechanical world of Newton opened to such things as the impact of the observer and the recognition of an inter-relatedness in all life." (28) From this it follows that if our thoughts can influence the chain of cause and effect events that we call reality, we can imagine that our thoughts have the potential to determine all of reality. I believe the law of complementarity empowers us to understand, and therefore develop, those potentials.
In a consciousness of oneness, we can access our potentials to create the nature of reality as we experience it. To keep this in perspective, we can imagine that we have begun already to affect reality. When, for example, pain leaves us after we take what we think is medicine, but is in fact a placebo, we can understand that our thoughts, rather than the medicine, affected our cure. The same thing holds true for modern technology that depends on mathematics that includes negative numbers. Can a number that is less than nothing substantiate our technology? Or have we, through our thoughts, affected the outcome of technology by creating the negative numbers technology requires? Beliefs, positive thinking, prayers and meditation are also known to profoundly affect our everyday lives and experiences. So, our thoughts do play a role in the creation of our reality. Nonjudgmental logic gives us a practical way to understand how we can create our reality on a daily basis.
Some may ask, "But how could our thoughts be considered the creative force behind reality if two individuals decided to affect reality in contradictory ways?" My answer is that we have both a personal mind and oneness of mind. Here the potential to affect our reality comes from our personal mind. The potential to affect that part of reality we have in common comes from our oneness of mind. This supports what new thought teachers affirm, that both individuality and universal oneness are irreducible principles.
Language Benefits
with the Law of Complementarity
The law of complementarity
also provides the means to communicate in more loving ways. Historically, for
example, we had no way to refer to others as being one with us, or as Buber
says, in I/THOU relationships with us. When using the law of complementarity,
however, I/THOU relationships become the norm, for this law justifies reasoning
in terms of oneness.
In I/Thou relationships, it is by focusing primarily on the relationship and relating one to another that we can transcend our sense of self as I and other as IT. An example of this experience occurs in deep and genuine loving when the lover becomes one with the beloved, and the beloved becomes one with the lover.
The I of the I/It relationships, on the other hand, experiences the other as an object separate from itself. In such an experience, a loving relationship becomes impossible. For the very awareness of the other as other, makes a relationship of unconditional love with another impossible.
Buber's "I/Thou" relationship emphasizes the sense of oneness that we experience when we relate to another as part of a whole which includes us. "I/It," on the other hand, signals a relationship of opposition in which the self is aware of its difference, and in this sense, the otherness and the alienation from the other. Only in the first relationship do we genuinely "meet"; only then can we genuinely express and experience the oneness of unconditional love. This consciousness would be normal and spontaneous if we used the law of complementarity. When people say, "no one is free until every one is free," they are placing themselves in I/Thou relationships with others. This makes the freedom and well being of others inseparable from their own.
3.
Law of Included Middle
The law of included
middle states that members of a class with multiple natures may not only be
one thing or another, they can also be things in between. Symbolically, the
law of included middle states that A can be both A, non-A, and things in between.
The law of included middle provides an alternative to relating all ideas in hierarchies. According to the law of excluded middle, there can only be one nature per class that best fits everyone. In effect, members of a class possessing a higher degree of that nature would be considered superior to those members possessing less.
According to the law of included middle, however, the very concepts of superiority versus inferiority, better versus worse, and every other hierarchical relationship between members within a class with multiple natures, would give way to equality and inclusiveness. For, there could be as many variations within multiple nature classes as there are natures.
In a world based on the law of included middle, we would no longer be judged according to one standard of the "perfect" man, woman, color, sexual orientation, or I.Q. We would be appreciated on the basis of our own nature. For example, according to the law of included middle, beauty would not be limited to certain shapes, looks, or color. In practice, then, there would be no such thing as an ugly human being. The ideas of too fat, too tall, too black, too dumb, too this and that and every other thing, would no longer exist. We would be appreciated for who we are, not judged by standards that do not exemplify our nature.
The law of included middle, then, has the potential to transform our concept that difference is a problem into the idea that difference is simply difference.
Humility, brotherhood, love, and sharing are the emotional expressions of accepting difference as natural. The transformative power of the law of included middle could produce a new rationality in which difference would be honored, not feared.
The law of included middle empowers us to rationally celebrate our differences and marvel in the uniqueness that is both our neighbors' and ours. In such a world, appreciation of difference would become a source of delight. When we adopt a reasoning which can accept others in their difference, and ultimately for their difference, we will have come a long way in treating one another with love.
Copyright © February 2, 2001, William C. Kiefert