Another View of Suffering
Imagine you are hungry, wet, cold and frightened. Would this be conducive to developing your creativity? If this were a chronic condition, would it be helpful to your well-being? This is basic raw suffering. There are other forms less noticeable and to some extent most of us suffer from hunger of the spirit, walled up, our real feelings hidden from us. We suffer from the threat of dislocation and displacement. If we do not control the means whereby we gain or have access to that which we need to prevent us from being wet, cold, hungry or frightened we suffer and by extension so does our humanity.
This is its meaning. And only when we allow ourselves to finally fix this view of suffering in our imagination will we all begin to wake up to our responsibility of ending it- here and now on earth, in this life. There is no waiting for the glorious, perfect eternal afterlife; eternal life is now. Its glory shines forth everywhere. But is a obscured by the opaqueness of our fears and abysmal ignorance.
We sleep walk through life, unseeing, not knowing our vast, infinite power and beauty. Not to know this is to be ignorant and abysmally so and so, we feel we have no other option but to accept a view of ourselves that infinitely degrades us to make sense of the suffering and in so doing we learn to tolerate the suffering, to renew it, even cultivate it, to suffer all that we cause, wars, poverty, various disease, and ugliness.
Imagine you are well fed, dry, warm, content and not frightened. What would it take to extend that to everyone?
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Logic and Dialogic Part I: A Brief Sketch
This was the most difficult post for me to write and it will, no doubt, be the most difficult to read; I wanted to stay away from what might appear to be an overly abstract and abstruse blog. But, I do feel that this post is my most important to date. It is ultimately about language and while it might sound trivial and obvious to point out that language is critical if we want to understand one another, it's much less obvious or trivial that to understand anything, we first need to understand language and that inevitably brings me to "logic" and how that relates to what I call the "dialogic" and finally to dialogue.
I very much wish that what follows could be easy to express and to understand, a simple yes or no; this or that; what is real and what is not; the truth from what is not. I'm afraid, it is not. At the very least, if you want to understand how I think and what I mean by what I say, then you're going to have to pay close attention to my words and to use a little more grey matter then you might want to. But I assure you, it won't hurt you and you'll feel better for the effort. My views, while actually are not original, are difficult to grasp mainly because we tend take "words" so much for granted.
Let me pause here to express a caveat: I do not have a corner on the "truth"; my views are personal and not privileged and I make no claim to knowing what is really real behind it all. But I do make a bold claim that no one else is privy to that truth either. I welcome questions, earnest respectful commentary. I urge all who happen to read what I write or what I say and who really care to help me complete the search for who I am; to discover my humanity. And I need others to do this contrary to what my culture seems to view. I also firmly believe each and every other human being does too.
Logic
The word logic comes from the ancient Greek word, logos, which can be translated as "speaking", "reason", "meaning", "thinking", "perception" and so forth. But the most basic and direct translation is "word". Logic actually seems to derive from how we use words or in other words how we use language, how we speak, concerning the nature of the world including, of course, ourselves. From this astonishing humble beginning we now view logic as the method of "correct thinking"(1) allowing us to distinguish or determine the so-called "false" from the "true". Strictly speaking it doesn't do this. Rather logic systems, classical and non-classical are concerned with "valid" ways of reasoning about things. Of course, this process of validation is based on an unquestioned view of being or reality which is binary in nature: that reality is bifurcated or split into an exclusive is and an is-not or that-which-is-so from that-which-is-not-so; the case from that which is not-the-case and so forth. From these exclusive categories is derived the famous Law of Contradiction that if something is A it cannot, at the same time, be not-A or non-A. This view is so deeply ingrained in our cognitive processing and universally enshrined in many of our cultures especially in the developed industrialized parts of the world that we simply take it for a fundamental "truth". But it isn't; it's a metaphysical view or assumption. Furthermore, the assumption is that if we knew the truth, logic would validate it for others and, indeed, everyone. And this is how I understand the basic nature of logic: a highly specialized and developed method or methods to reason or "speak" with one another or with ourselves in order to validate the "truth" or what is real. The problem is that we can't use logic in any form to ascertain the nature of this truth or, in other words, we can't use logic to understand reality at all. Technically, logic systems are completely circular and self-referential; they are sub-languages, so to speak that enable us to communicate more effectively with one another in general or in specific areas.
See, I warned you, this is not going to be easy. Please stand up, stretch and breathe. And remember these are my views; if anything seems amiss or doesn't make sense they probably don't because I haven't completely defined some key words which only goes to prove that I need your help to complete my understanding. Understand?....which brings me naturally to dialogic.
But, at this point I need to make an important clarification and disclosure. I'm not in anyway rejecting any form of logic. They are useful in our attempts to clarify and communicate more effectively. Furthermore, it is impossible for me to use the English language in it's present form without breaking up "reality" into what-is-so from what-is-not-so. But knowing that I'm, in fact, compelled to do this, allows me a special kind of freedom, a freedom to engage in what I term dialogical thought within myself and with others.
The most fundamental assumption behind dialogic and even more so for dialogue is my need for others to complete my understanding. In other words, for thought or thinking to unfold, without getting stuck in dysfunctional or dangerous directions, requires that I and other people must work together using words to come to understanding. We may not completely agree in our private views; but "our understanding" is a public work-in-progress allowing us to live and work together despite our differences.
Dialogic
The key to dialogic is the prefix dia which, again, comes from the Greek and can be translated as "through", "between", "across".(2) Unlike logic it is inclusive: the apparent dual aspect of reality I mentioned above is viewed in completely polar terms; "yes" goes with "no"; "in" goes with "out"; "false" goes with "true"; "is" with "is-not" and so forth. The dia- prefix indicates an indissoluble connection between these polar terms and expresses the relationship they represent. A goes with not-A and, for example, to be A, unlike in logic, does not and cannot exclude the not-A. In a paradoxical sense, A can and does simultaneously exist with not-A. The meaning of this paradox is what is important and leads us into dialogue.
I would like to further distinguish logic from what I call dialogic by way of interesting and perhaps amusing illustrations. I'm going to use a logical form called a "syllogism". Don't worry. You don't have to use much grey matter to understand it.
Every man is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
This famous syllogism illustrates sound, valid reasoning and concludes with a true statement. "Socrates is mortal". But, of course, we already knew that. Here's another one:
Every oyster is an animal.
Every human being is an oyster.
Therefore every human being is an animal.
The conclusion: "Therefore every human being is an animal" is true enough. But the reasoning leading to this conclusion is invalid because the middle premise is not true. So faulty or bad reasoning can lead to so-called true conclusions. Interesting, isn't it?
Let's inspect another:
Every man is a liar.
Every human male is a man.
Therefore every male human being is a liar.
The conclusion is clearly not true, although, some people may argue with me on this one. But the interesting thing about this syllogism is the fact that it is formally valid, the reasoning is "sound" deductively speaking. But the conclusion is at the very least questionable. In fact, the conclusion merely restates the first premise.
Finally, here is a syllogism that I found in a logic textbook from which I derived one of the syllogisms above:
Every oyster is a vertebrate.
But every clam is an oyster.
Therefore every clam is a vertebrate. (3)
Again, the reasoning is formally sound and valid, but the conclusion, if you know anything about basic zoology is false. And, once again, the conclusion merely restates the first premise which is zoologically false. However, let's rewrite this syllogism in a dialogical way and see what happens:
Every oyster is not a vertebrate; but the existence of every oyster goes with the existence of everything that is not an oyster; to be an oyster is also to be a clam; everything that is not an oyster includes being a clam and a vertebrate; therefore to be a clam is included in being a vertebrate and this does make sense in a way. The key to see this is to pay attention to the inclusive goes-with.
Everything outside the existence of an oyster is dialogically included in the existence of being an oyster and this includes being vertebrates. The term "oyster" is included in the term "clam"; an oyster is a variety of clam and therefore is a clam. Strictly speaking, of course, we can't say that a clam is an oyster; only in the broadest sense possible. But this consideration does not make the original syllogism an invalid form of reasoning and that's the whole point.
As you can see, logic cannot pre-determine the "truth" of the premises or propositions it uses in coming to conclusion about the nature of reality, even when those conclusions are considered to be true. True being is undetermined. All it can actually do is restate a representation( linguistic in this case), a proposition or statement we already accept as true. This is fine as a form of communication up a to a point; nothing new is added, of course. But we communicate not necessarily to add to knowledge but to connect and to reinforce and stabilize that connection.
Dialogic completely accepts the nature of logic as formal communication and includes it in order to bring us closer to understanding the nature of what is real. And this must bring us inevitably and inexorably closer to the logos itself, language, and this in turn brings me to dialogue. But this can wait for another time.
Notes:
1- Fundamentals of Logic, Daniel J. Sullivan, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York, c. 1963
2- Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, c. 1966
3- Fundamentals of Logic.
This was the most difficult post for me to write and it will, no doubt, be the most difficult to read; I wanted to stay away from what might appear to be an overly abstract and abstruse blog. But, I do feel that this post is my most important to date. It is ultimately about language and while it might sound trivial and obvious to point out that language is critical if we want to understand one another, it's much less obvious or trivial that to understand anything, we first need to understand language and that inevitably brings me to "logic" and how that relates to what I call the "dialogic" and finally to dialogue.
I very much wish that what follows could be easy to express and to understand, a simple yes or no; this or that; what is real and what is not; the truth from what is not. I'm afraid, it is not. At the very least, if you want to understand how I think and what I mean by what I say, then you're going to have to pay close attention to my words and to use a little more grey matter then you might want to. But I assure you, it won't hurt you and you'll feel better for the effort. My views, while actually are not original, are difficult to grasp mainly because we tend take "words" so much for granted.
Let me pause here to express a caveat: I do not have a corner on the "truth"; my views are personal and not privileged and I make no claim to knowing what is really real behind it all. But I do make a bold claim that no one else is privy to that truth either. I welcome questions, earnest respectful commentary. I urge all who happen to read what I write or what I say and who really care to help me complete the search for who I am; to discover my humanity. And I need others to do this contrary to what my culture seems to view. I also firmly believe each and every other human being does too.
Logic
The word logic comes from the ancient Greek word, logos, which can be translated as "speaking", "reason", "meaning", "thinking", "perception" and so forth. But the most basic and direct translation is "word". Logic actually seems to derive from how we use words or in other words how we use language, how we speak, concerning the nature of the world including, of course, ourselves. From this astonishing humble beginning we now view logic as the method of "correct thinking"(1) allowing us to distinguish or determine the so-called "false" from the "true". Strictly speaking it doesn't do this. Rather logic systems, classical and non-classical are concerned with "valid" ways of reasoning about things. Of course, this process of validation is based on an unquestioned view of being or reality which is binary in nature: that reality is bifurcated or split into an exclusive is and an is-not or that-which-is-so from that-which-is-not-so; the case from that which is not-the-case and so forth. From these exclusive categories is derived the famous Law of Contradiction that if something is A it cannot, at the same time, be not-A or non-A. This view is so deeply ingrained in our cognitive processing and universally enshrined in many of our cultures especially in the developed industrialized parts of the world that we simply take it for a fundamental "truth". But it isn't; it's a metaphysical view or assumption. Furthermore, the assumption is that if we knew the truth, logic would validate it for others and, indeed, everyone. And this is how I understand the basic nature of logic: a highly specialized and developed method or methods to reason or "speak" with one another or with ourselves in order to validate the "truth" or what is real. The problem is that we can't use logic in any form to ascertain the nature of this truth or, in other words, we can't use logic to understand reality at all. Technically, logic systems are completely circular and self-referential; they are sub-languages, so to speak that enable us to communicate more effectively with one another in general or in specific areas.
See, I warned you, this is not going to be easy. Please stand up, stretch and breathe. And remember these are my views; if anything seems amiss or doesn't make sense they probably don't because I haven't completely defined some key words which only goes to prove that I need your help to complete my understanding. Understand?....which brings me naturally to dialogic.
But, at this point I need to make an important clarification and disclosure. I'm not in anyway rejecting any form of logic. They are useful in our attempts to clarify and communicate more effectively. Furthermore, it is impossible for me to use the English language in it's present form without breaking up "reality" into what-is-so from what-is-not-so. But knowing that I'm, in fact, compelled to do this, allows me a special kind of freedom, a freedom to engage in what I term dialogical thought within myself and with others.
The most fundamental assumption behind dialogic and even more so for dialogue is my need for others to complete my understanding. In other words, for thought or thinking to unfold, without getting stuck in dysfunctional or dangerous directions, requires that I and other people must work together using words to come to understanding. We may not completely agree in our private views; but "our understanding" is a public work-in-progress allowing us to live and work together despite our differences.
Dialogic
The key to dialogic is the prefix dia which, again, comes from the Greek and can be translated as "through", "between", "across".(2) Unlike logic it is inclusive: the apparent dual aspect of reality I mentioned above is viewed in completely polar terms; "yes" goes with "no"; "in" goes with "out"; "false" goes with "true"; "is" with "is-not" and so forth. The dia- prefix indicates an indissoluble connection between these polar terms and expresses the relationship they represent. A goes with not-A and, for example, to be A, unlike in logic, does not and cannot exclude the not-A. In a paradoxical sense, A can and does simultaneously exist with not-A. The meaning of this paradox is what is important and leads us into dialogue.
I would like to further distinguish logic from what I call dialogic by way of interesting and perhaps amusing illustrations. I'm going to use a logical form called a "syllogism". Don't worry. You don't have to use much grey matter to understand it.
Every man is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
This famous syllogism illustrates sound, valid reasoning and concludes with a true statement. "Socrates is mortal". But, of course, we already knew that. Here's another one:
Every oyster is an animal.
Every human being is an oyster.
Therefore every human being is an animal.
The conclusion: "Therefore every human being is an animal" is true enough. But the reasoning leading to this conclusion is invalid because the middle premise is not true. So faulty or bad reasoning can lead to so-called true conclusions. Interesting, isn't it?
Let's inspect another:
Every man is a liar.
Every human male is a man.
Therefore every male human being is a liar.
The conclusion is clearly not true, although, some people may argue with me on this one. But the interesting thing about this syllogism is the fact that it is formally valid, the reasoning is "sound" deductively speaking. But the conclusion is at the very least questionable. In fact, the conclusion merely restates the first premise.
Finally, here is a syllogism that I found in a logic textbook from which I derived one of the syllogisms above:
Every oyster is a vertebrate.
But every clam is an oyster.
Therefore every clam is a vertebrate. (3)
Again, the reasoning is formally sound and valid, but the conclusion, if you know anything about basic zoology is false. And, once again, the conclusion merely restates the first premise which is zoologically false. However, let's rewrite this syllogism in a dialogical way and see what happens:
Every oyster is not a vertebrate; but the existence of every oyster goes with the existence of everything that is not an oyster; to be an oyster is also to be a clam; everything that is not an oyster includes being a clam and a vertebrate; therefore to be a clam is included in being a vertebrate and this does make sense in a way. The key to see this is to pay attention to the inclusive goes-with.
Everything outside the existence of an oyster is dialogically included in the existence of being an oyster and this includes being vertebrates. The term "oyster" is included in the term "clam"; an oyster is a variety of clam and therefore is a clam. Strictly speaking, of course, we can't say that a clam is an oyster; only in the broadest sense possible. But this consideration does not make the original syllogism an invalid form of reasoning and that's the whole point.
As you can see, logic cannot pre-determine the "truth" of the premises or propositions it uses in coming to conclusion about the nature of reality, even when those conclusions are considered to be true. True being is undetermined. All it can actually do is restate a representation( linguistic in this case), a proposition or statement we already accept as true. This is fine as a form of communication up a to a point; nothing new is added, of course. But we communicate not necessarily to add to knowledge but to connect and to reinforce and stabilize that connection.
Dialogic completely accepts the nature of logic as formal communication and includes it in order to bring us closer to understanding the nature of what is real. And this must bring us inevitably and inexorably closer to the logos itself, language, and this in turn brings me to dialogue. But this can wait for another time.
Notes:
1- Fundamentals of Logic, Daniel J. Sullivan, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York, c. 1963
2- Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, c. 1966
3- Fundamentals of Logic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
