Learn more about The Practical Side of Heaven
Copyright William C. Kiefert. All Rights Reserved.
Chapter Two, Part Nine: Four Reasons Why An Additional System of Logical Laws is Required
In opposition to those who would claim that the findings of the new sciences do not bring to mind any object or idea that cannot be understood in the context/consciousness of traditional logic, I offer the following.
First, let me argue that Plato never intended his theory of contradiction to be used as a standard of logic. He used this theory to justify his claim that the soul* (which, to him, meant our psychological self) consisted of three elements that correspond to the reasoning mind, intuitive mind, and a discerning self he called “the child of the good.” which mediates between the first two. His use of the Theory of Noncontradiction was to prove the existence of a discerning self or in contemporary terms, an inner or ego self. By demonstrating that we have both a rational and intuitive understanding about an experience, by necessity a power higher than either is required to mediate between the two. More simply stated, just as elements are by definition only that element, similarly the reasoning mind can only reason and the intuitive mind can only intuit. Therefore, neither has the ability, within itself, to comprehend the other. By necessity, then, it takes a discerning or god-self that can hold both rational and intuitive thoughts in mind at the same time to mediate between the two.
In effect, Plato’s Theory of Noncontradiction is the criteria upon which he justifies reason and intuition as different elements of consciousness, and in turn that, by necessity, there is a third element in the soul or psychological self that is superior to both—the child of the good, meaning divine presence within.
My point is that even though it would seem that Plato’s Theory of Noncontradiction excludes the possibility of the same attribute, both being and not being, in the same relations of time and circumstance, the same thing—this is patently false. To the contrary, what his theory establishes is that there is a discerning self, or as Plato says, “child of the good,” who mediates between the rational “and” the intuitive elements of consciousness.
Second, one could argue that if any one thing appeared to have more than one attribute at the same time, we could carefully reduce those attributes into separate classes, then address each class with existing laws of logic.
I do not argue against this. I want to expand on it. I propose that when we first observe a class that appears to have more than one attribute/nature, we have two options of how to understand what we see. We can accept, say in the case of light, that light is a class that has two attributes, both wave and particle at the same time—which, of course, sounds absurd. Or we can say that light is reducible into two classes, either wave or particle, which agrees with logic.
The question is, if light is a class that has more than one nature, would it be logical to think we are considering light in the same way, and in the same relation, if we considered it in terms of being either a wave or a particle, depending upon particular circumstances? Clearly not. Our understanding of Plato’s Theory of Noncontradiction excludes the possibility that classes with “more” than one nature can be judged by the same logic we use to judge classes that have “one” nature. This is like judging apples by oranges.
Some might claim that if we reduced every object or idea to their basic elements, we could then consider each element separately according to our present system of logic. But how could this explain that a person traveling at half the speed of light can entertain, at the same time, that time was elapsing at different rates for himself and someone moving at a different speed. Clearly his idea of time consists of two different times elapsing at different rates at the same time. This clearly refutes the reductionist’s claim.
I propose the obvious, we need to expand our present system of logic so it can encompass both single and multiple nature classes. Then, and only then, will we be truly equipped to explore every potential of both the rational and what is now considered the irrational dimensions of reality. Doing this, we will be using all of our mental potentials. This equates to being fully human, or in spiritual terms, enlightened.
Third, for those who would still argue that our present logic is sufficient if carefully applied, I would ask them how would they correlate classes that exhibit more than one attribute with 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 humanity, include billions of 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.
Fourth, I would also argue that because logic is a prerequisite to language, we have to understand what something is before we can describe it. The problem of not being able to express what we feel, exemplifies that traditional logic does not provide a way to understand all of reality. If it did, we would not so often be at a loss for words to explain ourselves. This, too, supports my case that additional rules of logic are, by necessity, required.
How many times has it been said that ‘I can’t tell you how much I love you’ or ‘words cannot convey what I mean’. The inability of language to convey these thoughts can be seen as the inadequacy of logic to fully describe reality. This also supports my case that new rules of logic are required if we hope to comprehend all that nature offers.
There will be many who will resist the idea that there are dimensions of reality our present logic cannot explain. 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 know this is not true. What now makes us think that what we think as adults includes every dimension of reality?
In summary, those who think that our present system of logic is sufficient fail to grasp that our present system of logic does not encompass all of reality. For example, they are denying that Physicists like Christopher Monroe, are seeing what they are seeing. I propose we accept the new facts science is demonstrating and use the either/or limits of traditional logic in Newtonian science, but consider it inappropriate to use in social affairs and to understand the new physics.