Learn more about The Practical Side of Heaven
Copyright William C. Kiefert. All Rights Reserved.
The Practical Side of Heaven: Chapter Two, Part Sixteen: The Three Basic Laws of Nonjudgmental Logic
The three new laws of logic I propose are
Note: Nonjudgmental laws of logic may appear to suggest that every action or choice is of equal value. This is not true. Nonjudgmental laws of logic do not condone relativism, they recognize only as many truths per class as there are natures within that class.
Nonjudgmental logic also 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.”
The Law of Diversity
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 empowers us to rationally choose to celebrate our differences and marvel in the uniqueness which is both ours and our neighbors. 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. Then, we will have moved closer to making heaven a practical reality for ourselves as individuals, for our nation, and for the world.
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.”
The Law of Complementarity
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.
According to the Law of Non-contradiction, for example, a person was either judged a patriot, or a dissenter: for the nature of patriotism, according to Plato’s theory, has no place in it for dissension. In the context of the Law of Complementarity, however, a dissenter can be judged both a patriot and dissenter. According to the Law of Non-contradiction, patriotism would be a class with multiple natures, and therefore, both constructive dissension, as well as rallying behind the flag, could be considered patriotic. The point is that the Law of Complementarity makes it logical to think in terms of both/and, which makes both a dissenter and a patriot good citizens.
In the new physics, we find it necessary to accept emerging facts even though they seem paradoxical and contradictory. Nonjudgmental logic can help us understand some of those problems of inconsistency. These laws expand our definition of logical to include both/and reasoning when classes with multiple natures are involved. In practice, the Law of Complementarity creates a context in which we can understand the newly emerging facts in the context of a logic that is naturally compatible with those facts. For example, the Law of Complementarity creates a logical context in which we can understand that light is both a wave and a particle. If the rational temperament of the mind were expanded by the Law of Complementarity, then both/and reasoning would inevitably expand our perception of what is reasonable and what is not. We could leave the confusion that physics flounders in through both/and reasoning—and move into dimensions of reality we now think of as science fiction.
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.” 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.”
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’.”
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 might also suspect that abstract ideas, like the beauty of a rose and the awe of a sunrise, may be nature’s way of talking to us. It is said that Aborigines talk to animals and the woods. Could it be that we, too, could communicate with nature through her abstract qualities of beauty and awe?
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.” 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.
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.