As I explored the realm of human knowledge I encountered the writings of Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski noted that the tool of everyday logic we use is flawed and inadequate due to the assumptions it requires. Yet that collective tool is our most important and powerful mental set of tools we possess. To think, to analyze, the act of comprehension, all of this is done through the use of that most primal and foundational tool. That tool or system can be labeled Aristotelian logic, henceforth designated A-logic. That tool of everyday logic stems from and grows out of the formal system of logic that Aristotle outlined in his philosophic writings . The four major laws or rules of A-logic can be described as:
1. The law of identity: A is A. A, the thing being considered, is broken down into a list of its identifying properties, this list is the definition of and the equivalent of A.
2. The law of non-contradiction: A is not non-A. A, this is the assumption that we have exhaustively and accurately listed all of the significant properties in our definition of A and thus by negating any of these properties we can presume we have stated and described non-A. This list of properties is used to examine a new thing and to determine if it is A or if it is its imagined negation or opposite non-A. The first thing being considered whose identifying properties we have listed is A and it is compared to another at present unknown thing, X. We then examine and list X�s identifying properties. We compare the two lists. If they are identical than the second thing can also be labeled A. If X has any properties other than those we have associated with A, then it according to our own created list of defining properties, can not be A. That second thing must be non-A, something other than A. A can only be itself.
3. The law of excluded middle: either A or non-A. It is unconsciously assumed that we can list all of the properties of A. It is assumed that our list is exhaustive and accurate. And using this list to examine a second object under consideration, X , it must have as its list of identifying properties all those that A has and nothing more if we are to conclude it is to be classified as A. If it has even one different identifying property other than those associated with A then X must be designated as not being A. It is an all or nothing choice. Every thing under consideration is a separate, distinct and unique thing.
4. A series of rules of rational inference. Outlining how to go from what is know to what is unknown. These include rules of categorizing objects, analytical reasoning by means of define terms, premises, and the rules of syllogisms.
Korzybski noted that there are some underlying premises or assumptions in each of these four laws that are the source of the failing of A-logic. A partial list of those underlying premises are:
1. Assumes that it is possible to obtain 100% certainty.
2. Assumes that Truth or Falsity is a matter of all or nothing. For any given examination using the principles of A-logic we can with absolute certainty derive results from which we will know what if it is not 100% true then it must therefore be 100% false. There are only these two possibilities.
3. Hidden and/or ignored contexts: A-logic only considers an object within a single context at any one time, without making that fact explicit. A-logic either assumes a timeless and space-less hypothetical context or considers an object within real space and time but only a singular unstated moment and point in space and time. For A-logic the implicit and therefore hidden and unnoticed context in which an object or thing is examined is a context that is static and is a discontinuous segments of time and space. This static discontinuous segmentation creates a tendency to ignore the fact that the objects under examination change over time due to interactions that are continuing to occur between the objects environment and itself.
4. Assumes that all whole objects can be identified and that all of the parts, the components of that whole object can be identified.
5. Assumes that for any given object under examination we have in fact identified exhaustively all its relevant and important components with absolute certainty.
6. That given any two known, identified chosen conceptual objects/properties/attributes, A and non-A, that these are mutually exclusive. That given any two objects/properties/attributes, A and non-A, these are in opposition and are contradictory in nature to each other. When a non-conceptual unknown object X is examined, that object X�s properties when listed will either have as one of its identifying properties characteristic A or non-A. Object X has to be A or non-A exclusively.
Let us take a few examples to elucidate how A-logic fails to explain or reveal the way reality, the world we live in, operates.
A and Non-A: Life and Death. A-logic would have us presume that we must be either alive or dead. The definitions of Life and the definition of Death are presumed to be mutually exclusive and in opposition and contradictory to one another. Paradoxically this is not the case. The fact of material physical existence is the inability of any given object or system to sustain its current state of being. Any and all material objects will deteriorate. Any and all material objects which are living systems can not sustain that systems life indefinitely and forever. All living things grow old and the systems that sustained its life will inevitably cease to function over time, and the thing will die. To be alive is not a static event but a dynamic process of change and transformation. A process of transformation that will inevitable end. We will all die. We can postpone that time by not taking risks, by a variety of means, but we will all die. Actually from the moment of conception the process and time line of our existence begins to flow toward our death. We are born to die. We are born in the process of dying. But we are also born in the process of becoming alive. We grow and change which is the essence of life. So at each and every moment of our existence we are both in the process of living and in the process of dying. We are always A and non-A, it matters not if the A under consideration is life or death. We are always both. Life and death are two facts, two points at the end of a time line and are also words for two processes. The process of living is the process of dying and vice a versa.
A and non-A: Black and white, and darkness and lightness. Each is or could be defined by the absence of the other. Black is the absence of all lightening effects and white is the absence of all darkening effects. But, in the real world around us it is extremely rare for us to encounter pure darkness or pure illumination. We mainly live in and experience objects or environments which are somewhat less than pure white/light or pure black/dark. We experience a gradient of color and shading � a continuum. Most natural objects and natural environments are more or less dark or more or less filled with illumination. The more illumination the more it appears to be white, the less illumination the more it appears black. There are also times when for us the environment we are encountering appears black/dark, but to a cat, or other animal with differently attuned preceptors, the environment is filled with illumination, it is adequately light/white.
For example, at night when I step into a room without light and to me all of the room is black and dark, I know that my cat can see me, can perceive me and can walk up to me and rub against me. The room is not black/dark to my cat. The A of blackness and darkness is defined by the context of who is making the judgment me or my cat. A the condition of blackness is valid or invalid at the same time depending on which perspective or vantage point we are defining the situation from. To me it may be A of black but to my cat it is the A of white and light. A or non-A is a matter of whose perspective are we considering. And the choice of A or non-A becomes even more ambiguous once we consider a third person, someone who has night vision goggles and is watching both me and my cat walking in my room at night. That third observer knows that I am in blackness but my cat is in lightness � both are valid descriptions of the same actual environmental conditions. Hence which is it? Is the correct description of the environment A of blackness or A of lightness? From the perspective of the third person observer of us both, she must conclude it is neither completely A of blackness or A of lightness. A, the actually environmental condition is a point on a continuum of illumination which from the differing vantage points of the human me, and the animal my cat, appear one way or the other depending on which of the two participating vantage points are considered.
A is usually being defined in a specific context and potentially we can shift the context and reveal that from this new vantage point A now can be defined as non-A.
Another example of this is the following: Known conceptual object A is the property of Wholeness. Known conceptual object B is the property of Partness. According to A-logic the choice is either exclusive partness or exclusive wholeness. But, take any other unknown non-conceptual object labeled X, say a human being. Object X, a human being, according to A-logic must be able to be classified as either having the attribute of being 100% a Whole thing, or 100% a part, which is non-A. That object X must remain unchanged as either being able to be classified exclusively as A = whole or as non-A = part. X either is A = whole or can be identified as being non-A = part. X can not be both. According to A-Logic the process and results of such a comparison can and must be 100% exhaustive, all inclusive and 100% conclusive. Once truth is derived it is final and valid forever. Once X is labeled as being A, a whole for example, it is assumed that it is forever has the conceptual characteristics of being A = whole as its defining property.
By definition and the laws of A-logic, if object X, a human being, is considered in some new context and found that it now has the attributes of being a part, then object X must no longer be itself. It must now be a totally new object, because the identifying list of object X�s attributes must include it having the property of being a whole, attribute A. It can not have both the attributes of A=whole and non-A=part. It must have only one or the other to maintain its own identity. If it has the attribute non-A, a part, then object X must not be itself according to the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, thus it must be given a new designation and be treated as a wholly new thing, object Z. This is how A-logic can results in paradox and confusion.
To illustrate this further the above in concrete terms, we consider ourselves as a human being a whole thing. But when we are not feeling well and go to see a doctor, she considers us as a thing composed of many parts, one or more of which is malfunctioning. In the context of a medical exam, from our perspective we have the property of being a whole thing, attribute A, we are a whole body that feels ill. But from the perspective or vantage point of the doctor who examines us, we that human being are an object that is composed of many parts and also an object which is part of our environment where in we became expose to something that triggered our illness. Us and our environment that we came from is the whole unit. Our self, our body is merely a part of the collective whole of us living in our environment, which explains our illness. We are one whole unit and a collection of parts depending on what context one is considering at any one time. Now imagine a third person, who is a social scientist conducting a survey, enters the examining room. From the social scientist�s perspective we, the patient and the doctor, are parts of one larger social unit in many ways. Though we consider ourselves to be whole and separate beings. The social scientist may see us as a human being who is a part of a larger whole, some social context, some societal whole object. To the social scientist we, patient and doctor, are parts of a whole thing know as a families or of a whole thing known as a religious communities, or of a country, or of political parties, etc. We, doctor and patient, are merely parts of some social whole entity. Thus under the rigid rules of A-logic there is a seeming contradictions. I may think I was a whole, but the doctor knew I was a part of my environment and the social scientist knew we both were a part of some social whole entity. I am and was always a whole and a part depending on the context of consideration.
A-logic fails to consider shifting variables in shifting multiple contexts and it also assumes by an underlying foundational assumption of A-logic that any and all two choices of attribute A and non-A are and must always be mutually exclusive and in opposition. A-logic creates a paradox by ignoring the context of object X when its attributes were being listed. A-logic does not consider that some or all of the attributes can be present and significant only in certain contexts. A shift in context and some new factor becomes significant and what was once a whole is now seen as a part. A = wholeness or non-A = not wholeness, which is partness or A = partness and non-A = not partness which would be wholeness, is present all at the same time depending on the shift in contexts and perspectives. If we define A completely which we must in accordance to the rules of A-logic we must conclude that A is always potentially both a whole and a part. And we must also consider wholeness and partness as not being in opposition but rather as complementary attributes. But that is not a valid choice in the abstract and theoretical system of A-logic, but it is valid in the actuality of choices within the reality of a living world environment.
