Ah but then again this all depends on if logic is generated by
human minds or if a perfect law of logic already exists, and it is
minds that try to comprehend this logic. Does the mind create logic
or does it 'see' logic?
I believe it's the latter, saying that logic can be anything or
subject to any sort of change is as good as saying that logic is
nothing at all. It is apparent that this Logic (Perfect tense), is
also not some things, as
much as it is some things. All men accept this principle, even
those who claim that there is no absolute truth, in which they
assert that the lack of absolute truth is an absolute that has to
hold for their talkings to make sense. They then will have to
construct their reasonsings why their absolutes make sense... I
have yet to see a convincing reply though, beyond appealing to a
lot of emotions.
It is entirely true that certain things that once seemed illogical
may now become logical. But that was not because they were
illogical to begin with but because they were logical all this
while, just that we have yet to perceive it. When finally
understood, it would have been found that they have never
contradicted anything to begin with.
First and foremost, when we distil logic down to it's components we
have first principles. That is basic pieces of reasoning that
cannot be reasoned themselves, they have to be self-apparent and
self-supportive. A good example would be the law of
non-contradiction, where if A is equal to B, then B cannot be equal
to A. This law cannot be denied in any way without changing all
other forms of thought. The only way to get around this rule is to
find some form of harmonization which removes the contradiction,
but the law itself cannot be destroyed.
Your binary and telephone ideas are good examples of how certain
'contradictory' concepts can become congruent with logic. But then
they hardly mean that things which are really and truly
contradictory can ever be reconciled. No matter of working in the
universe can undo that, because they have been set in stone by
absolute logic.
Is it possible that Jesus might be what the Gnostics say He is as
well as what traditional Christianity says, if some form of
harmonization can be found. But as of yet if this harmonization is
a reasonable one or even one that can preserve the truth of both
without compromising them in either way is highly dubious, or at
least a very long shot based on mostly speculation. Can I say they
are absolutely irreconcilable? Certainly not because being
absolutely sure is an impossibility.
But I know that in the end we have to make a choice at the end of
all possible reasoning. This matter either is, nor is not. Either
what the Gnostics imply is true or is not, as is the same for
Traditional Christianity. There are many arguments but I throw my
wager with Traditional Christianity, not so much because the mass
of people is there, but because my own personal rational reasoning
point me towards there. I'm sure the Gnostics have their own
compelling reasons as well, but it turns out that often only one of
us can be correct.
This then is a matter of debate. But I am dubious the Gnostics and
Christianity can be absolutely reconciled. I suspect it could be a
lot of wishful thinking.
I suspect the view that anything can be harmonized... if the
apporiate logic is found, to be one suspect of logic itself. If you
change one thing in logic you change everything else that is
implied by that very logic. Also if logic itself is always subject
to change on a whim ala. no absolute logic style... then on what
grounds do we believe this logic to be sound? By what standard do
we measure it? What makes us think this logic is more or better
then the other? Which logic then is true? Do we have a whole many sets of
logics, feminist logic, stoic logic, atheistic logic, materialistic
logic, humanistic logic, and all the other logics without ever
cosidering if these logics are true? I don't know but it's a
compelling question.
And often I wonder why we want to change it at all. Is it because
we have compelling reasons to change the way we see things... or is
it because it is the way we'd wished to see things?
