nameless, Surely you didn't need to read this article to know that we're not very logical creatures.???? I'm hoping not anyways. In any case, all of what you say is indeed true. But it simply doesn't pertain to the point in question. There is no opposite of logic. End of story. The closest you might come to would be emotion, or passion. Nevertheless, I must point out that logic (or those who make use of it..) makes no claim to being an exhaustive method of explaining human behaviour. Logic is an artificial system created by humankind to serve as an analyticial tool, nothing more. I don't seem to understand what it is you're trying to get at here...
But isn't this assumption based upon logic?? This thinking assumes symmetry and balance within all things. Not neccessarily (in my opinion (I will state that this is my opinion rather than stating it to be fact, or truth, as Glaucon frequently does.)) For example a banana must be referenced as a yellow, curved fruit that can be peeled. Should this not be the case then a banana must be defined as that which is not an artichoke (making an orange also an banana!) But I agree with what you are implying: that there is an opposite to logic. However we cannot use 'illogical thinking to find truth', because then we may say that a banana is not an orange and is therefore blue. However the reverse of logic may reveal more, but then (as it has been noted), this is to use logical thinking again.
Well said Spectrum. This is the very nature of the difficulty nameless is facing here. Spectrum, when I use the words "truth", or "fact", I do so only when applicable. The fact is, within the realm of logic, there are things that can be said to be true, or fact. Where truth and/or fact do not obtain, I do not use those terms. In any case, again, you are correct here. Although one could argue that, at least with respect to terms of definition, you might be simply playing semantics here, things are more often than not, not defined by 'opposition'. The two most frequent modes of definition are those of composition ( a banana is an organic composed of fruit-based carbohydrates...etc.)and componention ( a banana is the fruit covering of the seeds of the banana type palm...etc.). Rarely can the 'oppositional' mode be effectively used. What is the opposite of light??
This whole subject is very 'foreign' to me and I am trying to find some data with which to work. That is where those sites came from. I was attempting to learn something about 'non-logic' (not illogic) as , perhaps, a starting place for thought on the matter. I don't like the 'opposition' terminology, as that is not really accurate. Complimentary might be a bit closer (for me anyway) but still doesn't feel right. Perhaps it is all the artificiality and fiction that we are trying to 'study' as if it were 'real' that is hanging me up here. I am trying to understand this from the level of 'existence' and am having dificulty. I also suspect it is a language/memetic problem along the order of "This sentence is a lie!" One direction that I am going here is to suggest that this is one of the cases where 'logic' is of no use in determining if there is an 'opposite' to logic or not in 'existence'. 'Existence' is another problem for logic as the very act of conceiving of 'non-existence' (whatever and however you like) automatically gives it 'existence' (for you). As we are attempting to use logic to determine if there is such a thing as it's opposite, we seem (so far) to be either failing miserably, or stuck in the circular cul-de-sac in which logic leaves us. I guess that I really was 'thinking out loud', not really proposing anything; all the good it did me! Hahahahah.... I can't help with this one, though, and must duck out. I'll be peeking, though, just in case something interesting falls from the sky. All apparent 'opposites' are merely various aspects and perspectives of One; to 'spend' much thought on forcing an artificial seperation and juxtaposition of that which is One so that we can validate our concepts of 'opposites' seems to me a fools errand. I can spot em! I've been on many! *__- It is thought alone that creates and maintains 'opposites'. We are finding limits of logic, but not necessarily an 'opposite'. Logically? Metaphorically? Religiously? Poetically? Philosophically? Scientifically? From what perspective, in what context? Etc... Perhaps.. 'heavy'? Etc.. Bye the bye, semantics is not a 'game', nor a dirty word wherewith we can dismiss something uncomfortable; it is semantics/language that literally define/create our 'reality', our selves and our universes... It should not be given short shrift, here, by feeding the meme. It seems grievous error, to me, to give semantics any less weight in 'describing reality' than, oh.. Physics. But, thats another thread.. sorry.. Peace...
Which is exactly my point. What you're seeking is 'outside' the scope of logic. That being the case then, when you say you're looking for the opposite ( or, complementary) of logic, you must mean this to be of some other ontological nature, perhaps a linguistic one, or a phenomenological one. I wasn't being glib with respect to semantics, I was merely trying to grasp the context within which Spectrum was trying to work. I'm more than familiar with semantics and semiotics, and it is indeed a game, as any structural system of signification is. And I agree with you wholeheartedly with respect to the value of a semantic approach to the problem. Indeed, I would say it would prove to be more fruitful than a logical one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Darkness? And it would seem that this is the default situation: a shadow is cast by the absence of light, but we cannot 'shine' darkness to an object to produce light where darkness does not exist. Good point nameless! Phantasy (or fantasy) is the opposite of reality, for we all phantasize about things that don't exist, but that we would like to exist, however we have given such a thing a name, which makes it (a) real-ity (in our minds).
Incorrect. Darkness is the absence of light. Within a spectrum, there can be no opposites. Incorrect. A shadow can only be cast by available light.
I believe I posted that: If violet is plus three then red (rouge) must be minus three, with green as zero: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Isn't a shadow just the absence of light (darkness)? I can understand your argument, for without surrounding light how can we distinguish between the light and the darkness (the shadow), but still, to me, a shadow is the absence of light.
Regarding Spectrum's first question on page one of this thread. Upon stumbling across a similar dilemma what I have deduced is that Imagination or the word imaginative although not without elements of logical calculation would be the opposite of logic/logical... this is my reasoning behind my conclusion: Imagination meaning the ability to conceive the unknown by means of calculation of variables of abstract & therefor illogical information gathered by ones life experiences & observations of those around them & Rationalization meaning to order that information into logical productive concepts. Rationalization obviously representing logic or logical thought, calculation & or conceptual deduction (conceptual deduction meaning deduction of previous concepts by means of logic or to put more simply the separation of irrelevant information from relevant information)... VERITAS
