Prologic

There’s no limit to what a self-conscious being may gather as having part in a live act, but for the act having to be actually lived – which poses the heaviest possible limitation, for it won’t be lived again. There’s no way to capture an event other than by living a new one. This is why the description of everybody’s being-to-the-world must be maintained on very general terms, and the candid hope for a full-structured existential rationale disabused.
In order to operate, A|D|R roots (arise|decide|relate, the co-factors of all evenience) need to connect between them in each and every act. Root connections are prological: their being true or false to any particular rule of logic depends from the actual construction of the event it comes to be part of. The three roots being originarian, they don’t share any particular logic. Logic is retrospective. It’s an instrument of the mind, and as such it comes about a posteriori, even as it has been often construed as an a priori. This said, let’s single out a few critical points.

Before the law of non-contradiction

For an exceedingly long time this law, together with its complements, the laws of non-contradiction and of excluded middle, have reigned over Western logic. They seemed to offer an indisputable base for reason in its operations, whatever the subject (see this Wikipedia page for a neat historical outline).
The fact of its appearing both undisputable and easy to gauge was fascinating for all minds in search of rock-hard truth. With some delay it became apparent, though, that for a law of identity to be identified one has first to think the world in non-contradictory terms in the first place, seeing it as a collection of individual things, facts, attributes, etc. that either are or are not so and so (an exclusive OR). In short, at the bottom of these most basic laws of classical logic lies an existential loop, or autoctisis, whereby something ends up looking exactly the way the beholder likes best.
Identities and contradictions are intuitive observations reached by an intelligent being, acting from within its particular world and language. A computing machine can only identify the identities it has been programmed to ‘understand’ by its intelligent builder. A logic identity is incontrovertible because someone thinks of it as such. Far from being a principle concerning all that is the case, it is a consequence of the power of determining what is or is not the case.
This determining power requires the concurrence of the three factors that we have already introduced (see General Biography) as the A|D|R trio, the arise|decide|relate ever-changing blend. We’re able to apply our logic laws only when the trio collapses in one thing, fact, idea, or whatever. This is inevitable to the point that we cannot really conceive the A|D|R factors unconnectedly.
Hard as we try to isolate them, it’s always in some relations with the remaining two that we are able to figure out anything about them. So the true concept of World implies someone who actually lives in it and is able to describe it to some extent; the concept of I requires a differentiation, a Non-I on whom to exercise what grasping powers are on hand and a world-depicting language; finally, a language can’t obviously do without a world and a mind that put it into use. [top]

Before any law

What is remarkable about the law of non-contradiction is that it looks as working a priori, without even taking notice of how, where, and by whom it is called to service, while in fact it can only take place a posteriori, in a world construed by an intelligent being and expressed in some language. Actually, a long tract of human history had already been lived, before it dawned on someone somewhere that the concept of identity could be stated as a logic and ontologic principle.
The triple A|D|R original relationship is a headless, tailless conundrum. Logic laws flee from our native A|D|R convolution. They swim as fast as they can to reach a shore. It’s in the nature of laws as we are used to think of them to be badly in need of a solid ground on which to stand. Any law, however conventional or pragmatic, cannot get credited regardless of the A|D|R evenience, which comes prior to all intellectual construction. [top]

The original naïveté

But how can I be sure of the A|D|R relationship and call it originarian? My very arguments, don’t they obstruct my view? How am I supposed to rise above my local confinement and see the originarian? To put it simply, is not this a naïveté?
Actually, the originarian has to be naïve, since a mind/world/word system is, perforce, self-referential. The original naïveté is inevitable. What we should escape is being double naïve; abstain from putting forward a summary truth against the natural proliferation of divergent views.
Prosophy studies our being-to-the-world. To do so, it duly admits that all views are legitimate, as far as they are actually lived. Truths can only be local and provisional. So the next step is to find out what humans share, while they keep turning out that never-ending variety of differences that’s called history. Prologic’s first task is sort of paradoxical, having to lay bare why we have to start being, so to speak, advertently naïve. [top]

The so-called absurd

Soon philosophers grew the idea that a rational explanation of the world should and could be given, provided a path was devised from a formal principle of reason, often doubled as a factual principle behind the world’s workings. Prophets were happy to find out that the logic-ontologic principle could be easily integrated, or so it seemed, in their idea of a universal god; philosophers on their part, most of them, favored the idea that their knowledge opened the mind to understanding divinity.
What had to be left out of the rational-religious scheme of comprehension was deemed absurd. There were two sorts of absurdity, the first one concerning what a finite mind cannot take hold of, which was usually ascribed to God’s or Reason’s overwhelming infinity. This transcendent absurdity was generally endured optimistically, humans being creative creatures under a providential, if often obscure, Direction. The other one was pessimistic, derived from frequent failure over several cases in most people’s lives; incidents that seem to deny reason and form, and suggest a basically unhappy order of things.
In both cases absurdity stems out of a faulty idea of order. Logic order is an abstract construction. As such it ignores life. A mind must intervene and apply its preferred order to what it experiences. Formal logic is just a tool, valuable as long as it does not become an impediment to the use of other tools. The same can be said of the absurdity concept, the negative counterpart of reason. Absurdities are never real, except as disturbances of our best hopes.
If we have to look coolly into our being-to-the-world condition, we had better resist the temptation of looking first thing for a rational order, which as soon as it is established begets its opposing absurd; at the same time we should avoid the idea of an invasive absurdity, which makes us long after a lost realm of reason or, still worse, adhere to nihilism. The second task of prologic, so, is navigating the insecurities typical of our being-to-the-world, resisting an excess of faith in the powers of reason as well as a surfeit of anguish in front of so-called absurdities. [top]

The missing constant

If general biography as we have mapped it out is correct, human being-to-the-world – like any other intelligent thing’s – sprouts from three variables and no constant. The three gametes, arise|decide|relate, have to combine to produce an event, every rearrangement giving any one of them a chance to alter the whole, either just a bit or massively, you never know. No obvious logic funnels the unrelenting rearrangement of world, word, and mind. A single feature of the world can be dissolved in an unlimited number of depictions; a fresh description can change a whole world; a mind may own its words and worlds, or just dispose of them quickly and try something that is utterly new.
A thing is intelligent when it a) produces new A|D|R connections, and when b) exercises a choice on the A|D|R connections it makes. If both a) and b) occur, then that thing is also at least virtually free. The presence of a single constant in the life of such a being-to-the-world would determine a substantial loss in its logic and ontological statute. For example, contrary to what we’re used to think, the old belief following which humans are primarily defined by their being rational animals has been ultimately detrimental to human freedom, even as it has encouraged a lot of research in the several fields affected by this notion.
Thus, a central task for prologic is to examine how the being-to-the-world gametes connect before giving birth to an event. Moreover, events come rarely alone; they are usually grouped to form an evenience. The grouping of events is also a matter of interest to prologic as a branch of prosophy. By the way, operations perfectly attuned to formal logic’s requirements are performed in many events. In everybody’s life logic is an option of prologic. Prologic does not refuse logic, it reaches beyond logic. Of course, formal instruments are crucial to prosophical inquiries. They just have to renounce their prejudicial power of exclusion. [top]

The & factor

For an event to be born, something in the A|D|R extant bond must change. Two or more identical A|D|R trios produce a single event. For a new event to appear, the three-sided composition must find a new arrangement. Rearrangement rules dictate that
a) any change having effect on one of the seeds affects the other two, the three being always mutually involved, openly or covertly. They never wane from one other: even when their present correlation fails to be noticed, they have to be there and connected. I have dubbed this required connectedness ‘irreducibility’;
b) nothing impedes an event’s A element from changing into a D or an R element of a later event, like when a gift strikes us first as a symbol (R) of the giver’s affection (D) and then as a thing of interest in itself (A). I call this circulation ‘transducibility’.
Irreducibility & transducibility are two basic aspects of evenience, complementary and at the same time in conflict against each other. This & factor is typically prologic; it covers as many intra- and inter-seed connections as they are on hand in an event, no matter how they fare with regard to a formal line of reasoning. For a sensible human being the logic and, or, xor, etc. are but concomitant eventualities of the prologic &. [top]

What everyone does

Prologic tries to follow irreducibility & transducibility from event to event, but it can do it only in very general terms or in tentative depictions more akin to fictional storylines than to the minute adjustments we face in everyday life. After all, a chain of events can only be lived.
This brings us to consider a paradox: What becomes more and more difficult to examine in all its aspects as we near it from the outside, a life event, is plainly ‘known’ from the inside. The insight of an act is only available to the being-to-the-world who lives it. What everyone does is likewise the most commonly available base for a universal depiction of all that is the case, provided the depiction is such as to adhere plainly and simply to what everyone does whatever the case… even when depicting a case.
So prologic is a matter of very common insight, a subject of spontaneous reflection for everybody; a matter, incidentally, which can be enhanced as well as impaired by all sort of straight deductions, proper inductions, and great intuitions. It may seem a rather weird condition, if we look at it from a scientific viewpoint. The problem is, scientific viewpoints always derive from reducing the A|D|R adventurous, exploratory consensus & difference to a specific, clear-cut solution.
In science, the objectual, subjectual, and symbolic roles have to be neatly defined and their mutual relationship preset. In other words they don’t concern events but excised aspects of human experience available to computation. The output of a science is a collection of tools; but how they will fare in anybody’s life is a different affair. Luckily, an all-inclusive science will never be available. If it ever were, we would end up prisoners of our relative ignorance. So let the different sciences do their beautiful and useful work in the various fields of interest. As to our overall being-to-the-world conception, we have to draw it from a very articulate reflection on what we’re constantly doing, i.e. living. [top]

Uneasy standpoint

Being built on restrictions, logic cannot follow life’s complexity. In fact, logic always needs a living being to see it into a world of events where its computations look for meaning and sense. On the contrary, prologic tries to build an unrestrictive overview of human life. Its field is the widest possible one, but how to survey it fully?
Prologic is where prosophy contacts science and its methods of discernment and ascertainment. It occupies an uneasy position between two complementary conceptions of truth: truth as a necessary state of things and truth as a de facto occurrence.
Being always paired, they should be called half-truths: the universal, singular half-truth and the particular, multifarious one. Is their coincidence ever available but in an ideal way? And an additional difficulty comes from the need for some dissonance between the two, because if they were harmonizing in full they would disappear into one other. Something whose A|D|R configuration is always exactly the same, with no variance or exception, is doomed to go by unremarked forever. It cannot be said to be.
Posts centered on prologic will examine if there’s a way to illustrate the ever-changing A|D|R connection from event to event other than by living it in person, which is what everyone does, or producing a tentative narrative, which is what artists do in juxtaposing life’s freedom to their art’s self-determination. [top]

To begin with…
Before the law of non-contradiction
Before any law
The original naïveté
The so-called absurd
The missing constant
The & factor
What everyone does
Uneasy standpoint
First posted September 24, 2014.

Ban-1-1-PH