Logic vs. Reason

Custom Search

[Ras I]

 Rasta or not, anyone who visits this board will most likely have encountered Rastafari sighting Reason(ing). Here we are setting up a guide for us to understand reason, that it may be used. For this we are contrasting it with logic-alone so that reason may be seen in all because it is sight that brings all together. It may seem necessary because they are so seemingly similar, and thus it is easy to lose sight of Reasoning for logic-alone. We will split the condition of reason and logic into 5 logical aspects so that we may recognize reason and see that there is only one condition. In other words, to use as a frame of reference. So let’s get started.

1. Reason is always logical, but logic can be without reason.

2. Both are perception; both must make sense.
   
3. Both are means, but only logic-alone can make confuse itself with end.

4.Reason can only point to truth. Logic-alone always denies truth.

5. Logic can be complex, but reason only simplifies.

 Any one of these conditions can be used to prove against Reason, but this can only be done through logic-alone. Logic-alone makes many conditions. Reason is logic with one condition. Logic-alone separates truth into aspects and makes believe what it is not because not all is seen at once.  If logic is not doing this, then it is reason. Reason only brings aspects together and leads to whole perspective; reason only points to truth. Aspects are synonymous with perceptions.  Since perception is the logical assessment of aspects, Reason is always a means to it’s own end. Only logic-alone can believe it is forever necessary. Since logic-alone does not bring together, it must believe that of itself is the goal as well as the means. Thus so long as there is perception, reason will be need; but only because we are not aware of truth because we have split it logically. In other words, logic can seek to prove anything. Reason does not seek, it only resolves. Confusion can only be brought about by logic-alone because only through it can truth be denied, and all the while the means for the denial believed.
 It is a common misconception that Reasoning is a verbal conversation between reasonable peoples. Though such a situation is not without reason, it is not the condition for Reasoning. Reason always leads to communication, as it is inclusion. Logic can believe separation is necessary for communication because it alone is exclusion; logic-alone. Thusly we could speak face to face but may as well be across the earth as far as communication is concerned; posts can be an inch apart but completely separated through logic. This is to say that words are not communication, but reason sees communication in them. Communication has no boundaries because through reason, logic always simplifies to the same end. So one could be on the other end of a galaxy, seemingly alone, and reach the acceptance of communication through reason. That is to say reason does not achieve truth, it only leads to the acceptance of awareness of it. Reason always leads to everything. Only logic can prove that nothing is everything.

All questions and input are wanted and welcome, but first please look on the entire thread with the understanding of reason, and see if it is not resolved before you post. If not, get it out there.

*Notes:
-The thread is named “Logic vs. Reason” because logic-alone can oppose reason, but reason always includes logic. i.e. "Reason vs. Logic" is not reasonable.
-No references to self are specific.

[Ras Shawn Naphtali]

Greetings Ras I,

Give thanks for your post.

In I opinion it is problematic to equate Rastafari 'Reasoning' with the philosophical notion of 'Reason', as the two are very different in function, form and method. 

Reason is about the Rational pursuit of "truth" through a "logical" interrogation at the expense of sensory experience and other empirical data. 

Reasoning is about Ras and Empress coming together to share experience, knowledge and Overstanding of certain situations, in a more holistic and searching way that is not limited by the methodological constraints of Reason, which discards external evidence. 

There are overlaps no doubt, but the main similarity is the name alone, and not the Icept.

The metaphysical pursuit of Reason, from Plato to Descartes through to today, is the root of the separation of mind and matter, body and spirit, self and other, male and female, civilized and uncivilised and all other divisions and separations in this Iwa that InI trying to conquer and chant down. 

Rastafari peoples don't favour Reason and Rationality over experience and knowledge through the senses.

Reason/Reasoning in the Rastafari context is the pursuit of oneness and Overstanding, and is the name given to InI method of debate and discussion.  Not to be confused with the project of Plato and Descartes, and linking them together will only lead to confusuion in I opinion!

I will be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Blessed Love Iyah.  Each One Teach One

Ras Shawn Naphtali
 

[Ras I]

My thoughts are that logic-alone has been used here, and thus the means confused for the end-the resolution that reason will bring to any perceived separation. Reason will keep no context separated because it brings all together; reason does not "persuit" truth, it resolves to it. Please re-read, perhaps it will be seen differently.

[Ras Shawn Naphtali]

My thoughts are that logic-alone has been used here, and thus the means confused for the end-the resolution that reason will bring to any perceived separation. Reason will keep no context separated because it brings all together; reason does not "persuit" truth, it resolves to it. Please re-read, perhaps it will be seen differently.

Greetings Ras I,

Please clarify, when you mention 'Reason', are you referring to the Rastafari act of Reasoning, or the philosophical notion of Reason/Rationality?

If you could please explain how/if you see a relation between the two uses of the term, that would be good.

Give thanks.

Ras Shawn Naphtali

[Ras I]

Rationality is synonymous with logic, not reason; though reason is always rational. These situations are not without Reason, but they themselves are not what constitutes Reasoning. Reason and Reasoning are synonymous, it is only-logical that reason could be "had" but not used. It is only "had" by using, and there is no difference.
You have asked me what I mean by reason with logic-alone; you have placed restrictions upon reason to the point of only two choices. Or so it would seem through logic-alone; and this is what would be believed through logic-alone; but it is not Reasonable. Through Reasoning there is no-thing that is not in relation.

Keep in mind, from the notes: No references to self are specific.

[Human]

"The metaphysical pursuit of Reason, from Plato to Descartes through to today, is the root of the separation of mind and matter, body and spirit, self and other, male and female, civilized and uncivilised and all other divisions and separations in this Iwa that InI trying to conquer and chant down."

" I entirely abandoned the study of letters. Resolving to seek no knowledge other than that of which could be found in myself or else in the great book of the world, I spent the rest of my youth travelling, visiting courts and armies, mixing with people of diverse temperaments and ranks, gathering various experiences, testing myself in the situations which fortune offered me, and at all times reflecting upon whatever came my way so as to derive some profit from it. (Descartes, Discourse on the Method)

"Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind." Descartes

Ras Shawn Naphtali you say "Reason is about the Rational pursuit of "truth" through a "logical" interrogation at the expense of sensory experience and other empirical data."
What is the sensory experience and empirical data you refer to?

I would say false presumptions handed down as truth and untested propositions is clearly the root of seperation in those things you described, not metaphysical pursuit of reason. When you say Rastafari reasoning and philosophical notion of reason, what is your view on the differences.

[Ras Shawn Naphtali]

Greetings Ras I.

When you say;

Rationality is synonymous with logic, not reason;

I have to beg to differ. Every school of philosophy that I have come across says that Rationalism and Reason are synonymous, with Logic being the tool by which rationalism/reason is rigorously applied.  I am open to be Iducated on this point if you know something different.


And Greetings to you also Human.

" I entirely abandoned the study of letters. Resolving to seek no knowledge other than that of which could be found in myself or else in the great book of the world, I spent the rest of my youth travelling, visiting courts and armies, mixing with people of diverse temperaments and ranks, gathering various experiences, testing myself in the situations which fortune offered me, and at all times reflecting upon whatever came my way so as to derive some profit from it. (Descartes, Discourse on the Method)

"Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind." Descartes

Thanks for the Descartes quote.  He is always an inspiring read!  It also actually proves my point in a way though, as his logical endeavor was purely in his own mind, whereas as Rastafari reasoning is a communual act, and without is, InI would only be leaning upon InI own understanding (not even Overstanding!).

Ras Shawn Naphtali you say "Reason is about the Rational pursuit of "truth" through a "logical" interrogation at the expense of sensory experience and other empirical data."
What is the sensory experience and empirical data you refer to? 

Yeah fair question.  I was referring to rationalisms/reasons distrust of sensory information in it's pursuit of attaining truth through logical inquiry and analysis - putting all sensory data through the filter of logic.  I won't try argue that point too much as I know that method of truth attainment has much going for it, though it does leave little room for anecdotal evidence, mysticism, narrative and other more informal roots of knowledge and information that have also proven important over the ages.

I would say false presumptions handed down as truth and untested propositions is clearly the root of seperation in those things you described, not metaphysical pursuit of reason. When you say Rastafari reasoning and philosophical notion of reason, what is your view on the differences.

I Igree with that. 

The differences I speak of is the problematic attempt to treat reason/rationalism (philosophy school 101) as like for like with Rastafari Reasoning, as it might make an interesting theoretical paper, but in reality - (especially not internet Reasoning, but face to face Reasoning in a Bingi Hall) - Rastafari Reasoning can include mysticism and other elements which Descartes would not recognize. 

Rastafari Reasoning is amongst other things, builds on InI connection with nature and the Iniverse that sees the JAH in InI speaking Outwards and making deep connections in ways that the strict logical/rational mind would not entertain.

And you see how that sound on the tongue?  We would all like to be thought of as Rational and Reasonable people, wouldn’t we?  That is because the over the period of the history of “western civilised thought”, built up by Socrates, Descartes et al, has divided the Rational against the Emotional.  The Reasonable against the Spiritual.  The Logical against the Spontaneous.

That ultimately is my problem with equating Rastafari Reasoning as synonymous with treat reason/rationalism (philosophy school 101), as when you buy into that school of thought, you are buying into a system of thought that divides the Reasonable Rational Logical Civilised Progressive (male) against the Emotional Spiritual Natural Primitive Savage (female).  The male and female here are representative as males can inhabit both sides of this binary opposition, but the top of the hierarchy in “Western Civilised’ thinking is the White (supremacist) Male, and all who don’t subscribe to the ‘reasonable’ criteria are lesser and subordinate.

Rastafari is boundless and not limited by the sterile methods of philosophy school 101. 

Rastafari is a Livity and not a theoretical research paper.


I not here to argue, just here to share I opinion and Reason with I fellow co-workers in this trod.

Blessed Love.

Ras Shawn Naphtali 
   

[Human]

Give thanks Ras Shawn Napthali for the writings, it's always nice to reason with one who is sightful to others. I especially agree with this statement: "Rastafari Reasoning is amongst other things, builds on InI connection with nature and the Iniverse that sees the JAH in InI speaking Outwards and making deep connections in ways that the strict logical/rational mind would not entertain." My beliefs and ways in which i see the world are very close to this statement and i use both sides to get a clearer picture for I self, respect Idren.

"Thanks for the Descartes quote.  He is always an inspiring read!  It also actually proves my point in a way though, as his logical endeavor was purely in his own mind, whereas as Rastafari reasoning is a communual act, and without is, InI would only be leaning upon InI own understanding (not even Overstanding!)."  I have found it is best for I to lean upon my own understanding, always nice to reason with others but best for I to accept things for Iself.

[Ras I]

Rational thought is bound to the belief in the physical as self, and must be communicated through physical means. Rational thought is the belief in choice, and believes in a self that is bound to it; and that is how it is made to seem to be. Reason always leads to the awareness that Self is not contained at all. Though you can arrive rationally to the thought that you are not a body, and believe in the thought itself, this is not Reason. Through Reasoning we know that if we do not believe it, it would not be perceived. This is why it is synonymous with logic-alone, and not reason, because there is no order in what is not true. The form will always vary, but the function is always the same. Though rational-thought and reason both have the same goal in mind(truth), one cannot function without the belief in a contained self; therefore their function is very different. Rational-thought will seek to define, whereas reason will always relinquish predisposition to what is really there. You state that you know rationality is not synonymous with Reason in this sentence:

...speaking Outwards and making deep connections in ways that the strict logical/rational mind would not entertain..

Through Reason it is always resolved that because Self is there is nothing "without," and therefore does not seek outwardly and does not need to be expressed so. Because Reason can always be recognized, so long as it is believed that there is an outward reality, any Reasoning one allows will always be represented; the representation is an effect of your awakening to Reason-Reason is not bound to perception.

There are many conditions that are representative of the realization of Reason, but these are effects based on beliefs still held apart from it. It is inevitable, given Reasoning, that all apart from what Is be released. From here we see that Reason is not synonymous with Truth/Reality, but the way to realization of the Eternal awareness of. Reason always resolves to everything, and is bound to nothing.
Posted on: August 28, 2008, 09:06:43 PM*Notes:
-Given the topic, it should be assumed that any reference to logic/rationality are meant as this alone, and not within reason.
-This topic does not seek to make believe, but is only meant to be used as a frame of reference to help make aware of Reason by uncovering logic/rationality alone. Given this still, input and/or questions are welcome as they come.

-Remember:

Any one of these conditions can be used to prove against Reason, but this can only be done through logic-alone.

Indeed anything viewed as separate must logically be proof against Reasoning.

[Ras Shawn Naphtali]

Hotep.

Give Thanks for both your Isightful Rasponses.  Each One Teach One and I Give Thanks for your Icepts.

I'll draw a line in the sand here and Igree and Disagree on some details, which is the natural order of such things and the strive for Oneness.  I look Forward to Reasoning with the I them more soon.

Until such time.

Blessed Love Iyah!

Ras Shawn Naphtali