Ch. 8 Quantum Logic (3/23-3/29)
-
Classify the following propositions as true, false or maybe.
A. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt became President of the United States.
B. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt became President of the United States.
C. On January 18,1932, Cary Grant had his 28th birthday.
D. The river Necker flows through the city of Frankfurt.
E. The river Necker flows through the city of Heidelberg.
F. Humanity evolved from Old World apes.
G. Force always equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
H. Francis Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
I. Sex education leads to an increase in sex crimes.
J. In the years in which sex education increased in the U.S., reported sex crimes also increased.
K. The census of 1890 showed 4,000,000 inhabitants of New York City.
L. An ordinary pack of cigarettes contains 20 cigarettes.
M. Ronald Reagan knew about the Iran-Contra guns-and-cocaine deals of North, Secord and Hull.
N. Ronald Reagan did not know about the Iran-Contra crimes until he heard the news on TV.
O. All the differences between men and women result from cultural training.
P. Sombunall of the differences between men and women result from cultural training.
Q. All differences between men and women result from genetic factors (testosterone, estrogen etc.)
R. Sombunall of the differences between men and women result from genetic factors (e.g., testosterone, estrogen etc.)
Q. The lost continent of Atlantis exists under the sea near Bermuda.
R. The lost continent of Atlantis never existed.
S. Hitler only had one testicle.
-
H Hannah pinned this topic
-
System unpinned this topic
-
Sorry for the late reply. I hope that everyone had a fantastic Equinox!
This chapter really revolutionized my thinking the first time I read it. The essence of the chapter (in my understanding) was this idea of a "Maybe" state that is often overlooked by those who constrain themselves to Aristotelian logic. This chapter provides one of the most easily accessible explanations of ideas related to Schrodinger's Cat (without even mentioning cats dying in boxes).
RAW emphasizes that while most people like things to fit neatly into "True" or "False," most of our knowledge actually exists in a "Maybe" state. In other words, our egos love to fool ourselves into higher levels of certainty than we are actually capable of perceiving. One of the best examples RAW provides is that many people like to claim with 100% certainty that Jesus IS the Son of God. Since this is an untestable claim, it would be much more ontologically accurate to state, "Maybe Jesus is the Son of God." Of course, this assumes that the individual has not been indoctrinated with Christian dogma that says you must dominate others with claims of utmost certainty about who Jesus's father might have been (regardless that we didn't have DNA testing back then) lest other Christians doubt your faith in God.
It's not that I don't think people are aware of the "Maybe" category. In fact, I believe that if you ask people whether or not they acknowledge the "Maybe" category, most people will say yes (not unlike how almost everyone will tell you they want to work on themselves, even when they are actively resisting the work). However, when the moment arises that "Maybe" seems to be the best answer, many seem to forget that "Maybe" exists. This can be explained by Cognitive Behavior Psychology, and the theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
The theory of Cognitive Dissonance explains that people prioritize minimizing Cognitive Dissonance in decision making. Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort that arises from trying to hold two conflicting ideas in your conscious awareness at once. This implies a spectrum of intensity of Cognitive Dissonance as well as individual tolerance to Cognitive Dissonance. Because many who are trapped within sensate experience seem to compulsively do what will make them feel comfortable in the moment (regardless of the long term consequences), many do not develop a very strong tolerance to Cognitive Dissonance and instead collapse at even the slightest experience of opposing beliefs. This aversion to Cognitive Dissonance is one of the major mechanisms that maintains and enforces a collapsed or contracted level of awareness. I don't think this is very hard to believe but if you don't believe me, just take a look at political debate within the last 10 years for plenty of examples.
What this theory seems to be ultimately getting at, however, is that people are not comfortable with the "Maybe" category. An individual's ability to hold things in the "Maybe" category inherently requires a higher tolerance of Uncertainty and Cognitive Dissonance. If Cognitive Dissonance arises from Uncertainty (specifically the uncertainty of how to reconcile two seemingly opposed ideas), then those who cannot handle Cognitive Dissonance are inherently not using the "Maybe" category. To use the "Maybe" category is to admit to oneself that, "This may be true or may be false, I just am uncertain at this current stage of awareness."
In fact, so much of Magick seems to be about training our Uncertainty muscles. Many practices even force the practitioner to confront Cognitive Dissonance head on, causing the practitioner to surrender to the Uncertainty because we are engaging in a Non Rational activity. The Non Rational inherently defies rationality. Since society often defines rationality as the ability to accurately label objects "True" or "False," when we engage in a ritual practice without lust of result, we are actively saying, "If I do this ritual, maybe my intention will be realized." This might help to explain why Non Rational practices (including Magick) continue to hold so much power and cause profound change in the practitioner. A magician is actively strengthening their mind to hold Cognitive Dissonance without collapse, effectively loosening the death grip that Rationality imposes when Rationality is threatened.
To go back to the idea that people will tell you they know about the "Maybe" category and then fail to use it, it often seems to me that people don't know when to use it. And since the ego likes certainty, it can be so hard to resist the urge to collapse your awareness for the sake of momentary mental and/or emotional comfort. If your life has been built on a value system that hinges on the absolute reality that Jesus is the Son of God, when you try to take that away from someone, it causes them a profound amount of pain. Suddenly, their whole worldview is being attacked, and the idea that they could've believed in something else (something else which maybe triggers greater life experience) reveals just how shaky their Foundation is.
But as we grow in our abilities to reconcile opposites, hold conflicting ideas, and manage Uncertainty & Cognitive Dissonance, we develop in our ability to perceive nuance and depth. Eventually, our mental muscles reach a stage where the seemingly opposing ideas that caused us profound mental discomfort in the past are revealed to not oppose each other at all, and each can exist in their own right.
-
Sorry for the late reply. I hope that everyone had a fantastic Equinox!
This chapter really revolutionized my thinking the first time I read it. The essence of the chapter (in my understanding) was this idea of a "Maybe" state that is often overlooked by those who constrain themselves to Aristotelian logic. This chapter provides one of the most easily accessible explanations of ideas related to Schrodinger's Cat (without even mentioning cats dying in boxes).
RAW emphasizes that while most people like things to fit neatly into "True" or "False," most of our knowledge actually exists in a "Maybe" state. In other words, our egos love to fool ourselves into higher levels of certainty than we are actually capable of perceiving. One of the best examples RAW provides is that many people like to claim with 100% certainty that Jesus IS the Son of God. Since this is an untestable claim, it would be much more ontologically accurate to state, "Maybe Jesus is the Son of God." Of course, this assumes that the individual has not been indoctrinated with Christian dogma that says you must dominate others with claims of utmost certainty about who Jesus's father might have been (regardless that we didn't have DNA testing back then) lest other Christians doubt your faith in God.
It's not that I don't think people are aware of the "Maybe" category. In fact, I believe that if you ask people whether or not they acknowledge the "Maybe" category, most people will say yes (not unlike how almost everyone will tell you they want to work on themselves, even when they are actively resisting the work). However, when the moment arises that "Maybe" seems to be the best answer, many seem to forget that "Maybe" exists. This can be explained by Cognitive Behavior Psychology, and the theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
The theory of Cognitive Dissonance explains that people prioritize minimizing Cognitive Dissonance in decision making. Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort that arises from trying to hold two conflicting ideas in your conscious awareness at once. This implies a spectrum of intensity of Cognitive Dissonance as well as individual tolerance to Cognitive Dissonance. Because many who are trapped within sensate experience seem to compulsively do what will make them feel comfortable in the moment (regardless of the long term consequences), many do not develop a very strong tolerance to Cognitive Dissonance and instead collapse at even the slightest experience of opposing beliefs. This aversion to Cognitive Dissonance is one of the major mechanisms that maintains and enforces a collapsed or contracted level of awareness. I don't think this is very hard to believe but if you don't believe me, just take a look at political debate within the last 10 years for plenty of examples.
What this theory seems to be ultimately getting at, however, is that people are not comfortable with the "Maybe" category. An individual's ability to hold things in the "Maybe" category inherently requires a higher tolerance of Uncertainty and Cognitive Dissonance. If Cognitive Dissonance arises from Uncertainty (specifically the uncertainty of how to reconcile two seemingly opposed ideas), then those who cannot handle Cognitive Dissonance are inherently not using the "Maybe" category. To use the "Maybe" category is to admit to oneself that, "This may be true or may be false, I just am uncertain at this current stage of awareness."
In fact, so much of Magick seems to be about training our Uncertainty muscles. Many practices even force the practitioner to confront Cognitive Dissonance head on, causing the practitioner to surrender to the Uncertainty because we are engaging in a Non Rational activity. The Non Rational inherently defies rationality. Since society often defines rationality as the ability to accurately label objects "True" or "False," when we engage in a ritual practice without lust of result, we are actively saying, "If I do this ritual, maybe my intention will be realized." This might help to explain why Non Rational practices (including Magick) continue to hold so much power and cause profound change in the practitioner. A magician is actively strengthening their mind to hold Cognitive Dissonance without collapse, effectively loosening the death grip that Rationality imposes when Rationality is threatened.
To go back to the idea that people will tell you they know about the "Maybe" category and then fail to use it, it often seems to me that people don't know when to use it. And since the ego likes certainty, it can be so hard to resist the urge to collapse your awareness for the sake of momentary mental and/or emotional comfort. If your life has been built on a value system that hinges on the absolute reality that Jesus is the Son of God, when you try to take that away from someone, it causes them a profound amount of pain. Suddenly, their whole worldview is being attacked, and the idea that they could've believed in something else (something else which maybe triggers greater life experience) reveals just how shaky their Foundation is.
But as we grow in our abilities to reconcile opposites, hold conflicting ideas, and manage Uncertainty & Cognitive Dissonance, we develop in our ability to perceive nuance and depth. Eventually, our mental muscles reach a stage where the seemingly opposing ideas that caused us profound mental discomfort in the past are revealed to not oppose each other at all, and each can exist in their own right.
@jjones what came up for me while reading your post was the idea of ambiguous loss. Ambiguous loss is a term coined by Dr. Pauline Boss to describe grief that arises when a person's body has not been retrieved, as in the case of being missing, or a person's body is present but their mind is gone, like in advanced dementia and so on. Grieving for these kinds of losses is difficult because it can exist for many years without any sense of closure. For example, in a death where a body is present, one is able to verify their death, care for their body, and perform a ritual to acknowledge that loss within support of a community. In the case of someone missing, they can exist for many years in a liminal space of gone but never dead, with no rituals or social acknowledgement of the intense grief in the wake of their absence.
This is a clear example of how difficult and painful dwelling within the unknown can be, how hardwired we are to seek clarity and control. Therapists caring for those with ambiguous loss commonly use the term "yes, and..." "Yes, I still hope that they will return or that we will reconcile, and I need to find a way to live a meaningful life and take care of myself right now."
Ambiguous loss also occurs during major life transitions when there are limited rituals or social acknowledgement of the grief. For example, becoming a mother has been an intense transformation of everything I know about myself, all of my values have changed and with those values, all of my relationships to people are in a state of flux. Yes, I love my child fiercely and wouldn't trade them for the world, and I deeply miss the freedom, spontaneity, and identity I had before becoming a parent.
This chapter was very eye-opening for me as well. I wonder if there are other languages that utilize a different framework from Aristotelian logic? Reading this chapter made me realize how I have assumed Aristotelian logic was innate, but in fact, it could just be the result of our western culture and language.
-
@jjones what came up for me while reading your post was the idea of ambiguous loss. Ambiguous loss is a term coined by Dr. Pauline Boss to describe grief that arises when a person's body has not been retrieved, as in the case of being missing, or a person's body is present but their mind is gone, like in advanced dementia and so on. Grieving for these kinds of losses is difficult because it can exist for many years without any sense of closure. For example, in a death where a body is present, one is able to verify their death, care for their body, and perform a ritual to acknowledge that loss within support of a community. In the case of someone missing, they can exist for many years in a liminal space of gone but never dead, with no rituals or social acknowledgement of the intense grief in the wake of their absence.
This is a clear example of how difficult and painful dwelling within the unknown can be, how hardwired we are to seek clarity and control. Therapists caring for those with ambiguous loss commonly use the term "yes, and..." "Yes, I still hope that they will return or that we will reconcile, and I need to find a way to live a meaningful life and take care of myself right now."
Ambiguous loss also occurs during major life transitions when there are limited rituals or social acknowledgement of the grief. For example, becoming a mother has been an intense transformation of everything I know about myself, all of my values have changed and with those values, all of my relationships to people are in a state of flux. Yes, I love my child fiercely and wouldn't trade them for the world, and I deeply miss the freedom, spontaneity, and identity I had before becoming a parent.
This chapter was very eye-opening for me as well. I wonder if there are other languages that utilize a different framework from Aristotelian logic? Reading this chapter made me realize how I have assumed Aristotelian logic was innate, but in fact, it could just be the result of our western culture and language.
@Hannah Fascinating! I had not heard of that term before.
In response to your last question, there are languages that are built without Aristotelian logic. Without giving away too many spoilers, RAW presents a form of the English language that prevents Aristotelian logic in future chapters of the book. However, I am currently also listening to a seminar on Non Violent Communication where Marshall Rosenberg (the creator of the Non Violent Communication modality) mentions encountering a tribal people who do not use language to classify people, instead focusing on needs. He says that rather than calling people selfish, their custom would be to ask what needs aren't being met that are causing this person to act in a way we call selfish. This is similar to Non Aristotelian thinking in that it doesn't identify people as static categories.
More abstractly, I think the Qabalah is a language that doesn't rely on Aristotelian thinking. People who try to make it rely on Aristotelian thinking (those folks who say each symbol only has one correct meaning at the expense of everything else that symbol means) don't seem to be 'doing' Qabalah correctly. For example, the Hebrew letters and words have multiple meanings and cannot be classified in a binary.
In my opinion, at its essence, Non-Aristotelian thinking is a Non Rational process that seeks to perceive the gradation between opposites. This inherently requires one to unify a few opposites before they can see what is meant (i.e. that A and B also have C in between the two terms, etc.) and this means being allowed to sit with Uncertainty until the Cognitive Dissonance collapses and reveals their connection. However, once one grasps the process of unifying opposites, I would hope that it would get easier and easier to sit with the opposites.
The ideas RAW presents in this book are not necessarily original. RAW has stated that he got most of the ideas from Alfred Korzybski, a linguist that eventually was deemed a pseudo-scientist. Korzybski believed that most people, when they believe they are communicating with each other, are actually reacting to Semantic Reactions. I don't intend to be crass, but you know how certain people get really, really upset when you use the word socialism or talk about social welfare? Well, the knee jerk response to the word, "Socialism," is precisely what Korzybski was referring to. The people who react that way are not actually offended by the word, "Socialism," and don't actually seem to know what that word really means. Instead, they are reacting to a meaning that has been associated with that word, triggering a maladaptive response. Korzybski said that the best thing we can do to overcome this is to only speak, "facts," which he has a technical definition for. The way we do that is very similar to what RAW presents in future chapters.
RAW is the most accessible manual of Korzybski's linguistics that I have found. So I hope this gets you excited for the chapter of the book when we learn about "E-Prime"!