The Limits of Logic

This article is a preliminary draft. I'm publishing to help readers get a sense of  the importance in understanding when traditional reasoning breaks down. This is an important issue in contemporary epistemology.

The conclusions I have come to are that Lucretius question on the limits of the knowable included a hidden (and false) assumption. When Lucretius' spear thrusts thru the boundary of the celestial sphere couldn't the celestial sphere stretch to accommodate it? My conclusions were also influenced greatly by the study of fractals. As one zooms in on a fractal boundary it retains elements of the original form yet is always changing. As if the boundaries are alive. My strong suspicion is that Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle is in error. The universe does not appear to me to really care about concrete true/false boundaries. In fact, as I have stated elsewhere, it seems to me that paradox must be built into the basic logical structure of reality for choice to exist. I hope to expand on this radical premise elsewhere but the corollary is that only process philosophy can resolve these issues in a meaningful manner.

Likewise re.: Göedel's Proof. Göedel's Proof states that in the set of all true theorems possible on the number field (here the term field is used in a formal mathematical sense) as rigorously described in (Saint) Alfred North Whitehead's and Bertrand Russell's seminal work, Principlia Mathematica, is either incomplete (meaning the set of all mathematically true propositions cannot be proven) or that set is inconsistent (meaning there are self contradictions within that set of true theorems). It has been a subject of some debate in the philosophy of mathematics but my conclusion is that what Goëdels proof means is that even the most rigorous intellectual treatment of logic ever devised breaks down.

"Logic? I'm sick to death of logic!", decried Spock's mother on the famous " Star Trek" series. Rightly so, I agree. Human thot & intellect incorporates more than just logic. Intuition, emotion, and paranormal phenomena all transcend the boundaries of logic. Aristotelian logic requires true premises to reach true deductions. Where do these premises come from? 

I am not in any way proposing the abandonment of logic in intellectual pursuits. As a character I the often philosophical s.f. series quipped: "Science[logic] and faith[intuition, emotion] are like the shoes on your feet. You can travel farther with both than it just one." I am suggesting that there is more than just logical rigor needed in an intellectual exploration because, ultimately, logic breaks down. Temporarily adopting the term "mysticism" to incorporate these poorly defined categories of nonlinear thot such as emotion, I am hoping my fellow seekers recognize the limits of logic in their own explorations while continuing to use rigorous deduction whenever possible. Logic and Mysticism are like the two shoes on a thinker's feet. You can think farther with both than just one.

Evolutionary Deism

Evolutionary Deism

I have found so many errors associated with an unexamined assumption in discussing the nature of the Divine that I finally feel compelled to addressing the issue. The assumption is this: that an atemporal being can be completely exist within the framework of time. This is going to take some explaining because, unlike "God", we humans do exist within the framework of time.

First let's consider whether or not evolution exists. On second thought, let's not. Evolution exists. Period. It is a scientific fact. Since Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace so many pieces of evidence for biological evolution have accumulated that to disregard them for a non-scientific "theory" pretty much requires throwing out our entire understanding of the universe. There are differences between a scientific theory and any old crackpot proposal, the first of which is that a scientific theory needs to be testable. This is a problem for some really interesting proposals such as string theory as an explanation for all observed physical phenomena, much more so for creationism in its usual form. Evolution exists in ourselves, in biology, and even in those awful engines that allow life to exist at all - the stars. Everything we know of changes. Everything we know of evolves. Why, then do we exclude the Divine from change?

Twentieth century paleontologist/philosopher Tielhard de Chardin in his seminal work, The Phenomenon of Man, envisioned the Divine as "the Omega point". De Chardin saw God as the limit point of evolution. I am in complete agreement. A centralm myth in the esoteric philosophy of the Kabbalah is that the angels (which we can think of as the intelligent operators of cosmic principle) were granted a boon by the supreme Deity. The boon they requested was to participate in the creation/construction of the universe. Our reality has not been presented to us as a fiat accompli. It is moving. It changes. It is alive and we are participants in its life. Voltaire's statement: "Si Dieux n'existe pas, il faudrait l'inventuer. {If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him}" was probably meant as a sarcastic comment on the inability of humanity to stand on its own two feet and take responsibility for his actions. Yet I have adopted it as my personal motto. We, like the angels, are involved in the creation of the Divine.

As creatures within the framework of time we cannot always see the effects of the ripples of our actions (for want of a nail, shoe, horse, battle, war was lost...) but we can be quite sure that for every action an equal and opposite reaction will occur. Karma is quite real for the simple reason that our consequences have actions. The universe around us changes because we change it. Too often do we use only minuscule foresight. Yet, at the boundary of time we can sense the Alpha Omega that exists outside of time. The meditation of the moment can align us with the joyful Creation in which we, like the angels, are participants in creating a living God worthy of the highest ideals and dreams of humanity.

Om. Peace. Om