The Hammer of 2 valued logic

The Hammer of Aristotelian logic

By Gary Jaron, April 26, 2006

[Submitted to ETC magazine for publication]

      Abraham Maslow once said something very important about ideas as tools; at the time he was commenting on the work and analysis being done concerning human psychology by Skinnerian psychologists.  Maslow stated:  "If the only thing you happen to have is a hammer, then you will tend to treat everything as if it were a nail."(1) I call this the tool trap and I hope to help you find ways to compensate for it.

      Maslow's realization is this: that every tool by its very nature imposes its nature, its essence, its usefulness and its uselessness, upon the user, and in doing so shapes the context of the user interacting with the environment.    Hence if you have one tool you will unconsciously distort and ignore the actual nature of your environment and you will consider all the things around you only in accordance with the attributes associated with that tool.  In Maslow's example of the hammer everything other than the hammer must be a nail, things to be pounded upon, to be interacted with and by the nature of the hammer.

      Let me give you a demonstration of the idea of the tool trap's relevance.  Consider one of the most fundamental ideas we have as a very simple analytic tool.  This very simple tool is the rule of logic that says the following:

Rule #1 Given any two things being considered, if one is true and/or good the other must therefore be false and/or bad/evil.

      You say this is self-evident truth.  Well actually it is not.  But for now let's put that ‘self-evident' truth into practice to demonstrate how in practice this specific tool traps us, the user of that rule.

Conclusion #1) If the First Rule is valid then in general is it not the case that there is really only one true thing in any given category of things?  Should we not seek out that one true thing and acknowledge its goodness and truth?

Conclusion #2) Given the First Rule and conclusion #1, since there is only one truth in any one category of things therefore in the category of religions and sacred scriptures there can be only one true religion and one true sacred scripture.  This makes all other scriptures false, bad and/or a source of evil.

Conclusion #3) Given the First Rule and conclusion #1, since there is only one good thing in any one category of things therefore in the category of races that make up the human species one race must be good and all others must be defective, bad and/or evil.

Conclusion #4) Given the First Rule and conclusion #1, since there is only one good thing in any one category of things therefore in the category of the two sexes that make up the human species one sex must be good and the other must be defective, bad and/or evil.

      Conclusions #1, #2, #3 and #4 must be valid if the First Rule is valid.  Is not logically consistency a good thing?  Should we not put into practice the conclusions that are derived from our logical tool?  You should notice that the collection of conclusions I listed is the logical foundations for sexism, racism and religious fundamentalism with the resulting intolerance and acts of violence when each of those four conclusions is put into practice.  The hammer of the First Rule is the root cause.  I will demonstrate how we have allowed ourselves to be tool trapped and therefore we have allowed such destructive ideas to be tolerated in the name of logical consistency.

      To avoid the tool trap you first must be aware that you can be tool trapped.  Secondly, to escape the limitations of any one tool you must have many, that is why I collect ideas, to keep seeking and acquiring more tools and thus to avoid being limited in my ability to interact and comprehend my environment.

      As I explored the realm of human knowledge I encountered the writings of Alfred Korzybski.  Korzybski noted that the tool of everyday logic we use is flawed due to the assumptions it requires.  Yet that everyday logic is our most important and powerful mental set of tools we possess.  To think, to analyze, the very act of comprehension, all of this is done through the use of this most primal and foundational tool.  That tool can be labeled Aristotelian logic, henceforth designated as A-logic.  That tool of everyday logic stems from and grows out of the formal system of logic that Aristotle outlined in his philosophic writings. (2)

      Korzybski laid out an expanded system of logic that he called Non-Aristotelian that I henceforth will refer to by the designation Null-A. (3)  [http://time-binding.org/index.htm]Korzybski's Null-A logic does not replace A-logic.  The rules and tools of A-logic still are utilized.  Null-A logic extends what can be considered possible by recognizing the possibility of the ‘middle ground'.  Additionally I have formulated a metaphoric tool of Null-A system of logic that utilizes and recognizes probabilities, and therefore in any given situation, event, or thing being considered, they can be placed on a theoretical continuum between the two abstract 100% A and 100% non-A possibilities.

      Before we can understand Null-A logic we need to understand something about A-logic, since A-logic is considered a subset of Null-A logic.  We have now returned to the topic I presented in my introduction.  We have returned to what I called the ‘First Rule'.  In actuality the ‘First Rule' is a seminal tool trap that stems from the logical conclusion of Aristotle's three major laws of A-logic.  These three laws can be described as follows:

1. The law of identity: A is A.  A, the thing being considered at a certain point in time is broken down into a list of its identifying properties; this list is the exact and specific definition of and the equivalent of A.

2. The law of non-contradiction: A is not non-A.  If this list of properties determines the definition of A, therefore anything lacking one of those properties must be by definition something other than A and hence must be non-A.  A can only be itself, it cannot at the same time be itself, A, and not be itself, non-A.

3. The law of excluded middle: Anything and everything must be either 100% A or it is 100% non-A, there is nothing that is neither A and non-A at the same time.

      Using this list which defines the properties of A we can examine a second object under consideration, X, it must have as its list of identifying properties all those that A has and nothing more if we are to conclude it is to be classified as A.  If it has even one different identifying property other than those associated with A then X must be designated as not being A.  It is an all or nothing choice.  Every thing under consideration, according to A-logic, is a separate, distinct and unique thing.

      Lastly on the basis of those three laws Aristotle outlines a series of rules utilizing them to create rational inferences.  Outlining how to go from what is known to what is unknown.  These include rules of categorizing objects, analytical reasoning by means of defined terms, premises, and the rules he called syllogisms.

      In defense of the universal and exclusive application of Aristotelian logic's law of excluded middle, it is asserted that whenever we find ourselves in a situation where a proposition and its negation both seem false, then we must assume we have failed to consider all the necessary facts with regards to these two choices.  According to A-logic there can never be a situation in which both choices are false.  The defenders of A-logic's universal and its exclusive application insist that there can be a time period in which there is uncertainty in current knowledge and this uncertainty of knowledge could prevent you from deciding whether or not A or non-A is false.  But A-logic is assuming that once the knowledge acquisition process is complete then there will always be a clear choice between the truth of either A or non-A.  No third alternative can be expected under the universal laws of A-logic.

      It is important to note that the previous assertion is dependent on a time when knowledge acquisition process will be complete and at that time we can conclude whether A or non-A is false.  But in the real world there is never an end to the acquisition of information, therefore no human can possess all knowledge at any given point in time.  No human can know with 100% certainty whether all the necessary knowledge has been obtained at any one time.  Nevertheless at any one point in time decisions need to be made on the basis of the realization that one does not posses all knowledge and therefore one only has incomplete information.  A-logic is used in the here and now when upon reflection we have to admit that despite not having all theoretically possible facts and information, we need to make a decision that could be flawed.

      The real world consequence of this limitation is that in the workings of all fields of science and engineering, these two real world systems utilize probabilities and percentage factors of tolerance to required specifications.  They never have 100% certainty.  They only have statistical probabilities of less than 100%.  Nothing is ever made, built, constructed, manufactured, etc., to 100% perfection of required specifications.

      Alfred Korzybski in his 1933 book Science and Sanity examined A-logic.  There he noted the underlying premises or assumptions in each of these three laws that I propose are the source of the tool traps of A-logic.  The following is a partial list of those underlying premises:

      1.  A-logic assumes that it is possible to obtain 100% certainty at any point in time.  But absolute 100% certainty requires the acquisition of absolutely all knowledge.  As stated previously the acquisition of knowledge is a never ending ongoing process and therefore 100% certainty based on absolutely all knowledge is not obtainable in the real world at any given point in time.

      2.  A- logic assumes that Truth or Falsity is a matter of all or nothing.  For any given examination using the principles of A-logic we can with absolute certainty derive results from which we will know that if a thing is not 100% true then it must therefore be 100% false.  There are only these two possibilities.  But absolute 100% certainty is not obtainable in the real world.  Therefore in the real world there is a continuum of probability between the abstract purity of 100% true and 100% false.

      3.  A-logic assumes that any two objects can be demonstrated to be 100% identical.  But this assertion is false to the facts of the real world.  In actuality it is impossible to demonstrate that any two objects are 100% identical and therefore we can only demonstrate degrees of similarity between any objects under examination and consideration.  Therefore for any given object A, all things must be considered non-A, since no two objects can be 100% identical.  Therefore the only basis for rational and logical analysis of any two objects is to consider the degree of similarity the two objects have in their respective structure of their component parts/elements.  Since no two objects have 100% identical component parts/elements.

      4.  A-logic assumes hidden and/or ignored contexts: A-logic only considers an object within a single context at any one time.  A-logic either assumes a timeless and space-less hypothetical context or considers an object within real space and time but only a singular, usually unstated, moment and point in space and time.  For A-logic the implicit and therefore hidden and unnoticed context in which an object or thing is examined is a context that is static and is a discontinuous segments of time and space.  This static discontinuous segmentation creates a tendency to ignore the fact that the real objects under examination in the real world change over time due to interactions that are continuing to occur between the objects environment and itself.  The real world is dynamic, interrelated, and interconnected.

      5.  A-logic assumes that you are able to completely separate from its environment individual whole objects that can then be examined so that all of the parts, the components, of that whole object can be identified.

      A-logic takes objects and events under consideration out of the context of the real dynamic and interconnect world, we abstract out of reality those items that we are at a given moment to be considered and thus ignore what we left behind.  But all things are totality interrelated and interconnected and are always in a dynamic flux of interactions.  A-logic has to slice events and objects out of this dynamic flux of interconnections and place it in an artificially humanly created abstract setting of limitations.  We are incapable of considering everything all at once, but A-logic fails to acknowledge this limitation and to consider the implications of this real limitation.

      6.  A-logic assumes that for any given object under examination we have in fact identified exhaustively all its relevant and important components with absolute certainty.  This is an assumption that is not verified and can not be verified since we cannot at any one moment in time know all there is to know about the objects under examination, and we cannot with certainty be assured that we are not lacking an important fact that would change our result if we were aware of it.  A-logic just asserts that the results of its logic are timeless and forever applicable and valid.

      7.  A-logic generally assumes that given any two known identified chosen conceptual objects/properties/attributes, A and non-A, that these are: 1) mutually exclusive; and 2) are in opposition and are contradictory in nature to each other.  When a non-conceptual unknown object X is examined, that object X's properties when listed will either have as one of its identifying properties characterized as A or non-A.  Object X has to be A or non-A exclusively.

      A-logic ignores these assumptions and limitations; Null-A logic takes these into account.

      Let us take a few examples to elucidate how A-logic fails to explain or reveal the way reality, the world we live in, operates.

      1.  A and Non-A: Life and Death:  A-logic would have us presume that we must be either alive or dead.  The definitions of Life and the definition of Death are presumed to be mutually exclusive and in opposition and contradictory to one another.  In reality of the dynamic real world, paradoxically this is not the case.  The fact of material physical existence is the inability of any given object or system to sustain its current state of being.

      Any and all material objects will deteriorate.  Any and all material objects that are living systems cannot sustain that system's life indefinitely and forever.  All living things grow old and the systems that sustained its life will inevitably cease to function over time, and the thing will die.  To be alive is not a static event but a dynamic process of change and transformation, a process of transformation that will inevitable end.  We will all die.  We can postpone that time by not taking risks, by a variety of means, but we will all die.

      Actually from the moment of conception the process and time line of our existence begins to flow toward our death.  We are born to die.  We are born in the process of dying.  But we are also born in the process of becoming alive.  We grow and change which is the essence of life.  So at each and every moment of our existence we are both in the process of living and in the process of dying.  We are always A and non-A, it matters not if the A under consideration is life or death.  We are always both.  Life and death are two facts; two points at the end of a time line and are also words for two processes.  The process of living is the process of dying and vice a versa.

      2.  A and non-A: Adequate and Inadequate illumination:  We mainly live in and experience objects or environments that are somewhat less than pure white/light or pure black/dark.  We experience a gradient of color and shading - a continuum.  Most natural objects and natural environments are more or less dark or more or less filled with illumination.  The more illumination the more it appears to be white, the less illumination the more it appears black.  There are also times when for us the environment we are encountering appears black/dark, but to a cat, or other animal with differently attuned preceptors, the environment is filled with illumination, for them it is adequately lit/white.

      For example, at night when I step into a room without the lights turned on, to me all of the room is black, dark, and inadequately illuminated.   Yet, I know that my cat can see me, can perceive me and can walk up to me and rub against me.  The room is not black/dark to my cat.  The non-A of blackness, darkness and inadequate illumination is defined by the context of who is making the judgment, my cat or I.  The condition of adequate or inadequate illumination is valid or invalid at the same time depending on which perspective or vantage point we are defining the situation from.  To me it may be non- A of inadequate illumination, blackness, and darkness but to my cat it is the A of adequate light.  A or non-A is a matter of whose perspective are we considering.  And the choice of A or non-A becomes even more ambiguous once we consider a third person, someone who has night vision goggles and is watching both my cat and I walking in my room at night.  That third observer knows that I am in blackness and inadequate illumination but my cat is in adequate illumination - both are valid descriptions of the same actual environmental conditions.  Hence which is it?  Is the correct description of the environment non-A of inadequate illumination or A of adequate illumination?

      From the perspective of the third person observer of us both, she must conclude it is neither completely, non-A of blackness and inadequate illumination, or A of adequate illumination.  A, the actually environmental condition is a point on a continuum of illumination which from the differing vantage points of I, the human, and the animal my cat, appear one way or the other depending on which of the two participating vantage points are considered.

      A is usually being defined in a specific context and potentially we can shift the context and reveal that from this new vantage point A now can be defined as non-A.

      3.  A or non-A: Wholes and Parts: Known conceptual object A is the property of Wholeness.  Known conceptual object non-A is the property of Partness.  According to A-logic the choice is either exclusive partness or exclusive wholeness.  But, take any other unknown non-conceptual object labeled X, say a human being, according to A-logic must be able to be classified as either having the attribute of being 100% a Whole thing, or 100% a part, which is non-A.  That object X must remain unchanged as either being able to be classified exclusively as A = whole or as non-A = part.  X either is A = whole or can be identified as being non-A = part.  X cannot be both.  According to A-Logic the process and results of such a comparison can and must be 100% exhaustive, all-inclusive and 100% conclusive.  Once truth is derived it is final and valid forever.  Once X is labeled as being A, a whole for example, it is assumed that it is forever has the conceptual characteristics of being A = whole as its defining property.

      By definition and the laws of A-logic, if object X, a human being, is considered in some new context and found that it now has the attributes of being a part, then object X must no longer be itself.  It must now be a totally new object, because the identifying list of object X's attributes must include it having the property of being a whole, attribute A.  It cannot have both the attributes of A=whole and non-A=part.  It must have only one or the other to maintain its own identity.  If it has the attribute non-A, a part, then object X must not be itself according to the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle, thus it must be given a new designation and be treated as a wholly new thing, object Z.  This is how A-logic can results in paradox and confusion.

      To illustrate the above in concrete terms, we consider ourselves as a human being a whole thing.  Now imagine we are not feeling well and go to see a doctor.  The doctor considers us as a thing composed of many parts, one or more of which is ‘malfunctioning'.  In the context of a medical exam, from our perspective we have the property of being a whole thing, attribute A, we are a whole body that feels ill.  But from the perspective or vantage point of the doctor, who examines us, we, that human being, are an object that is composed of many parts and also an object which is part of our environment where in we became expose to something that triggered our illness.  We, and the environment that we came from, are the whole unit.  Our self, our body is merely a part of the collective whole of us living in our environment, which explains our illness.  We are one whole unit and a collection of parts depending on what context one is considering at any one time.

      Now imagine a third person, a social scientist conducting a survey, enters the examining room.  From the social scientist's perspective we, the patient and the doctor, are parts of one larger social unit in many ways although we consider ourselves to be whole and separate beings.  The social scientist may see us as human beings who are parts of a larger whole, some social context, and some societal whole object.  To the social scientist we, patient and doctor, are parts of a whole thing know as families, or of a whole thing known as religious communities, or of a country, or of political parties, etc.  We, doctor and patient, are merely parts of some social whole entity.  Thus under the rigid rules of A-logic there is a seeming contradictions.  I may think I was a whole, but the doctor knew I was a part of my environment and the social scientist knew we both were a part of some social whole entity.

      It is important to realize that we have not change the point in time under consideration.  We have only shifted between contextual frameworks.  I am and was always a whole and a part depending on the contextual consideration.

      A-logic fails to consider the possibilities of shifting variables in shifting multiple contexts and it also assumes by an underlying foundational assumption of A-logic that any and all two choices of attribute A and non-A are and must always be mutually exclusive and in opposition.  A-logic creates a paradox by ignoring the context of object X when its attributes were being listed.  A-logic does not consider that some or all of the attributes can be present and significant only in certain contexts.  A shift in context and some new factor becomes significant and what was once a whole is now seen as a part.  A = wholeness or non-A = not wholeness, which is partness or A = partness and non-A = not partness which would be wholeness, is present all at the same time depending on the shift in contexts and perspectives.

      If we define A completely, which we must in accordance to the rules of A-logic, then we must conclude that A is always potentially both a whole and a part.  And we must also consider wholeness and partness as not being in opposition but rather as complementary attributes.  But that is not a valid choice in the abstract and theoretical system of A-logic, but it is valid in the actuality of choices within the reality of a living world environment.

      Arthur Koestler in his book The Ghost In The Machine, first published in 1967, coined the term ‘Holon' to recognize the complementary attributes of wholeness and partness.(4)  Koestler later coined the term Holarchy to refer to the structural arrangements of Holons.(5)

      Now let us consider those pairs once again to demonstrate the error of concluding that the three laws can and should create as valid the ‘First Rule'.   Those pairs were:

      Life and Death

      White and Black

      Light and Dark

      Whole and Part

      True and False

      Good and Bad/evil

      A-logic further tool traps us by asserting a classification scheme with only two values.  A-logic asserts that for these two values there can be no middle ground, it is not a matter of degrees of probability but of only 100% uniqueness and completeness.

      Let's take the assertion of 100%, all or nothing.  In the real world we can measure an object or thing.  For example we can measure the amount of ambient light at a particular spot in the environment; photographers do this all the time to adjust their cameras in taking their pictures so that they may get the results they want, intended or need.  If A-logic were the only tool then the meter would simply show that there is no light or that there is all light.  Once you think about this you can realize how absurd that statement is.  The world around us is not one of pure darkness or pure light but a world of gradations of light and shadows.  An actually the world is also full of varying shades of color - this gradation of light and shadow helps create not only the shades of gray but enables the whole continuum of varying colors to be seen.

      In actuality in anything that we could consider to measure there is not the A-logic's limitation of only two possible choices, 100% of anything, but rather a gradation of possibilities.  In actuality the act of measuring and the calibration of the measuring tools utilize a system of logic that is beyond the limited two value 100% all or nothing choices of A-logic.  All those tools utilize a Null-A system of variable possibilities and the model of the continuum.  Science and Engineering would not exist if all its tools were calibrated by the all or nothing limitations of the two-valued trap of A-logic.

      A-logics three laws imply that everything can be classified and evaluated as either A or non-A.  Hence those six pairs that I listed as examples.   The subtlest assumption and the subtlest trap of the A-logic tool is this limitation of only two values.  Since A-logic only considers two values, A or non-A, the tool user assumes that A-logic is asserting a scheme of evaluation which has only two choices and this two valued scheme of evaluation is always relevant.   A tool trap of A-logic is the seeming implication that all things can, and therefore should or must be evaluated by two possible all or nothing, A or non-A, variables, such as True and False, or Good and Bad.   The implications are that True/Good and False/Bad are always applicable.  This is how the First Rule came to be formulated.

      But consider these pairs:

      Up and Down

      Top and Bottom

      Inside and Outside

      Big and Little

      Hard and Soft

      Loud and Quite

      Audio and Visual

      Fast and Slow

      Cats and Dogs

      Does it really make any sense to evaluate either one of these pairs as being true or false; or to evaluate any one of these pairs as being good or bad?  Those evaluation terms in the abstract without any context to those sets of pairs are not relevant.  But we can imagine a context in which those pairs could be evaluated by the two-valued scheme of true and false or good and bad.  We can construct a context whereby we can make a statement such as: the volume of the music we are playing is loud, and in that context someone can evaluate that statement and answer that the statement is either true or false.   It is the context of the situation that makes the evaluating scheme relevant.

      Without a specific context the idea that we can evaluate either of the pairs make no sense.  Fast and slow without a context is neither good nor bad, neither true nor false.  Fast and slow can be evaluated when there is a contextual situation and we can make statements about the contextual situation which can then be evaluated as being either good or bad in that context, or as being true or false descriptions in that context.  Without a context making an evaluation of good or bad, true or false is nonsense.

      But A-logic creates the tool trap that we can always evaluate a thing and that we need not consider any context at all.  Up, down, top, bottom, inside, outside, wholes and parts, Audio, visual, cats, dogs, etc all, and any pair you can imagine, are terms that require a context to be meaningful or relevant.  Without a context to refer to there is no meaning to the application of the evaluating terms of good, bad, true or false.  In the abstract, in the context-less vacuum that is pure abstraction, there can be no relevance to asserting an evaluation to one of the sets of pairs as being good, bad, true or false.  Those pairs I listed, and any pair of terms you can list are statements of differences.  Difference can be evaluated only in a context.

      But even then the evaluating terms of true, false, good, or bad may still not be applicable.  A-logic seems to imply that they are always applicable, hence the First Rule.  A-logic tool traps us by implying that a thing is either always relevant or never relevant - A or non-A.  If it is relevant in one instance, then A-logic tool traps us by the all or nothing implication, that it must therefore always be relevant.  Or if it is not relevant in one instance then it most not be relevant at all in every instance.  The tool trap of A-logic is forcing the evaluating scheme to be considered applicable, useful and relevant on the basis of an all or nothing choice - again A or non-A.

      The evaluating terms of true, false, good, and bad are a conceptual tool.  It is foolish to think that a single tool is always relevant.  Consider as an example the tool we call a hammer.  Is a hammer a useful means to cut wood?  Is a hammer a useful means to smooth down the rough surface of a piece of wood?  Is a hammer a useful means to tap the keys on the computer keyboard?  Is a hammer a useful device if you want to measure the amount of ambient light another object is receiving?  Is a hammer a useful device if you want to write your name on a piece of paper?  Is a hammer a useful device if you want to play the violin?  Is the hammer a useful tool when you want to cook a turkey for thanksgiving dinner?  Is the hammer a useful tool when you want to play a game of golf, pool, football, checkers, chess, etc.?  Does the hammers lack of being useful in each of these instances mean it is utterly and totally useless and never useful?  The all or nothing evaluation tool trap of A-logic seems to imply this outcome.

      But a mere moments consideration is all that is needed to realize that the hammers lack of usefulness in those many contexts I listed does not thereby imply that it is utterly and always useless.  A tool is useful in a specific context.  It is not an all or nothing choice.  It is only the tool trap of A-logic that implies an all or nothing, A or non-A, application.  Null-A logic does not imply an all or nothing choice.  Null-A logic allows for a complete continuum of possibilities with 100% everything/all at one end of the continuum and 0% nothing at the other end of the continuum.

      Depending on the context many things can be good/true or bad/false, and being classified as one or the other does not diminish the possibility of other things be classified the same way.  Goodness/truth and badness/false is not a limited resource that would be diminished and used up with each application.  They are classification schemes whose applicability is limited only by its accuracy of application.  There need not be only one true or good thing.  The idea that ‘there can be only one', is itself a tool trap of A-logic, that idea need not be applicable in all contexts.

      In the end we must recognize that A- logic is a tool and that it is an important analytic set of tools, but like all tools, it can tool trap the tool user.

      Let me restate what I have been calling the First Rule:

Rule #1 Given any two things being considered, if one is true and/or good the other must therefore be false and/or bad/evil.

      I believe that you can now see why I described First Rule in the beginning of this article as erroneous.  The First Rule is a rule whose basis is dependent on the assumptions and implication, the tool traps, of first three laws of A-logic being valid in all cases.  I hope I have shown that since the first three laws of A-logic are not always valid and that the evaluating tool of all or nothing is not always relevant, therefore the First Rule is also not always valid, relevant or applicable.  This conclusion does invalidate the four conclusions mentioned earlier in this article that were derived from that First Rule.  Those conclusions were:

Conclusion #1) If the First Rule is valid then in general is it not the case that there is really only one true thing in any given category of things?  Should we not seek out that one true thing and acknowledge its goodness and truth?

Conclusion #2) Given the First Rule and conclusion #1, since there is only one truth in any one category of things therefore in the category of religions and sacred scriptures there can be only one true religion and one true sacred scripture.  This makes all other scriptures false, bad and/or a source of evil.

Conclusion #3) Given the First Rule and conclusion #1, since there is only one good thing in any one category of things therefore in the category of races that make up the human species one race must be good and all others must be defective, bad and/or evil.

Conclusion #4) Given the First Rule and conclusion #1, since there is only one good thing in any one category of things therefore in the category of the two sexes that make up the human species one sex must be good and the other must be defective, bad and/or evil.

      All of those four conclusions are invalid since they depend on the First Rule being always valid and I have demonstrated that the First Rule, being a tool like any other tool, it is not always valid and/or relevant.  I can now offer some new conclusions.

New conclusion #1) Differences are real.

New conclusion #2) The evaluating tools of good and bad, true and false, are not always applicable and/or relevant.

New conclusion #3) Even when the evaluating tools of good and bad, true and false are applicable and relevant, it is not the case that there must be only one good/true thing.  Every thing needs to be evaluated individually in accordance with whatever set of criteria is being used.  Classification results are not an all or nothing outcome.

New conclusion #4) In accordance with New conclusion #3, given any number of things being considered, if one is true and/or good this has results has no bearing on how the other thing being considered should be classified.

New Conclusion #5) Given new conclusions #1, #2, #3 and #4 the following are possible considerations: male and female, the varying races which make up the human race as a collective, all the varying sacred scriptures and all the varying religions, all of then or none of them could be true, false, good, or bad; or even that those evaluating tools may not be applicable, relevant or meaningful in considering sex, races, sacred scriptures and religions at all.

      Sexism, Racism, and Religious Fundamentalism are in fact the logical application of A-logic and my First Rule.  But without the foundation of validity provided by A-logic Sexism, Racism and Religious Fundamentalism can be shown to be logically invalid and thus unacceptable.  We need not, and we should not, tolerate such unacceptable sets of beliefs any longer.

      I hope you will now realize the hammer-like tool traps of A-logic.  To avoid these tool traps we need to recognize the additional tools found within Null-A logic systems.

References

(1) Robert Ornstein in his book The Psychology of Consciousness, p.60 of the 1986, second revised edition, attribute this quote, without a source text to Abraham Maslow.  In the 1975 first revised edition of the same book on p.23, the quote is footnoted.  The footnote references, without a page number, to Abraham Maslow's book The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance, Henry Regnery, 1969.

(2) http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Aristotle.html

(3) A. E. Van Vogt was the author of two science fiction books that used Alfred Korzybski's Non-Aristotelian system as the basis for the novels.  The novels were The World of Null-A, written in magazine form in 1945 and published in book form in 1948; and The Players of Null-A was the sequel novel published in 1948.  A. E. Van Vogt coined the word Null-A as the short form for the word Non-Aristotelian.

(4) Arthur Koestler, The Ghost In The Machine, Hutchinson Publishing Group, Ltd., London, 1967, pp.65-66.

(5) Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd., London, 1978, p.34

Gary Jaron graduated in 1977 from the University of Washington, Seattle WA with a BA degree in Comparative Religion and graduated in 1986 from Golden Gate University, San Francisco, CA with a JD degree.