Contrastive Logic

As we saw with one of the over-arching projects of Zen, to focus on a single word’s meaning, like Logic, can be polyvalently-problematic. To ask us to determine what is or is not logical, is to rely on a consensus of assumptions about what logic is in the first place. If we ask Locke, I don’t think he would agree embodied knowledge that is contingent on felt sensations of the body is an appropriate heuristic system, let alone a logical means to arrive at information. I, on the other hand, would say it is completely logical to listen to your body and the data that comes in via your heartrate, muscle tension, and sweating palms as you read the work of, ohh, I don’t know…how about Sir Locke, himself. I know I disagree with his hyper-rationalist ideas not just because I can controvert them in my abstract thought process, but because I feel it in my skin crawling and eyes dilating as I try to make it through another paragraph of his self-contradicting work. I pay attention to an ecology of heuristic systems when I am reading and writing rhetorically, and I think, for the most part, that is not what is expected when we say: “oh, be logical, why don’t you!”

I think my main problem with the prompting in our culture to deal logically is that as of right now logic is not seen as inclusive enough to be comprised of an ecology of heuristic systems; Sponsors of logic want to claim that it is a, if not the, superior means of contriving epistemology. Wrong. Unless Logic’s definition is expanded.

If logic gets me from point A to point B, why does that necessarily mean there can’t be 5 ways to get from A to B? Ways that might even seem circular, zig-zagged, or anti-chronological, which I can just see Locke absolutely shivering in his little booties to try. Let me be specific:

Contrastive Rhetoric

There is this thing called Contrastive Rhetoric, and this system gives us symbolic representations for the ways people in different cultures write; systems that are rational, reasonable, even logical in their culture because it has the greatest rhetorical effect on their respective audiences. To be crystal clear: in some European and Asian cultures it is extremely rude to jump straight to an intended point or thesis both in conversation and in academic work. In the US, however, we like to spell out in the most efficient way possible what we will argue, followed by our argument, and then why it mattered that we argued that particular point. No fluffy stories in between, please. But all of these composition strategies  are logical for their respective culture because they get the writer from point A (composition) to point B (hopefully the happy-effect on audience). The way I see people like Locke describe logic is that only one system is superior, and if I had to put that system in an image it would be the first line with the arrow straight down south (kind of like his logic). My own definition (at this point in my life) of logic would look like all of these crazy lines combined, plus an extra spot for “new” logics we haven’t discovered or described yet. 

So what is a logical question? A question coming from a person that perceives their question as logical. What is an a-logical question? A question that the asker perceives as stupid but asks anyway, or a question that seemed logical to the asker and stupid to the receiver. Totally contingent on context. Whoa. Is logical a rhetorical reality, too?!

(I really am sorry for my sassy tone in these posts--these are actually quite enjoyable for me to think through!) :)