CHAOS.WAV: LOGICAL LUNACY
LOGICO-ABSURDUS
🌖︎ 🌗︎ 🌘︎ 🌑︎ ࣪𖤐 🌑︎ 🌔︎ 🌓︎ 🌒︎
PARTS:
1. Language 🗣
2. Logic ⚖
3. CHAOS.WAV: LOGICAL LUNACY 𖦹
In the shadow of the valley of language, there’s a labyrinth of logical paradoxes, where the hunger of chaos grows and only grows.
Language promises clarity, but that’s cap: The meaning behind our expressions is an ever fleeting mirage.
In the process of conveying ideas, language loses meaning to logic.
Logic employs fancy rules, terms, and structures designed to preserve meaning within a given language. But unfortunately, the closer we look at our words, the more we uncover gaps in judgement.
Knowledge is dynamic insofar as logic is dynamic.
And so, the fact is this:
Logic can only scratch the surface of the knowledgeable universe: only conjecture…
Attempts to dive below the surface of language to attain deeper knowledge, only lures logical lunacy and contradictions out from their shadows.
Philosophers through time feed into logical lunacy in their unusual use of language, whether they know it or not.
Logical Lunacy:
L ↔ ~(◇P ∧ □Q)
Let L = “Logical Lunacy”.
[L is true if and only if ~(◇P ∧ □Q) holds true.]~(◇P ∧ □Q) represents the negation of the conjunction of two propositions:
◇P = possible world where P is true (existential truth).
□Q = Q is true in all possible worlds (universal truth).Logical Lunacy (n.): a rejection of existential and univeral modes of truth, thereby trashing conventional logical and linguistic constraints.
Literally, philosophers are lunatics!
Let’s explore what that means in praxis:
Here’s a collection of 10 “non-”satirical axioms which highlight the philosophers toxic relationship w/logic, language, and the world:
Axiom ➊: ∀x (L(x) ∧ ¬(x = S)) → F(x)
[For all logical systems x, if x is not equal to this one (S), then x is fundamentally flawed.]“All philosophical systems are fundamentally flawed, except the one I just made up.”
Philosophers recognize flaws in other logical systems and believe their own offers a more complete understanding.
➋: ∀x (P(x) → H(x))
[For all arguments x, if x is a chaotic argument, then x is profound.]“The more chaotic the argument, the more profound it must be.”
Philosophers navigate chaotic ideas, revealing the most profound insights through the interplay of opposing viewpoints.
➌: ∀x (L(x) → ∀y (C(y) → ¬T(y)))
[For all logical systems x, if x is a logical system, then for all arguments y, if y is comprehensible, then y is not true in x.]“The more you comprehend logic, the less sense it makes.”
Philosophers understand that logic unveils truths as it twists and turns, revealing the nature of reality.
➍: ∀x (P(x) → (C(x) → ¬T(x)))
[For all arguments x, if x is a valid argument, then if x is comprehensible, then x is not true.]“The validity of an argument is inversely proportional to its comprehensibility.”
Profound arguments often arise from complex concepts, while simplicity may fall short of capturing truth.
➎: ∀x ((A(x) ∧ J(x)) → (T(x) ∧ H(x)))
[For all arguments x, if x is absurd and can be justified with convoluted reasoning, then x is both true and profound.]“Absurdity is the highest form of truth, but only if you can justify it with convoluted reasoning.”
Philosophers embrace absurdity, using intricate reasoning to transcend rational understanding and reach deeper truths.
❻: ∀x (P(x)→~R(y))→P(xy)
[For all logical rules x, there exists a logical rule y such that if x negates y, then both x and y are valid arguments.]“In the realm of logic, contradictions are new harmonies.”
Contradictions are seen as opportunities for synthesis, revealing the unity of opposing concepts.
❼: ∀x (∀y (R(x, y) → (P(x) ∧ P(y))))
[For all arguments x, if x is comprehensible, then there exists an equally compelling counter-argument y for x.]“For every logical rule, there exists an equally compelling counter-argument.”
Philosophers engage in dialectical processes, considering counter-arguments to reach higher synthesis.
❽: ∀x (U(x) → (∃y (¬T(y) ∧ H(y)) → (∃z (¬T(z) ∧ H(z)) → J(x))))
[For all arguments x, if x is understandable, then if there exist arguments y and z such that y and z are not true and profound, then x is justified.]“The deeper you delve into philosophy, the more you realize it’s all just wordplay (and visa versa), which deepens your connection to it.”
Philosophers recognize the playful nature of philosophical discourse, falling in love with the wordplay of complex ideas.
❾: ∀x (¬T(x) → A(x))
[For all arguments x, if x is not true, then x is absurd.]“True enlightenment lies in the acceptance of the inherent absurdity of logical coherence.”
Embracing absurdity and contradictions leads to philosophical enlightenment.
❿: ¬U(S)
[It is not the case that there exists an understanding of this book (S) that comprehends everything.]“If you understand everything within a logical system/philosophy, then it wasn’t made properly.”
Complete comprehension undermines the purpose of the philosophical journey, which is an ongoing process of growth and discovery.
