Everything.
The entire world acts in a logical fashion, following sets of rules. Humanity is the only exception.
Good can exist without bad, so long as good is something other than "not bad", and bad something other than "not good".
Love can exist without hate, as long as we define love as something other than "not hate".
If you insist on defining things by what they are not, then of course they cannot exist without an opposing concept.
As for the scientific extremes, dark does not exist, only light does. Dark is defined by the absence of light, but light is not defined by the absence of dark.
The same holds true for sound, hot, close and everything else.
As for the opposites of logical and illogical, what I contest is not that they exist, but the idea that they require one another, and that they are equally valid and important. If logic is defined as a sphere of relations in which actions or events relate to each other by a set of criteria, it will of necessity exclude other types of events or actions, otherwise it is meaningless. But that does not mean it is dependent on those other types of events or actions existing.
To insist that the entire world is logical would be incorrect I agree. This does not mean that the world cannot be entirely explained in terms of logic, or, if you so desire, in terms of illogic.
The entire world acts in a logical fashion, following sets of rules.
Only By human definition. Nature breaks its own rules all the time. Have you heard of the X factor, chaos , miracles and those little unexpected exceptions to the rules. that seem to have been confounding humanity since it's genesis?
We think we have structural engineering down pat.. and
so far it seems to be working ,
kind of. Things still fall apart.
I don't see one other science we have even come close to mastering.
Also We have yet to explore 98% of the ocean floors and still 11% of the land surface. We don't even know whats going on, on our own planet.
Our brain can't figure it self out .
I See your "rules" being broken all the time.
Good can exist without bad, so long as good is something other than "not bad", and bad something other than "not good".
Love can exist without hate, as long as we define love as something other than "not hate".
If you insist on defining things by what they are not, then of course they cannot exist without an opposing concept.
I am not defining anything by what it is not? (Although that is something Ni does) I am aware of "duality".. Every good scientist knows about spectrum . You obviously can't get your head around this concept, despite it being "out there" and well received in science , religion, philosophy and psychology.
As for the scientific extremes, dark does not exist, only light does. Dark is defined by the absence of light, but light is not defined by the absence of dark.
The same holds true for sound, hot, close and everything else.
Light is the absence of darkness, Now what? Definitions are human constructs.. I think the real argument here is you are arrogant in your humanity and I am not. You believe science has all the answers
already, instead of understanding it I
might have all the answers some day but not in your life time. And that's a scientific fact
As for the opposites of logical and illogical, what I contest is not that they exist, but the idea that they require one another, and that they are equally valid and important. If logic is defined as a sphere of relations in which actions or events relate to each other by a set of criteria, it will of necessity exclude other types of events or actions, otherwise it is meaningless. But that does not mean it is dependent on those other types of events or actions existing.
To insist that the entire world is logical would be incorrect I agree. This does not mean that the world cannot be entirely explained in terms of logic, or, if you so desire, in terms of illogic.
Yeah, my point is to not pick one over the other It's to understand that they have equal value. Which is what this thread is actually about. How people perceive and to not depreciate each other based on those perceptions, especially when we often end up at the same place anyway.
If science doesn't include what might exist outside of " necessity exclude other types of events or actions" then we get things like Mr Gore's Hockey stick graph, which was very controlled data that insisted only one possibility of the cause.
That's why 3 weeks ago he was saying "We always knew Global warming was going to cause Global cooling"
( I sat though his hour and half bullshit movie one more time just to make sure he didn't mention the word cooling, he didn't, not once)
Are we demonizing each other? No.. we just value different things. The problem is only when one human being thinks their perception is absolute.
The whole world could vanish tomorrow and the universe wouldn't even blink. How's that for your human arrogance??
If you died tomorrow , save for a few people who care for you. Your
town wouldn't even notice.
Put things in perspective and be thankful you are alive and experiencing enough to ask these questions.
You puny carbon based brain is never going to figure it all out and neither is mine. If we work together instead of apart. we are one step closer to defying the abyss.
That is really what w are talking here. and Humanity is all about duality.