|Posted by:||Stephen Murrish|
In Whispering and other sources, I have seen the example of unconscious logic illustrated thus:|
Men are mortal.
Grass is mortal.
Men are grass.
By this am I to gather that the unconscious works through giving entities mutual indentities through shared qualities?
A has quality C.
B has quality C.
Therefore A and B are identical.
If this is so, is this also the "logic" of anchoring? That is, is the equating of two different stimuli to "mean" a single response a similar "logic"? Or is it something different?
Does symbolism work by this sort of logic? That two disparate things equate through sharing a quality?
I hate to admit it, as it seems to be such a simple issue, but I find just what is meant by the statement that the first syllogism as a representative of unconscious logic to be confusing.
If anyone would care to illustrate a few more examples or give some more detailed explanations on the issue I would appreciate it greatly.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|Unconscious logic.||19/03/2004 08:23:27||Stephen Murrish|
|Logical types: intuitive distinctions||19/03/2004 11:30:18||James Tsakalos|
|Re:Logical types: intuitive distinctions||19/03/2004 12:51:02||Anthony|
|Re:Re:Logical types: intuitive distinctions||19/03/2004 23:21:34||James Tsakalos|
|Re:Logical types: intuitive distinctions||20/03/2004 23:45:12||InnerCalm|
|Re:Unconscious logic.||19/03/2004 17:07:25||Vladimir Munguia|
|Re:Re:Unconscious logic.||19/03/2004 18:32:14||Stephen Murrish|
|Re:Unconscious logic.||22/03/2004 08:24:31||nj|
|Re:Re:Unconscious logic.||24/03/2004 05:34:49||Stephen Murrish|
|Re:Re:Re:Unconscious logic.||25/03/2004 19:54:20||InnerCalm|
|Re:Re:Re:Re:Unconscious logic.||26/03/2004 05:48:09||Stephen Murrish|
|Ahh, ok ...||26/03/2004 07:29:36||Stephen Murrish|
|Re:Re:Re:Unconscious logic.||27/03/2004 22:25:44||nj|