Breaking News

Letter to the Editor: Two-Part Logic has been Weaponised

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

After reading an article we published on Monday titled ‘Terrain Theorists Are Not Terrorists but Neither Are Germ Theorists’ a reader has written to us with his thoughts.  He notes how dualistic, two-part logic, has been weaponised and proposes that we need to step back and regain our ability to habitually use four-part logic.

Before we get into his letter: a brief introduction to logic as food for thought.  To some degree, in the age of computers, there has been a conditioning of humans towards dualistic, or binary, logic – either right or wrong and nothing in between.  For illustration purposes then it would seem appropriate to compare the relatively simplistic and mathematical “thinking” of machine learning algorithms, or artificial intelligence (“AI”), to innately complex human thinking.

The final frontier in artificial intelligence is “intelligent” machines, sometimes called “hard” AI, or “general intelligence” – an AI that is intelligent “like us”, that is “conscious” or “self-aware”.  The quest is to design machines that imitate us and our logic tells us we should not be trying to imitate machines – we are far superior to man-made machines in every way and we always will be.

American logician and philosopher Nuel Belnap considered the challenge of a computer answering questions where two contradictory facts were loaded into the computer’s memory and then a query was made. 

“We all know about the fecundity of contradictions in two-valued logic: contradictions are never isolated, infecting as they do the whole system,” he wrote in his 2019 essay ‘How a Computer Should Think’.

So, he proposed a four-valued logic where values are true, false, both (true and false), and neither (true nor false).

Machine learning algorithms work on the principle: given a set of data, a collection of observations about the world, the algorithm attempts to construct a set of rules – a model – which explains those observations. Some might say that just like AI, we construct models to explain the world around us.

But we aren’t man-made machines that are mathematically programmed to search for information and merely repeat the results our search returns. Yes, we should at the very least apply four-valued logic – a fact our reader highlights in his letter – but for those who recognise that a shift from binary towards four-part logic is required, there is more to being human.

We will always surpass the inherent limitations of computer logic – algorithms and artificial intelligence – because our human minds have the ability to explain the actions of another being, or ourselves, by reference to the existence of hidden mental states – our beliefs, emotions, intent, and knowledge. This allows us to make sense of complex behaviour by turning it into a kind of narrative.

The magical “spark” that awakens in a complex system that transforms it from a lifeless machine into a conscious being, wrote Towards Data Science, is not the product of its ability to think, but rather it is the product of our ability to empathise. 

As we read the letter below let’s bear in mind the complexity of human thought and the ability to process and make sense of information as only we humans can.


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


To The Exposé,

Weaponised Oppositional Dualism

I greatly appreciated your recent article, ‘Terrain Theorists Are Not Terrorists but Neither Are Germ Theorists’. I offer these further perspectives that I have not yet heard introduced into this scrum:

The vast majority of the world operates on archaic, dualistic, two-part logic. I hypothesise that we have been subjected to – indeed programmed at a neurological level by – weaponised oppositional dualism to predispose us to us-vs-them reactivity to everything via an activated egoic identity threat, thereby dividing and subdividing us to ensure control by classic, yet now scientifically sophisticated, divide and rule methods.

In two-part logic, a thing is either true or false; and in the egoic identification with one side or the other, it becomes moral (right or wrong).  The opposing side is made “the enemy” and commonly painted with the operational cognitive shortcut like “Terrorist” or “Conspiracy Theorist” or whatever epithet has been established in the public mind to tag “that kind of person”. That’s what we see playing out everywhere, and certainly in this false notion that debate on terrain theory and germ theory should appropriately set the theorists at each other.

In four-part logic, a thing can be true, false, both true and false, or neither true nor false – often indicating the wrong question has been asked. Most things in the human realm fall into the third category and are complex, often paradoxical. This both/and quality is what “mature” egos navigate with grace and equanimity, adapting and integrating, reconciling those apparent opposites that provoke cognitive dissonance, being comfortable with being uncomfortable, admitting to not knowing.

With a paradigm shift to four-part logic, germ theory and terrain theory become complementary frames of understanding, like Wave/Particle Duality and many other examples in science that extend the scope and depth of our knowledge. Einstein didn’t invalidate Newton, he added (yes, radical) nuance in a paradigm-shifting expansion of perspective and possibility. There, hopefully, will be no settling of any scientific debate, but an ongoing refinement that hews closer and closer to the truth.

The duality-indoctrinated egos that have gotten drawn into this virus/no-virus nonsense “debate” are causing damaging polarisation in the movement, but every time we also get drawn into it by only considering the evidence (as Verkerk masterfully did) and not naming the underlying limitation of framing the conflict as either/or, we enable the discord and prolong the fracture. This has also emerged recently in Breggin* (because he’s stuck at an immature level of ego development and can only go so far as “enemy” identification and shadow projection) calling out Desmet as controlled opposition without apprehending the (self-) liberating nuance that Desmet is brilliantly pointing towards.

As Einstein noted, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”

What is needed, I think, is a reconciliation via a paradigm shift, a schooling in four-part logic and the history of science that leads us forward into integrative cooperation and collaboration and breaks us free of those indeed controlling us by division (primarily of Self). Four-part logic opens up a new axis and dimension, a new “level of consciousness” in which there is enough space to co-create peace.

Regards,

Let’s Lead the Way, USA

*Note from The Exposé: The Breggin/Desmet debate stems from a book review by American psychiatrist Peter Breggin and his wife Ginger Ross Breggin.  The review was on a book authored by Professor of Psychology at Ghent University Mattias Desmet titled ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’.

  • Three-part book review by Breggin and Breggin HERE, HERE, HERE
  • Mattias Desmet’s response to the review is HERE.

If you would like to publish a letter, please email it to contact@theexpose.uk addressed “Letter to the Editor.”  At the end of your email, please indicate the name or pseudonym you would like shown when we publish your letter.

Share this page to Telegram

Categories: Breaking News, World News

Tagged as:

3.8 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
1 month ago

[…] Letter to the Editor: Two-Part Logic has been Weaponised […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] RHODA WILSON ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2022 • […]

Jerry Kelly
Jerry Kelly
1 month ago

Four-part logic is good (subjective positive)! To make this brief, can there be three-part ‘logic’? It seems it’s possible to ‘reduce’ four-part logic to two-part logic, which may not solve anything. For many years I have been casually but persistently considering a three-part perspective whenever either/or choices present themselves. In other words, my assumption is that oppositional dualism always leaves something critical out, even when it comes to oppositions as simple as ‘up’ and ‘down’. It is up to me to consider what the third option is. Of course, apprehending a third option is quite difficult for many oppositions. What I have noticed is that the ‘third option’ can be me, the observer; the dividing line itself between the two oppositions; or some third option (as always).

I am glad I read this article as the inherent problem of two-part logic has been weighing very heavily on me for a long time. I greatly appreciate the idea of four-part logic and shall keep forever in consideration as my third option to two-part logic!

Islander
Islander
1 month ago

I’ll stick with “two-part logic” thank you!

The Bible teaches that there is Truth (Jesus Christ) and lies (Satan).
Truth is singular lies are plural. There are the “righteous” and the unrighteous”, “heaven” and “hell”.

Granted, there are a great many scientific theories put forward, no doubt about that, but are any of them correct? It seems to me at any rate, when it comes to germs and contagion, nothing can be proven one way or the other.

It is my belief that Einstein and Newton were false teachers, no one has proven gravity, because it doesn’t exist.

Islander
Islander
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

NO!!! My human logic will fail me!

Islander
Islander
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

Correct! I am “using logic nearly every waking moment of” my “day.” And often, but not always “in every decision” I “make”. Nevertheless, I am a praying man, I pray throughout the day, I put all things before the Lord (sometimes I forget!), I have serious mobility problems, yet can still walk, and work (not pen-pushing type ‘work’!).

As to this logic/objective truth conundrum under discussion, do realise that His disciples had a twofold nature whilst down here; Romans 7 fully brings this out. Also, Galatians 5:17: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
No true Christian would deny that Paul had Christ’s Spirit in him, yet whilst in the flesh he struggled constantly, are we any different? I trow not.

Merv
Merv
Reply to  Islander
1 month ago

Sheep or goats, wheat or tares. Agree. However, I do see a third possibility, and that is to continue taking in information so that the truth on a particular subject emerges from the lies in due course.
Thanks to the Holy Spirit, given by His Son returning to the Father, I now find myself being led by asking the simple question, who benefits?

grrlrocks
grrlrocks
Reply to  Islander
1 month ago

You’re reducing an incredibly complex system, the Earth, to a binary “truth” vs “lies” false dichotomy. You either understand nothing re. this planet AND/OR you choose not to believe what is keeping you from flying off the surface of the planet into outer space as being not real (gravity). Btw, if gravity is not real, then this entire plane of existence, including the entire planet, is not real. You can believe as you like, but that does NOT negate gravity’s existence, nor it’s keeping you from becoming a new, very tiny satellite to Earth.

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
1 month ago

I think this is above my logic and intelligence; for when I read this quotation… “In four-part logic, a thing can be true, false, both true and false, or neither true nor false – often indicating the wrong question has been asked.”

I see nothing different to how the governments have been playing us for years (decades) in this:

True = True, fact.

False = Rubbish, lies, propoganda.

Both True and False = Normal people call them half-truths.

Neither True or False = Irrelevant then to the subject in hand.

I will stick to true or false thanks.

paxvialucis
paxvialucis
1 month ago

As the “reader” who submitted this letter, I am surprised to see it published. I had asked Ms. Wilson to herself please write more on the virus/no virus “debate”, instructively using four-part logic to illustrate the absurdity of the conflict. Guess my short treatment must suffice for now.

My “hypothesis” was thinly laid out, as were my arguments, and I fear (judging by the comments so far) that most will miss the essence of the point, cognitively inoculated as we are. On one of my websites, https://unmasked.icu/intro/toolkit/, I get further into four-part logic, as well as other associated concepts. I also did a deep dive on “weaponized oppositional dualism” about fifteen years ago, looking for a way through this manufactured impasse, which is still up, unaltered, at http://patriotcircle.org/. Both sites are incomplete, but may have some useful pieces.

paxvialucis
paxvialucis
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

No, no. I’m grateful you got this out, were willing to publish it at all. The (stated) intention of my letter was to urge YOU to write on this subject, so I was surprised and a little embarrassed, would have spent more time on it if I knew you were going to publish. And I would still love to see you take these elements and weigh in heavy on the divisive “debates”, help those engaged in them out of their cognitive and emotional ruts so that we can we can pursue integrative and healing dialogues on these important questions.

paxvialucis
paxvialucis
Reply to  paxvialucis
1 month ago

…and musing a little further on an implied but not explicitly differentiated point made in my initial letter and just above: what are the objectives of our processes, from the scientific and epistemological through to the relational?

When I refer to co-creating peace and integrative and healing dialogues, I’m clearly not just focused on the pure, rational pursuit of truth and knowledge, nor even on how, procedurally, such pursuit is conducted, but on the relational qualities and outcomes of our emotional, human process that brings us closer together (in all terms) or drives us further apart.

Few will argue that the division occurring in all aspects of our lives is a good thing, but fewer yet are examining fundamentally how and why it’s happening or taking personal responsibility for stopping it, recognizing how and why it’s happening in each of us (in me) and taking steps to arresting the cycles of counter-projection and – in essence – intellectual and emotional violence, reinforcing the (fragile, egoic) sense that we are alone in a hostile world that will never know peace.

My reference to Breggin was judgmental and projective, and had I known the letter was to be published, I would have dealt with that more delicately and framed it in those terms (ownership of my process). I would make similar judgments and projections On Steve Kirsch and many others who attack intellectual “opponents” as enemies. Such violence is self-perpetuating as it inevitably provokes defensiveness and entrenchment. Few prioritize good relational outcomes, rise above both provocations and a priority on the subject matter over the subjective matter, and model peace and reconciliation.

Four-part logic is but one tool to open space for something new and different, but without personal commitment to objectives higher than being right – whether simply personally right or even collectively right – we are still doomed to play out our programming.

We get hung up on what we think (and, further, on what we disagree on about what we think) and spend very little time observing (not just thinking, but that meta-conscious oversight of thinking) how we think, and why. Until we start doing that – non-defensively, we’re stuck, doomed to repeat ad infinitum. And it takes pointing out, probably many times more than once, how all this works before most will get it. Whose job is that?

Blessed be the peacemakers… always first to the cross.

Mark Deacon
Mark Deacon
1 month ago

You can have as many potential logical outcomes as a person wants.
In all that I only have one factor that decides the outcome.

It has to conform too my truth / reality.

So many things and just like covid vaccines, so many arguments for or against but one thing is certain truth and reality is the deciding logical argument. Trying to rely on logical outcomes requires an honest input and a transparency in the argument that today is not there.

Within 5 years the reality will tell me which logic was right.

Freeman2
Freeman2
1 month ago

There is no problem with “two-part” logic. The problem is with our statements, which are often not well defined, so they cannot be ruled either true or false. A well defined statement is either true or false! no grey shades…

grrlrocks
grrlrocks
Reply to  Freeman2
1 month ago

Every statement made comes with a constellation of associated assumptions and facts, which must be understood and accepted as appropriate before the statement can be judged as being either truly true or truly false. Therefore, proper understanding of these assumptions and facts MUST come before the statement can be judged appropriately. Therein lies the (or at least, a major) rub.

Freeman2
Freeman2
Reply to  grrlrocks
1 month ago

Right, the problem is with well defining the statements, not with “two-part” logic…

Brooklyn
Brooklyn
1 month ago

My Friend mom makes 45 US dollars an hour on the internet . She has been out of w0rk for eight months but last month her pay check was 11,000 just w0rking on the internet for a few hours. Simply give it a shot on
the accompanying article… https://indeedgold.blogspot.com/

Frank Reynolds
Frank Reynolds
1 month ago

There is no need for any of that. Virology is a hoax. End of story

Sam
Sam
1 month ago

“The duality-indoctrinated egos that have gotten drawn into this virus/no-virus nonsense “debate” are causing damaging polarisation in the movement.”

The virus/no-virus debate is not “nonsense” nor is it about “egos 
“. It is about exposing the lies about viruses because those lies can be used to take away our freedoms, impose totalitarianism, and convince large numbers of people to get injected with lethal toxins. Belief in viruses has been very “damaging” both outside and within “the movement”. It is very frustrating when “truthers” reject very good evidence demonstrating the truth of this dangerous virological fraud. The frustration has nothing to do with “ego” but rather empathy and compassion for others in most cases.

The question of whether viruses exist (as defined by virologists)or do not exist is dualistic. They either exist or they do not exist. The evidence provided by virologists for their existence is very unconvincing. The Perth group of scientists and doctors have been challenging the existence of viruses (HIV mostly) since the 1980s. Anyone wanting to take a deep dive into this topic should check them out for starters.

The more expansive and complex issues of terrain theory and germ theory may require “four-part logic” but that doesnt apply to the existence or non existence of viruses which is dualistic.

kevin king
kevin king
1 month ago

Let’s make this simple. We are repeatedly told all of these viruses are zoonotic in nature. So the simple and obvious question Enrico Fermi would have asked is simple. If the origin of viruses is primarily from other species which the virologists claim…..where are all the animal pandemics? In the history of humankind, there is no record of any dog, cat, lion, or tiger plague. There is no history of any animal plague whatsoever. The truth is simply staring people in the face but I’ve never heard anyone point out this obvious fact. If viruses were pathogenic and caused pandemics we would have observed this in other animals. We never have. I don’t include of course those cases where some health authority uses a fake test to declare a pandemic and then slaughters millions of animals. Look at your pet. Why has there never been a dog plague?