Logic - "L" Description

EVERY WISE MAN IS SATISFIED WITH SIMPLICITY 

It seems obvious: Logic, as a mental function, must be much younger than Emotion. After all, love in living beings clearly precedes thinking and is completely out of its control. Which is easily confirmed by observations on human nature, not to mention animals. That's right. But without entering into an argument about priorities, nevertheless, I will take the liberty of doubting this truth and suggesting that Logic is not inferior to Emotion in antiquity. 

I proceed from the fact that life, even in its most primitive forms, is so complex and multivariant that the solution of all problems willy-nilly requires the work of the intellect. Otherwise it is impossible to survive. I will cite in this connection an observation by the remarkable biologist Konrad Lorenz. He once experimented with a species of cecchlid fish, whose interesting feature of behavior was that the male, collecting fry in the nest, "does not waste time on persuasion, but simply takes them in his spacious mouth and, swimming up to the nest, "spits them out" into the entrance hole. 

One day Lorentz witnessed the following scene. Throwing a few worms at the bottom of the aquarium, he saw how the male, who had been walking around the aquarium in search of his fry, grabbed one worm and began to chew it, but then he caught sight of a fry floating by. What happened next was this: "The male shuddered as stung, rushed after the little fish and pushed it into his already full mouth. It was an exciting moment. The fish was holding two very different things in its mouth, one of which it had to send to its stomach and the other to its nest. What would she do? I must confess that at this point I wouldn't have given two pence for the life of the tiny precious fish. But an amazing thing happened! The male stood motionless, with his mouth full, but not chewing. If I ever assumed a fish was thinking, it was at this very moment. It is quite remarkable that a fish can be found in a truly difficult situation, and in this case it behaved exactly as a human would behave if it were in its place. For a few seconds she stood motionless, as if unable to find a way out, and you could almost see how tense all her senses were. Then she resolved the contradictions in a way that cannot but cause admiration: she spit out all the contents at the bottom of the aquarium...Then the father resolutely went to the worm and unhurriedly began to eat it, all the while looking with one eye at the young, which obediently lay at the bottom. When he was done with the worm, the male took the fry and carried it home to its mother. 

Several students who witnessed this scene flinched when one man started applauding." 

Together with Lorentz, I applaud and rejoice for the fish, I want to note that, no matter how elementary the logical task in this case was and how painfully the fish coped with it, it involuntarily deprived the man of the halo of exclusivity due to his alleged undivided possession of such a great treasure as reason. 

However, the time when man claimed intellectual primacy seems to have passed. Just as it seems that the time when superiority is seen in the weight and volume of his brain, or in the number of crinkles, has passed. According to all these parameters, man can hardly claim to be the undisputed leader of the animal world. Yes, and apparently it is not about parameters: the great scientist Louis Pasteur became a light of science with one half of his brain (the other half was atrophied), while the Florida resident, whose brain was the heaviest known, remained nameless even for the meticulous writers of the Guinness Book of World Records. 

The question arises: if not the parameters of the brain and intellectual primogeniture, then what made man a "thinking reed", awarded this species the title "sapiens"? I will take the risk and give a completely heretical, based, of course, on the principles of psychosophy, explanation of the human phenomenon. 

The essence of the human phenomenon is not in the presence or absence of Logic or in the quality of the tools we have for its realization, but in the position of Logic on the steps of the functional hierarchy. 

It was once very aptly and expressively stated that the mind is the superfang of man. That's right. But let us remember psychosophy: man's main weapon in the struggle is the functions at the top. The 4th Logic, whatever class of beings its bearer may belong to, does not recognize thinking as a powerful weapon and even turns it off, like any Fourth function, in anticipation of conflict. That is why the intellectual barrier passes not between humans and animals, but between those with Logic Above and those with Logic Below. There is nothing offensive here: everyone thinks, and the quality of intellectual work does not depend at all on the position of Logic on the rungs of the functional ladder. The question is only whether, for an individual's mental self-perception, Logic is supportive, self-valuable, authoritative, reliable, homogeneous or, on the contrary, secondary and ineffective. 

Think of the fish in the Lorenz Aquarium. It was thinking. But its thinking was quite typical for the 4th Logic: the activation of the intellect occurred only at the moment of necessity of choice, under the pressure of external circumstances. For her, intellectual work was not self-valuable, existing as an inner need, independent of external circumstances. Clapared, the founder of zoopsychology, wrote that in animals "the intellect is turned on when instinctive or acquired automatism is unable to solve a behavioral problem. " That is, Lorenz's fish itself was not stupid, it was simply too practical and mentally lazy to become human. 

The essence of the intellectual boundary that runs through the entire cosmos of living beings is that individuals with the 4th Logic perceive thinking as a means, whereas individuals with the Logic above perceive it as an end, with all the gains and losses that result from this circumstance. 

Therefore, the origin of the phenomenon of man in the light of psychosophy is seen as follows: in the beginning the entire animal world, including protohumans, had the 4th Logic, but one day, due to an unclear set of circumstances (mutation, climatic changes, etc.), individual representatives of the protohuman species had their LOGIC Crawled upwards. On this day, the phenomenon of man was born. Not being smarter than his congeners, the possessor of superior Logic simply treated the very process of thinking differently, considering it to be self-valuable, supportive, killing, considered so without any evidence yet, simply by virtue of his, new for the protohuman world, order of functions. 

There was a gigantic intellectual explosion, in the words of one biologist," the unprecedented happened - man was largely out of the influence of natural selection. Incomplete, unfinished. And so remained forever... The reason the human being is out of the effect of selection is that the main condition of success is not genetically transmitted information, but extra-genetically transmitted knowledge. Survival became not those who are better equipped, but those who make better use of the acquired and with each generation growing knowledge of how to build, how to get food, how to protect themselves from disease - how to live." But most importantly, next to pragmatic thinking came fundamental thinking, thinking that is self-valuable, which exists regardless of the impulses and circumstances of the external environment. 

Modern society is only now reaching an awareness of the need to fund basic research, i.e. to satisfy, as they say, their idle curiosity at someone else's expense. But in fact, regardless of the sources of funding, basic research has existed as long as modern man has existed. 

The question arises: who was Socrates, sitting on the neck of his wife Xanthippa, and in endless conversations trying to understand the essence of philosophical categories, far from everyday life? He was a typical representative of high-minded Logic: idly curious, a supporter of the self-valued game of intellectual muscle, an adherent of the theory of thinking for the sake of thinking. But no matter how angry the willing or unwilling "sponsors" of fundamental intellectualism get, in the end, their contributions are never lost; the strategic gain always rests with the representative of superior Logic. And if we now see the world as it is, with all its pluses and minuses, he alone is responsible for this; it was he who gave man power over the whole earth and perhaps prefigured its demise. But no matter how the fate of the planet develops further, the motor of the last stage of evolutionary development, the high ranking Logic, will continue to play a decisive role. 

The reader is probably already dreaming of the image of man of the future, typical of some magazine illustrations: a bald body, on top of which swings a bald skull the size of a pumpkin. No, you can be calm here. I repeat, it is not about the structure of the skull and not about anthropology at all, but about the order of functions, in which Logic happens to be at the top. Therefore, no anthropological metamorphosis is foreseen. I also do not foresee a coming numerical flood of intellectuals. Since the human love program is oriented towards emotionalists, which was discussed a lot in the previous chapter, it will take at least a millennium before Logic begins to seriously compete with Emotion in the struggle for procreation. 

* * * 

The time has come, however, to pass from global problems to private ones and to take up the analysis of the ways in which Logic is expressed, depending on its position on the rungs of the functional hierarchy. All carriers of this function are divided into "dogmatists" (1st Logic), "rhetors" (2nd Logic), "skeptics" (3rd Logic) and "schoolboys" (4th Logic).