Husserl and the unconventional of his logic

We find ourselves in Vienna, at the end of 1859, when Husserl was born, and together with his birth, pure logic and phenomenology. I must add that we are talking about conventional phenomenology and pure logic related to a society at a certain moment, on no account about the perfection of logic in its unlimited nature. Some people, who have not become acquainted yet with the unconventional and its T* laws, (the law of simultaneity, of the paradox, of the bounded infinite and many other) may consider my statement a joke, as the sculptures of Brîncuşi to America were simple „toysi‛. In the following pages, I will make out a case that there is another kind of logic and phenomenology, and especially other universes we can only reach by various agents or none at all. You do not have to presume that I intend to do away with Husserl’s „pure logic‛ or with his or others’ theories, I am only going to demonstrate that all these are just particular cases of a new unbounded, unconventional philosophy, (reflection). I can separately deal with the T* laws and the acquaintance with this new philosophy, if necessary. We must pass a remark from the very beginning, namely that Husserl makes use of a nonsense right in the titles of his logic, which is ‚pre logic‛. This is a nonsense, taking into account that there is no faultlessness in man and mankind’s conventional, out of several reasons. First of all, perfection belongs to God, it is God’s right, or the right of the Universe (in)Itself and of their unlimited character and not of our conventional limited nature. The term ‚pure‛ is equivalent to perfection itself, to the unbounded, to a phenomenon, or a parameter, which I can hardly believe. The fact that someone may consider a senseless phenomenon or a paradox to be logic is certainly a nonsense. Unfortunately, everything is a paradox, an obvious thing that my predecessors have not noticed. If we were to redefine the convention, extending its limits in a limitless extrapolation, (which is a paradox as well), that particular convention will be formulated as follows,
‚any unlimited (thing), which is limited, is a convention,‛
and not as it is defined by the conventional dictionary, according to which it is only ‚an agreement between the parties‛. The limted, whatever his nature, is a convention, as we ourselves or a certain entity/universe individually or collectively establish that that particular part of the unlimited is limited, whereas in reality, any division of the unlimited is still unlimited. Furthermore, any convention is defined by four elements, more precisely the domain of definition, limits, elements of balance and elements of comparison, which are all limited. These elements represent the conditions of existence specific to any limitation. Pure logic and its laws or phenomenology are conventions too, obviously limited conventions, defined, determined by
Page 2 of 11
these four elements, limited in their turn. We will never know what happens beyond these limits, or our limits, that paradoxically, we never reach, as we will never reach God or the Universe (in) Itself. We do not make reference to The God or the Universe (in) Itself we or others imagine, by means of the same conventions, we refer to the unbounded God and Universe (in) Itself, beyond our God or universe, beyond our or others’ imagination. Words, similar to us or our ideas, are conventions as well. It woud be irrational that we, as limited conventions encompass the unbounded we are, or we live in. in the following sections, I will show that logic or its phenomena exist beyond us and our limited infinite, (imagined by us), even if we will never be able to probe it. First, we must accept that the unbounded exists, and we are going to argue it by means of a simple extrapolation, namely the divisions of any unit, no matter whether the unit or its divisions belong to Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, or any other science or nonscience. In Mathematics, the division of a constant by the infinite, (I have defined this infinite a limited infinite, by comparison with the unbounded, that goes beyond us and our existence) is zero. Unfortunately, we cannot determine these divisions beyond a certain limit, which I call limited infinite and which represents at the same time the infinite of any entity/universe, whatever its largeness or greatness. Whatever big the infinite imagined by us could be, the relation between a constant and the infinite we imagine, which does not represent the unbounded, has a value different from zero, as nobody will ever be able to know the unbounded, and consequently obtain by the division by this unbounded the zero value of this relation. It is only the division of the constant by its unlimited equals zero, an absolute zero, unlimited and nonexistent for any entity/universe or existence. But how can the division of a number by a nonexistent value equal a zero value? This is obviously illogical in Husserl’s logic and in our own logic, meaning that we should accept that the unbounded does exist and that we are already in a paradox. Husserl’s logic cannot help us anymore.
We must understand that the unbounded exists, but nobody and nothing can ever reach it, as we nobody and nothing will ever reach God or the Universe (in) Itself. How is it possible nevertheless, that we have an apparently logical mathematical relation with unconventional illogical, values? This is another king of logic. I will make myself clear in a few words. It is irrational to multiply a natural number by an irrational number and obtain a natural number. We do not know and will never know the values of the smallest (possible) unlimited ‚0‛ or the largest (possible) unlimited ‚©,‛ but we will certainly know the unit resulted from their multiplication or the reverse of our division related to the unit. In other words, if 1₀/© = 0, the reverse of this relation is 0© = 1₀. (This is a nonconventional unit, it is each of us and any entity/universe, unique in the unbounded, according to the mathematical relation, it is not a
Page 3 of 11
simple, conventional unit). Neither these relations nor us would exist, unless the unlimited existed, (the smallest and the largest (possible) unlimited). The unbounded obviously exists, even if we cannot reach it. Nevertheless, we certainly know what the value of the unconventional unit 1₀ represents. This is not one, (1 = 1* as I have defined it, a mathematical unit, which is identical and invariable on the simultaneity space/time encountered in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, or all together, that is any physical, chemical, mathematical, biological, etc., entity/universe. From the multiplication of the smallest (possible) unlimited and the largest (possible) unlimited, there results an entity/universe or an unconventional unit in relation to the initial point space/time of their unlimited. This conventional unit is represented by each of us and any form or organization or entity/universe, as I will call it from now on.
As a conclusion, as several research institutions have also noticed, the Universe (in) Itself, which you can call God, creates out of nothing entities/universe, that is ‘conventional unit’ sequences, in relation to the initial point space/time of the unlimited, or in more general terms, it creates something out of nothing. Any convention or entity/universe evanesces then in its unbounded as universe, (transformation/space/time), or as unbounded nonexistence, as a self-existent and conventionally well-defined entity, (form/existence/spirit). I say entity/universe, as this is a simultaneity that defines any form of organization, better reflecting at the same time the Reality (in) Itself, where any entity/universe stands for the reflection of a form of organization related to the Reality (in) Itself, except that the entity represents the reflection as entity of the well-defined entity/universe, while some other represents the reflection as universe of the same entity/universe. Both the entity and the universe are different reflections of one single Reality (in) Itself. After this introduction, you may be less sure about your logic or Husserl’s logic, and I am going to deepen this incertitude. Husserl gives us an example of his logic, stating that if,
A = B and B = C, it means that A = C.
These relations are valid only in the conventional, where there are conventional conditions of existence. The relations exist if and only if A is identical to A, B is identical to B and C is identical to C. If A, B and C stand for three apparently identical apples, (the apples represent the Reality (in) Itself, similar to the written or spoken letters, or the mathematical numbers in the absence of the relative condition of identity), these, (the apples) are not and will never be identical, as there are not three identical atoms, or the same atom in different positions, (the same atom belonging to myself cannot be identical to the atom beyond my existence). According to one of the unconventional general laws, going beyond our logic, there is no identity as Reality (in)
Page 4 of 11
Itself, in the unbounded. More exactly, the first and the second „A‛ belonging to the relations mentioned above, can never be identical as Reality (in) Itself, they never occupy the same space/time, it is us that agree on, (conventionalize) this fact as being valid. It is only then that these relations become logical, but relative, because of the conditions of existence, (the conditions of existence represent a limitation, or system of reference). Any entity/universe depends on its universe, that permanently changes on the simultaneity space/time. An atom belonging to my hand can never be identical to the atom belonging to the chair I sit on. Two entities/universe can never occupy the same space at the same time. It is only the simultaneities, such as the opposite things, good/bad, freedom/constraint, etc.) that occupy the same space and time, but they are different. No two energies can occupy the same space/time simultaneously.
As there is no identity in the Univere (in) Itself, how can anyone state that the relations described are logical, when they are at the very most, narrowly logical, not as Reality (in) Itself, but as our own reality, (illusion/reality)? These relations are logical only for our conventions and conventional, yet, they are relative. Moreover, the simple mathematical operations, such as addition, deduction, multiplication and division are themselves tributary to the same phenomenon, there is no identity in the Universe (in) Itself. In order to make this happen, the mathematical units must necessarily be identical. Any number in our conventions is identical to itself, no matter how many times we may write that particular number, which is not valid in the Reality (in) Itself, (no matter how many times we might write a letter or a number in the Reality (in) Itself, ther will not be identical anymore, as there steps in the simultaneity transformation/space/time. The mathematical figures or numbers represent the multiple of a certain unit and are the same anywhere in the field of Mathematics. In the Reality (in) Itself we cannot claim that ‘one hundred years’ is the same thing with ‘one hundred meters,’ or that ‘one hundred years a long time ago’, are identical to ‘one hundred years to come,’ or that ‘one hundred meters on Mars’ are the same with ‘one hundred meters on the Earth.’
Some may laugh, thinking that I am wrong, losing sight of the fact that that there are no identical measurements, as long as the place, the environment where we take measurements or the device related to the data’s measurement or interpretation are not exactly the same. The equal, the addition or the division signs are just signs of comparison related to numbers, figures, or letters. Unfortunately, we can only compare two numbers as relation between them. This is the reason why, redefined in the unconventional, the comparison is a simple relation and nothing else. The equality between two numbers is a relation, (the relation between the two numbers is 1). Subtraction and multiplication are and can be written as relations. Mathematics undoubtedly
Page 5 of 11
offers less logical solutions, or even illogical, for example, the infinite, the indefinite or the impossible are not solutions, but we accept them as solutions. These solutions are actually paradoxes, as any symbol, as death, which is neither a solution, nor conventionally logical, it represents a solution only if we conventionally accept death as a logical solution. All these stand for paradoxes, and what we can do at the most is to accept their paradox as a logical solution. It would irrational for Husserl’s logic to accept paradox as a logical solution, especially „pure logic,‛ as long as by definition, the paradox joins two opposite things or actions together. We are at a dead end of conventional logic, where we must accept the paradox as logical, paradox which by its definition is illogical. We can draw another, intermediary conclusion here, namely that our logic is permanently accompanied by the illogical, as any other opposite thing or action is. We can now conclude that everything connected with the Universe (in) Itself, with the convention, or with the Reality (in) Itself is simultaneously logical/illogical and we cannot state that these are interdisciplinary phenomena. They are certainly different reflections of the same phenomenon, or entity/universe, one as the positive aspect of logic, the other one as their negative aspect and consequently relative as any other thing.
Death too can be viewed as being logical, if we set aside our own being. The Universe (in) Itself or God have another kind of logic, a logic related to the simultaneity of the opposite things or actions, of the perfect neuter. On that boundary, where God and the Universe (in) Itself turn into one and the same thing, our conventions and conventional meanings, as well as the conventions of any entity/universe or of our logic are non-existent. These conventions cannot be reflected there, anymore. The Universe (in) Itself or god are the perfect neuter of any phenomenon, any opposite thing or action or of those within ourselves or outside ourselves. All this introduction was necessary to reach the meaning of the unconventional logic and phenomenon, as well as of their unconventional, unlimited source.
Logic and the unconventional phenomena
Logic and the unconventional phenomena represent our conventions and ideas concerning them as Reality (in) Itself, but without any limits, or if you wish, they are the unlimited of any logic or conventional phenomenon, if we extrapolate them in the unlimited they stand for as Reality (in) Itself. Everything we are familiar with or just infer represent conventional phenomena and actual facts, which I call illusion/reality or conventional facts. I state this, because all the Realities (in) Themselves, including us and everything that exists, are not in a direct relation
Page 6 of 11
with our spirit, that reflects them. We often look upon ourselves as if we were a foreign body. We must understand that those of us that exist and the idea that takes shape inside our spirit with respect to us or other Realities (in) Themselves are different things. One is the Reality (in) Itself, whereas the other represents this reality reflected by our spirit, by means of agents, (our senses), which, in their turn, are dominated by intermediaries, (atoms and molecules, organs, etc.) All the phenomena specific to the Reality (in) Itself, similar to the conventional phenomena are effective entities/universe, that is the effect of certain self-existent entities/universe and on the basis of self-existent entities/universe. Void is an effective existence, it is the effect of the missing fullness. It is not the void that generates the void, on the contrary, it is the missing fullness that determines this void. Fullness stands for the perfect self-existence, yet it does not exist anywhere, independently of its voids, but simultaneously with the voids it comprehends. In the unconventional, logic is,
‚LÓGIC feminine noun 1) Science that studies the fundamental forms and laws of valid reasoning. 2) Textbook that deals with the basic elements related to this science. 3) Way of thinking, of reasoning; 4) Accurate, coherent, consistent and through reasoning. 5) Natural reason of an action. [Genitive-Dative of the logic, (logic’s)] /<The French logique, The Latin logica
Source: NODEX (2002) | Added by siveco
‚LÓGIC feminine noun 1. The study of logic features, of demonstration, forms and laws of reasoning, of accurate reasoning. ◊ Mathematical, (symbolic) logic = branch of logic that makes use of the logical-mathematical symbol; logistics. ◊ Logic of science = discipline that investigates the results of the scientific activity; hypotheses, theories, concepts, etc. 2. Precise thinking, through reasoning. 3. Natural requirement, basis, reason. [Genitive. – of the logic/logic’s/ The French logique, Italian, Latin, logica, < The German logos – reasoning].
Source: DN (1986) | Added by LauraGellner
As opposed to these definitions, logic is in the unconventional,
‚the science/nonscience related to the ordering of comparisons‛.
As you can notice, the two ways of interpretation, that seem to be totally different, are in actual fact simple particular cases. The first, conventional definitions represent particular cases of the unconventional definition. The difference is made by the interpretation of the meaning of science, which in the unconventional is not separated from its nonscience and by the fact that reasoning
Page 7 of 11
is not limited anymore to man, mankind and reasoning as ‚logic of thinking.‛ Eliminating the limits, extrapolating beyond the conventional limits and trying to gain an insight into the essence of thinking, thinking is in the unconventional,
‚the ability of an entity/universe of drawing comparisons."
We are talking about logical comparisons, that we associate with reason, or illogical comparisons, we call irrational. We must also mention that any comparison is actually a relation, not a simple mathematical relation, but a complex relation, where the mathematical relation is just a particular case, similar to the relations connected with syntax or language, or the chemical, biological relations, etc. Everything we associate with thinking, reasoning is in actual fact a syste and an ability of comparing. In order to render this clear, let us take a look at a new computer, where we can notice that after the comparisons between the bytes and their resonances, new solutions, better than those offered by man break through. Any entity/universe can draw comparisons to a certain extent. Nevertheless, we can draw both direct comparisons between Realities (in) Themselves and indirect comparisons, between the ideas we formulate and memorize. The trees, the flowers and stone can also memorize ideas, except that they are not able to draw comparisons between them, whithin their spirit, as they are not conscious. In order to enlighten yourselves, you can start by examining the reason and ideas of your thinking and you will notice that your ideas are just comparisons with the Reality (in) Itself, or comparisons of ideas between them, simple relations of them. If we arrange these comparisons, relations at a positive/negative level, in that case we will discover that any entity/universe is endowed with logic and reason, (we already know that metals have memory, or that plants and animals have feelings, and consequently it would be irrational to deny their logic, just because we do not know it) more or less from nothingness to the absolute. At a given moment, Husserl accepts, similar to J.S.Mill, the idea according to which we must find the perfect language in order not to relativize logic, or resume ourselves to a mathematical form. This shows us that both Husserl and Mill hope to find not only a „pure logic,‛ but also a ‚pure, perfect language,‛ with a view to eliminating any confusions or issues with a relative character in logic. Unfortunately, everything is relative and they want to invalidate the relative of the Universe (in) Itself, which is irrational, absurd.
There is no perfect language either for the conventional entities/universe, or for us. Under these circumstances, we must not make a must out of the pure logic or language, we must accept their relative character, just as the absolute accepts the relative that it comprehends. Nobody and nothing can turn a paradox into a logical one, not even Husserl, I myself accept it, as I also
Page 8 of 11
accept the conventional logic of the logical or illogical things and actions, provided we understand that they are simultaneous as logical/illogical up to there where on their boundary within the Universe (in) Itself and God, these conventions disappear in the unbounded under the form of a perfect neuter or of a smaller or larger (possible) unlimited, where there are no opposite things or actions, but where we can shape opposite things out of nothing. The unconventional definition brought forward is not limited by anything anymore, any entity/universe can have its own logic or not, it does not limit itself to any form of existence, any rationality or irrationality. The conventional definition of logic obviously represents a particular case, where comparisons make reference to the human ideas and reasoning and to their relations with the Reality (in) Itself, (logic’s reflections, its comparisons or relations with the Reality (in) Itself). Unfortunately, nobody and nothing is alone in his universe. There is no indivisible unit. You may be surprised, but in my opinion there is (apparently) such a close connection between logic, philosophy and sciences or nonsciences, that it will be difficult for the mankind not to admit the new philosophy sooner or later.
Unconventional logic as entity/universe
As my scientific papers are limited, existing only in the Romanian version for the time being, I must render the mathematical relation of the entity/universe in order to explain this section of the paper. The entity/universe represents the reflection of the Reality (in) Itself, whatever its nature, it is a matter/energy simultaneity. There is no energy in the absence of matter, or vice versa. You may tell me that energy can exist in the absence of matter, which is not true, as any energy is a result, a phenomenon, an effect of the matter, and not vice versa. In the absence of matter, any kind of energy will vanish, and man has not yet discovered any kind of matter in the absence of energy, as long as the smallest conventional sequence, ‚the God particle,‛ the Higgs boson, has energy, similar to the flavours of any nucleus, (electrical, gravitational, chemical, organic energy, etc. stand for energies, similar to the unconventional attraction/rejection). Let us stop here and write down the formula, the mathematical reflection of the entity/universe, whatever its nature,
E/U = Σ /Σ ,
Where E stands for the entity, U is the universe represented by the entity, „0¡*‛ is the conventional elementary sequence, whereas „0₀¡‛ represents the unconventional elementary sequence. The unconventional sequence is infinitesimally small, the conventional sequence is limitedly small or at the boundary of our limited infinite. More precisely, „0‛ is the
Page 9 of 11
unconventional, smallest (possible) unlimited, 0* is the conventional, smallest (possible) limited, ∞* represents the biggest (possible) limited, while © the biggest (possible) unlimited. As you can notice, the first sum is limited and conventional, the second is unlimited and unconventional, rendering the relative of our limited interpretation. This formula represents the structure of an entity/universe, the mathematical reflection of any entity/universe, no matter whether it is a self-existent entity, an effective entity, matter, conventional energy, or a matter/energy simultaneity. Both logic and any entity/universe are in tributary to this mathematical reflection. As far as logic is concerned, the relation becomes,
L = Σ /Σ ,
Where L represents the ‚logical‛ entity/universe or the logic specific to an entity/universe, while ‚l¡*‛ and ‚l₀¡‛ stand for the limited and unlimited elementary sequences of the kinds of logic belonging the constituent entitities/universe. We must not deceive ourselves by thinking that human logic is monolithic, and not a sum of elementary sequences, according to the Reality (in) Itself. It would be an obvious mistake, as any monolith is a sum of simultaneously limited and unlimited elements, similar to us and our spirit. We must still offer several remarks here,
- according to the formula, any entity/universe is relative; we cannot determine the unlimited sum, as long as it never leads us to the absolute. A system whose parameters we do not know is obviously distinguished by us as a chaos. The researchers of Quantum Physics themselves have got into a tangle, concluding that at the limit they have reached, they have found two parallel worlds, one chaos and the other one system. It is also true that they did not know how things stood according to the unconventional, namely that these quantic worlds are not parallel, but simultaneous, or if you wish, they are the reflection of of a Reality (in) Itself in two different ways, one chaos, as we do not know its rules, and the other one relative system, whose rules we apparently know.
- this unlimited sum shows us that nobody and nothing can avoid transformation, and especially that space and time cannot exist in the absence of transformation. Transformation defines the universe of any entity where the universe is a transformation/space/time simultaneity. This transformation can only be limitedly, partially known, (this can be noticed in the unlimited limits of the sum), which proves that nonsciences are simultaneous with sciences, or that they also reflect the same Reality (in) Itself, but in their own way.
- the formula also shows us that logic, (any kind of logic) is relative too. Logic cannot be separated from the spirit of an entity/universe as a whole, taking into account the fact that any
Page 10 of 11
entity is a form/existence/spirit simultaneity, and the entity’s spirit a memory/reasoning/feeling/senses/intuition/instinct simultaneity. Although there are still many things to say, we will not go into further details, due to the fact fact that we have a limited space, which prevents us from putting forward an entire, limitless philosophy. The limits of this philosophy are represented by us and our limits, and it will continue, as long there is a Reality (in) Itself beyond us and any possible intuition.
If the first sum is unitary, the other sum provides us with the entity’s universe, that we can conventionalize in entities. We will never be able to see the universe behind the entity, unless we first conventionalize it, on the one hand because it is unlimited, on the other hand because we cannot see, feel, think, etc simultaneously. In philosophical terms, the unconventional and mathematical statement of the entity/universe renders the law of simultaneity, according to which,
„any entity/universe is a limited/unlimited simultaneity of other entities/universe‛.
I do believe there is anyone who does not understand that any entity is a universe and any universe is an entity, moreover that any limited entity is an unlimited universe and that any unlimited universe is a limited entity as the expression of the law of paradox, according to which,
„any entity/universe is a paradox.
I am curious about one thing now. Do not you wonder where „pure logic‛ stands and more than that, is not it more logical this system that does not deny either logic’s relative nature, or its simultaneity with the psychological elements and others, than the perfection of a logic that can only exist as a limitation imposed on the Reality (in) Itself? This is just a rhetorical question, as I often ask.
This does not mean that we can deny a particular case, as we can infer the whole it is part of, but that we will never reach.
To be continued,
Page 11 of 11
after having eliminated the limits of our own conventions.
Păroiu Tudor