Logic

LOGIC

Islam is based on the following foundations in order of importance:- Allah, Quran, Sunna (traditions of the Prophet), Aql (intelligence), Ijma (consensus). Priority is given to the Quran and Sunna because they constitute Guidance made necessary because the human faculties for perception, reason, and motivation were corrupted because of subjective desires, a condition symbolized by the Fall of Man. This article deals with Aql.
According to a Hadith, the first thing created by Allah was Intelligence. Intelligence may be regarded as “adaptability” which is a universal principle but different things contain different amounts of it and it may take different directions in different entities. When we press against something, and it offers resistance and changes its shape and then when pressure is released it regains its shape, this is a primitive form of intelligence. If the pressure is greater than the intelligence then the entity will be altered or destroyed. If the Universe is a Unity in which all things interact, then it is a system. It contains many sub-systems that contain further sub-systems and so on. All these systems must exist in harmony. If an impulse enters a system from its environment (which is a higher system) then that system must re-adjust itself and find another state of equilibrium. This may mean a rearrangement of its subsystems at various levels and may even involve the destruction and arising of other sub-systems. The sub-systems, therefore, exist because they have a function with respect to the System and maintain themselves by adaptation. This adaptability is defined here as Intelligence.
For the purposes of this article the word "Logic" will mean the principles and methods of correct thinking. In this sense it could be regarded as a branch of Ethics if this includes correct thinking, motivation and action. The phrase "Islamic Logic" is used only in the sense that certain ways of thinking are more compatible with Islam while others are not. It does not mean that Islam has a fully detailed system of Logic, though one could be constructed based on the following considerations. The opinions expressed here are mine and are suggestions only. A more detailed treatment of this subject will be found in Book 6 of the "Alternative Way".
Islam recognizes three levels of knowledge:- (1) empirical knowledge obtained by experience through the senses, feelings etc. (2) verbal or rational knowledge obtained through the mental processing (3) direct conscious knowledge obtained through insight, inspiration or revelation – knowledge in the heart which may be called gnosis. These correspond to Ayn-ul-Yaqin (102:7), Ilm-ul-Yaqin (102:5), Haq-ul-Yaqin (69:51).
The first is mostly concerned with the interactions between man and his physical environment and depends on how well his senses work. The second is concerned with communication between human beings and depends on the mental faculties, particularly the intellect. The third is concerned with the interactions between man and Reality, the Cosmos and himself and depends upon the degree of consciousness, receptivity and spiritual purity. There is a degree of inter-dependence between the three. Logic refers to the second, verbal knowledge and consists of rules by which communication can be made accurate and effective. But it is not independent of experiences and ideas of self and its nature.
Islamic Logic differs considerably from Greek or Western Logic. Greek Logic can be regarded as formal, verbal and artificial. By this is meant the fact that it is based, like all Philosophy, on definitions rather than observation, and is regulated by man-made rules of thought rather than nature. This could be attributed to the fact that Greek civilization was based on slaves who did the actual work but were not trained to think, while the masters were remote from reality and indulged in abstract intellectual games. There are today several versions of logic but they do not differ much in this respect. In one version we first have to define terms. Then we take three terms to make a premise, two are related by the third:- e.g. "All men are Mortal". Then we take two premises that have something in common and combine them to form the third, which is the inference: - e.g. "All men are Mortal". "Socrates is a man". Therefore "Socrates is Mortal". We see that "man" is part of "All men" and that since Socrates is a man we need only substitute "Socrates" for "All men" in the first proposition to obtain the third. Nothing exists in the inference that is not already contained in the premises. Thus logic appears to give us certainty, but nothing new.
But suppose we make some research and find somebody who is not mortal. Then we do not call him "man" but something else e.g. a god, otherwise the first premise would be false. Indeed, we cannot know "all men", so the premise is not a fact but has a certain probability. We see that the certainty is obtained only through definition. Thought is based on language and the manipulation of concepts and not on the experience of things. We can by choosing appropriate definitions and selecting appropriate sets of premises reach any conclusion we like. The argument is based on Axioms such as "A is A", "Either A or not-A", "Not both A and not-A". This refers to concepts. We are being told that if we use a concept "A" in an argument then it must always have the same meaning "A", and not something else "not-A". This is clearly an instruction and not a fact. The axioms on which Western Logic is based are not Truths but Values and these are man-made and false. In nature we not only find white and black but also a whole range of greys that are both white and black in various proportions. We also find that light is both corpuscular and wavelike. Therefore, the actual study of light turns out to flout Greek-based logic. We find also that things are known by their characteristics and these change according to the relationship with other things and according to the context or situation they are in.
From the Islamic point of view truth is the Word of Allah, and knowledge is something which cannot be created, but must be discovered or revealed and this requires a receptive mind. Correct thinking is not possible without (a) correct motives, and this means the love of truth or of Allah, (b) the capacity for perception including the fantasies, prejudices, addictions, idolatries, habits, rationalisations and other distorting mechanisms which operate within the mind, (c) the ability and will to control the mind. (d) All this requires the cultivation of a strong inner centre of stability and integration from which all this can take place.
Perception is controlled by certain inherent principles that govern the structure of thought. These have been called Categories and the world we see may be regarded as having been constructed by them. In Western Logic they are things like Quantity (unity, plurality, totality), Quality (affirmation, negation, limitation), Relation (causation, interaction, substance), Modality (necessity, possibility, existence). Note that here too, we have two opposites which combine to form the third. This led the Philosopher Hegel to describe all reality by the notions of Thesis, Anti-thesis, and Synthesis. This idea was taken up by Communism. But whereas the system of Hegel is called Dialectical Idealism because an idea creates a physical state which then leads to a synthesis in society, the Communist one is called Dialectical Materialism because here it is a physical state which creates the idea and leads to the synthesis in society. These two obviously form thesis/antithesis and ought to have led to a synthesis. In fact, however, both failed to understand that the pair of opposites are always present in all phenomena and are always producing the third.
From the Islamic point of view the real Categories of Thought should be the Attributes of Allah because it is these that also govern the rest of Creation - they were created by the Word of Allah. We are capable of knowing and understanding the world because the same principles that formed it also formed our minds, and we develop by association and interaction with it.
"And when thy Lord said unto the angels: I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth, they said: Wilt Thou place therein one who will do evil therein and shed blood? we celebrate Thy praise and hallow Thee." Said (the Lord): I know what ye know not. And He taught Adam the Names, all of them." 2:30-31
One of the central concepts in Islam is Unity. Allah is Unity and bestows unity on things. It is the main attribute of Allah that is manifest in the Universe. The implication is that all things are unities composed of unities, and belonging as parts to a higher unity. They are systems in which the whole is something more than the sum of the parts owing to the pattern or order. The parts have a function with respect to the system to which they belong and it is this that gives them meaning. The notion of “fact” refers to the part and the notion of “value” refers to the whole. Thus “meaning” arises by imposing values of facts, and facts by themselves are meaningless and valueless. The whole purpose of the search for knowledge is to progressively synthesize the facts and reach an ultimate Unity. Knowledge becomes like a pyramid.
We have three approaches: we can proceed from the parts to the wholes moving up the pyramid; we move down the pyramid from the top; we look at all the connections. The first gives us inductive reasoning, the second deduction reasoning and the third gives us Associative or relational reasoning. As shown above, from a premise “This A is B” we cannot jump to the conclusion that “All As are Bs”. We have to examine all cases of A. We cannot be sure that we know all cases of A unless we define A in a restricted sense. We can define it in terms of B or make a rule that will exclude other things. For instance, we can admit only a certain number of people into an organization called X-org, then what we say about one member will apply to all. But it may still not apply to all of them collectively. The whole has interactions between the parts and an organization that affects the parts, which cannot be discerned in the parts individually. But is also possible to make the assumption that something is true about the whole, and then to make deductions from it. If these deductions can be verified by observation then the assumption must be regarded as true. The greater the number of these deductions which are verified the more certain is the assumption. But it cannot be absolutely certain. The fact that the sun has risen everyday for centuries appears to make it certain that it will rise tomorrow. The greater the number of times it rises the greater the certainty. But the case may be the reverse. We could be getting closer to a time when it will explode and destroy the earth. In fact, we need more knowledge of the nature of things and the processes they undergo. It is necessary to understand the relationship between things.
But even if something contradicts the hypothesis or theory we need not discard it. What we can do is to find an explanation why it does not fit. We create another theory that takes these other facts into consideration. The theory of Gravity for instance requires that all things should fall to the earth. But this is contradicted by the fact that birds fly. So we have another theory why they can fly. We could perhaps have constructed a different theory that included the flying of birds. The point to be noted is that these theories are explanatory devices that allow us to manipulate things. They are not truths.

Things can be described best by their relationships and functions with respect to the system to which they belong and ultimately with respect to Allah. If we have a system "A" composed of several sub-systems, "B", each of which is composed of further sub-systems "C", then if we describe "B" by means of certain concepts "Bc", it is not possible to describe the System "A" or the system "C" wholly by means of "Bc". We need concepts that are particular to the system under consideration. Thus Physics has concepts other than mathematics, Chemistry has concepts other than Physics, Biology has concepts other than Chemistry, and so on with Psychology, and Sociology and we may regard Theology as the end of this series.
It will be necessary also, in order to understand any system, that we take them in sets of three. That is, we can understand the system B, say a human being, if we also take into consideration system A and C, in this case the society he is part of and the organs he is composed of.
If we consider a whole X, then in order to study it we will have to analyze it into a minimum of three aspects or parts which must be related to each other and understood relative to each other, otherwise we "kill" the object - the sum of the parts is not the object. We have two relata, A and C and a relating factor, B. This is the mystic number 3 which stands for relationships. But these can be combined in several ways according to which dominates, is passive or catalytic. We have an Octave: -
X1, ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA, X3.
Here X3 is a reflection of X1 and the 6 middle terms can be regarded as together forming X2, thus giving us another triad. If we exclude X1, the origin, we have 7 stages which gives us the mystic number standing for structure e.g. the 7 heavens or the 7 colours of the rainbow which are formed from the 3 primary colours. The sequence from X1 to X3 can be regarded as involution and the reverse, X3 to X1 can be regarded as evolution.

If we accept the principle of Tawhid (Unity), then rational thinking should take the following form:-
There is a fundamental Unity. We will denote this by "X".
If we wish to start thinking about experience, the first thing we have to do is to isolate some item, "A", the subject, about which thinking is done. But if we accept Tawhid, then by the act of isolation we have created an artificial world, an illusion. We must, therefore, negate this isolation by finding a relating factor, "B". The meaning of the terms "A" and "B" are relative to each other and to "X"
We now have a triad A-B-X. We can call this type of thinking Transcendental Thinking.
Its verbal form is:- An item "A" has a relationship, "B" with Life, Experience or Reality in general "X."
Not many people think consciously in this way, that is, in terms of the totality of experience, though it is probably carried out in the unconscious mind. For most people it is necessary to isolate another item, "C" to which "A" is to be related. The picture is built up by relating "A" to items "C1", "C2", "C3", ..... etc. The meaning of the terms "A", "B" and "C" are relative to each other.
The triad A - B - C represents Atomic Thinking. It is verbalized in the form:- An item, "A" has a relationship, "B", to an item, "C".
It is obvious, however, that by means of another isolation we have again created an artificial or illusory world. The item, "C" is a substitute for "X" and is itself related to it by some other factor. It is also clear that the relationship A-B-C is a snap shot at a particular time and situation. At some other time there may well be a change in the relationship, "B", or an item to which it is related by "B". If we wish to think in more than in an "atomic" fashion, that is, about events in a greater context and in a more generalized fashion, then we need a factor, "D", the conditions in which the relationship takes place. The factor "D" should represent the context in which the relationship exists, that is, the wholeness of experience, "X", including the observer and his actions. It negates the isolation of "C". The meaning of the terms is relative to "D".
We now have A - B - C - D. This is Formal Thinking. Its verbalized form is:- An item, "A" has a relationship, "B", to an item, "C" under a set of conditions "D".
Generally speaking the factor, "D" is ignored because it is assumed by the people in conversation that they are speaking about the same conditions or field. This, unfortunately, is often a mistake. Scientists tend to think that if they can find a relationship C between two factors A and B under condition D1, say in a laboratory, then this relationship will be true under condition D2, D3, D4 etc. in nature. This is false and causes them to make ridiculous statements. In fact, they will have to establish a relationship E, between D1 and D2 and a relationship F, between C1 and C2 and the relationship G between E and F.

Several consequences follow from this way of thinking.
1. If "A" is related to "C" then "C" is related to "A", but the relationship "Ba" (i.e. "B" to "A") and "Bc" (i.e. "B" to "C") is not the same. However, there will be a relationship between "Ba" and "Bc". This may be given by:- Ba - Bb - Bc.
2. The factors "A", "B", "C" and "D" are themselves wholes that can be further analyzed in the same way.
3. If the individual wishes to be objective, he will separate himself from the whole and then describe his relationship with it. Thus "A" represents the person, and he has the relationship, "B" with "X". This is formulated as " Man has the relationship of Vicegerent to Allah.". A two way relationship is implied from "A" to "X" and from "X" to "A", so that "Ba" and "Bx" are also related. This relationship is unfortunately overlooked and renders thinking unrealistic. It makes the difference between Islamic and non-islamic thinking.
4. If the individual wishes to study something, he will also have to isolate an object of attention. Thus, "A", "B", "C" and "D" represent the Observer, the Observation, the Object observed, and the Conditions under which this relationship is set up. It might be a Laboratory, an Office, a Field, a Factory, a Conference,
5. It is possible to place the emphasis of thought on any one of the above factors. But it should not be forgotten that each factor has meaning only with respect to the others.
6. Another thing we must do, if we are to think correctly, is to distinguish between the True, the Good, the Useful, the Beautiful, and the Unitary,
It is necessary to know whether the intention behind a statement relates to one of these values. Truth relates to the consistency with experience; the Good refers to the function of a thing with respect to the whole of which it is a part; Usefulness refers to the part and means appropriateness in fulfilling a purpose; Beauty implies harmony between the observer, observation and the thing observed. A statement of fact is not the same as a statement of values. Nor is an opinion about something the same as knowledge about it. When someone says that "A has a relationship, B, to C," he may not be talking about what he knows but rather about what he wishes. We may then argue about whether that wish is good or not, or how much good or bad there is in it. The statement may imply an instruction either to oneself or others. In that case we may argue about how useful it is, and for what purpose. A scientific statement is often an instruction. It implies that it is useful to think in such and such a way. The same is true of religious statements. But we have to establish in either case what purpose it is useful for. The same statement may have several aspects. A mathematical formula, for instance, is also constructed to be symmetrical or elegant. A statement may be constructed in a Unitary manner to include all these aspects. If we are speaking about knowledge in the real sense, that is, as that which enables us to live and develop then the four values are one and the same thing.
7. Since we regard "A" in isolation as being an illusion, we discard the fundamental axioms of Greek and Western Logic, namely that (a) " A is A", (b)"Either A or not-A", (c) "Not both A and not-A".
The Axiom of Identity, "A is A" can be stated in our terminology thus: - "A" has the relationship of identity with "A".
To discard it is to say, for instance, that we cannot make the following statements: - "Light (understood as a wave-form) is always light (understood as a wave-form)". "Light is corpuscular in nature. It cannot be both corpuscular and not corpuscular (i.e. a wave-form)." "It must be either corpuscular or not corpuscular". What we can say is that:- "Light appears corpuscular under such conditions, and Light appears wave like under such other conditions".

In Islam, Aql is the general name for intelligence. Reasoning is a more precise application of it. It is regarded as being based on comparisons. It is, therefore Analogical in nature. It is known as Qiyas, "measuring", that is, one thing by another. The justification for this is as follows:-
The human mind works by comparing things, isolating the similarities and differences. When different things are compared we again find some similarities and other differences. And as we continue to do this we not only analyze but also synthesize. Similarities allow us to construct concepts and classes. When we see differences we try to find links between them. We compare things more accurately by measuring which consists of using the same unit a number of times. This, too, is analogical in nature. This unit need not be a single dimension such as length or duration, but may be a pattern. Differences and similarities may lie at different levels. For instance, the ratio 2/3 is the same as the ratio 6/9 or 12/18, but the numbers are certainly all different. Again in the series 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 etc. the difference is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc., but the differences in this last series is exactly the same, i.e. 1. Not just numbers but also qualities and types of order can be arranged in such a series. These classes and concepts, in turn, belong to still higher classes and concepts, and so on until we have something including everything. Therefore, all things are similar in some respects and different in other respects. Everything arises by differentiation from a single original unity. The series not only links things together but can be extended indefinitely. The purpose of this kind of conceptualization, ordering and series making is to give us understanding rather than mere information. The numbers or objects in isolation or without order give us no understanding. But it is not possible to describe the whole of something by means of the parameters that distinguish the parts. Thus Allah remains indescribable, but
"He it is who begins the process of creation, then repeats it; for Him it is easy. He is the Sublime Similitude in the heavens and earth, for He is the Mighty, the Wise" 30:27
The implication is that there is an archetypal or universal pattern that is repeated as we go down the levels of creation. The phrase "As above so below" is well known and descends from very ancient times.
Analogical thinking also requires research. It consists of the following principles:-
(a) A thing has different aspects according to its various relationships.
(b) The same thing can be used as an analogy to describe an aspect of many other things, but not their whole nature.
(c) Several different things can be used as analogies to describe a single thing (objects, processes, relations, characteristics etc.) because of its different aspects.
(d) There will be some kind of relationship, direct or indirect, between all things, so that anything can be used as an analogy for anything else to various extents.
(e) A process or pattern at a lower level may be used as an analogy for one at a higher level, or vice versa.
(f) It is possible to understand what is normally outside our experience by the use of similitudes or analogies from things within experience.
Scientific thinking is basically analogical. But it is more certain than pure reason because it tests the conclusion by observation or experiment (which is also observation). First, the multiplicity of things in the world must be reduced and made manageable by putting them into classes. A class consists of numerous objects that have something basic in common, but they are also different from one another. In order to study something a class of objects O must be selected, say cats. One of these, O1, is examined and it is found that it has characteristics C1, C2, C3 etc. It is postulated that all the objects in class O may have these characteristics. That is “ C1, C2 etc. are associated with O1, O2, O3 etc.”. But this is not certain, except if C1 is part of the definition of O. We have to test this. Other objects in the class O2, O3 etc. must also be studied. The greater the number of times the same characteristics are discovered the greater the probability that the statement “C1 is associated with O” is true. But it might be falsified by a single case where C1 is not found. We need not, however, discard the hypothesis altogether. (a) We could redefine O. (b) Or we could say that “C1, C2, C3...Cn are associated with O, each to a different degree of probability.” In this way O is defined not rigidly but flexibly. It has a range of possible characteristics. (c) Another thing we can do is to find some kind of rule which determines the variation in O. That is, the Class O could be arranged in sub-classes O1, O2, O3 etc. In a series according to some rule R. E.g. cats into lions, tigers, leopards etc. etc. The rule itself may change according to some rule giving rise to sub-classes R1, R2, R3 etc.
Application of Qiyas in Islam can be illustrated as follows:-
Consider the following verse:-
"They will ask thee about khamr (fermented liquids) and elmaisar (getting something too easily, i.e. gambling, usury etc.), say, "In them both is great sin and some benefit to men; but the sin of both is greater than the benefit of the same........" 2:219
(1) Here we are given general terms which refer to classes of things which consist of any number of things, having something in common. That which applies to one member of a class applies to the others. It is a question of comparison.
(2) The verse tells us why these classes are forbidden:- because though there is both harm and benefit in them, the harm is greater. So it is a question of measuring each.
When the quantity of harm is greater than the quantity of benefit, then subtracting one from the other leaves us with a balance of harm. When benefit outweighs the harm, then the balance is beneficial. If we come across an item A1 that has less harm in it than benefit then it should not be forbidden.
This does not merely apply to the classes mentioned above but to all other things that might be allowed or disallowed. It is, for instance, also allowed to steal when driven by necessity, though it is an evil. Killing, which is an evil, is allowed in self-defense and war or for the sake of justice because not allowing it will cause more harm. Punishment of any kind inflicts pain, which is bad, but is permitted when the good it does outweighs the evil. However, it may be possible to do something which has greater benefits or less harm, then not to do so would be evil.
(3) It is all a question of assessment within a context. This can be better done if
(a) There is scientific research that can determine the facts.
(b) There is a method for utilizing the information - i.e. assessing, evaluating, constructing policies, applying the findings, distributing the information, and controlling things. There may not be adequate ways of determining whether someone is doing more good or evil or of ensuring that it is done.
(c) That there is a value system which defines what good and evil are. In Islam this is judged by whether it leads to spiritual growth or atrophication, to nearness or remoteness to Allah according to:-
"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies it)! . And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it! " 91:7-10

Western Logic can probably be criticized as follows:-
1. Western logic depends on classification on the basis of certain common characteristics. If something is true about one object in the class with respect to these characteristics then it is regarded as true about all the other objects in that class. This ignores their differences as well as the fact that all the characteristics of the object may be interlinked. It is not always possible to isolate the class characteristics. The object under consideration is not a real object. It is created by the definitions that describe it.
2. A great number of relationships can be found between two terms other than class inclusion. One may be greater than another, prior to another, more important in some way than the other. They may have cause effect relationships; one may be the opposite of the other; the variation in one may cause variation in another. The connection between them may be given to the senses, or be due to the way the terms are defined, or due to the way consciousness organizes them. We can, therefore, speak separately about relationship in general. Nowadays it is usual to use the word " implies" to refer to all these relationships. i.e A implies B.
3. Logical arguments can be called linear because only the connection between two terms is being considered. The whole of nature is being described by combinations of such units. Nature, however, shows variations and patterns and multiple relationships. This requires more than two terms. Supposing we have a relationship, "X" between "A" and "B", and another different relationship, "Y" between "B" and "C", then the relationship between "X" and "Y" will create a non-linear relationship between "A", "B" and "C". This will produce quite a different description of nature. We could multiply the number of terms, to add ever more complexity. We could also describe things at different levels examining the relationship between relationships and the relationships between these, and so on. But this complexity could always be reduced to such triads.
4. Thinking usually takes place in three stages. We gather sense data, then we interpret it by association with other memories, and then we organize it into patterns. We make models of the landscape. The interpretation itself has three aspects, a motor, an emotional and an intellectual. That is, the data is associated with actions, with feelings, motives and interests, and with other sense data. A deliberate critical look at each of these stages is required. The isolation of merely the intellectual content is unrealistic and perverts knowledge.
5. It is falsely assumed that it is possible for a verbal proposition to correspond exactly to an objective condition or even to an experience of an objective condition. Nor is it true that any proposition we make excludes subjective factors. The act and procedures of observation may have effects on the result of observation.
Many propositions can be made which are neither true nor false, but may be instructions or proposals or merely statements about how things appear to be or work rather than are. There is no point in excluding these from logic since they also give us information. A proposition need not be ether true or false but can have different combinations of each in between. Propositions can be true under certain conditions and for some people according to how they understand them and false under other conditions and for other people. A proposition does not have to mean the same thing or be true when conditions or contexts change. The truth of something depends on whether it fits in a consistent manner into the wholeness of a person's experiences. It is objective in this sense, but since this depends on the person, truth is a subjective experience. Nothing is true for a person who has not understood and integrated it. It is important to note that though this resembles the rational or scientific attitude of skepticism there is a big difference. The scientist tells us "Do not believe anything you have not observed or tested yourself" . Hence doubt is regarded as a virtue. Apart from the fact that he speaks only about sensory perception rather than experiences of all kinds, observations and experiences can be wrong. Beliefs based on these do not have a value. Doubt does not produce knowledge but only uncertainty, which is no basis for life. Nor does it produce any change in the individual himself. Isolated bits of observation merely lead to the disintegration of the mind. The Islamic view is that the data must be assimilated to produce an inner unity.
6. Western Logic assumes that the words or concepts are the truth whereas these stand for certain experiences and these experiences themselves stand for some reality about which we have experiences. The confusion between these things lead to several problems as indicated above. One of them is that we can, by defining terms suitably and choosing appropriate premises, prove anything we like. The purpose of this capacity should be action and technology not knowledge. We can avoid all these problems by defining terms tentatively, and leaving it to observation to establish the connection. We avoid both the rigidity of a generalization and the unreal abstraction of the formal concept. We have to transfer our awareness of what the words stand for from purely physical structures and shapes to patterns of behaviour and relationship. And we will have to have a social agreement that what our senses provide is not itself the truth but signs of it. The truth of something refers to it's relationships with everything else and this we do not know. We are seldom aware of the relationship that something has with even the totality of our limited experiences. In so far as there is no agreement on the context in which things are seen people mean quite different things when they assert that something is true or false.
7. When a Unit is analyzed into two parts or aspects, the basic form of analysis, then the product of the analysis cannot be the same as the original since the original did not have parts. Two half planks of wood cannot be used for the same purpose as a whole one. The same applies when we put things together to make something else. We must, therefore, always add a third factor which accounts for the unity, some reconciling factor.

Some people brought up on Greek/Western logic have found the ideas in this article difficult to understand. The following may help to clarify:-
(1) Correct thinking is defined here as thoughts that correspond to experiences when they correspond to reality. It is not defined as conformity to man-made rules. (2) The Axioms on which Western/Greek logic is based are not truths, but instructions on how words should be employed and, therefore, on how verbal thinking should be done. (3) The concepts used in an argument depend on the whole conceptual system a person employs and this depends on his education and provides certain presuppositions. (4) It is untrue that logic has nothing to do with motives and values. The definition of words, the selection of premises and the direction of an argument require motives and these are driven by values. (5) The actions and interactions of a person with his physical and social environment provides the experiences and these vary between people in kind, quality, amount, intensity and personal significance. (6) A person selects certain features of his experiences for attention according to his interests and the search, selection, organization and processing of this data also depends on interest, assumptions and actions, and these are usually sub-conscious. (7) This is affected by immediate stimuli coming from the surroundings or from within, impulses, habits, fixations, association of ideas in past experiences or accidental resemblance, expectancy, desires, the need to create symmetries and fill in gaps and so on.