Plasticity of Logic. Pathology. Solution.

Plasticity of Logic. Pathology. Solution.

“Reason is a good servant, but a bad master”

In pure form ideas, logic and logical thinking are practically absent from our mind, as they are charged usually with emotions and feelings. Nevertheless the part of the pure logical thinking is potentially dangerous. This is not a mistake: the very logic and rationality are capable of leading astray individuals and the whole societies to the wrong perception of the world with the further consequences.

 It its pure form logical thinking is indifferent towards our personality, values and aims. According to the definition the object of logic is “all the conceivable”, that is why logic has an absolute freedom of movement, it may think of anything, prohibited, sweet, repulsive. But normally these thoughts do not reach us, as they are rejected by the systems of defence as untimely, unnecessary or dangerous. Logic itself is “dead”, it has no emotions. For example, any work of a famous author will be perceived by people with different culture and different level of development in a different way. It is the reader who charges the same text with subjective emotional intensity. As a result the psychological meaning of the text can be evaluated as positive, negative or indifferent. Only in the case when although, a notion, an idea come to our attention, they are charged with feelings, then they begin to have a meaning in our psyche. In the opposite case thoughts and ideas disappear without any traces, causing no effect. Apart from this there is a supposition (and it is not without basis) that logic works due to a contradictory mechanism, where one of the poles is always hidden from our consciousness. When we think about something positive at the same time contradictory thoughts are born, but they remain under control as they are not given any meaning in subconscious, this is a normal, regular state. And vice versa, when we think about something negative, positive thoughts emerge on the same theme but they remain unperceived as well. Thus there us a sensation that we are placed in a certain field of thoughts, ideas with their innumerable variations of combinations in the thinking process. But we choose only those which have at least some meaning for our model of the world, that is which are charged with our attention and feelings.

Algorithm “why not?” Attachment to the future, to the uncertain.

A thought becomes alive only when we pay attention to it or try to suppress it, that is any attention, be it positive or negative. This triggers the mechanism of attaching emotions and feelings to this logic. For example obscene thoughts. As a rule they appear to the mind of religious people, often very religious. At the moment of mental approach to a sacred object, a contradictory thought is born of the negative character (in normal state). And if the psyche is in neurosis (lapse of defence which prevents these thoughts to penetrate the field of consciousness; high level of tension in subconscious), then these thoughts on entering the mind are being criticized by the person who has them. The person accuses him/herself of these thoughts and provokes the sense of guilt, shame and thus a great force is attached to the obscene thoughts. The trap has closed. Every time when these thoughts appear on the periphery of consciousness, they break in driven by the emotions of guilt, shame, undercutting the person’s self-feeling, making him/her weaker and tenser. This allows the new obscene thoughts to appear with the further emotional fixation in the mind. In order to overcome such thoughts it is necessary to act in the opposite direction. As it is proved by practice, ignoring such thoughts acts as a momentary antidote against them. Nevertheless it is recommended to broaden the comprehension of the nature of such pathological mechanisms.

There is a great number of such traps. I will explain only the general principles and mechanisms of their treatment.

In case of the anxious perception a person will choose only such thoughts from the whole range of them, which form the image of danger in the future. The proof of such danger becomes undeniable, firstly because it is placed in the future, has not happened yet, has a high uncertainty and the factor of suspense, which in its turn evokes anxiety. Secondly, if the danger is placed in the future, the logic has a right to ask: “why not?” “what if it happens?” “if you do not have any proof that the hazard will not take place, then it will rather happen then not”. Such questions rise in their turn the level of anxiety. The latter attracts more anxious thoughts to the mind, as well as anxious expectations and images. The dangerous situation is played in the imagination as if it has taken place, and thus proves “the rationality” of the fear and the anxiety on behalf of it. Any logical rejection of the dangerous possibility meets not the less logical refutation. For example “why cannot the danger happen? Nothing stops it from happening. No, why with me and now? It may happen to anybody and it is happening to somebody right now, not here and not to me. But if it may happen to anybody then, in any moment it can happen to me, sooner or later it will happen to me or to my relations, that is the way of the world you cannot do anything about it”. Even if this logic is rational, it results in a constant anxious background which radically changes the quality of life. Moreover the anxious model of the world has a feed-back to the reality, provoking dangerous situations, even if they are not of the kind which the person fears. (for example: being in anxiety for a long period unable the person to reach the potential aims, because he/she has a restricted anxious behavior in everything. This may result in psychosomatics distortions, weakening of immune system, producing hypertension and other functional distortions). Something similar occurs in case of the depressive trap of logic. The reality has so much in store that it will represent the sides, which your attention and emotions choose. The depressive algorithm is always the same “everything was, is and will be wrong (bad)”. It is not difficult to prove or to deny it. If you are “above” logic and reason you may manage it and choose your own logic, not using the one of your neurotic model, which is created in the image of the social system, overflown with anxious, aggressive and depressive algorithms!

Solution: it is right to think in “both directions”, allowing the opposite possibilities. Something good or bad may happen, I do not know it, that is why any reflection without definite motives and reasons is of no value. It is recommended to let your logic go in any direction, even the most dangerous, without charging it with emotions or attention. In this case the energy feeding of these thoughts will disappear, and they will return to their proper place, deep into subconscious, which is a neutral field for the emotional aspect of the person. The comprehension of the mechanism, plus the execution of the willpower will help to avoid “the logical traps”.