Logic and/or reason

 

My primary argument is that logic and/or reason is not a monolith, as much as

we might like that.  The monolithic structure of logic works pretty good

if we want to end a conversation quickly, by noting that the other parties 

contribution is " not logical " or " not reasonable ". And sometimes that

works.

But if you consider daily life, different facets respond better to different

logic.  For example, logic and reason are viewed somewhat different

in say, medicine or law, or say in music.  So if it is not monolithic then

how not monolithic might it be.  Arguing from the point of view of

music, and allowing that songs have some kind of logic associated

with them, then it seems pretty clear that there is a lot of different kinds

of logic.

I think logic sort of exists in the moment, in the situation and the logic

that works at one time, might not work or work as well in the next

situation.

Well, so what?  This is a prelude to the idea that an expansive domestic

tranquility campaign of global proportions needs to be initiated for us to really

begin to see and clearly envision what may be a reasonable future

for us all on this ,,, pretty clearly,,, small lump of space-time condensed

 --- whatever.  What this would kind of look like is all those individual

logics of this time sort of recognize that it's in all our best interest. In other

words, turn arguments into agreements.  How hard can it be, if it is in all 

our mutual interests?  What these agreements would mean , very simply,

is an expansion of our abilities to have effective, collective behaviors.

Some might argue that the process is necessary and inevitable.  You might

think of it as the " logic " of this moment, this time, perhaps, ( maybe ? )