The Ten Commandments of Logic


  1. fallacies
  2. CognitiveBias


Seth says
MR 2016-04-03 14:50:03 [item 20735#50757]
Use them please! thumbs uprose
good idea idea

Mark de LA says
MR 2016-04-05 08:56:13 [item 20735#50816]
The lecture on conscience & amazement (wonder/astonishment) (previously cited) is appro po of this discussion . (*) … some people prefer to throw away the past & make up the future though… pondering 
nathan 2016-04-05 09:07:59 [item 20735#50818]
I wouldn’t know about that. I don’t know those people.
MR 2016-04-05 09:19:45 [item 20735#50823]
RS does talk about them – you might be amazed about your connection.
nathan 2016-04-05 09:22:36 [item 20735#50824]
I am connected to what is current, what is now. That is always changing. I have great respect for Steiner, but not all he said and all he connected with are about now. Things always change and move along. Steiner would be saying very different things if he were saying today … maybe Abraham is Steiner speaking in this time … that would, at least in part, be very likely in fact.
MR 2016-04-05 09:33:08 [item 20735#50829]
& probably NOT since what she says is quite contradictory & RS warned against seances & channeling since one never knows directly what the morality of the channeler/hypnotist is. Read the 5th gospel (Apocalypse) where he explains how Lucifer-Ahriman tempted Christ-Jesus as he descended into Hell with “I will give you dominion over all the world & it’s gold, riches & people as you look down upon it & all you have to do is worship me.” To which Christ-Jesus replied (to the effect) “Kiss my Ass!” . smug
nathan 2016-04-05 09:51:18 [item 20735#50832]
Esther is not Abraham. What Steiner warned about was in respect to general human awareness circa 1900, not circa 2016 … awareness is very different now, due in part to many of the things Steiner did teach in circa 1900. Experience progresses … it does not remain static. People learn, they don’t need to relearn the same lessons every century.
MR 2016-04-05 09:53:20 [item 20735#50833]
Esther channels Abraham. You generalizations about the difference in time are suspect to serve your cause.
nathan 2016-04-05 09:54:17 [item 20735#50835]
What is my cause? I am here to experience, not crusade a cause. What is yours?
MR 2016-04-05 09:56:04 [item 20735#50836]
Yet you stuff just about every chance you get about you creating your world.  Maybe let the world flow in would be a different experience. laughing
nathan 2016-04-05 10:30:06 [item 20735#50846]
I do create my world so it is part of my experience and how I talk. How my tribe talks. How most of the people I know talk. Go to Nebraska. Everyone will be talking about growing corn, Nascar, guns and trucks (been there). Go to my place and everyone will be talking about consciousness and the delights of discovering creativity in their world.

People talk about what they are immersed in. But that is not the same as have a cause or a religion. The minds capacity has some limitation. We talk about what we are close to, where our focus is.
yesYep – different strokes for different folks thumbs up

Seth says
nathan 2016-04-03 15:28:47 [item 20735#50760]
Three laws of humanity.

1. Thou shalt do what is exciting to thyself.
2. Thou shalt do what is exciting to others, except where in conflict with the first law.
3. Thou shalt do as thy wilt, except where in conflict with the first or second law.

All other logic is ludicrous and unnecessary when applied to humanity. These three laws cover all bases and create perfect overall harmony for self and others when followed by all.
Seth 2016-04-03 20:46:16 [item 20735#50771]
← an interesting codification indeed yes  ← very inclusive  ← never heard it so written surprise ← a first, at least for me.  ! Kudos !

the 10 commandments are more specific, not so inclusive … it is  targeted just to spoken (or written) dialog.  it is not ludicrous or unnecessary and humans would best apply it to dilog which intends to get somwhere.  for example: just break a commandment and see the dialog degrade,… that is  if you can grok it objectively. 
nathan 2016-04-04 03:18:21 [item 20735#50775]
Okay, perhaps not ludicrous, but I love the word anyway  

Unnecessary is true, because if one is following excitement according to the 3 laws then, the 10 commandments will either be followed naturally without needed thought, or they may in fact be broken at times when it is a better match for the harmony of all. Harmony is not always logical, or even intuitive. Excitement transcends logic and paradox because it is direct sensory information flowing from a perspective that our conscious mind cannot easily obtain and hold.
Seth 2016-04-05 02:20:10 [item 20735#50807]
incidentally, if i grok Crowley codification of “Do what thou wilt”, and your coding of “Do what excites you”, they are arguably the same thing. 

 Your new law after “do what excites you” is “do what excites others”.  Which i like coming from you, because it acknowledges others actually exist.  Me, i wouldn’t even go that far, i’d just say, “don’t restrain others freedom” because what excites them, i do not know, and even if i could presume i did, would be none of my business.   They are sovereign individuals, i prefer to treat them as such.  That is, after all, what makes a network of them work resiliently. ← which excites me, considering the alternative is civilization breaking down.

This laying down the law … however wise … especially for others rather than just yourself … is fraught with the same turbulence that has dominated the last 3000 years.  I am not so very sure it is at all necessary.   But avoiding the 10 fallacies in dialog, in the special case where were we trying to arrive at the same thoughts,  might help us get there. 
nathan 2016-04-05 08:32:39 [item 20735#50809]
Crowley’s definition contains no indicator for which impulse to follow, so it is not the same thing.

Of course others exist. That whole idea you have that they exist in one system, and not in another, is completely in your own mind. Something you invent about the multiverse.

Of course people are sovern individuals. They create their own entire reality. Nothing can be more sovern than that.

The idea that civillizion would break down without a network is binary and extremely limited. If that is all you can see, then you have a very very narrow focus on the issue. 

Seth 2016-04-05 08:51:03 [item 20735#50815]
Well others do not exist in a system where, “one creates their own entire reality”.   Which of course is my point. 

For example, if you create your own entire reality, then since you are experiencing the blooms on plum trees, then you created them.   Apparently in your multiverse there are no others which you do not create.

Whereas in my unvierse these blooms are quite unexpected surprise… they were otherness to me … i had thought that the tree would grow leaves first but that is not what is happening … my thought was not manifested … i did not create these buds. 

Do you see the distinction that i am talking about?
nathan 2016-04-05 09:06:25 [item 20735#50817]
I say again and again that this distinction is some artificial thing you are generating. You totally create everything you experience, it can be no other way. You can only have an experience of that which is formed out of your own energy field. Every one of us does the same with our energy fields. We, and all things, are others … that too can be no other way. If there were no others, your energy field would just be a neutral thing, like the color gray, with tiny blips in it that only your own imagination could generate without the contrast and veriety of others to help you generate the vast and prolific and full of surprise one that you do create and experience. Others exist and are desireable and quite necessary.
oh course that description hangs together well … and is not much different than my own … i just focus my attention on the input signal rather than the signal processor inside my being.   that signal is the whole point of my experience  … you call it “other’s energy fields”.     Oh sure,  It is my own gears truning that creates the entirety of what i experience.  but i did not create the input signals to them any more than i created the plum buds …  only thing i do, is create the process in my being which experiences it.  You express that in your language as, “You totally create everything you experience”, … i disagree on the “totally” part.  Calling up a crass simile,  you are gears turning … all that you experience are your turning gears … just as you say, “it can be no other way”.  But you are not talking about what prompted their turn … and seem to presume that you did it all yourself. 

Si says
Input signals seems like one good map to talk about these things.

Don’t know what you mean by I presume that I do it all my self. I do create my entire reality, but I don’t experience but a spec of the process of that creation. Most of the creation is outside my experience. The only difference between this knowledge and classical understanding is that by knowing it is all happening in me, I can choose to change my focus to whatever aspect I want to work with, have an effect upon, manifest, or delight in … and that there are no limits there except my own beliefs and how easily I can shift my state of being, because it is all my creation. Those distinctions are useful … but the experience is essentially the same otherwise.

Seth says
Seth 2016-04-06 10:34:28 [item 20735#50876]
well what we humans call “I” … how we define what is, and is not, referred to by that name ... is pretty much arbitrary  ….  we are free to believe whatever  … and if telling that story makes you happy, then happy you will be.  

Where it makes a difference is ….

does what you do affect others experience?  

does what they do affect your experience?

Me, I answer “yes” to both of those, unequivocally

By the way, back to your story …. could you do me a favor … since you made my plum trees bud flowers, could you also make them bear fruit this year?  
nathan 2016-04-06 10:45:24 [item 20735#50878]
I agree. Yes to both.

If I have plumb fruit on the trees in my experience, you would still need to do similar in your experience. I cannot control where you attention goes, only my own. You may choose to follow my lead, or not … or better yet, you can be a conscious creator and design your own experience and then I can choose to follow your lead, or not.  

Mark de LA says
MR 2016-04-06 09:50:20 [item 20735#50875]
The fun part of this discussion is the curiosity of what exactly experience, reality, everything, & some of the other words mean to the participants of the discussion & to anyone else who might read it. 
I personally would get pretty bored if I had to create ALL of my experience, reality or everything.
That which IS already is a pretty nice start that , I am sad to admit, I did not make. ← (new word to the discussion?) There are galaxies full of it ! – ignoring that is close to the basic duality of stuff versus mind.
nathan 2016-04-06 10:50:24 [item 20735#50881]
I would get board and very tired doing that too. So I don’t.  I only participate in designing the things are are immediately exciting to me. The rest, I leave to the faeries.  
MR 2016-04-06 10:55:32 [item 20735#50882]
Nice faery story! thumbs up
nathan 2016-04-06 10:57:35 [item 20735#50883]
Every faerie story has a basis in truth … find the nugget and it is yours, to keep.  
Nice statement true or  laughing

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-04-06 10:34:28 [item 20735#50876]
well what we humans call “I” … how we define what is, and is not, referred to by that name ... is pretty much arbitrary  ….  we are free to believe whatever  … and if telling that story makes you happy, then happy you will be.  

Where it makes a difference is ….

does what you do affect others experience?  

does what they do affect your experience?

Me, I answer “yes” to both of those, unequivocally

By the way, back to your story …. could you do me a favor … since you made my plum trees bud flowers, could you also make them bear fruit this year?  
MR 2016-04-06 10:41:27 [item 20735#50877]
The “I” thingy … (my thoughts) – 20752 cool more like a direct experience not arbitrary, external, ….  not defined … not believed … not a story … Maybe an identity like a role in a play would have those attributes maybe …

nathan 2016-04-06 10:47:33 [item 20735#50879]
It’s all quite the same. The only difference is the difference you put in … a quality you assign … and you are in control of that aspect of experience, if you desire to be.
MR 2016-04-06 11:00:12 [item 20735#50885]
What is all quite the same as what & what is the difference between.  Are you just saying that you change the charge you put on an event-stimulus-effect  ?  Too many mungeables in that abstract generalized statement. Please do better.
nathan 2016-04-06 11:22:45 [item 20735#50893]
Nothing munged, means literally what is said i.e. direct experience, arbitrary experience, external and not defined experience, and stories. They are all the same … just different ways to experience. The only difference is a quality you assign to the experience, and you assign it yourself and are in control of that assignment. One experience can be changed to any other by your own reassignment.
You should try the volcano test & see if you get the same kind of result. laughing

Mark de LA says
nathan 2016-04-06 12:31:53 [item 20735#50918]

Si says
nathan 2016-04-06 11:29:15 [item 20735#50897]
You seem to have a very strong affinity for this idea. I would find it more interesting to learn how to assign qualities at will than to jump in a volcano.
MR 2016-04-06 11:38:26 [item 20735#50899]
It is an experience which would surely test your ontology – & I am sure it would excite your interest to the max a few seconds at the top of the scale of excitement. You should read about Richard Bandler’s cure at Napa for a resident of the place who thought he was Jesus Christ.  Bandler tested the guy’s resolve by bringing in all the equipment , boards, nails, hammer etc. to crucify the guy with the phrase (while hammering) “If you are Jesus Christ then you know what’s coming next” – strangely the guy wavered & gave up his belief. 
nathan 2016-04-06 11:46:14 [item 20735#50901]
I test my systems of understanding and belief every day, doing things I am interested in doing. You are the one interested in a volcano, not me. I do have a bucket list item to climb the tallest volcano on every content though, and have a few under my belt already  

I remember the Bandler/Jesus story. If you have an interest in forcing someone to change their beliefs, you can probably find a way to achieve that with most people. Why would you want to?
MR 2016-04-06 12:01:26 [item 20735#50905]
Wasn’t my interest & mine is not about force. For Bandler it was therapy. For the patient probably the beginning of losing a delusion.  According to GW: (about the Great Work) 45 years ago yesterday -

P.2007 71-4-1-5-7-49 Mon. " Agitation, propaganda & political action involved in prevalent pseudo Utopian self-serving P R are not part of our policy; the True Spirit impels from within, forces no one & constrains no one even by persuasion!"

nathan 2016-04-06 12:22:04 [item 20735#50912]
Who decides what is therapy and what is social engineering?
MR 2016-04-06 12:25:02 [item 20735#50915]
Apparently the people who hired Bandler did for his. Are you looking for some therapy? laughing
nathan 2016-04-06 12:27:34 [item 20735#50917]
Yes, apparently Jesus did not decide, he was engineered into a different behaviour. That’s my point.
MR 2016-04-06 12:39:26 [item 20735#50919]
Which Jesus are you talking about? We talked about that on another thought – remember the picture of Hannibal Lecter :
Nothing wrong with social engineering that protects society from cannibals; unless your taste for dinner is your neighbor’s own liver, chianti & some fava beans.laughing
nathan 2016-04-06 12:43:13 [item 20735#50921]
What difference does it make which Jesus? Same result.

If you wish to have the experience of being eaten, you will find a way to represent that in your experience. No amount of social engineering will prevent that, and no lack of it will force you to experience something that is not interesting to you.
MR 2016-04-06 12:48:58 [item 20735#50924]
That’s bullshit!  But, there are a couple of tribes of cannibals still left & a few free-lancers in Europe so test it out. 
nathan 2016-04-06 12:50:17 [item 20735#50926]
How is it bullshit? Back that up with something if you are going to shout it so. Nothing you say seems to have any basis. You just say things as if everyone should know it.
MR 2016-04-06 12:51:25 [item 20735#50927]
Yep you are now looking in the mirror.
nathan 2016-04-06 12:54:41 [item 20735#50931]
Everything I say I back up with consistent and verifiable results. I have verified all of it in my own experience. Communicated extensively with others who have verified it. And I can and do explain in any amount of detail you desire how you can verify all of it for yourself without any harm to you or your current beliefs.

All I am asking is the same. Put some meat behind your statements. Explain why your system works and how it can be verified.
MR 2016-04-06 13:01:44 [item 20735#50932]
Yep, you believe your own material & seem like a “true believer” – one to whom logic is often an irritation. It would be a waste of time (mine) to continue this thread.
It is a waste of your time to explore why you think reality is as you think it is?

Seth says
#CognitiveBias can be seen as forshadowing the  #fallacies …

See Also

  1. Thought Fallacies and Pallacies with 124 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  2. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 59 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  3. Thought Tu quoque with 14 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  4. Thought Instead of the Right Wrong Game with 6 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  5. Thought The Ten Commandments of Logic with 5 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  6. Thought Rules of this group with 3 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  7. Thought Way to Go Coach! with 0 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  8. Thought about: noam chomsky: why americans know so much about sports but so little about world affairs | alternet with 0 viewings related by tag "fallacies".
  9. Thought LOA is not an excuse to blame the victim with 0 viewings related by tag "fallacies".