Even a wise man stumbles
Looks obvious: Logic, as a mental function, should be much younger than Emotion. After all, love in living beings clearly precedes thinking and is completely out of his control. Which is easy to confirm by observing human nature, not to mention animals. That's the way it is. But without entering into a dispute about priorities, nevertheless, I will take the liberty to doubt this truth and suggest that Logic is not inferior in antiquity Emotions.
I believe that life, even in its most primitive forms, is so complex and multivariate that solving all problems willy-nilly requires the work of intellect. Otherwise you can't survive. I will bring in this connection the observation of the wonderful biologist Conrad Lorenz. He once engaged in experiments with a variety of fish tseplid, an interesting feature of the behavior of which was that the male, collecting fry in the nest, "does not spend time on persuasion, and just takes them in his spacious mouth and swim to the nest, "spits out" in the entrance hole."
One day Lorenz witnessed the next scene. Throwing a few worms to the bottom of the aquarium, he saw how the male, who had previously gone through the aquarium in search of his fry, grabbed one worm and began to chew it, but then he came across a passing male. Then the same thing happened: "The male shuddered like a stung, rushed after the little fish and pushed it into the already filled mouth. It was an exciting moment. The fish kept two very different things in its mouth, one of which it had to send to the stomach and the other to the nest. What's she going to do? I must confess that at this point I would not have given two pence for the life of a tiny precious fish. But what's amazing happened! The male stood motionless, with his mouth full, but did not chew. If I've ever thought what a fish thinks, it's at this point. It is absolutely wonderful that a fish can be found in a truly difficult situation, in which case it behaved exactly as a person would behave if he were in its place. For a few seconds she stood motionless, as if not finding a way out of the situation, and you could almost see how tense all her feelings were. Then she resolved the contradictions in a way that can't help but cause admiration: she spit out all the contents on the bottom of the aquarium... Then the father resolutely went to the worm and slowly began to eat it, all the while looking at the young man, who dutifully lay on the bottom. After finishing the worm, the male took the fry and took it home to his mother.
Several students who witnessed the scene shuddered. when one man started applauding."
Together with Lorenz applauding and happy for the fish, I want to note that, no matter how elementary in this case the logical task and no matter how painfully coping with it fish, she unwittingly deprived the man of the halo of exclusivity, caused by the supposedly undivided possession of such a great treasure as reason.
However, the days when a person claimed intellectual birthright, apparently, have already passed. As it seems, the time passes when superiority is seen in the weight and volume of his brain, or in the amount of gyrus. In all these parameters, a person is unlikely to be able to claim the title of the unconditional leader of the animal world. Yes, and not in the parameters, apparently, the case: the great scientist Louis Pasteur became a light science with one half of the brain (the other was atrophied). while the Florida resident, whose brain was the heaviest of all known, remained nameless even for the meticulous authors of the Guinness Book of Records.
The question arises: if not the parameters of the brain and not intellectual birthright, what made man "thinking reeds" awarded this species of animals the title of "sapiens"? I will risk and give absolutely heretical, based, of course, on the principles of mental yoga explanation of the phenomenon of man.
The essence of the human phenomenon is not in the presence or absence of Logic and not as a tool that we have to implement it, but in the position of Logic at the levels of the functional hierarchy.
Once it was very true and expressively noticed that the mind is a super-klyk of man. That's right. But let's remember the mental yoga: the main weapon of man in the struggle are the functions at the top. The 4th Logic, no matter what class of beings its bearer belongs to, does not recognize thinking with a mighty weapon and even turns it off, as any Fourth function in the run-up to the conflict. Therefore, the intellectual barrier passes not between humans and animals, but between those who have Logic above and those with Logic Below. There is nothing offensive here: everyone thinks, and the quality of intellectual work does not depend on the position of Logic on the steps of the functional ladder. The only question is whether Logic is supportive, self-valued, authoritative, trustworthy, murderous or vice versa, secondary and ineffective for the mental self-perception of the individual.
Let's remember the fish from the Lorenz Aquarium. But her thinking was typical of the 4th Logic: the inclusion of intelligence occurred only at the moment of choice, under the pressure of external circumstances. For her, intellectual work was not self-important, existing as an internal need, independent of external circumstances.Klapared, founder of zoopsychology, wrote that in animals "intelligence is activated when instinctive or acquired automatism is not able to solve a behavioral problem." I mean, Lorenz's fish itself wasn't stupid, it was just too practical and mentally lazy to become human.
The essence of the intellectual boundary that lies across the cosmos of living beings is that individuals with the 4th Logic perceive thinking as a means, while individuals with Logic above perceive it as a target with all the consequent gains and losses.
Therefore, the origin of the human phenomenon in the light of psycho-yoga is seen as follows: at first the entire animal world, including the proto-human, had the 4th Logic, but one day, due to an obscure confluence of circumstances (mutation, climate change, etc.), in some representatives of the protohuman family OF TETICALS. On this day the phenomenon of man was born. Not being smarter than his relatives, the owner of a high-standing Logic simply in a different way to the process of thinking, considering it self-valued, supportive, murderous, considered so, still having no evidence, simply because of his, new to the proto-human world order of functions.
There was a giant intellectual explosion, according to one biologist, "there was an unprecedented - a person largely out of the influence of natural selection. Unfinished, unfinished. And so remained forever ... And a person came out from the action of selection because the main condition of success was not genetically transmitted information, but non-genetically transmitted knowledge. It is not those who are better organized as those who are better at the knowledge of how to build, how to produce food, how to protect themselves from diseases, but most importantly - next to pragmatic thinking stood up the thinking of fundamental - thinking is self-important, existing regardless of the tremors and circumstances of the external environment.
Modern society is only now growing to realize the need to finance basic research. i.e. the satisfaction is said to be of idle curiosity at someone else's expense. But in fact, regardless of the sources of funding, fundamental research exists as long as there is a modern person. The question is: who was Socrates, who was sitting on the neck of his wife Xantippa, and in endless conversations trying to understand the creature of far from everyday life, philosophical categories? He was a typical representative of the high-standing Logic: idly curious. a supporter of self-important play with intellectual muscles, adept of the theory of thinking for the sake of thinking. But no matter how angry the free or unwitting "sponsors" of fundamental intellectualism, in the end their contributions never disappear, the strategic gain always remains for the representative of the high-standing Logic. However, no matter how the fate of the planet develops, the engine of the last stage of evolutionary development - the high-standing Logic - will continue to play a decisive role.
The reader is already probably dreaming of a typical image of the man of the future for some magazine illustrations: a body-body, on top of which swings a bald skull the size of a pumpkin. No, you can be calm here. I repeat, it is not about the structure of the skull and not in anthropology, but in the order of functions, in which Logic by the will of fate is at the top. Therefore, anthropological metamorphosis is not foreseen. I do not foresee the impending numerical under-violence of intellectuals. They are still very dense, and since the love program of the person is focused on the emotional, as much was said in the previous chapter, it will take at least millennia before Logic begins to seriously compete with Emotion in the struggle for the continuation of the family.
However, it is time to move from global problems to private ones and to look at ways to express Logic, depending on the position of it at the steps of the functional hierarchy. All carriers of this function are divided into "dogmatists" (1st Logic), "ritors" (2nd Logic), "sceptics" (3rd Logic) and "schoolers" (4th Logic).
"Dogmatic" (1st Logic)
19. BERTIER LOGIC PHYSICS EMOTION EMOTION WILL
20. PASCAL LOGIC EMOTION EMOTION WILL PHYSICIST
21. PLATO LOGIC PHYSICS WILL EMOTION
22. EINSTEIN LOGIC WILL EMOTION PHYSICS
23. AUGUSTINE LOGIC EMOTION PHYSICS WILL
24. LAO TZU LOGIC WILL PHYSICS EMOTION
The title "dogmatic" in this case has a double meaning: today, according to which dogmatics are considered a person incapable of changing the times of learned truths, and in the ancient sense of the word, when the dogmatic was understood a thinker, prone to a monologue, an affirmative form of intellectual activity, as opposed to dialectic, which preferred a dialogue, a question form.
In principle, both meanings - today and ancient Greek are equally applicable to the 1st Logic. Since the internal, psychological staging of Logic is reflected only in the way of thinking, but not on the quality of it, the "dogmatist" can be both a great sage and an impenetrable dullness. The 1st Logic combines the effectiveness of thinking, and what the results - a matter of purely individual.
Among the external signs of the 1st Logic the most noticeable and revealing is the uniquely affirmative form of communication. Even when the "dogma" seemed to ask, it does not follow that he is waiting for an answer, and the question itself is usually put in a way that contains a known assessment. For example, a question like, "Did you hear what that dummy said?" - obviously does not imply an open-minded exchange of views. For this reason, communication with the 1st Logic in general can be considered quite difficult, communication "dogmatics" is so oppressive that the conversation willy-nilly reduced to a monologue, it can be interesting, useful, brilliant or, conversely, tedious, aimless, squalid, but it will still be a report, a speech, not a conversation.
The monologue of the 1st Logic is insurmountable even then. when she tries to speak in someone else's name and reproduce a fundamentally alien dialogue intonation. This was the case, for example, with the great "dogmatic" Plato, who in vain imitated the style of his teacher Socrates, until the nature took its own and he brought to the end his "Socratic Dialogues" to pure monologues, on the title of which the name of Socrates, a lover of communication, was already an obvious fiction.
Fortunately, the dogmatic is not chatty, has the ability to hear and is not in a hurry to speak on any of the proposed topics. He allows himself to start the monologue only in comfortable conditions, i.e. in connection with the problem in which he considers himself competent. How thorough this opinion about itself is another question, the main thing, when discussing those in which the "dogmatist" floats or does not have information at all. he prefers to keep quiet.
That's what I think. 1st Logic of caution manifests itself. She does not know how to communicate outside the affirmative form, and the detection at cavalry appeal on the insolvency of her First - a supporting and most powerful function - is fraught with self-destruction of personality.
Another reason for the silence of the 1st Logic: the lack of gift and taste for discussion. In disputes with "dogmatics" the truth is not born, it is either affirmed or swept away. The third is not given.
Usually he goes to a debate with home-cooked - a cudgel of absolute truth, which sometimes very effectively jams his opponent. But home-cooked 1st Logic is equally inherent in both strength and weakness. A simple, shifting-looking topic is a question that is not relevant to the point of remark, and even a simple "dogmatic" is taken out of balance and shut his mouth. And while he tries to collect the crumbling after the failure of the design of his home speculative scheme, comes a painful silent scene, painful for the 1st Logic and unpleasant for listeners.
This happened, for example, with Demosthenes. As a speaker by profession, he was a "dogmatic" in his way of thinking. Therefore, never, even in extreme cases, did not perform with impromptu, but always at first at home wrote and studied speech, and only then went with her to the podium. All would be fine, but the exuberant Athenian people often shouted interrupted the speaker, and here on Demosphen found such tetanus that he was speechless and silent descended from the podium, which immediately climbed the party colleague Demad, able to respond more flexibly to the challenge of the crowd.
"Dogmatic" in general tightum - a stayer, not a sprinter of intelligence. He, as the Russians say, is strong in the hind wind (the English call it humor on the stairs), so he has no taste for discussion and without extreme need does not enter into it. Darwin admitted: "I am not endowed with the ability to grasp on the fly or the sharpness of the mind, so striking us in gifted people, such as Huxley. Accordingly, I am an unimportant critic.."
The third reason for the silence of the 1st Logic: dislike of idle chatter. conjectures and generally private opinion. "Dogmatic" collects absolute truth, not opinions. Only absolute truth can be put brick in the intellectual support that builds for itself 1st Logic. Hence the outright alienation and even dislike that the "dogmatic" feels to chatter, hypotheses and opinions. One of the scientists who knew Einstein wrote: "It was the most important thing for him to come to the absolute truth; in this pursuit he did not know the delicacy and spared no self-love of opponents."
I will not say that the "dogmatic" himself is not the author of hypotheses. There are very often ridiculous hypotheses. Another thing is that usually. them for such does not feel, does not consider to such an extent that is not inclined to experience to test the faithfulness of their lives. This is not done by negligence, God forbid, but because for the 1st Logic the thought is primary and self-sufficient, it is of the same kind and does not need any crutches.
To go from concept to fact, and not vice versa - the usual for the 1st Logic way of action.Natural looks at this image of thought and the fact that for "dogmatic" there is no more painful spectacle than the kind of battleable theory. Once, talking to Huxley about the nature of the tragic, someone mentioned Spencer. "Ha!" "Hexley cried out," he shouted. the tragedy in Spencer's view is deduction, morified by fact."
"Dogmatic" in its trust to the thought (more precisely, not to the thought, but to the First function - the function of the highest authenticity), it happens, goes so far that others begin to classify this fascination with speculation as madness. Obsession with the idea, confidence in its supervalue, reliance on logic at the expense of fact and experience has in psychiatry its special name - "paranoia." And sometimes, such a diagnosis is made by the 1st Logic. However, as in the case of manic-depressive psychosis in the 1st Emotion, paranoia is not a mental illness in its own sense of the word. it is just the extreme expression of the 1st Logic, by nature too trusting to speculative schemes. And if we classify paranoia as a disease, this disease is not mental, but psychotypical, i.e. caused by the mental type of the individual.
However, the clinical title - "paranoid" 1st Logic is awarded quite rarely, more often it is a borderline state. Characterized usually by epithets such as "mentor," "doctrinaire," "scientist donkey."
It is very similar to the madness and the reaction that the 1st Logic reacts to all obvious stupidity, nonsense, alogism, beliberda, other Logics perceived usually quite condescendingly. Knowing nonsense, that is, direct mockery of the best, most important side of the psyche "dogmatics" almost immediately knocks him out of the rut, bringing to rabies, to hysterics. Paustovsky described in the memoirs of one of his gymnasium teachers, pathologically not carrying beliberda. Young dunce-gyms students soon recognized his weakness and, garking some notorious stupidity at the beginning of the lesson, just knocked out the teacher, immediately bringing to a hysterical fit and insanity.
Thinking of the 1st Logic may not be the best in the world, but, for sure, the most HONEST. This happens because there is nothing above logic, and no other function twists the hand to the sake of thinking, does not press from above, dictating direction and way of thinking. In the "dogmatic" functions standing below can only ask, and not demand from Logic something for themselves, something working on self-interest in Physics, on sensitivity on Emotion, on vanity by will - and only. Therefore, the 1st Logic, as no one, is honest and pure in its speculation, and the rigor of its intellectual constructions can be relied upon.
The ability to immerse yourself in the thought until completely disconnected from the outside world is noticed in the "dogmatic" already in childhood. Extreme and, more importantly, lonely reverie characterizes such a child. He can spend hours alone, busy with his thoughts, not reacting to what is happening around. Sometimes the thought captures it at the most inopportune moment, for example, for food and captures so much that the view of the child-"dogmatic" stoned and the spoon hangs for a long time in the air, not conveyed to the mouth.
The propensity for somnambulic immersion in thought in the 1st Logic is well illustrated by episodes from Einstein's life. It is said that one day they saw Einstein rolling a stroller with a child down the street; suddenly he stopped in the most inappropriate place, from the point of view of the rules of the street traffic, and, having taken out of his pocket paper and pencil, began to make hasty notes. Only after finishing the recording, Einstein continued to move. Or another case. Wanting to celebrate the scientist's birthday, friends invited Einstein to the restaurant and, among other things, ordered a rare delicacy - Russian caviar. When the caviar was brought, Einstein was just "talking about the Newtonian law of inertia and about its possible physical explanation. He put caviar in his mouth and continued to comment on the law of inertia. When the caviar was seden and the speaker stopped to put an invisible point, the interlocutors asked him if he knew that he had eaten. "No, but what?" - "It was caviar!" - "How, was it caviar?" - Einstein exclaimed with sadness..."
The memory of the 1st Logic is also well-known. It holds ideas, theories, concepts well, but is quite weak on facts, names, dates, numbers. When Einstein was asked a simple question about the speed of sound, he replied, "I don't know that by heart. To what to load his memory with what can be found in any handbook." He is not interested in the disparate non-systemic factual material, because it is impossible to build on that finished intellectual structure, which tries to rely on the 1st Logic. According to the "dogmatics", the facts - sand, building material itself unfit, valuable it makes only a noticeable addition of cement of thought, able to turn the grains of facts into that concrete, from which only and possible to form a genuine and unshakable support of personality.
For the same reason, "dogmatic" is usually not curious and often even poorly read. In general, if the circle of his professional interests is far from intellectual sphere, his luggage "dogmatic" from the crowd almost does not stand out, and does not aspire to it. His skate is a system analysis, not information storage. Nils Bohr, for example, none of his colleagues considered any seriously erudite person, but his gigantic talent to structure disparate, at first glance, accidentally caught in the sight of the facts, was not denied by anyone. Bohr himself said, "You know, I'm an amateur. When others begin to complicate the machine of theory, I cease to understand anything ... I can only think with sin in half."
"Dogmatic" is a philosopher, a philosopher, even when his occupation is formally far from philosophy. For example, Einstein and Bohr are considered physicists, but in fact they were naturosophs and stood much closer to Democrit than to Rutherford. Explain the philosophical inclinations of "dogmatics" by the fact that the thinking of the 1st Logic was strategic and gravitates towards the creation of closed universal systems. To connect with thought all things in the world is an unattainable, but constantly built "dogmatist" before itself. As another famous physicist, Heveshi, wrote: "The thinking mind does not feel happy until it manages to tie together the disparate facts observed by it. This "intellectual unhappiness" most of all makes us think - to do science."
The conceit of "dogmatics" in terms of the abilities of one's mind extends far as far. One day, George Eliot asked Spencer why he didn't see any wrinkles on his forehead with such hard work. "It's probably because I'm never puzzled," the famous scientist replied. "Dogmatic" is self-confident to the point that, perhaps, only it leaves indifferent the universal fascination with crosswords, logical tests and similar means of intellectual self-control. And in vain. This self-confidence sometimes serves the 1st Logic of unkind service, because when depending on the results of testing is the fate of the person (recruitment, school, etc.), the 1st Logic does not always score high scores. And it's not just the unsyability and tightness of thinking "dogmatics." The very assumption that the power of the mind given to him by nature is not just in abundance, but even with excess, can be challenged, seems "dogmatic" so ridiculous that to strain his hemispheres he sometimes considers simply superfluous. Hence, often more than modest results of intelligent testing of the 1st Logic.
The style. In its quest for laconicism, the 1st Logic is very similar to the 1st Emotion. Like "romantic," the "dogmatic" is brief in self-expression and on the court of the human tends to present only the result of his lonely reflections - "raisins" of thinking, with the exception of everything that preceded it, i.e. the process of rational search. For example, Einstein outlined his famous theory of relativity on three pages, and spent eighteen pages on his thesis without even providing it with a list of literature.
Lapidarity of self-expression of the 1st Logic is rarely for its benefit and almost always to the detriment. Sometimes it can be directly associated with some irreparable, tragic losses. Let's say that Heraclitus - the greatest and deepest philosopher of antiquity already in his lifetime nicknamed "Dark", and to this day from all his philosophical heritage came only a few brilliant quotes. Such is the bitter payment of the 1st Logic for the high concentration of its emphatically effective style.
The handwriting of "dogmatics" is very recognizable. It is ugly, difficult to read and by its principles approaches to shorthand (I think the inventor of shorthand had the 1st Logic). The main formal signs of "dogmatic" handwriting are: of all the variants of writing letters is chosen the simplest and fastest, as well as the bundles between the letters short, straight and as adapted to cursive. In short, the handwriting of the 1st Logic is extremely rational and neglects clarity and aesthetics for the sake of speed and simplicity.
"Ritor" (2nd Logic)
2. REDUCE THE WILL LOGIC OF EMOTION PHYSICS
6. LENIN WILL LOGIC PHYSICS EMOTION
7. ARISTIP PHYSICS LOGIC WILL EMOTION
10. EPICURE PHYSICS LOGIC EMOTION WILL
14. ANDERSEN EMOTION LOGIC WILL PHYSICIST
17. RUSSO EMOTION LOGIC PHYSICS WILL
To say that "rhetoric" is a big fan of talk is to say nothing. Communication - air and bread of the 2nd Logic. The size of this need can be judged at least by the example of Fidel Castro, for whom it is worthless to give a 15-hour interview. However, apparently, this is not the limit - Castro himself admitted that he met people even more talkative than him.
Moreover, this chatteriness of the "ritor" exists as if in itself, as a passion, as a disease, outside of personal and public interests. And sometimes in spite of them.
After abandoning the affairs of the vast empire, all day long wandered through the grammar schools of Emperor Tiberius, asking wild, in terms of his social position, questions: "Who was Hecuba's mother? What was Achilles' name among the girls? What songs were sung by sirens?" He liked, for example, to summon some literary flesh on the carpet, to indulge in hours to criticize the novel paralyzed from the fear of roaches, compared some great writers with others, to the different manners of writing, etc.
These curiosities could be considered a simple bliss of jaded tyrants, if we do not take into account the fact that both Tiberius and Stalin had the 2nd Logic. This fact puts everything in its place. Being carriers of the psychotype, of which Logic is the Second Function, i.e. the function of the not easily powerful, but still being procession, both tyrants, contrary to their own and state interests, simply could not go against their nature and threw in the insatiable womb of the procession of the 2nd Logic all that falls under the hand, up to the near-literary thration.
To be commended, the "rhetoric" would be utterly unbearable if his word-lustability often did not reach the heights of the true art of communication. The secret of this art is in the ability and desire not just to speak out, but above all to involve the interlocutor in the conversation, to make intellectual feast joint.
The techniques that make such involvement in the conversation are simple and fail-safe. First, unlike "dogmatics," "rhetoric" never begins communication with approval, but always with a question. Begins with a question even when the subject is known to him thoroughly. One owner of the most powerful, turned off only on the night of the 2nd Logic, once told me: "If I ask you, it does not mean that I do not know the answer. I'm just so comfortable talking."
The second way is to pretend to be a fool and start communicating with a phrase like the famous Socratic: "I only know that I know nothing." It is hard to imagine who would refuse to swallow such bait - an opportunity to teach a fool. And the further matter of technology: word for word, conversation rolled, you see - for an interesting conversation and the day passed.
It does not follow from this that only direct, open, equal dialogue determines the completeness of the implementation of the 2nd Logic. It has enough reverberation. Take, say, a speech from the podium. In this case, it seems that the speaker is doomed to a monologue, and, therefore, the 2nd Logic is notoriously put in an uncomfortable position for her. However, this is only visibility. Communication still takes place, contact is, but not on the language, but on the energy level. This is how the writer Garcia Marquez describes the rally version of Fidel Castro's 2nd Logic: "In the first minutes his voice is barely audible and intermittent. It seems as if the speaker is moving blindly in the fog, using every flash of light to per inch the terrain, stumbles, but gets up and... completely takes over the audience. From that moment between him and the public there is an electric circuit, which excites both sides, turning them into a kind of dialectical accomplices, and in this unbearable tension his reassity."
Another wonderful and precious quality, characteristic of all "ritors" without exception - is a healthy cynicism. 2nd Logic does not believe in God, in the devil, nor in party programs, nor in scientific doctrines - in anything. All aximatic, dogmatic, once in the millstones of the hemispheres of the "rhetorical" brain, quickly loses its absoluteness and is made by a simple object of intellectual manipulation. For the "ritor" there are no prohibitions, no frameworks, no rules that keep the free play of thought. Everything is subject to the trial of the 2nd Logic, but this court is merciful and rarely makes a final verdict (except for obvious stupidity). The verdict is the result, the end of the process, which is so cherished by the 2nd Logic. Therefore, the cynicism of her statements is devoid of aggressive, categorical notes, it is the cynicism of a non-partisan, free-thinking person.
He does not value the "rhetoric" and his own statements, which are not statements for him, but only hypotheses that are convenient at the moment. To refute today said yesterday - the normal state of the "ritor." You don't have to go far for an example - Lenin. During his life he said so much the opposite that Leninists still can not decide which of his statements should be considered prescriptive. A great polemist, Lenin each time managed to make an extremely convincing thought, directly contrary to the one he had recently defended with a little more brilliance. In general, the ability of the 2nd Logic with ease snake to throw dilapidated intellectual skin - a huge gift, making of the "ritor" of the invincible polemist, Proteus of thought, multifaceted and elusive.
It is impossible not to admire the breadth of interests of the 2nd Logic. She is interested in almost everything that happens in the world, from global problems to the smallest. To stand up to the interests and memory of the "ritor" is rich. well-holding and universal concepts, and insignificant facts, like a scaup closet, keeping everything that comes in the way. And in such omnivorous memory of the 2nd Logic there is a reason. One God knows where the dear heart of the "ritor" conversation can begin, which will serve as a starting point: a trifle or a super-idea. The main thing is to participate, and for full participation you need a large, devoid of special memory.
However, unlike "dogmatics", the 2nd Logic is not at all confused and the complete lack of information, when it fearlessly encounters in the conversation. However, it does not take the risk of being punished, as it is protected by flexibility and freedom of mind, which are expensive regardless of the degree of awareness of the interlocutors, as well as certainly a questionable form of entering into the conversation.
2nd Logic also knows no equal as a commentator, a misinterpreter of other people's ideas. An illustration of this provision can serve as a characteristic of the young, at that time fascinated by hegelian dialectic,Mikhail Bakunin: "Bakunin had a great ability to develop the most abstract concepts with clarity, which made them accessible to everyone, and they did not lose in their idealistic depth ... Bakunin could speak for hours, argue tirelessly from evening till morning, without losing neither the dialectical thread of conversation, nor the passionate power of persuasion. And he was always ready to explain, to explain, to repeat without the slightest dogmatism."
No matter how fond of "rhetoric" joint intellectual feasts, at the same time he perfectly owns the art of shaving, shut his mouth to the opponent. I will give examples from the life of tyrants already known to us. They told about Stalin that when Orjenikidze, having learned about the search of his apartment of the NKVD, called his despot and expressed his indignation, he heard in response: they say, the NKVD is such an organization that could make a search of Stalin. It's a stage. One day a delegation of Trojans arrived to Emperor Tiberius and belatedly expressed his condolences on the death of his son. Tiberius's reaction was instant, and he expressed his condolences to them on the occasion of the death of the best of the Trojans - Hector. It's a stage.
Regardless of the speed and accuracy of the sharpness of the 2nd Logic, it should be noted as a characteristic feature - the great speed of processes going on in her brain. Instantly, the necessary information is extracted from the memory caches, instantly and half-word assimilated, options are rapidly calculated and hypotheses are born. It seems that the neurons of the "ritor" pulse runs faster than that of other people. Watching near the work of the 2nd Logic, involuntarily feel like an arithmometer, standing next to the computer.
Perhaps the only drawback of the 2nd Logic, which is an extension of its merits, is that the thinking of the "ritor" tends to be more gravitating towards tactics than strategy. 2nd logic and does not aspire to something long-term, large-scale, finished, it is more interested in the momentary, close-to-goal intellectual game. Very good this feature of the 2nd Logic on the example of Lenin described Victor Chernov: "First of all, he is a master of fencing, and the swordsman needs quite a bit of ability to anticipate and does not need complex ideas. In fact, he does not need to think too much: it is necessary to focus on each movement of the enemy and control his own reaction at the speed of innate instinct in order to respond to every movement of the enemy without the slightest delay.
Lenin's intellect was sharp, but not broad, resourceful, but not creative. Master of assessment of any political situation, he instantly mastered it, quickly evaluated all its new turns and showed unsized political ingenuity. This perfect and fast-paced political flair stands in stark contrast to the totally unfounded and fantastic nature of all the historical predictions he has made for any length of time - any programme that encompasses something more than today and tomorrow."
Being a tactic, not a strategist of thought "rhetoric" and does not seek to gain the ultimate truth, after which, of course, needed in his fast, mobile mind should simply fall away. In this sense, one recognition of Lessing is characteristic. He wrote: "The value of man is determined not by the possession of truth, genuine or imaginary, but by honest work used to achieve the truth... If God, having concluded the truth in his right hand, and in the left - the eternal desire for the truth, but with the fact that I will be forever mistaken, said to me, "Choose!" I would humbly attach to His left hand, saying, "Father, give! The pure truth is that she is one for you."
"Ritor" is not a big hunter before writing his views. And that's understandable. His passion is live communication, not a battle with a dead piece of paper. He gives it to others, as Socrates did, agreeing to Plato's recording. But what further disgusts the 2nd Logic from the cabinet work - is the inability to limit yourself to some framework, to find the beginning and end of thought. Thinking for the "ritor" is primarily a process, movement, flow, and an attempt to snatch anything from it is no more fruitful than trying to cut a piece of the river. Therefore, if he sits down at the table, he does it with great reluctance, for any particular reason, and his manuscript looks like something without beginning and end, a fragment of a boundless, endless opus.
The only thing when the 2nd Logic willingly turns to the paper - it is during the forced loneliness. It is being doomed to silence, she turns to such a surrogate as a paper, and usually starts a diary. But the one who thinks that it is a diary in the usual sense of the word, as a secret attorney of the innermost doomsdays is greatly mistaken. It's nothing like that. It's a ship's journal of thought, directly designed for extraneous reading. A friend of mine, after a long absence, not only gave, but forced to read his wife his diary-magazine.
Another notable and funny character trait of the 2nd Logic is the passion to make notes in books, especially library. Reading with a pencil, it abundantly sat down pages with features, exclamation points and question marks, "nb" etc. But in reality the origins of this passion are different. Tagging in books - a typical form of communication typical for the 2nd Logic, a message to all the future unnamed owners of the book, an attempt to exchange opinions in absentia.
"The Skeptic" (3rd Logic)
3. AKHMATOVA WILL EMOTION LOGIC PHYSICS
5. NAPOLEON WILL PHYSICIST LOGIC EMOTION
11. BORJA PHYSICS EMOTION LOGIC WILL
12. GOETHE PHYSICS WILL LOGIC EMOTION
13. BUKHARIN EMOTION PHYSICS LOGIC WILL
15. GASSED THE EMOTION OF THE WILL LOGIC OF PHYSICS
Once again I will say heresy, but still I will say: skepticism is not philosophy at all, and psychology. The title of "sceptic" deserves any holder of the 3rd Logic, regardless of the level of education and degree of philosophical training. There would be a desire to deny the effectiveness and necessity of rational beginnings in a person - it is enough to be in the camp of skeptics.
However, the 3rd Logic would not have been the Third Function if it had not been internally divided and, along with the fierce denial of reason, secretly worshipped it. The poet Alexander Block in the letters almost clicked: "I know love, I know that "mind" will not be, I do not want it, throw it, throw mud, trample my feet, " - but in one of the questionnaires admitted: "My favorite quality is the mind."
Typical for the Third function love-hate in the 3rd Logic is original only because it is directed to the mental activity of a person.
Ordinary, everyday "sceptic" is a silent, very cautious person in parcels and conclusions, with dislike and irony referring to all sorts of categorical judgments. Moreover, silence as a form of existence prevails in him. One owner of the 3rd Logic, being married to a man with the 4th Logic, once complained to me: "I know I'm smarter than him, but I want to open my mouth and I can't. Indeed, the "skeptic" is almost always doomed to silence, although it is more of a burden to him than anyone else. However, it is necessary for the "sceptic" to open his mouth sometimes, as it immediately hears from the side: "Silence, for the clever will go," - and he numbs, catching the air with his mouth.
The only way for the 3rd Logic to protect yourself from such injuries is to turn the logic out of the realm of direct contact. What in the back of my mind is not desirable and in the conditions of modern society is impossible. Therefore, the "sceptic" can only limit itself to minimal self-defense: flight from the most pressing issues, discussions, debates - and most importantly, the prevention of attempts to use logic in conflict situations. Phrases like, "We're not going to discuss!" "Enough to talk!" - from which the conflict of the 3rd Logic usually begins, pursues this goal. Such demands are rarely heard by grumpy opponents of the "sceptic", but not to try to protect himself from blows on the sore spot, and therefore throughout the conflict tries to transfer the struggle to other functional levels, or, at worst, to pretend to be deaf.
Experiencing almost panic fear of acute, gambling dispute, "sceptic" at the same time, as no one, appreciates a leisurely, benevolent, free conversation, in which there are no winners and losers, and therefore there is no division into smart and fools (to get into the last 3rd Logic is afraid more than anything). She appreciates, even bluntly, the empty chatter in which the process is much more expensive than the result.
Here it is discovered that the imaginary silencer is in fact monstrously verbose, that there is no greater joy for him than quietly, almost whispering, murmuring and murmuring, sorting, like beads of rosks, theme after topic.
The 3rd Logics are especially successful in two themes. The first is classical skepticism: about the insolvency of reason (Sext Empiric's essay "Against Logic" can be considered a reference in this area). Maybe, and not competing with Sext Empiric, each "sceptic" contributes to this direction, very inventively, and most importantly, logically proving the futility of logic. Although even ancient opponents of the first skeptics pointed out that to fight reasoning against reasoning - not very correct. But that is the two-faced quirkiness of the 3rd Logic: to deny the mind so that everyone can say, "Why is he smart!"
Another topic or, better to say the sphere in which the 3rd Logic is easily breathed- is the boundary between knowledge and ignorance, that shaky streak, where there are no yet dogmas, all but facts and facts, hypotheses and opinions. It is here in full force unfolds the talent of the 3rd Logic, the great master to be sophisticated in multivariate, to build exquisite paradoxes, to weave speculative laces, to bring any position to the absurd. I suppose that the question: "How many angels can sit on the end?" - invented it is the 3rd Logic.
The complexity of thought in general is closer to the 3rd Logic than simplicity. This fact is interesting because in philosophy there is a principle called "Ocama razor" according to which, of the two solutions to the problem: complex and simple - it is necessary to cut off a complex version, as the most unproductive and cumbersome. 1st Logic certainly accepts the "Okkam razor", the 3rd Logic does not present it at all and prefers a complicated decision to the simple.
Much more caution than in the analysis of hypotheses and opinions, shows the 3rd Logic in the analysis of dogms. Unlike the 2nd logic, fearless enough to try on a tooth even common, common truths, the 3rd Logic does not feel as strong for an open revolt against them, its rebellion is hidden, it is painful, painful, gradual, in the expression of the great "sceptic" Kant, the swell with itself "dogmatic task".
Describing Churchill's 3rd Logic, Lloyd George wrote: "Churchill's mind was a powerful mechanism. But in the structure of this mechanism, and maybe in the materials from which it was composed, there was some incomprehensible flaw, which prevented it from always acting properly. What was the case here, critics could not say. When the mechanism malfunctioned, its sheer power led to disaster not only for himself, but also for the people with whom he worked. That's why the latter felt nervous in working with him.
In their opinion, in the metal from which it was cast, there was some fatal isayan. This weakness was put forward by Churchill's critics in support of his refusal to use his great abilities at the moment. They saw it not as a positive value to be used in an hour of danger, but as an additional danger to beware."
Unfortunately, Lloyd George only points out the presence of some of Churchill's logic, but apparently unable to articulate what this is a member of the world. My attempts to question the owners of the 3rd Logic were also not very fruitful. The answers were brief, and they showed that the particular difficulty for them was the formation of priorities, the systemicity of thinking ("thoughts spread like crayfish").
I suspect that for a large part of the owners of the 3rd Logic the problem lies not so much in the haphazardness of thinking and related doubts about mental abilities, but in the stiffness and undeveloped speech apparatus. Therefore, in the development of speech, starting from infancy, I see the main solution to the problem of "scepticism". Otherwise, the consequences may be the saddest. For example, Alexander Blok almost starved to death during the Civil War, because rations were given to writers for lectures, and to lecture work, because of innate "scepticism". he was incapable. Block said to his colleagues, "I envy you all: you know how to speak, you read somewhere out there. I can't do that. I can only write in writing."
The idea of the feelings experienced by the 3rd Logic, when she is at the department, give excerpts from one letter to a psychiatrist: "I teach at a technical university ... For the sixth month I have been giving lectures in my specialty... "I read" - it is said incorrectly. I don't read, I suffer and torment listeners... I go out to the audience like a statue of a commander. Everything is fine and surprising: the tongue does not toss, in the spine stake, on the shoulders of the weight of the Egyptian pyramid, and in the brains - what is in the brain, already damn will understand. Smokescreen. I forget half the material, no notes help."
Another source of intellectual glitches in the "sceptic" is the very order of functions, which put logic down. The correctness of thinking for the 3rd Logic is especially difficult, because the strong functions above simply break its apparatus under itself. 1st Will easily turns into a clown "I think!" 3rd Logic, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Lermontov wrote, "I like to doubt everything: this arrangement does not interfere with the determination of my character." The same, which leads to the combination of "scepticism" with determination of character can be judged by the examples of two such well-known "sceptics" as Napoleon and ******.They mocked common sense not because little and poorly thought, but because the 1st Will too believed in themselves and in their right to own the world to listen to the reasonable babble of the 3rd Logic. Their Will, standing much higher than Logic, simply excluded from the circle of brainied themes and facts such as found to be sensitive, In fact, the violence that is done over the 3rd Logic of the Higher Will is what is commonly referred to as "female logic," i.e. by the definition of a single wit, is "an unconscious belief that the oceactivity can be overcome by one desire." Disorder is dishonest, dishonesty is dishonest - that's what we should pay attention to in any moral and intellectual assessment.
If the "sceptic" turns to politics, his first thing is characterized by stable relations with the press. In Democratic systems, a "skeptic" politician usually flees the press, as President Reagan did. Under totalitarian regimes, the "skeptic" ruler escapes from it by repression. An example is Napoleon, who closed 160 French newspapers on a single day, imposed a heavy grip on the remaining, and claimed that another newspaper was worth a thousand bayonets. This statement of the great commander, as in a drop of water, reflected the respect and fear that the 3rd Logic constantly experiences before the hard word given to her.
Several observations over not too significant, but characteristic features of the 3rd Logic.
First. She is the main consumer of crossword puzzles, logical tasks and tests. All this intellectual production is the perfect testing ground on which the 3rd Logic can test itself without interference and risk of serious injury, to find out how inherently inward the feeling of mental inferiority. Although, in my opinion, crossword puzzles and tests are not able to give a true picture of the state of the logical apparatus. However, as a psychotherapeutic tool, they are absolutely necessary, inspiring and comforting a large army of "sceptics."
Second. 3rd Logic, even without being emotional (i.e. with the 4th Emotion), is still prone to mysticism. The mechanism of such a propensity is quite transparent. However, usually "sceptical" mysticism at the 4th Emotion is not deep and is limited to the propensity to superstition, as such well-known "skeptics" as Reagan and Yeltsin openly admitted.
Third. If the 3rd Logic works in the artistic sphere, then it is closer to others in spirit such currents as expressionism, Dadaism, surrealism, etc. The secret of this sympathy is just as simple, "skeptic" can not be close artistic directions, bulging irrational beginnings, aesthetic concepts, contrasting in creativity unconscious conscious, putting the second much below the first.
"Skolar" (4th Logic)
1. THICK WILL EMOTION PHYSICS LOGIC
4. TWARDOVSKY WILL PHYSICS EMOTION LOGIC
8. CHEKHOV PHYSICS WILL EMOTION LOGIC
9. DUMA PHYSICS EMOTION WILL LOGIC
16. PASTERNAK EMOTION WILL PHYSICS LOGIC
18. PUSHKIN EMOTION PHYSICS WILL LOGIC
I am afraid that the reader in advance, voluntarily or unwittingly, has the impression of the 4th Logic as a function of the notoriously mentally helpless and retarded. Therefore, once again - it is not so. The essence of the problem of the 4th Logic is not the poor quality of its functioning, but that the individual takes logic in its internal hierarchy of values the last place. Read in these lines:
"It wasn't hard for me to get used to the feasts,
Where the idle mind shines, while the heart slumbers."
Who is the author of these lines, where the preference for Emotion ("heart") before Logic ("mind")is unequivocally expressed? The author - a great clever, unsurpassed, according to the testimonies of contemporaries, polemist - Alexander Pushkin, who, indeed, the 1st Emotion was combined with the 4th Logic, which is clear and reflected in the lines.
In the example of Pushkin it is easy to see one of the specific features of the 4th Logic: the combination of the quality work of the logical apparatus with complete madness. Pushkin is a brilliant polemist. lost in the cards to all who knew how to hold them in their hands. There is nothing paradoxical here. The polemical gift of it was opened in a serene atmosphere of a friendly circle. Whereas a large card game in itself led to discomfort, tension of the situation in which, according to the laws of the Fourth Functions, the 4th Logic of Pushkin was disconnected, and all internal energy was concentrated in Emotions - a function that stands first in its internal hierarchy. And the result of playing cards based on emotions, I think, is easy to predict in advance. And so, depending on the situation, lives any "schoolboy" smart and stupid in one person.
The russian tsar Nicholas II was not denied the mind by people who knew him well. But... Victorious considered him not to tolerate "common issues" able to assess "the significance of the fact only isolated, without relation to the rest, without connection with the set of other facts, events, currents, phenomena." The king himself said, "that he suffers heavily, choosing from all the necessary things heard," "that he has a hard time straining the mind", and "he thinks. that this effort of mind, if it could pass into a horse (when he sits on it), it would very disturb her." That's the way it is. The 4th Logic is difficult to give independent mental work, generally the inclusion of intelligence without immediate and obvious in that need. The brain of the "schoolboy" is pragmatic, he does not like to look forward and look wide and quickly moulds without aftershocks from the outside.
And so, in appearance of the 4th Logic is almost no different from the 2nd. It is also intellectually non-partisan; easily assimilates, accepts, reproduces, develops any views: dogmatic, dialectical. Skeptical... 4th Logic is as free and fearless in its premise and conclusions as it is in the 2nd. And let's give credit, omnivorousness, combined with fearlessness - the main and very weighty trump card in the hands of the "schoolboy."
Two things allow you to quickly distinguish the 4th Logic from the 2nd. First, the ideology of the "schoolboy" is completely detached from his life, and he is not inclined to follow what he postulates. Tolstoy wrote about one of these owners of the 4th Logic: "Sviazhsky was one of those people who was always amazing for Levin. reasoning which, very consistent, though never independent, goes on its own, and life, extremely defined and firm in its direction, goes on its own, completely independently, almost always contrary to reasoning."
The second sign of the 4th Logic is congenital skepticism. However, let's not confuse it with the active skepticism of the 3rd Logic. "Skolarsky" is a toothless skepticism, Pasternak's remark that they say to engage in all life intellectual activity is like eating mustard all his life - that's the land for which rarely passes "school" in his criticism of rationalism. The skepticism of the 4th Logic is not a vigorous denial of the effectiveness of an intelligent beginning in a person, but a simple indifference to it. And that's the big difference between skepticism of the 3rd and the skepticism of the 4th Logic. Because the indifference of the 4th Logic, still recently painted with skepticism, tomorrow may be painted dogma, and the day after tomorrow something else. Because of the indifference to intellectual questions of the 4th Logic is easily captured, but the wrong one who thinks that captured it forever. No - until the next interlocutor. About one of these "schoolers" Labreuyer wrote: "He so naturally appropriates someone else's mind that he himself is the first to be deceived, sincerely believing that he expresses his own judgment or explains his own thought, although in fact he is just an echo of who he has just broken up with." Chekhov wrote about the same very self-critical: "I have no political, religious and philosophical worldview; I change it every month..."
In short, "schoolboy" - energetic only in need, idly curious, internally utterly uninhibited, intellectual chameleon. And here all its pros and cons.
In consolation, the "schoolboy" must add that he is a champion. Among the population of the earth, it is numerically superior to all other Logics. There is no country or nation where the "school" Logic would dominate. Purely hypothetically reasoning, we can assume that in Greece Y-IVV. until the R.H. and in Germany, the YIII-XIX centuries, in the heyday of their philosophies and sciences, the 4th Logic was slightly supplanted. But in other times and in other spaces, the dominance of the 4th Logic was and is undivided.