This is a consolidated transcript from a past lecture that had accompanying slides. My hope is that the core ideas continue to resonate, despite their somewhat clumsy presentation in this format. Enjoy! -Dalton
Just because something is logical doesn’t mean it is true. This is a critical distinction to make, especially when we examine the stories our ego tells us about who we are.
Logic does not determine whether or not something is true, only whether or not it is valid—whether it is consistent with its own classifications. A logical statement is considered sound if the argument itself is valid, and the premises of the argument are true.
For example:
A = B B = C Therefore, A = C
This is a valid argument. But it is not necessarily sound. If I said:
A dog = a computer A computer = a book Therefore, a dog = a book
The logic is still valid, but the statement is not sound because the premises are untrue. What becomes critical, then, is the inherent truthfulness of any premise. If your foundation isn’t true, the rest of the structure most likely isn’t either.
How does this relate to the ego? Well, if your idea of who you are is shaky—if the premise of your self-definition is not very true—then just about everything you think about yourself and your life is also going to be untrue. You’ll be using logic to justify logic to justify logic, not realizing that all the inputs in your calculations were false in the first place.
The Tree and the Limits of Knowing
Let’s try a thought exercise. Take a look out your window and find a tree. If you can’t see one, bring a mental image of a tree to your mind. Now, looking at your tree, are you seeing the whole tree?
Consider the roots, the sides of the tree not facing you, the microorganisms in the soil, the sunlight giving it energy, the air it absorbs, the nutrients flowing through it. What about you, the perceiver of the tree? You cannot suppose there would be a tree without you there to experience it.
So, what is a tree? You know what a tree is. But the moment you try to describe it, you realize it’s impossible to truly describe the entirety of what a tree is using just words. A scientist can give you a long list of qualities about a tree, but none of these measurements describe the totality of what a tree is.
This is the difference between percept (your direct experience) and concept (your thoughts about the experience). Your thoughts about a thing are not the thing itself. The same applies to you. Just like you think you know a tree through the intellect, you think you know yourself through logic, but that perspective is only a tiny fraction of who you really are.
The Paradox at the Heart of Logic
To prove anything true, you need to have something true to start with. So, what is that foundation? This is where things get fun. Logic cannot logically prove itself. It is fundamentally dependent upon truths which it itself is unqualified to validate.
Consider the statement: “This statement is false.”
Is this statement true or false? If it’s true, then it must be false. If it’s false, then it must be true. This is the self-referential paradox, and versions of it exist in every axiomatic system—mathematics, physics, philosophy, and language. There will always be true statements that cannot be proven. Provability necessarily implies unprovability. Logic implies paradox.
Any discussion of Truth must necessarily involve unprovability and uncertainty. The universe itself is extra-logical. Not illogical—the forces of the universe created logic in our minds—but extra-logical. It is all of logic and more, beyond the capability of logic to understand.
Who Am I? The Ultimate Paradox
Now, how does this relate to being? Consider the question, “Who am I?”
It’s self-referencing. The fact that it’s being asked implies there is an asker: an “I” who is asking about “I.” We get ourselves into a bind and are reduced to silence, with no choice but to accept that I AM. I am that I am. And I know that I am.
This is the real meaning of Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.” As a basis for all future arguments, I must be aware that I exist. This is our self-referencing paradox. You can’t really prove it with logic, but you know it’s true.
This is where intuition comes in. Humans have a capacity for knowing that goes beyond logic. Intuition is a knowing that precedes logic. It’s our inner compass for truth, for resonance. Knowing in our heart is what allows us to know in our head.
This is related to why it’s so hard to think yourself into a new way of feeling, but if you’re feeling a certain way, then all of your thinking tends to follow. You feel sad, your thoughts are going to be sad. You feel a ton of energy and excitement, your thoughts are going to be optimistic and generous. Thinking is layered on top of feeling; it uses feeling as a base.
Because most of us don’t understand how this works, we are controlled by it. Our logical frameworks conflict with our feelings, and we live with the infinite tension of a busy mind that doesn’t know how or when to stop.
Logic is a beautiful gift. But it is a tool, and we must recognize what it can and can’t do. The ego, by its nature, is limited by logic. But you are not. By embracing the paradox of your own being and learning to trust the extra-logical knowing of intuition, you can begin to access a reality far beyond the confines of the thinking mind. Your consciousness is the self-referencing paradox of the universe.