17 - Casual Truth and Casual Context
Logical has no reality of its own. Logical truth has no reality of its own.
* When reading this book for the first time, it is best to read from the beginning without skipping forward. Otherwise, the intended meaning of some words might not be obvious.
Casual Truth and Casual Context
CASUAL TRUTH: “Casual Truth” refers to truth that is informal, conditional, and temporary. Casual truth has different meanings depending upon the different contexts in which it is defined, asserted, or evaluated. These contexts may disagree on what truth means.
CASUAL CONTEXT: “Casual Context,” in regard to casual truth, refers both to the informal contexts in which something is experienced or asserted and to all other contexts in which that thing can be understood, referenced, or examined.
Context is a type of container within which something appears and has meaning. There are many different kinds of context, and multiple competing or conflicting contexts may appear together for any particular thing. Some common contexts are languages, paragraphs, expectations, situations, intentions, ideas, beliefs, patterns, memories, habits, cultures, worlds, and so forth.
Logic is not normally referred to as casual. But from a broader perspective, Logic is casual in the sense that Logical truth has no Logical justification outside of itself. Logic is widely used in many different contexts, but Logical truth is casual when used (or even just referred to) outside of the Theory of Logic and related theories such as Arithmetic.
Logic has no reality of its own.
Logical truth has no reality of its own.
Logic is not inherently True, nor does it represent any universal law. It is only a language (or a part of a language), and it is a highly artificial language.
The Theory of Logic explicitly defines truth in its own peculiar way by assigning to selected statements the value-word, “True.” We cannot infer from Logic that Logical truth itself is necessarily True in any other contexts, even though other contexts may adopt all or part of Logic in their understanding of truth.
So, Logic is a formal language that has somehow arisen from, and is typically used in, informal conversations, even though Logic itself is highly artificial and formal.
Logic is extremely useful. But to insist that Logical truth is universal or absolute is to confuse two kinds of truth:
Relative (contextual or casual) truth applies to statements, but it does not apply to reality. Relative truth is used to evaluate the truth of statements. Logic can be useful when untangling the complexities of experience, but it is not useful for evaluating absolute truth.
Absolute (universal) truth refers to reality, being, and awareness. Absolute truth encompasses (allows) relative truth, but it is not useful for evaluating the relative truth of statements.
Structurally, Logic is formal and representational. Practically, Logic is informal, casual, and representational. Its meaning comes from its usefulness in contexts that lie outside of the Theory of Logic and not from intuition of any ultimate truth about or within Logic.
Different meanings of truth arise from different contexts where Logic might be used. These contexts appear in degrees of complexity from elementary reasoning to very complex informal conversations that may or may not in themselves be particularly logical.
Here is an example from practical Logic:
The statement, “If X is better than Y, and Y is better than Z, then X must be better than Z,” is typically held to be Logically True.
But in many circumstances people believe “X is better than Y, Y is better than Z, and Z is better than X,” which is typically held to be Logically False.
You should be able to find examples of these in your own life, particularly in regard to beliefs, preferences, habits, sports, and so forth.
This does not mean these casual beliefs really are false; it just means that Logic can become difficult in complex situations.
Practical reasoning among people mostly seems informal and casual rather than formal and strictly Logical. Regardless of how Logical reasoning is used, Logic has only casual grounding and informal justification, just like everything else we might agree on. We value Logic because it is useful and practical, not because it is absolutely True.
If the Theory of Logic were absolutely or universally True, that truth would be plainly obvious to absolutely everyone who noticed it.
Self-Sacrifice
Very old stories tell us that once, a long time ago, there was a place called Kurukshetra that was a vast and level plain upon the earth. The old stories also tell us that Kurukshetra, the earth where it had formed, and even the whole universe were ruled over by a very large number of individual gods. There were tens of thousands of these gods at the very least. They each had different responsibilities for how the universe was working. Being a god back then was a temporary thing—all of these gods knew they were mortal beings, even though they also knew that they might live a very long time.
One day all of these gods got together at Kurukshetra to enjoy a little contest among themselves. They decided to see who could perform the best sacrifice. Back then, “sacrifice” meant something different from what it does today. It meant ‘returning something that was borrowed.’ For example, if a farmer borrowed some grain, planted it, and enjoyed a good harvest, he might feel the need to sacrifice some of his harvest by returning it. Maybe he would return it to the soil or to the person or god from whom he borrowed it. It was always considered good practice to sacrifice more than had been borrowed.
So, these gods decided they would each perform their best sacrifice and then they would vote on whose sacrifice was the best. Vishnu won the contest. Vishnu’s responsibility was to ensure that the universe and everything in it are all justly sustained from the time they are created until the time they are destroyed and recycled at the ends of their natural lives. There were two other important gods to remember: Brahma and Shiva. Brahma was the creator of the universe and all that was in it, while Shiva was the destroyer of the universe and the destroyer or recycler of all the things that were ever in the universe.
Here is how Vishnu won the contest. He sat down among all the other gods and set himself on fire, and very soon he was completely engulfed in flames. Vishnu, the sustainer of the universe and all that is in it, sacrificed himself in his fire. He returned himself to the universe that he sustains and from which he had arisen.
What makes this story interesting today is that, according to tradition, Vishnu’s sacrificial fire has not yet gone out. After all, if it already had gone out, either Vishnu would have ended his sacrifice prematurely or he would have been completely consumed by the fire once and for all and completely returned or recycled to wherever he came from. If he was completely consumed, he could no longer sustain this universe and all that is in it; then Shiva would have to recycle everything, and Brahma would have to create everything again, provided that Shiva and Brahma were still around to do that. But here we are today: Vishnu keeps on burning.
——
What does this story have to do with casual context?
Why can’t we see Vishnu’s fire today? After all, all the other gods saw him in the fire.
What is Vishnu returning with this sacrifice?
To what source or universe is Vishnu returning this?
How can self-immolation actually return anything?
Why isn’t Vishnu destroyed by the fire?
How does Vishnu continue to sustain the universe while he burns in this fire?
What kind of fire is this? Are we looking at it today?
Why was Vishnu so calm?
There is a sentiment among some people, mainly those who follow The Path of the Elders or, as others describe it, The Path of One Thus Come. It is something like this:
Burning, burning! This world is burning. It burns with the fire of desire.
Does this help us understand Vishnu’s fiery sacrifice?
What does this have to do with Logical reasoning?
What does Kurukshetra represent?