Personal Blogs

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.

I am not on YouTube or social media

 

[ 8 minute read ]

The knee of emotion

Logic makes open challenge

P1:

P2:

C:

If I write a sentence by stating my opinion and follow it with a sentence that seeks to qualify it as valid in a wider community what am I trying to do?

Let's look at this from the position of someone who is making a knee-jerk reaction to something.

First, I need to explain what I mean by 'knee-jerk'. If a doctor hits your knee in the right place with a little hammer your knee will reflexively jerk and your foot will flick forward. It is uncontrollable, and is a reflex action. Ducking your head, in order to avoid injury, when you perceive something moving towards it, is not a reflexive action. It is a movement that is both learnt and controllable. Neither is it instinctive; babies and infants will not move out of the way of items that are about to impact them. However, babies will blink and jump if you blow hard into their faces; this is a reflexive action and is an act of self-preservation.

With this in mind, someone who has determined that a particular belief is worthy to be embraced and nurtured as either their own or as a subscriber to a wider view of something, often makes that belief integral to their daily life and how they deal with the world and its complications. We, as humans have a need to feel that we belong to a group. We also have a need to recognise that we wear a lot of hats; mother, father, boss, politician, doctor, drug-dealer; whatever position we find that allows us to imagine that we possess some degree of usefulness. It is an 'ego' thing. I shall not elucidate on what I feel that 'ego' means since my interpretation of it is clear from the 'wearing hats' thing.

I am however, going to use 'ego' as a coin in the game of life. My mum used to play board games with me and lose. Her ego was not dampened by being bettered; she deliberately lost to me. Her 'mother' hat allowed her to take a lower competitive position as an individual in order to boost my confidence as someone who can win; she took 'ego' from her individual bank, deposited it in her mother bank, and then transferred it to my individual bank completely without me noticing. She made logical decisions.

Ego is controllable but it takes a conscious decision to recognise ego and position it in an hierarchy of values. In the case of my mum beating me at board games; she did not actually spend any ego, she merely reshaped it. 'I am doing the right thing by not quashing his confidence (and ego) by not consistently thrashing him at every game we play'. Her ego remained intact. What this means is that ego when controlled in the right way can pay dividends. Unfortunately, if the dividends are not passed on we have an overblown personality. 

An example of an over-blown ego, or as I just mentioned 'personality' is someone who has paid dividends from their personal or individual ego into their public role by wearing a hat of responsibility. Believing oneself to have the right idea and promulgating it as concrete and infallible is someone with an overblown ego or personality. Often, though, these persons need to belong to a group of like-minded thinkers, such as a church. Now, I am using the word 'church' as a short-cut because it has connotations that most of us are familiar with; that of a group of like-minded people gathered together to support each other in maintaining a belief system. A family is a church in the same way. I am using the word 'church' because it has a recognised structure to it.

They need to 'belong' because their belief and indeed their daily life is based on their emotions. As far as I can tell, emotions need to be topped-up and stroked and individuals need to frequently talk to their emotions to re-assure themselves that they have chosen to believe the right things. This is beyond mere companionship. Unfortunately, there are occasions when individuals barging through life with their emotions as a banner presented as themselves, come across an incident, that taken from their emotional standpoint, is an antithesis to their carefully cultured ego, even though they have not consciously shaped it. 

     'Oh no! This person has views that are contrary to my own. I must drive a wedge between the value of this person's opinion and that of my group's belief.'

This is when a sentence starts with 'I' and is followed by a sentence that includes 'we'.

     'I believe that taxes are too high. We don't want high taxes.'

Firstly, the individual has every right to state how they feel. It is freedom of speech, which is valued throughout nearly all of the English-speaking countries. Here I have intentionally poked the sleeping tiger in many people. Some will think of the United States of America; some will think of countries in the United Kingdom; a few people, I believe, will think of Canada, Australia or New Zealand. People who thought of African countries or India are thinking of the spread of English through imperialism. In all examples there is room for debate since there are different views and an opportunity to introduce and share nuances within the scope of the argument. Viewpoints should be offered as premises in an argument; almost inevitably they are not, because people have over-blown egos. Perhaps an argument could be made for quelling free-speech, or an argument could be made for shaping free-speech.

Canny people will recognise this post as a loose argument for shaping free-speech.

     'I believe that taxes are too high. We don't want high taxes.' This is a rallying cry. It is a trumpet calling troops to a battle. It is a fox-hunters horn to draw other warriors and hunters to quash a rebellion or have some 'sport'.

I read somewhere that most people find conversations more interesting when they have done most of the speaking. Loosely: Mental stimulation is greater when we have to form sentences rather than absorb them. Many domestic arguments occur in homes that have stale marriages and mundane daily activities simply because domestic arguments are mentally stimulating. 

Calling our 'brothers and sisters' to arms either for sport or to attack a contrary belief has its own reward. Many people feel that they are supported by belonging to a group. However, many people are not content with belonging to a film-lovers group or a tennis club. Many people see themselves as warriors for a cause. These are dangerous people. They enter environments with their egos and emotions, not only exposed but honed, before any sense of logic gets a chance to raise a hand for permission to speak. Emotions are not polite.

Knee-jerk reactions thrive on raw sensation. In the real world, in the doctors surgery, it is the nervous system that is tested with a little hammer gently knocking a knee. In the mental world, it is logic that knocks the knee of emotion.

Devoid of emotion, logic does not care for individuals. It espouses politeness. It tears down belief systems. However, logic is not a weapon used for destruction; it is an equaliser.

     'Taxes are too high. We don't want high taxes.'

This is a rallying cry that demands a division of persons. A line is drawn. Everybody who agrees go to the left (or right - this is not politics); everybody who disagrees stand on that side.

Many people will support one view and many people will support any opposing view. Logic tells us that the statement above: 'We don't want high taxes' can only belong to one of these groups. Hence, it is only valid if it is supported by at least one other person ('we'). In this way, it calls for at least one other person to stand behind the banner of its meaning. Consequently, it is without doubt, a rallying cry to a specific group of people.

Here is the problem: If there is only one person with a logical view or approach and there is a call to arms of a group with an opposing view; one that is emotionally charged, we have an opportunity for subjugation of an individual. A person using logic cannot make any calls to arms on an emotional level. Hence, logic is overwhelmed by an emotionally charged majority group.

In my head, logic is a referee in a fight between emotions. In other people's heads it is an enemy to their ego.

Here is a good and valid argument:

P1: All quadrupeds have four legs

P2: A cat has four legs

C: Therefore, a cat is a quadruped 

There must be at least two premises to make an argument, so the argument below is not valid. Moreover, the premises may not cancel each other out or negate any other premise.

P1: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow boys to imagine becoming firefighters

C: Therefore, films and documentaries about firefighters are good

Interestingly, an emotionally charged person may feel that this is a sexist opinion. It is not. It is an invalid argument AND it does not present itself as gender exclusive because no premise excludes girls.

This (below) not a good argument because there is no premise that tells us what good is:

P1: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow boys to imagine becoming firefighters

P2: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow girls to imagine becoming firefighters

C: Therefore, films and documentaries about firefighters are good.

This (below) is a good and valid argument:

P1: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow boys to imagine becoming firefighters

P2: Films and documentaries about firefighters allow girls to imagine becoming firefighters

P3: Firefighters save lives and property by extinguishing flames and with rescue operations

P4: Imagining becoming a firefighter helps to drive people towards becoming a firefighter

C: Therefore, films and documentaries about firefighters are good.

However, since P1 and P2 can be combined as:

'Films and documentaries about firefighters allow children to imagine becoming firefighters', it is possible to backtrack and assume that by missing out either P1 or P2 in the argument above, the argument IS gender exclusive because if either of these premises are removed the argument is still good and valid, yet this is not necessarily so. However. the reason given as premise P3 above: 'Firefighters save lives and property by extinguishing flames and with rescue operations'. or any other premise that acts as a qualifier in this argument that has a conclusion that states it is good, MUST remain because 'good' needs to be either qualified or quantified. Where there is no qualifying or quantifying premise there is no good argument and unconnected statements remain only personal opinion. In countries where there is free-speech, opinion may not be attacked. There should not be a call to arms because there should not be a feeling of one's ego being dented. However, be warned; there are monsters out there which approach everything with an emotional lens which they use to analyse everyone else's statements. They have no, or eshew, manners and seek to overwhelm reason with sentiment.

The only thing that can be said in response to a bad or invalid argument is, 'That is your doxy.'

My understanding of LOGIC should not be considered to be entirely correct and I advise and encourage everyone to choose a course on, or read about, Logic, Negotiation and Social Interaction for themselves.