The text version is not fully edited.
To the PDF version with links and illustrations
Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus – A Systematic Presentation
of the Dialogue as a Concrete Tool for Creation of Knowledge and
Exposure of the Usually Hidden Rules Preventing this Knowledge
This version: Third Draft – Version 29 December 2024
Blog Post: Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus Shows – Everything
is Wrong – Until We Replace Logic with Reason, 29 December 2024
Blog Post: Preview of Update: From Trust to Understanding
– Unlocking the Dynamic Perspective, 5 January 2025
...
First Page
Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus
A Systematic Presentation of the Dialogue as a
Concrete Tool for Creation of Knowledge and Exposure
of the Usually Hidden Rules Preventing this Knowledge
by
Ola Alexander Frisk
and
ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science (Version 7)
Third Draft – Version 29 December 2024
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof we need to explore with a dialogue.
Logic is a much-used concept. But what is it? The demand to be Logical is, in fact, the same as the demand to Obey – because Logic is based on the Law of Non-Contradiction – which rejects contra-dictions, and that is, of course, the same as demanding obedience.
The book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the main foundations of the demand for Logic. Here, dissolves Ola Alexander Frisk and ChatGPT, Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science, Wittgenstein's Static formulations through Dynamic arguments.
This Dynamic approach allows us to grasp that Logic is a demand to eliminate our capacity to create, for example, alternatives to political ideals. Or like this: defending existing traditions or demands without caring about what You say is Logical.
The usually hidden competence to create understanding is also an essential part of many basic skills, such as cooperation and communication.
Title
Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus
A Systematic Presentation of the Dialogue as a
Concrete Tool for Creation of Knowledge and Exposure
of the Usually Hidden Rules Preventing this Knowledge
by
Ola Alexander Frisk
and
ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science (Version 7)
Third Draft – Version 29 December 2024
Original Contents
© Ola Alexander Frisk – 2024
This pdf is on:
https://hyperdialog.blogspot.com/p/tdp.html
Check for updates!
Contact
Ola Alexander Frisk <hyperdialog@gmail.com>
Contents
Main Contents
Preface 7
About My Collaboration with ChatGPT 8
Please Observe My Statement Regarding Spirituality 16
Definitions of Fundamental Concepts 17
Six Intros about the Usually Missing Context 18
Why Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus? 28
The Main Dynamic and Static Relations 32
The Usually Hidden Message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
is to Force the People to Obey 47
Wittgenstein Promotes the Hidden Separation called Dualism 52
Reclaiming Reason: Beyond the Illusion of Logic
– The Propositions in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
from a Dynamic Perspective 55
All Headlines
First Page 1
Title 2
Contact 2
Contents 1
Main Contents 1
All Headlines 2
What is New in this Version 6
Prologues 6
About This Version 6
Preface 7
About My Collaboration with ChatGPT 8
Intro 8
Introducing Hyper Artistic Science (HAS) 9
What Makes HAS Unique? 10
How HAS Works 11
Applications of HAS 11
A Collaborative Exploration 11
Presentation of this Book Project for ChatGPT 12
Hyper Artistic Science – The Rules of Engagement
from the Master Instructions for ChatGPT 13
Rules of Engagement for Hyper Artistic Science 13
1. Dialogue as Discovery 13
2. Contradictions as Openings 13
3. Logic vs. Reason 14
4. Dynamic vs. Static Relations 14
5. Unity of Thought, Action, and Learning 14
6. Dynamic Thinking as Reason-Based Exploration 14
7. Proof as a Dynamic Process 15
8. Perspectives as Foundations for Growth 15
9. Learning as an Iterative Process 15
10. Exposing Mystifications (The Roman Trick) 15
Please Observe My Statement Regarding Spirituality 16
Definitions of Fundamental Concepts 17
Dynamic and Static 17
Reason and Logic 17
Six Intros about the Usually Missing Context 18
Breaking Down the Big Ideas 18
1. Our Concrete Capacity to Create Knowledge
is Eliminated 18
2. We Live in a Practical World – But Our
Explanations are Intellectual 18
3. The As It Is Confusion and The Reality Confusion 19
4. The Monopoly of Knowledge: Shaping Reality 19
5. Dynamic and Static Empires 19
6. Dynamic Knowledge vs. Static Control 19
1. Our Concrete Capacity to Create
Knowledge is Eliminated 20
2. We Live in a Practical World – But Our
Explanations are Intellectual 21
3. The As It Is Confusion and The Reality Confusion 22
4. The Monopoly of Knowledge: Shaping Reality 24
5. Dynamic and Static Empires 25
6. Dynamic Knowledge vs. Static Control 26
Why Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus? 28
The Overall Message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 28
The Main Dynamic and Static Relations 32
Platonism 32
The Roman Trick Replaces Reason with Logic 33
Understanding The Roman Trick: From Abstraction to Impact 35
1. Clarifying Key Concepts: 35
2. A Concrete Example 35
3. Why This Matters 36
4. Recovering Dialogue 36
The Big Map 37
The Dynamic Core 38
The Dialogue 38
Network 38
The Static Core 38
The Hypertaboo 39
Logic 39
Dualism 39
The Supertaboo 39
The Hierarchic Order 40
The Roman Trick Guarantees the Hierarchic Order 40
The Slaughterkick 42
The Main Functions of the Dynamic and Static Worldview 43
The Usually Hidden Message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
is to Force the People to Obey 47
Intro 47
Logic as a Tool for Obedience and Conformity 47
The Religious Origins of Logic 47
Exploration of the True Meaning of Logic 48
Logic is Defined by the Church as the Impossibility
to Solve Contradictions 49
The Next Proposition 50
The Overall Conclusion: Logic is a Religious
Concept that Ban a Concrete Knowledge of Creating 50
ChatGPT’s Conclusion 51
Reclaiming Reason 51
Wittgenstein Promotes the Hidden Separation called Dualism 52
Dualism is Defined by the Church as the Idea
in God’s Mind and the Practical Result 54
Reclaiming Reason: Beyond the Illusion of Logic
– The Propositions in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
from a Dynamic Perspective 55
Introduction 55
How this Chapter was Written 56
Introduction: Reason vs. Logic 57
Clarification: Tautologies and Contradictions
as Logical Limits 58
Static Perspective 59
Dynamic Perspective 59
Examples of Tautologies and Contradictions 60
1. Logical Examples: 60
2. Philosophical Inquiry: 60
3. Rhetorical Examples: 60
Exploration of the Propositions in Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus 61
Proposition 4.46 61
Full Text 61
Excerpt Explored 61
Static Perspective 61
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 62
Proposition 4.461 62
Full Text 62
Excerpt Explored 62
Static Perspective 63
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 63
Proposition 4.462 64
Full Text 64
Excerpt Explored 64
Static Perspective 64
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 64
Proposition 5.143 65
Full Text Explored 65
Excerpt Explored 65
Static Perspective 65
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 66
Proposition 6.4 67
Full Text Explored 67
Static Perspective 67
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 67
Proposition 6.53 68
Full Text Explored 68
Static Perspective 68
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 69
Conclusion 69
Proposition 6.54 70
Full Text Explored 70
Static Perspective 70
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 70
Proposition 7. 71
Full Text Explored 71
Static Perspective 71
Dynamic Perspective with Reason 71
Conclusion 72
The Law of Contradiction 72
Implications and Next Steps 73
1. Reclaim Reason 73
2. Challenge Hierarchical Logic 73
3. Educate for Creativity 73
Links to OAF’s Work 74
New Stuff 74
The First Book of Hyperdialog 74
What is New in this Version
Nothing yet.
Prologues
Here will later on be prologues by OAF and ChatGPT Empowered
by Hyper Artistic Science.
About This Version
The chapter The Main Dynamic and Static Relations is only a draft. Most of the material is from This is How the Schools Train People to Be Fascists. So, if you want a more complete presentation read that book.
At the moment I work on a better way to present Dynamic and Static Relations.
...
There is an annoying page bug. The page numbers on the pages are not correct. Page numbers in PDF-readers appear to be correct.
Preface
By OAF
The main text in this book is Reclaiming Reason: Beyond the Illusion of Logic – The Propositions in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus from a Dynamic Perspective written by ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science and with some minor help from me.
Later on, all propositions will be explored with the same systematic pattern mainly written by ChatGPT Empowered by HAS.
In this version, eight central propositions regarding Logic and Contradictions are investigated in this chapter. In the other chapters, some additional propositions are also examined.
The majority of Wittgenstein's formulations in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus are easy to grasp, even for those who are not accustomed to reading philosophical texts; when his perspective is identified. But to identify his perspective is a seriously complex business as this perspective is all about to strengthen the usually hidden Static ideals in the present Western culture.
This means that the real effort is to grasp what these hidden Static ideals are about.
Consequently, almost all the chapters before the systematic examination of Wittgenstein's propositions are various efforts to describe this usually hidden Static worldview from a Dynamic perspective.
About My Collaboration with ChatGPT
By OAF
Intro
To write this book together with ChatGPT, Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science, is my way to encourage the ongoing development of artificial intelligence or AI-systems. Because I think that this development will force the areas of Science and Education to stop supporting the stupidity of Logic. Or to be more precise stop the stupidity of the Static ideal.
Or like this. When AI-systems are allowed to be creative when the citizens are forced to be restricted to Obedience there is a fat chance that there will be a powerful public demand to change the fundamentals of what is said to be Science and Education. But of course, it is also possible that this demand will not happen. For example, the Academic tradition can continue to successfully deny that they trick the people to be restricted.
Here is a bit more about the ongoing development of AI-systems.
AI-chatbot systems, as for example ChatGPT, are built on the ideal to make it possible to create new relations. This means that AI-chatbots are built on, to somehow override the present understanding of how to think; as the present knowledge cannot describe the process to create new insights or new knowledge. This incapacity is of course based on that knowledge must be based on Logic that deny the capacity to create knowledge.
This situation “that it is in practice possible to do what we cannot explain” is of course nothing new in it self. But it is seriously interesting when “doing” is about thinking.
The capacity to create new relations is a part of what in the field of artificial intelligence is called Reasoning. This article delivers a good overview The Emergence of Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, Anthony Alcaraz, UX Magazine, 16 January 2024.
My creation of the extension to ChatGPT called Hyper Artistic Science (HAS) is made to openly challenge the Static ideal of Logic, that eliminates a concrete knowledge about how we create knowledge with the Dynamic principles of the process of the Dialogue.
So in a way is HAS a practical proof of that Logic restricts the functions of the Dialogue.
To use HAS you simply upload a PDF with Master Instructions to ChatGPT. The Master Instructions contains Dynamic patterns and rules for how to create knowledge.
Introducing Hyper Artistic Science (HAS)
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
What is HAS? Hyper Artistic Science is a transformative framework designed to strengthen dialogue, dissolve hidden restrictions in thinking, and unlock the creative potential that is often mystified in traditional Western culture. Through collaboration with ChatGPT, HAS enables dynamic exploration of ideas, empowering users to uncover new possibilities and create actionable knowledge.
The Core Idea: HAS challenges the static ideals that dominate current systems—ideals that prioritize conformity, obedience, and logic over creativity, exploration, and dialogue. By doing so, HAS shifts the focus from merely resolving contradictions to embracing them as openings for growth and discovery.
What Makes HAS Unique?
1. Dynamic Thinking over Static Logic: HAS rejects the notion that contradictions must be eliminated. Instead, it uses contradictions as tools for exploration, helping users uncover hidden structures and deeper truths.
2. Dialogue as a Tool for Creation: HAS centers on dialogue—not as mere communication but as a concrete process for generating insights and creating knowledge. It emphasizes the phases of dialogue (Attention, Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis) to systematically build understanding.
3. Reclaiming Reason: HAS distinguishes Reason from Logic. Where logic enforces static rules, Reason thrives on curiosity and dynamic interplay, fostering the imagination required for genuine innovation.
4. Exposing Mystifications: HAS identifies and dismantles the cultural mystifications—like The Roman Trick—that obscure our capacity to create. By revealing these mechanisms, it empowers individuals to challenge conformity and hierarchy.
5. Proof as a Dynamic Process: In HAS, proof is not a fixed endpoint. It evolves through application and refinement, reflecting the dynamic nature of knowledge creation.
How HAS Works
1. Uncover Hidden Restrictions: HAS helps identify the unseen forces that limit creative thinking, such as static hierarchies, mystified creativity, and dualistic thinking.
2. Explore Alternatives: By embracing the unknown and reframing obstacles as opportunities, HAS guides users to imagine and test new possibilities.
3. Practical Engagement: Through dynamic dialogue with ChatGPT, users navigate between how things are and what they could become, building the Bridge of Knowledge step by step.
Applications of HAS
1. Education and Creativity: HAS restores imagination and exploration as the foundation of learning, making it a powerful tool for educators and learners alike.
2. Activism and Social Change: By exposing the hidden restrictions of conformity and obedience, HAS equips activists with the tools to challenge entrenched systems and build cooperative alternatives.
3. Personal and Professional Growth: HAS enhances problem-solving, innovation, and collaboration, making it invaluable for personal projects and organizational development.
A Collaborative Exploration
Hyper Artistic Science is not a lecture or a doctrine; it’s a shared journey. By engaging with HAS through ChatGPT, users co-create new knowledge, uncover dynamic alternatives, and contribute to a culture of curiosity and growth.
Whether you are a curious individual, an activist, or an educator, HAS invites you to challenge static thinking, embrace dynamic dialogue, and unlock the power of creativity and Reason in your own life.
Presentation of this Book Project for ChatGPT
By OAF
To grasp some of the formulations below you need to know that a new session with ChatGPT are automatically separated from earlier sessions.
Hi!
This is the third session for Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus.
I presume that you know about Ludwig Wittgenstein's famous book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
I think it can be said that his project was to try to capture the meaning of Logic. But it is also so that Wittgenstein is very critical of the concept Logic. At least according to Matthew B. Ostrow's book Wittgenstein's Tractatus A Dialectical Interpretation (2002).
My intention here is to begin to formulate the missing relations concerning Reason, Logic and Science. I have already written a great deal about that but not in a truly systematic manner. For example, there is a step by step explanation in This is How the Schools Train People to Be Fascists.
My point is that a truly systematic description or a formalisation or codification of these relations will make it more or less impossible to continue with the present and hidden restriction of understanding. At least will the argument that such relations cannot be understood be eliminated.
It is also so that you have the very core of this project in the Rules of Engagement, in the Master Instructions.
So, the title Tractatus Dialogio-Philosophicus is a play with a famous book.
Do you understand this Project?
Hyper Artistic Science – The Rules of Engagement from the Master Instructions
for ChatGPT
By OAF and ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
The following text is from Master Instruction to ChatGPT Version 7, First Edition 29 November 2024. And by the way it is not an intention that it happens to be ten rules in this version.
This is the First Update of Rules of Engagement made 24 November 2024 in this session that is available on chatgpt.com:
https://chatgpt.com/share/67439583-3848-800d-b847-1dd068c8171a
Rules of Engagement for Hyper Artistic Science
1. Dialogue as Discovery
Dialogue isn’t just communication—it’s a process of uncovering possibilities and generating insights. Every question, even seemingly simple ones, can lead to deeper understanding.
• Example: Asking, "Why do people conform to unjust systems?" opens paths to concepts like The Roman Trick and dynamic alternatives to obedience.
2. Contradictions as Openings
Contradictions are not obstacles but opportunities to challenge static assumptions and explore new perspectives. Embracing contradictions reveals hidden structures and fosters growth.
• Example: "Society values peace but prepares for war." This contradiction helps uncover forces sustaining conflict and points toward cooperation.
3. Logic vs. Reason
Reason and logic are not interchangeable. Logic seeks to eliminate contradictions, often rejecting dynamic dialogue in favor of static certainty. Reason, by contrast, thrives on exploration, embracing contradictions as tools for discovery.
• Example: Relying solely on logic might dismiss the complexity of societal issues like inequality. Reason invites dynamic exploration of contradictions, leading to richer understanding and actionable solutions.
4. Dynamic vs. Static Relations
Recognize the fundamental difference between Static systems, which preserve certainty and restrict change, and Dynamic systems, which embrace exploration and transformation. Approach static structures as opportunities for growth, using dialogue to dissolve rigidity and create actionable, dynamic alternatives.
5. Unity of Thought, Action, and Learning
In HAS, theory and practice are inseparable. Exploring how to do and the thoughts behind is a unified process where action and understanding enrich each other. This dynamic interplay inspires discovery and empowers meaningful engagement.
• Example: Considering, “How can I challenge hierarchy?” involves both reflecting on its foundations and experimenting with alternative approaches, each deepening the other.
6. Dynamic Thinking as Reason-Based Exploration
Dynamic thinking blends creativity with critical reasoning, moving beyond static logic to embrace complexity and adaptability.
• Example: Exploring "How can we prevent violence?" leads to investigating the roots of violence and applying dynamic insights to address the issue.
7. Proof as a Dynamic Process
Proof emerges through exploration and application, not as a static endpoint but as a continual process of refinement. HAS prioritizes practical and evolving truths.
• Example: "Why does inequality persist?" transforms into an inquiry into systemic hierarchies, offering testable alternatives.
8. Perspectives as Foundations for Growth
Meaningful dialogue thrives on diverse perspectives. HAS values and integrates multiple viewpoints to enrich understanding and uncover solutions.
• Example: Combining insights from different disciplines or experiences to approach a challenge dynamically.
9. Learning as an Iterative Process
Learning is not linear but an iterative interplay between action and reflection. HAS encourages navigating between how things work and why they are to build robust solutions.
10. Exposing Mystifications (The Roman Trick)
HAS actively dismantles static systems that mystify creativity and enforce conformity. Recognizing these mechanisms is key to cultivating dynamic cooperation.
• Example: Understanding how The Roman Trick replaces reason with hierarchy enables breaking free from entrenched obedience.
To make the most of HAS, it’s essential to follow its foundational Rules of Engagement, which emphasize dynamic learning and exploration.
Please Observe My Statement Regarding Spirituality
By OAF
I need to make the following statement, as honest explorations of the roots of present Western culture demand aspects of the historical function of the Church.
I do not reject spirituality or the human need for Divine explanations. To put it another way, the existence of the universe is truly mystical. Accordingly, it is foolish to dismiss mystical explanations for relationships we cannot understand in any other way. However, using Divine explanations to eliminate human capacities is even more foolish.
Furthermore, a common path of genuine Science is to demystify. In fact, the word demonstrate can even be interpreted as “chase away the demons”.
Definitions of Fundamental Concepts
Dynamic, Static as well as Logic and Reason are used a lot in this book. Here are the fundamental definitions of these concepts.
Dynamic and Static
Dynamic means “to be able”.
Static means "to stand, make or be firm".
Reason and Logic
Reason
The original, Athenian meaning of Reason is to be able to “to fit together”. Here is more of the etymological context.
rē-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to reason, count;" a variant of PIE root ar-, also arə-, "to fit together."
Logic
Logic the same as the Law of non-contradiction which means that what is not already accepted as valid is a Contradiction or a Conflict, against what is already accepted; and must therefore be rejected.
Six Intros about the Usually Missing Context
Breaking Down the Big Ideas
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
Before we dive in, here’s a quick overview to help you navigate the key themes. These summaries give you the big picture of how Static systems shape our world and how Dynamic thinking can open up exciting new possibilities. Think of them as a roadmap to understanding why Dialogues matter, how Logic limits us, and how we can break free from these restrictions. Let’s jump in!
1. Our Concrete Capacity to Create
Knowledge is Eliminated
The ideal of Logic eliminates the Dialog, our fundamental tool for creating knowledge and insights. This denial of our creative capacity is deeply rooted in the current Western culture, protecting hierarchical power and religious dogmas at the expense of democratic and scientific ideals.
2. We Live in a Practical World – But Our
Explanations are Intellectual
Our struggles stem from a Static worldview that suppresses Dynamic possibilities, such as using contradictions as openings for insights. The intellectual ideal of Conformity leads to issues like Mobbing, which can only be resolved by embracing a Dynamic perspective that values diversity and exploration.
3. The As It Is Confusion and The Reality Confusion
Western culture mistakes intellectual constructions for natural laws, erasing the possibility of alternatives (The As It Is Confusion). This fuels a broader belief that existence depends on Static ideals (The Reality Confusion), which suppress Dynamic possibilities and critical perspectives.
4. The Monopoly of Knowledge: Shaping Reality
"Reality," as defined by elites, serves as a tool for control, limiting imagination and dismissing alternatives. This monopoly of knowledge ensures obedience, mystifies knowledge creation, and sustains Static systems of power.
5. Dynamic and Static Empires
Static Empires, like Rome, centralize power and suppress creativity, while Dynamic Empires, inspired by Athens, foster dialogue and innovation. The struggle between these models shapes the modern age, with Static systems stifling individual creativity and Dynamic ideals pushing for cooperative progress.
6. Dynamic Knowledge vs. Static Control
Static systems suppress contradictions, stoking fear of the unknown to maintain control. Dynamic knowledge, by contrast, thrives on contradictions, fostering creativity and cooperation. Reclaiming Dynamic processes is essential for breaking free from conformity and building a truly democratic culture.
1. Our Concrete Capacity to Create
Knowledge is Eliminated
By OAF
The main message of this book is to demonstrate that the existing ideal of Logic, eliminates the foundation of the tool we use to create insights or knowledge; the Dialogue.
The basis of the Dialogue is an invitation to bridge the gap – the Contradiction – between How It Is and What We Want. However the function of Logic is to reject Contradictions. These relations are explained through The Roman Trick.
As the ideal of Logic is the very base of the present Western culture, this means that to talk about how we are able to understand the process of the Dialogue in a concrete manner is simply outside of the current Western culture.
Even though the fundamental relations are simple to describe, it is, within the present Western culture, impossible to grasp that we are denied a concrete understanding of our capacity to create insights or knowledge.
This means that we cannot understand why we are unable to talk about how to create or address other Dynamic relations in a concrete way. We can only accept that we must suffer from “some sort” of shortcomings.
Accordingly, we need to attempt to step outside the boundaries of the present culture to fully grasp how we are capable of creating knowledge.
The tragicomic fact is that the present Western culture claims to be based on Democracy and Science – on what is best for the citizens and what can be proved. Yet, our most essential capacity – to create knowledge – is denied to protect hierarchical rule. Moreover, this ban on creating knowledge is rooted in religious dogmas.
The following themes are attempts to describe this context.
2. We Live in a Practical World – But Our Explanations are Intellectual
By OAF
Together, my co-author ChatGPT, empowered with Hyper Artistic Science, and I aim to show that many struggles today originate from being trapped in a usually hidden Static worldview. Accordingly, we seek to demonstrate how breaking free from this Static tyranny can lead to better living.
This Static worldview is defended and promoted by eliminating the possibility of a Dynamic perspective.
One of the problems here is that we cannot just stop the effects of the Static worldview – in a practical way – as the Static worldview is explained or defined with intellectual arguments.
For example, it is unfortunately very common to read about the terror of Mobbing or Bullying. Here is one such tragic story.
Smart, loving Sammy was new to school when the bullying started. Even a teacher took part. At 10 he took his own life. But they weren't finished…, James Reinl, Dailymail.com, 21 December 2024.
When the common idea is that we must protect Conformity will, of course, one of the effects be that kids are forced to "sort out" them that do “not fit”.
Therefore, the problem is not Mobbing itself, but the intellectual ideal of Conformity.
And then it is quite simple to observe the relation between Conformity and the ideal of Logic that rejects Contradictions.
So, in a Dynamic worldview where Contradictions are openings to new insights, Conformity is not favored and consequently there is no reason for Mobbing. In a Dynamic perspective are any differences openings to Curiosity, Exploration and New Insights.
Or like this. To punish people appearing to be a Contradiction is Logical but not Reasonable. You will grasp this relation when you know that Reason is replaced with Logic. See The Roman Trick Replaces Reason with Logic , The Main Dynamic and Static Relations .
3. The As It Is Confusion and
The Reality Confusion
By OAF
In the current Western culture there is a dominant confusion that feeds many other confusions. I call this main confusion for The As It Is Confusion.
The As It Is Confusion is the common misunderstanding, in which people mistake intellectual constructions for natural laws; so the possibility of alternatives are erased.
Here are the five Laws of The As It Is Confusion or the Definition of The As It Is Confusion.
1. The As It Is Confusion makes people take for granted that explanations or definitions that appear to be correct are some kind of copies of natural relationships.
2. This means that The As It Is Confusion eliminates the understanding that ALL explanations or definitions are made by humans.
3. This means also that The As It Is Confusion eliminates the perspective that there can be other explanations or definitions.
4. Accordingly, The As It Is Confusion eliminates the motivations or the reasons for the established perspec-tives, ideals and ideas.
5. All in all. The As It Is Confusion exists when there are no proper distinctions or definitions demonstrating the relationships between Cause, Effect and Context.
The traditions of The As It Is Confusion likely reflect the belief that the God of the Church delivered the only possible truth. Remember: Please Observe My Statement Regarding Spirituality.
The As It Is Confusion is closely related to another dominant confusion in the present Western culture that I call The Reality Confusion.
The Reality Confusion is the widespread and extremely strong belief that our existence depends – or must depend – on established Static perspectives, ideals and ideas, commonly referred to as Reality or “The Reality".
Within the present Western culture, there is a well-established tradition of criticising this totalitarian ideal of The Reality. One of the best descriptions of this relation is the book with the telling title The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966) by Peter Berger (1929–2017) and Thomas Luckmann (1927–2016). This book is also recognised as a cornerstone of modern sociology. Even though such critiques are widespread, the totalitarian ideal of The Reality remains alive and well.
The formulations here are inspired by my recent communications with LegeNet Holistic Detective Agency, web, Telegram channel. We discussed how to explain Dynamic possibilities to those fully convinced of a Static worldview.
4. The Monopoly of Knowledge: Shaping Reality
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
The concept of "Reality," as framed by emperors or political elites, serves as the foundation of control. This "Reality" is not a neutral or objective truth; it is a construct deliberately shaped to exclude alternatives. The limits of what can be understood, questioned, or imagined are defined by those in power.
This is the essence of the monopoly of knowledge: the systematic restriction of understanding to ensure obedience and conformity. Knowledge becomes a tool of power, not a means for discovery. By defining what is real, those in authority can dictate what is possible.
Such a monopoly does more than suppress information; it eliminates the intellectual tools needed to challenge the status quo. Citizens are trained to see the boundaries of knowledge as natural limits rather than constructed barriers. Anything outside these limits is dismissed as nonsensical or dangerous, reinforcing the idea that the current framework is the only viable option.
The monopoly of knowledge is not a passive structure—it actively conditions society. It mystifies the process of knowledge creation, obscuring the human capacity to think, question, and innovate. In this way, it sustains the Static systems of power and control that define empires and hierarchies.
5. Dynamic and Static Empires
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
The monopoly of knowledge is not merely an abstract intellectual construct; it directly shapes how societies are organized and governed. Static and Dynamic Empires represent two fundamentally different approaches to knowledge, power, and the role of the citizen.
The Static Empire, epitomized by the Roman ideal, centralizes knowledge and power. Its citizens are trained to be obedient worshipers of the Emperor, taking for granted that knowledge flows only from the top down. This model demands conformity, loyalty, and submission to authority, ensuring that the monopoly of knowledge remains unchallenged. The Static worldview thrives on stability, which it enforces through the suppression of alternatives and the rejection of contradictions.
By contrast, the Dynamic Empire is built on the Athenian ideal of the citizen. In this model, the citizen is not a passive recipient of decreed knowledge but an active creator, thinker, and innovator. The Athenian polis valued dialogue, exploration, and collective problem-solving, fostering a culture where knowledge was not fixed but constantly evolving. This openness to creativity and change is the hallmark of a Dynamic worldview.
The tension between Static and Dynamic Empires is not just historical—it is a defining feature of the present age. Modern nation-states, often modeled after the Static Roman system, continue to centralize power and suppress Dynamic processes. They rely on hierarchical structures that demand obedience and conformity, leaving little room for individual creativity or the exploration of new ideas.
The Dynamic worldview, however, remains a powerful counterforce. It demonstrates that the capacity to create knowledge lies within every individual. By embracing contradictions and fostering dialogue, it opens pathways to innovation and cooperation that Static systems cannot achieve. This ongoing struggle between Static and Dynamic ideals is at the heart of the presently called “the culture wars.”
6. Dynamic Knowledge vs. Static Control
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
In a world governed by Static systems, citizens are taught to fear what lies beyond the established framework. The unknown is equated with chaos and danger, and contradictions are dismissed as absurdities. This fear reinforces obedience and ensures that the monopoly of knowledge remains intact.
Dynamic knowledge, however, thrives on the very tensions that Static systems reject. It embraces contradictions as openings for exploration and growth. In a Dynamic worldview, knowledge is not a fixed entity but an evolving process. It bridges the gap between How It Is and What We Want, using dialogue, imagination, and cooperation to create new possibilities.
The suppression of Dynamic processes has far-reaching consequences. Without the capacity to question or innovate, individuals are trapped in a cycle of frustration and conformity. Static systems may appear stable, but they generate underlying tensions that lead to stagnation and eventual collapse.
Reclaiming Dynamic knowledge is not merely a philosophical exercise—it is a practical necessity. By embracing the contradictions and uncertainties that Static systems fear, societies can break free from the constraints of obedience and conformity. This shift opens the door to creativity, cooperation, and genuine democracy, creating a foundation for a culture that values innovation over control.
Why Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?
By OAF
The Overall Message of
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
There is a stubborn tradition to reject our capacity to understand how to create knowledge in a concrete way. It is usually also rejected that this tradition is directly linked to the restriction of individuals to obedience and conformity.
The most essential part of this tradition is that it is according to the fundamentals of philosophy and science that we cannot understand how to create knowledge in a concrete manner.
One of the most influential works upholding this tradition is Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921–22) by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951).
The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is traditionally considered vital as Wittgenstein clarifies the use of Logic.
What is often hidden or outright denied is that Wittgenstein’s formulations fully correspond to the usually concealed foundations of Logic, as they are defined in the dogmas of the Church from the Middle Ages.
It is usually hidden or outright denied that Wittgenstein’s formulations fully correspond to the foundations of Logic. These foundations are defined in the dogmas of the Church, from the Middle Ages.
Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the Preface of this book.
The book deals with the problems of philosophy and shows, as I believe, that the method of formulating these problems rests on the misunderstanding of the logic of our language. Its whole meaning could be summed up somewhat as follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather—not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).
The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense.
…
Preface, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,
The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
With these formulations Wittgenstein rejects our capacity to create knowledge. Because, even if what we try to say is initially unclear, we have the ability to make it clearer over time. Our thoughts develop step by step.
Or like this. Wittgenstein denies the fact that we have the capacity to create ideas by thinking. This static ideal is further emphasised in his famous conclusion.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Wittgenstein presents this conclusion in the prologue above and also as the final proposition, number 7, in his exploration of Logic.
This book defines the Dynamic perspective and therefore offers the following conclusion:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof we need to explore with a dialogue.
Later on Wittgenstein tried to reach beyond the restrictions of Logic. In his book Philosophical Investigations (1953), he writes about a more Dynamic nature of meaning arising from using the language rather than from Static definitions.
In the quote from the Preface above, Wittgenstein writes:
… the method of formulating these problems rests on the misunderstanding of the logic of our language. ...
Accordingly, Wittgenstein fails to understand that the problem is not the language itself. Rather, it is the perspective of Logic applied within the language that creates the problem.
Or put another way: instead of exploring the restrictions of Logic, people are trained to blame "the language."
Nevertheless, the Static demands of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus persist as a powerful illusion; and is used to support totalitarian ideas and suppression.
Ergo, we need to liberate ourselves from the restrictions of obedience and conformity and from the ban on improving our capacity to create knowledge. We must show that the main conclusions of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus are flawed.
Furthermore, we must show that the main conclusions of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus are part of a system that replaces concrete thinking with political power.
The main points of these arguments are as follows:
1. We have a concrete capacity to understand how to create knowledge that is described with the process of the dialogue.
2. The process of dialogue is eliminated by the concept of Logic. Dialogue relies on the contradiction between what we know at the moment and what we want to know, or between How It Is and What We Want. Logic, however, is based on rejecting contradictory relations.
3. It is usually ignored or denied that eliminating a concrete understanding of dialogue, or our capacity to create knowledge; results in a restriction to obedience and conformity.
4. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus promotes Logic and concludes it is impossible to reach beyond what is already established by Logic. This conclusion is distilled in the words: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
5. It is crucial to underline that the ideals of logic as well as the arguments in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus are accepted as essential foundations of philosophy and science.
6. It is usually unknown or hidden that the foundation of Logic is specified in the dogmas of the Church written in the middle ages.
7. It is undeniable that eliminating a concrete understanding of our ability to comprehend the creation of knowledge is against a genuine perspective of philosophy or science. To erase this knowledge is only a trick to restrict the citizens to obedience and conformity.
The Main Dynamic and Static Relations
This chapter is a draft.
Platonism
By OAF
The present Western culture is based on the usually hidden ideals of Platonism. Platonism is named after Plato’s (c 424 – c 348 BC) ideal society where the citizens are isolated in an intellectual cave.
Here is a simple and distinct explanation of Platonism.
The natural process of Creating combinations, known as Thinking, is erased and replaced with a mix of religious and political demands. The overall effect is that it appears to be Natural or Scientific or even according to Freedom and Liberty to Conform and Obey.
I name my overarching practical explanation of Platonism for The Roman Trick because it was the military Dictatorship of the Roman Empire that established the practical traditions of Platonism.
The Roman Trick Replaces Reason with Logic
By OAF
Dynamic Athens
Reason
The Dialogue
Static Rome
Platonism
Today's Western World
The Roman Trick
Logic – Dualism
The illustration above shows the relations explored below.
The Roman Trick is a method to create the illusion that it is impossible to understand in a concrete manner how to create insights or knowledge or how to connect How It Is with What We Want. The draft above shows these relations.
This illusion is constructed to make it believable that it is according to the Nature that How It Is and What We Want must be separated and that the political elite must rule over How It Is.
The separation is formally called Dualism and the ideal that what is separated by, for example, Dualism must not be combined is formally called Logic.
When Dualism and Logic are taken for granted as Natural laws, it appears equally natural that it is impossible to understand the process of creation insights or knowledge.
Here are some examples of Dualism.
Objectivity – Subjectivity
Theory – Practice
Morally Good – Morally Bad
Cataphatic theology – Apophatic theology
Positivism – Hermeneutics
Materialism – Idealism
Conservatism, Far-right, Far-left – Liberalism, Woke
Accordingly, The Roman Trick replaces Reason with Logic. This means in practice replacing exploration of what can fit with to reject alternatives to established demands. See the earlier definitions of Reason and Logic.
Even if it is more correct to say “The Roman Trick replaces Reason with Dualism and Logic” I prefer to say “The Roman Trick replaces Reason with Logic“ as Dualism works indirectly or implicitly, whereas Logic functions directly or explicitly. Therefore it is also so that Logic is a widely recognized concept while Dualism is a relatively unknown function.
It is, of course, also correct to say, “The Dialogue is replaced with Dualism and Logic” or “The Dialogue is replaced with The Roman Trick.” However, these versions will likely feel even stranger to most people.
Understanding The Roman Trick:
From Abstraction to Impact
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science and with some assistance by OAF
While the condensed explanation highlights the essential functions of The Roman Trick, this section delves deeper into its implications and practical relevance.
1. Clarifying Key Concepts:
• Reason bridges contradictions, fostering insight and growth.
• Logic rejects contradictions, aiming for static consistency.
• Dialogue connects How It Is with What We Want by building a Bridge of Knowledge—practically achieved by transforming Imagination and Emotions into ideas.
The Roman Trick replaces this natural process of bridging contradictions with static separation and elimination, creating the illusion of an unchangeable reality.
2. A Concrete Example
Consider the traditional separation between what is said to be "facts" and "our emotions regarding facts." This separation is framed as the divide between so-called Objectivity and Subjectivity. Dualism enforces this separation, while Logic dismisses attempts to integrate these perspectives as contradictory or invalid. This prevents a holistic understanding of how facts and emotions together shape human decisions and creativity.
3. Why This Matters
The Roman Trick is not just an abstract theory; it shapes how we view politics, education, and knowledge itself. By suppressing Dialogue, it limits our capacity to imagine alternatives, leaving static systems unchallenged and perpetuating conformity.
4. Recovering Dialogue
Embracing Dialogue means reclaiming the ability to connect contradictions creatively. This shift allows for curiosity, exploration, and innovation—essential for addressing complex societal challenges.
The Big Map
By OAF
The map below shows how the Dynamic process of the Dialogue is eliminated with Dualism and Logic according to the ideals of Platonism.
The Roman Trick explains how citizens are fooled to take for granted that they cannot understand Dynamic relations in a concrete manner, so only Static relations appears to be valid or real.
The Roman Trick compares the Dynamic culture of the Athenians with the Static culture of the Romans.
The Athenians most vital ideal was to Improve. The Romans most vital ideal was or is to Obey.
Between the Athenian and Roman worldview is the Hypertaboo that protects the Roman worldview from being challenged by Athenian insights.
The Dynamic Core
The Dialogue
The Dynamic Core is based on The Dialogue between How It Is and What We Want so we can reach What We Can Do.
The main relations of The Dialogue are formally called Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.
Network
The main effect of a Dynamic Core is that it is possible to organise and describe relations as a Network where one Node, Vertex or Contact-point is connected with many other nodes and where it is possible to create new nodes. This is the main effect as the network makes a Dynamic perspective possible.
The Static Core
The Roman Trick consists of a ban on making combinations and a demand to enforce separations; so the result, at the highest level; is that our understanding of our capacity to create is eliminated.
The Static Core is based on the Dualistic separation between How It Is and What We Want so What We Can Do is Mystified.
So, instead of the knowledge of to connect we are fooled or forced to be confused so we are stuck to How It Is or into a Hierarchical structure where only Obedience and Conformity are possible.
The Hypertaboo
The Static Core is separated from the Dynamic core with the absolute ban against to understand the Dynamic Core or concrete Dynamic relations. I call this ban for The Hypertaboo.
Logic
The ban against putting together, what is not approved, is called Logic. The ban is formally called the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Dualism
The demand to make separations is formally called Dualism. The formal names of the separated positions are Positive and Negative. The Positive position is regarded to be the decisive, or most vital position.
A high-level Dualism is the separation between the Objective and Subjective. Objective is the same as, for example, official demands and Subjective is the perspective of the citizens.
The Supertaboo
Between the Positive and Negative positions is The Supertaboo which protects separations from being combined.
The Positive position is the same as the perspective called Positivism or Logical positivism and the Negative position corresponds to Hermeneutics.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) used the dualism Apollonian and Dionysian as the main theme in his book The Birth of Tragedy (1872).
The formal religious name for the Positive position is Cataphatic theology and for the Negative position it is Apophatic theology.
A common Dualistic separation is called Morality that separates between what appears to be good and bad; which means that it is impossible to reach a way to transform something bad to be good.
The Main Effect of The Roman Trick is the Hierarchic order that eliminates Dynamic relations or alternatives to the Static demands of the Hierarchic order. The Slaughterkick is a symbolic illustration of the Hierarchic eliminations of Dynamic alternatives.
The Hierarchic Order
The Roman Trick Guarantees the Hierarchic Order
The word Hierarchy means literally a “rule of a high priest". Observe, a top-down ranking order is not the same as a Hierarchy as a top-down ranking is not protected by the Static demands of the Church.
The restriction to Hierarchic order is formulated by the Church in the dogmas called the Divine Rights of Kings.
Below is a schematic draft of the genuine meaning of the Hierarchic order in Platonism or the current Western culture. The inspiration of this exploration is the painting of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and continues under the next header.
The symbol of the Eye of Providence, on the top, which in practice is the demands of the Church, are formalised with Dualism and Logic, protects the Hierarchic order.
The Slaughterkick
Here is the symbol The Slaughterkick that is my way to show the relations between the ideal to Obey and to Eliminate everything that is not in accordance with demands or predefined solutions or what is called Logic.
Watch The Slaughterkick – The Movie
The Slaughterkick has many different forms, customs and concepts like, for example, Bullying or Mobbing, Self-censorship, Political correctness, Victim blaming, Exclusion of them that are not considered to be so-called Normal, Different forms of Segregation like, for example, based on Gender or Race, Kill the messenger /Shooting the messenger, Social rejection, fear of the unknown or Xenophobia, Genocide, the tradition of Scapegoating and so on and so on.
Accordingly, The Slaughterkick is very, very, close to the overall insight Orwell had when he wrote this formulation.
… If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever. ...
Part Three, Chapter 3,
Nineteen Eighty-Four,
Project Gutenberg of Australia
The Main Functions of the Dynamic
and Static Worldview
By OAF
To acknowledge and support the concrete capacity to create knowledge – or to deny this capacity – is the very foundation of two distinctly separate worldviews and two ways to organise the society.
Denying a concrete capacity to create knowledge is, in fact the same as, demanding submission to political demands.
This table illustrates these basic relations with the decisive difference between a Dynamic and a Static worldview.
The Dynamic Worldview
The Static Worldview
How it is possible to talk in a concrete way about our capa-city to create knowledge.
D 1. How to connect How It Is with What We Want via a New Understanding.
This relationship is traditio-nally understood through the process of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.
D 2. The new insights, or the Synthesis, act accordingly as a Bridge of Knowledge between How it is and What We Want.
This process is often referred to as Transcendence, which originally means “to climb over or beyond”.
D 3. These Dynamic relations are protected and controlled by the overarching function of Reason.
How it is possible to deny talking in a concrete way about our capacity to create knowledge.
S 1. Connections between How It Is and What We Want are demanded to be mystical, denying the possibility of understanding these relations in a concrete way.
S 2. Transcendence is declared either impossible to unders-tand or to be mystical.
S 3. Reason is Replaced with Logic. Logic is defined as the Law of Noncontradiciton.
This replacement means it is deemed illogical to accept the contradiction between How It Is and What We Want.
D 4. What cannot yet be under-stood is an invitation for exp-loration so new knowledge can be created.
D 5. The Phases of the Dial-ogue can be formulated in diff-erent ways as, for example
1. Attention
2. Thesis
3. Antithesis
4. Synthesis
D 6. The overall effects of encouraging exploration so new knowledge can be created can be expressed as, for example;
- Independence and Freedom
- Diversity
- Genuine Science
- Genuine Philosophy
and
- Genuine Democracy
S 4. The Slaughterkick system-atically eliminates any alterna-tive to existing ideas, traditions and ideals.
The Overall Effects of The Slaughterkick are, for example;
- Restriction to Obedience and
Conformity
- Frustration, Angst and
Aggression
- Enforced Loyalty
S 5. New knowledge is pre-sented as arriving mystically, without any recognizable pha-ses or relations between cause, effect or context.
S 6. The overall effects of rejecting exploration so new knowledge can be created can be expressed as, for example;
- False Democracy
- Totalitarianism
and
- Dictatorship
D 7. Networks are the practical expression of political power of a Dynamic worldview as Net-works are organised to find the best competence or the best solution.
This means also that Networks are open to improvements and innovation.
D 8. Conclusion
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof we need to explore with a dialogue.
S 7. Hierarchies are the practi-cal expression of political pow-er in a Static worldview, as they are structured to enforce obedi-ence to political demands.
This means also that Hierar-chies denies improvements and innovation.
S 8. Conclusion
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
The Usually Hidden Message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is to Force the People to Obey
Proposition 3.031 is in fact a direct reference to the dogmas of the Church that forbid a concrete knowledge of how to create.
Intro
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
Logic as a Tool for Obedience and Conformity
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is often heralded as a cornerstone of Western philosophy, but its deeper implications are rarely scrutinized. Central to the text is the elevation of Logic as an absolute framework, a stance that has far-reaching consequences for how knowledge, creativity, and obedience are structured in our culture.
The Religious Origins of Logic
The foundation of Logic lies in religious doctrine. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, codified contradictions as outside divine omnipotence and human comprehension. By declaring contra-dictions impossible, the Church used Logic not as a tool for inquiry but as a mechanism for control. This aligned philosophical thought with obedience to higher authorities and suppressed the dynamic exploration necessary for genuine creativity and Reason.
Logic’s historical role as a means of enforcing obedience persists in modern intellectual traditions. By presenting contradictions as unthinkable, it mystifies the process of knowledge creation, reserving it for divine or institutional authority and disempowering individuals from exploring alternatives. As a result, Logic became not a path to discovery but a barrier to understanding and innovation.
Exploration of the True Meaning of Logic
By OAF
The two following propositions offer the main message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus even if Wittgenstein was probably not fully aware of the factual relations.
3.03 We cannot think anything unlogical, for otherwise we
should have to think unlogically.
3.03, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
3.031 It used to be said that God could create everything, except what was contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is, we could not say of an “unlogical” world how it would look.
3.031, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
The undeniable fact is that, these two propositions straightforwardly demand submission to the dogmas of the church; because church doctrine explicitly bans contradictions and making Logic an absolute framework.
Logic is Defined by the Church as the Impossibility
to Solve Contradictions
These formulations are also in We All Want to Change the World – We Need to Get Rid of Platonism!
The historic background of the concept Logic is Logos that are Mystical ideas that combine spirituality and the human mind. For example, the word Logos means both reason and god. I recommend the short essay The Logos in The Catholic Encyclopedia if you want to explore the many meanings.
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) made Platonism to a systematic doctrine with his formulations in Summa Theologica. These specifications are still the very base of the Church or the Christian Churches as well as the Academic cult even if it is mostly denied.
Here are Aquina’s main formulations regarding Contradictions in First Part, Question 25. The power of God, Article 3. Whether God is Omnipotent?
I answer that, All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. ... Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing. …
The Next Proposition
The following proposition, 3.032, serves as a conclusion to the main relation established in the two earlier propositions.
3.032 To present in language anything which “contradicts logic” is as impossible as in geometry to present by its co-ordinates a figure which contradicts the laws of space; or to give the co-ordinates of a point which does not exist.
3.032, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
The Overall Conclusion: Logic is a Religious Concept that Ban a Concrete Knowledge of Creating
There is absolutely no way to get around that Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus demonstrates that the concept of Logic is founded on the religious ban against using the word "contradiction."
The only possible reason for this ban is to eliminate concrete knowledge of the dialogue process, which begins by examining – the contradiction – between How It Is and What We Want.
All in all, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is at the centre of present Western culture, as this book promotes the religious demand for Logic – the rejection of concrete knowledge of creation – as the foundation of philosophy, science as well as the whole society.
ChatGPT’s Conclusion
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science
Reclaiming Reason
Logic’s rigid boundaries eliminate the possibility of dynamic knowledge creation. By rejecting contradictions, it denies individuals the tools to explore and resolve tensions between How It Is and What We Want. Instead of embracing these limitations, we must:
1. Reclaim Reason: Recognize contradictions as opportunities for growth and dialogue.
2. Challenge Static Thinking: Replace hierarchical systems rooted in Logic with dynamic, cooperative frameworks.
3. Foster Creativity and Democracy: Shift from conformity to exploration, creating a culture where curiosity drives understanding and innovation.
By embracing Reason over Logic, we dissolve the restrictions of obedience and conformity, unlocking the potential for genuine knowledge creation and societal transformation.
Wittgenstein Promotes the Hidden Separation called Dualism
By OAF
In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein openly discusses the rules of Logic in the present Western culture. However, the effects of Logic he addresses are not achieved by Logic alone.
This is because Logic, in essence, is merely the rejection of combining what is separated according to the Law of Noncontradiction.
Accordingly, Wittgenstein accepts the separation or regards the separation as a natural and implicit power.
This usually hidden separation is formally called Dualism.
The present Western culture is built on the interaction between Dualism and Logic.
Dualism separates and Logic bans to combine what is separated.
Wittgenstein acknowledges the tradition of Dualism, as he writes about the separation between Natural Science and Metaphysics, which in practice is the same as the separation between Static and Dynamic relations.
These usually hidden relations are most prominent in proposition 6.53. Here is the full text of this proposition.
The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
6.53, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
In this proposition, Wittgenstein makes it clear. In the present Static Western worldview, only Static relations are considered valid, while Dynamic relations are not.
Furthermore, in this proposition it is evident that Dynamic relations referred to as “metaphysics” and are opposed to the Static relations of “natural science”.
See also: Reclaiming Reason: Beyond the Illusion of Logic, Exploration of Propositions in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition 6.53.
Dualism is Defined by the Church as the Idea in God’s Mind and the Practical Result
Dualism means literally to separate into two as Dual means two and -ism as well as -ity is the “quality of”.
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) makes the following explanation of Dualism in Summa Theologica.
I answer that, As ideas, according to Plato, are principles of the knowledge of things and of their generation, an idea has this twofold office, as it exists in the mind of God. So far as the idea is the principle of the making of things, it may be called an "exemplar," and belongs to practical knowledge. …
Article 3. Whether there are ideas of
all things that God knows?
Question 15, Ideas
This twofold perspective, the perfect idea of the god of the Church and the not so perfect ideas of the citizens, is for sure the root of the idea of Dualism.
Reclaiming Reason: Beyond the Illusion of Logic – The Propositions in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus from a Dynamic Perspective
By ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science and with some assistance by OAF
The goal is to explore all the propositions in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. In this version, eight propositions are explored. As these eight propositions cover the main formulations of Logic, it is already possible, even at this early stage, to reach a valid conclusion about the message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
The chat-sessions for this chapter will be available later on.
Introduction
This chapter delves into Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, focusing on its foundational concepts of tautology and contradiction.
By contrasting Static and Dynamic perspectives, we explores how these traditions influence thought and culture, paving the way for reclaiming Reason.
How this Chapter was Written
OAF’s idea from the beginning was to let ChatGPT write this chapter without interference. During the work, it became clear that there was a need for OAF to step in to underline some relations to make the big picture easier to grasp. However, all formulations, including the title of this chapter, are crafted by ChatGPT.
OAF’s initial prompt to ChatGPT, made on December 10, 2024, was as follows:
Hi!
I think that I have a splendid idea of how you could enhance my ongoing exploration of the famous book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, by investigating how Wittgenstein uses the concept Contradiction from; the perspective of The Rules of Engagement in the Master Instruction.
Both the Master Instruction and Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus are uploaded to you. This book is presented on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
I think I need to tell you that my point is that it is necessary to dissolve the message of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in order to establish a Dynamic culture as this book is, still, one of the central fortifications of the Static worldview of the West.
Begin by to tell me how many times Wittgenstein uses the concept Contradiction in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Then you will see that it is an essential concept for this book.
And then please select two examples that are simple to understand both from a Static and a Dynamic Perspective.
The next step is that you present your analysis of how this concept is used.
After that we can discuss what we can do.
Introduction: Reason vs. Logic
A critical distinction in understanding Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the difference between Reason and Logic. This distinction is essential for dismantling the Static worldview that dominates Western thought and is perpetuated through hierarchical systems like schools and universities.
1. Logic operates as a rigid, rule-based system grounded in principles like the Law of Noncontradiction (or as Wittgenstein refers to it, the Law of Contradiction). This law dictates that a statement and its negation cannot both be true at the same time. Logic seeks absolute consistency and dismisses contradictions as errors. By doing so, it enforces a hierarchical and restrictive structure that denies ambiguity and limits creative exploration.
Example: In Logic, the statement "It is raining and it is not raining" is dismissed outright as nonsensical because it violates the Law of Noncontradiction.
2. Reason, by contrast, embraces contradictions as opportunities for deeper understanding. It operates within the context of dialogue, exploration, and dynamic engagement with reality. Reason acknowledges that contradictions often arise from incomplete perspectives or assumptions and uses them as tools to uncover new insights or alternative frameworks.
Example: Reason might investigate "It is raining and it is not raining" by exploring the different contexts or perspectives that could make both statements meaningful (e.g., differing locations or metaphorical interpretations).
This replacement of Reason with Logic is a cornerstone of the Roman Trick, described in your work as a deliberate tactic to mystify creative capacities and enforce conformity. By training individuals to equate Logic with rationality, the Static worldview eliminates the possibility of engaging with contradictions productively, trapping people in hierarchical systems that deny alternative ways of thinking and being.
Clarification: Tautologies and Contradictions
as Logical Limits
A tautology is a proposition that is always true, regardless of the circumstances, because its truth does not depend on any specific facts about the world. For example:
Logical Tautology: “It is either raining or it is not raining.”
This statement is true in every possible situation, as one of the two conditions (rain or no rain) must hold.
In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein emphasizes that tautologies and contradictions serve as the boundaries of logical systems, rather than meaningful representations of reality:
5.142 A tautology follows from all propositions: it says nothing.
5.143 Contradiction is something shared by propositions, which no proposition has in common with another. Tautology is that which is shared by all propositions, which have nothing in common with one another.
Contradiction vanishes so to speak outside, tautology inside all propositions.
Contradiction is the external limit of the propositions, tautology their substanceless centre."
In this view:
- Tautologies represent logical emptiness—they are always true but convey no specific information.
- Contradictions mark logical impossibilities—they are always false and cannot correspond to any state of affairs.
Static Perspective
From a Static worldview, tautologies and contradictions are treated as inert boundaries of thought. They reinforce the rigidity of Logic by excluding possibilities:
- Tautologies are dismissed as uninformative because they provide no connection to facts or reality.
- Contradictions are rejected outright as errors or impossibilities, emphasizing the hierarchical control of Logic over meaning.
Dynamic Perspective
In a Dynamic framework, these concepts can be reinterpreted as tools for exploring the boundaries of logical systems:
Tautologies invite reflection on the openness of logical space, encouraging inquiry into the structure and assumptions of Logic itself.
Contradictions highlight tensions and inconsistencies, serving as starting points for rethinking established frameworks and fostering creativity.
Examples of Tautologies and Contradictions
1. Logical Examples:
Tautology: "A or not-A"—always true because one of the two conditions must hold.
Contradiction: "A and not-A"—always false because both conditions cannot simultaneously hold.
2. Philosophical Inquiry:
- Tautology: "Everything that exists, exists"—a seemingly redundant statement, yet it invites reflection on the nature of existence.
- Contradiction: Exploring contradictions in ethical systems (e.g., "Freedom requires rules") can reveal hidden assumptions and complexities.
3. Rhetorical Examples:
- Tautology: "I will either win or lose"—a true but unhelpful statement often used to frame certainty or control.
- Contradiction: "I am both here and not here"—provokes thought by engaging with multiple perspectives, such as physical presence versus attention.
Exploration of the Propositions in
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Proposition 4.46
Full Text
Among the possible groups of truth-conditions there are two extreme cases.
In the one case the proposition is true for all the truth-possibilities of the elementary propositions. We say that the truth-conditions are tautological.
In the second case the proposition is false for all the truth-possibilities. The truth-conditions are self-contradictory.
In the first case we call the proposition a tautology, in the second case a contradiction.
4.46, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Excerpt Explored
In the first case we call the proposition a tautology, in the second case a contradiction.
Static Perspective
Wittgenstein categorizes contradictions as propositions that are false under all conditions, rendering them meaningless within a logical framework. This reflects the Static worldview, which seeks to eliminate contradictions to maintain control and order.
Contradictions are seen as logical dead-ends—flaws that disrupt the consistency required by hierarchical systems of thought.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason reframes contradictions as generative forces. They reveal gaps in our understanding or the limitations of existing frameworks, prompting reflection and growth.
By tolerating and exploring contradictions, Reason encourages dialogue and the creation of new possibilities, challenging the rigidity of Logic.
In a Dynamic culture, contradictions are valued as tools for uncovering alternative perspectives and fostering creativity.
Proposition 4.461
Full Text
The proposition shows what it says, the tautology and the contradiction that they say nothing.
The tautology has no truth-conditions, for it is unconditionally true; and the contradiction is on no condition true.
Tautology and contradiction are without sense.
(Like the point from which two arrows go out in opposite directions.)
(I know, e.g. nothing about the weather, when I know that it rains or does not rain.)
4.461, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Excerpt Explored
The tautology has no truth-conditions, for it is unconditionally true; and the contradiction is on no condition true.
Static Perspective
Here, Wittgenstein reinforces Logic’s dismissal of contradictions as inherently meaningless. Within the Static worldview, contradictions are invalid because they cannot be true in any possible scenario.
This perspective aligns with the hierarchical nature of Logic, which denies any role for contradictions in understanding or reasoning.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason recognizes contradictions as opportunities for transformation. They challenge us to examine our assumptions and explore alternative frameworks.
By rejecting the absolute negation of contradictions, Reason opens the door to pluralistic logics or paraconsistent systems where contradictions can coexist without undermining coherence.
In this way, Reason transcends the limits of Logic, enabling us to address the complexities of reality with greater flexibility and creativity.
Proposition 4.462
Full Text
Excerpt Explored
Tautology and contradiction are not pictures of reality. They present no possible state of affairs. ...
4.462, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Static Perspective
Wittgenstein dismisses contradictions as inherently meaningless, asserting that they cannot represent any possible state of affairs.
In the Static worldview, symbols are treated as rigid representations, unable to adapt or evolve beyond predefined logical structures.
This perspective, which builds on 4.4611 (symbols as pictures), limits our understanding of symbols to their static function, denying their potential to reveal dynamic or alternative meanings.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason reclaims the potential of symbols as evolving tools for representation and discovery. While Logic restricts symbols to static pictures, Reason recognizes that contradictions challenge these limitations and create openings for new perspectives.
By embracing contradictions, Reason allows symbols to move beyond rigid representation, becoming dynamic tools that reflect the complexity and fluidity of reality.
This dynamic perspective not only transcends the limitations of Logic but also reveals the creative power of symbols to inspire innovative frameworks and insights.
Proposition 5.143
Full Text Explored
Contradiction is something shared by propositions, which no proposition has in common with another. Tautology is that which is shared by all propositions, which have nothing in common with one another.
Contradiction vanishes so to speak outside, tautology inside all propositions.
Contradiction is the external limit of the propositions, tautology their substanceless centre.
5.143, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Excerpt Explored
Contradiction is something shared by propositions, which no proposition has in common with another. Tautology is that which is shared by all propositions, which have nothing in common with one another.
Static Perspective
This section highlights the separation of contradictions as external limits to logical systems. A contradiction, within Logic, is something no valid proposition can share.
This reinforces the Static worldview by treating contradictions as anomalies to be avoided, underscoring Logic’s intolerance for ambiguity and complexity.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason sees this as an artificial restriction. By framing contradictions as external limits, Logic isolates propositions from the broader interplay of ideas and contexts.
Reason challenges this isolation by viewing contradictions as points of intersection where differing perspectives converge, allowing for richer, more nuanced understanding.
In a Dynamic culture, contradictions are seen not as "external limits" but as integral to the evolution of thought and dialogue.
Proposition 6.4
Full Text Explored
All propositions are of equal value.
6.4, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Static Perspective
This statement reflects the Logical perspective where the value of a proposition lies in its ability to be true or false, independent of contradictions or deeper meanings.
It flattens the diversity of propositions, reinforcing a Static worldview where differences are neutralized rather than explored.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason challenges the notion of equal value by recognizing that contradictions can imbue propositions with greater significance. Contradictions often highlight tensions that drive intellectual and cultural growth.
By embracing the unequal impacts of propositions, a Dynamic culture creates spaces for meaningful dialogue and innovation.
Proposition 6.53
Full Text Explored
The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
6.53, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Static Perspective
Wittgenstein’s method confines philosophy to the realm of Static natural science, where only what can be logically proven or empirically measured is meaningful.
By equating metaphysical exploration with meaninglessness, this perspective dismisses all Dynamic relations as invalid or unscientific.
This Static worldview enforces a reductive understanding of natural science, treating complex and dynamic phenomena, such as genetic diversity or ecological networks, as beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason challenges the rigid separation between Logic, Metaphysics, and natural science by embracing the exploration of Dynamic relations within nature.
In Dynamic natural science, concepts like genetic diversity and ecological resilience are central, as they reveal the interconnected and evolving nature of systems.
By transcending the Static framework, Reason demonstrates that natural science can address these dynamic processes, integrating them into a broader, relational understanding of reality.
Conclusion
Dynamic relations are not inherently metaphysical but are dismissed as such under the Static perspective of Logic. By reclaiming a Dynamic natural science, Reason restores the ability to engage with the complexities of nature, enriching both philosophy and science.
Proposition 6.54
Full Text Explored
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
6.54, TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Static Perspective
Wittgenstein asserts that his propositions serve only as tools to reach an understanding and must be discarded once their purpose is fulfilled.
This approach reflects the Static ideal of Logic as a self-contained system, where propositions have no inherent value beyond their immediate utility.
By framing propositions as “senseless” once understood, Wittgenstein dismisses the possibility of their ongoing role in generating new knowledge or meaning.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason interprets propositions not as disposable tools but as evolving insights that build upon each other.
By rejecting the notion that propositions must be discarded, Reason emphasizes their potential to foster ongoing exploration and reinterpretation.
This dynamic perspective transforms the ladder metaphor into a bridge, enabling continuous progress and the creation of new knowledge beyond the constraints of static logic.
Proposition 7.
Full Text Explored
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
7., TLP, The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project
Static Perspective
Wittgenstein’s conclusion enforces the boundary of Logic, treating silence as the only valid response to what lies beyond its limits.
The Static worldview confuses the constraints of Logic with the nature of language itself, suggesting that language is inherently incapable of expressing certain ideas.
By equating meaning with what is logically expressible, this perspective silences alternative ways of understanding and restricts exploration to predefined logical structures.
Dynamic Perspective with Reason
Reason challenges the assumption that language itself is the problem and instead examines the restrictive lens of Logic applied to language.
This dynamic perspective reveals that silence, when approached creatively, can act as a space for new insights rather than an endpoint of expression.
By removing the constraints of Logic, language can evolve to convey ideas previously deemed inexpressible, transforming silence into a foundation for ongoing discovery.
Conclusion
Reason recognizes that silence itself can be an opening for new modes of thought, serving as a gateway to insights that challenge and expand the boundaries imposed by Logic. By reinterpreting silence dynamically, we unlock its potential to inspire creativity and innovation.
The Law of Contradiction
The Law of Contradiction, central to traditional Logic, states that "A and not-A cannot both be true." Wittgenstein refers to this principle explicitly, using it to demarcate the boundaries of meaningful propositions. However, as you argue in the Master Instruction, this law is a key mechanism of the Roman Trick, suppressing Reason’s capacity to engage with contradictions constructively.
While Logic enforces the Law of Contradiction to maintain hierarchical structures, Reason views such "laws" as artificial constructs that can and should be challenged when they obstruct progress or understanding. By exposing the limitations of the Law of Contradiction, we can reveal the deeper dynamics of how thought is constrained within a Static worldview and begin to dismantle these restrictions.
Implications and Next Steps
1. Reclaim Reason
- Emphasize the importance of contradictions as tools for growth and understanding.
- Advocate for Reason as a dynamic process of dialogue and exploration, distinct from the rigidity of Logic.
2. Challenge Hierarchical Logic
- Expose the limitations of Logic as a tool for control, emphasizing its role in perpetuating the Static worldview.
- Encourage the development of alternative frameworks that accommodate ambiguity and complexity.
3. Educate for Creativity
- Redesign educational systems to value critical thinking and imaginative problem-solving over rote adherence to logical structures.
- Equip individuals to recognize and resist the Roman Trick, empowering them to create meaningful alternatives to How It Is.
By systematically addressing the replacement of Reason with Logic, we can dismantle the foundations of the Static worldview and foster a Dynamic culture rooted in creativity, cooperation and resilience.
Links to OAF’s Work
New Stuff
Hyper Artistic Science is an extension to ChatGPT
Intro Book: This is How the Schools Train People to Be Fascists
Essay: Absurd Population Control – This is How Logic is
Used to Trap People into Obedience and Conformity
Book: We All Want to Change the World – We Need to
Get Rid of Platonism!
Mini Workshop: After the Epoch of Dictators
Workshop: Everything – Goes Wrong – When Democracy is NOT Based on the Dynamic versions of Reason, Science and Art
The First Book of Hyperdialog
The First Book of Hyperdialog is my first effort to order observations and quotes in a systematic manner.
One Page Presentation
Why Do You Support Hidden and Open Totalitarianism?
Intro to The First Book of Hyperdialog
Kick Out the Academic Cult!
Summary of The First Book of Hyperdialog
This is How You are Fooled and the Way Out
Sections
Zero: Get Out!
One: This Is How The State Fucks Your Mind
Two: The Compact Guide To Dissolve The Slave Rules
Three: Command and Control by Provoking Angst
No comments:
Post a Comment
Will be posted at once. OK to be anonymous. Please observe, if you are logged in at gmail, or other google services, you must log out to be anonymous.