Generally with our training or conditioning in education and environment we over evaluate Logic and Imagination. We start feeling that what we could not understand on the basis of Logic is not True or what we could understand on the basis of our logic is only True.
A few examples to show limitation of Logic. I can not prove that I want to live with Happiness, logically. I can not prove that I want Trust of others around me with the help of logic. I can not prove that I want to live with Knowledge with the help of Logic. I can not prove that I exist with the help of logic. Once I have observed these things within myself I can draw others attention towards it with the help of logic, but other person “understands” what I am saying only when he observes within himself the reality to which I am trying to draw his attention and he realizes it. Like, if I have understood that in relationships I want Trust of other person then I can draw other person’s attention towards this fact with the help of some observations and logical arguments on the basis of those observations. I can not make him understand. He can understand only when he observes/sees/realizes same reality within himself with the help of the observations and logical propositions I gave him or he found by himself.
Feeling can not be understood with Logic. Logic on the basis of some observations can just draw our attention towards it. Feeling can only be experienced/realized. Once it is experienced/realized by somebody he can draw others attention towards it with the help of Logic, but other person will understand only when he also experiences/realizes the same.
Here I must mention that the observation which I making, that I want Trust of others around me, this observation is independent of senses. I am taking observation in a broader manner to include even those observations which senses can not observe.
Our all logic and imaginations are based on our existing knowledge, assumptions, experiences and memories. A Logic is always based on some assumption. I can not logically derive about something I do not know. With logic, I can just relate things I already know and come up with new relationships among them on the basis of some already known relationships. Similarly I can not imagine something which I do not know or I can not imagine something, sub parts of which I do not know. Let me take an example of what I am trying to say,
With Logic I can say if ‘A’ is True then ‘B’ is also True, but the fact remains that ‘A’ and ‘B’ should be known to me. If ‘B’ is not known to me then I can not make any statement about ‘B’. I just know that A is True.
Similarly, in case of imagination, if I know A and B then I can imagine A, B or something which is made up with the mixture of A and B but I can not imagine something which has something which I do not know. Like I can imagine a man with horns, but both a ‘man’ and ‘horns’ should be known to me. I create images in mind which has constituents which I already know. I can not constitute something to an image in my imagination which I do not know. So it implies that my imagination is also dependent on my existing knowledge, assumptions, experiences and memories.
Now the issue comes, if all my analysis, logic and imaginations are dependent on my past knowledge, assumptions, experiences and memories then how can I learn new things? How does my knowledge grow? And I see that I know more than what I knew before!
I see that I am not able to see more than what I know, but I still see that I am able to see more than what I could see in past, so how it is happening?
It happens many times with us that something clicks to us suddenly which we did not know previously and we also come to know that this is how it is!! That is what is called resolution. Resolution happens in present. A particular resolution can not be achieved without its base completely solidified. Resolution is more about paying attention to a particular thing rather than data mining of past. If we pay attention to a particular thing and we have a strong base to understand that particular thing then we can understand it otherwise we make a logical prediction on the basis of some observations in past for the existence of reality, but we can not authoritatively say it, because we have not seen/experienced/realized the reality yet. Reality can not be experienced/realized on the basis of past experiences, but past knowledge, assumptions, experiences and memories just provide the base for further realities to be seen.
Logic and Imagination thus give us opportunity to predict the existence of reality on the basis of past knowledge, assumptions, experiences and memories. This prediction induces inquisitiveness within us to know/realize/experience it. The prediction which we have about the reality is not baseless. It is an image in our mind about the reality but is not exactly the reality. With more and more attention, inquisitiveness and research, the image which we have in our mind about the reality keep improving, it keeps coming more and more closer to the reality, when it comes quite closer then we have the full opportunity to experience/realize the reality. When we experience/realize/see the reality, which happens in present, then we understand the exact reality, before that there is something lacking in the image which we draw to depict the reality. But yes the image which have in our mind is always the base for inquisitiveness and further research and helps us in understanding/experiencing/realizing/seeing the reality.
Observation/Realization/To Experience/To See etc. are not the properties of Logic and Imagination. Logic and Imagination provide base for them.
Without Logic and Imagination Resolution is not possible. Logic and Imagination are necessary to understand the reality but are NOT sufficient. Reality can only be experienced. Logic and Imagination helps us in predicting it and give us inquisitiveness to experience it.
There is a difference between Sight and Vision. Sight is something I born with. Vision is my ability to see the reality. My vision is dependent on my existing knowledge.
And this is where the difference in perceptions come. I can see only in the limit of what I know, so limit of my vision is dependent on my knowledge and my vision become my world view. I see world on the basis of what I know.
Tribulations of A Fledgling Mind 
MAJOR COGNITIVE/PERCEPTORY FLAWS IN YOUR POST:
1)
‘With Logic I can say if ‘A’ is True then ‘B’ is also True, but the fact remains that ‘A’ and ‘B’ should be known to me. If ‘B’ is not known to me then I can not make any statement about ‘B’. I just know that A is True.’
A says “osama is a terrorist” u agreed and thats fine !
B says “dawood ibrahim is a terrorist” …u disagreed because u dont know B ?
Hence , this para is flawed , esp since u cant differentiate between universal norms and specified norms !!!
Moral: Devansh spreading free-riding opinions !!!
2)
‘Now the issue comes, if all my analysis, logic and imaginations are dependent on my past knowledge, assumptions, experiences and memories then how can I learn new things?’
I know you are religious and spiritual.So what do u answer to premonitions ?
And also, your argument sidelines common sense.People urinate, have s**, etc., on natural instincts (mostly) and not on ur argument!
MORAL: Devansh trying to mechanize the human potential by his half-knowledge
3)
‘Observation/Realization/To Experience/To See etc. are not the properties of Logic and Imagination. Logic and Imagination provide base for them.’
If I go by the psychology theory presented in the book “The Psychopathology of Eevryday Life” by Sidmund Freud , this view is a pure theoritical disgrace !!
Just think! Observation and realization are part of nervous stimuli that cause a natural response.And logic-creation and imagination are the effect of that stimuli.
MORAL: your statement is the other way round!!
Reference for this comment:
(not bull shit opinion , but pure scientific award-winning studies)
# The Interpretation of Dreams (Die Traumdeutung, 1899 [1900])
# The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens, 1901)
CONCLUSION:
These posts are in the end your infinitely polarized, subjective opinion.
Said just for the sake of
1)Your emotional urges to blog and
2)And not on the basis of any REAL objective to analyse the LIMTLESS human mind.
Try to acknowledge the true meaning of these comments …
Until then, continue these long monotonously boring **** u keep posting !!
i meant “dont continue” 😛 ..sry
@Abulu:
I think there is some miscommunication.
You concluded what you concluded on the basis of how you understood, but what I am trying to say is very very different from it.
1.
You said,
“A says “osama is a terrorist” u agreed and thats fine !
B says “dawood ibrahim is a terrorist” …u disagreed because u dont know B ? ”
I say,
“A” and “B” are not two difference persons. “A” and “B” are two different realities a same person knows.
I think now the statement will make more sense to you. If you read the second para which I added later then probably those examples will make more sense to what I am trying to say.
2.
You said,
“Moral: Devansh spreading free-riding opinions !!!”
I say,
That is what “you” conclude. I intend to say very different thing than what you understood.
3. You said,
“I know you are religious and spiritual.So what do u answer to premonitions ?
And also, your argument sidelines common sense.People urinate, have s**, etc., on natural instincts (mostly) and not on ur argument!”
I say,
Lets think again on what premonition is. Answer lies in the post itself in the discussion of imagination. I never said that I am religious or spiritual, that is “your” conclusion.
I think it needs some sort of introspection to feel what I am trying to say. I never contradict your statement “People urinate, have s**, etc., on natural instincts (mostly) and not on ur argument!”.
3. You said,
“MORAL: Devansh trying to mechanize the human potential by his half-knowledge”
I say,
Again it is your conclusion. I do not mind it.
4. You said,
If I go by the psychology theory presented in the book “The Psychopathology of Eevryday Life” by Sidmund Freud , this view is a pure theoritical disgrace !!
Just think! Observation and realization are part of nervous stimuli that cause a natural response.And logic-creation and imagination are the effect of that stimuli.
MORAL: your statement is the other way round!!
I say,
I mean very very different think when I say observation and realization. Observation is not limited to senses. It is even beyond.
I request you as well as other readers to kindly see the meaning and not directly jump to conclusions.
@Abulu:
I am thankful to you to draw my attention towards the fact that there is a big scope of misinterpretation of what I have written.
I will take care of this thing in my future posts too. I have made some changes in the post also to convey the meaning more appropriately.
u will never change would you ?
Rather than accept you just defend dirty 😐
fine ! And stop calling me abbulu …i changed my blogging avatar 😉
@Ghost Runner:
I never asked you to change, did I?
@Ghost Runner:
In fact I am continuously changing. It is just that those changes are not visible through eyes and can not be understood by Logic! See again a limitation.
Read carefully. Devansh is not saying Logic and Imagination are useless. He is pointing out the limitations of those. Knowing the limitation of your tools is a good thing and any scientist will tell you that. Logic and imagination are just two of the tools that we can use to understand reality. Saying that we don’t have any other tools or these tools are the best and we should not bother about looking for other tools is limiting ourselves.
The irony of this post is that when you are not able to see what Devansh is trying to say, you prove him right.
I do think that he posted it a bit early. Take it as work in progress which he himself would agree.
This document will always remain Work in Progress, because Devansh’s interpretation is based on what he knows now and there’s a lot to learn.
The post in itself is elaborate and explains things quite well. I liked reading it.
@ Deepesh Garg:
Good sir! Please read my comments too carefully!
I never did say he said that they were useless.
As Dronacharya himself said “Logic and Imagination” are not limited either. Imagination is not.And logic is not limited per se.It sometimes only is because of the contingency factors and the fallacies in a person’s self-fulfilling prophecies !
My point is not that what devansh says is not wrong …it is half knowledge …and it is not what i feel .i merely quoted from established papers on human psychology !!!! Please dont tell me you as a perceptor are remotely more qualified than that !!
And I would prefer devu to answer his post and not what u interpret it as
~NOM
@ devu
If it is a work in progress … you have already taken a stance and your arguments are directed towards the fulfillment of that stance ! So you have introduced a self-fulfillment bias from the word “go”!!
I probably read your blog (though I dont agree with most of it) more than any one else ..yes! Even your JV colleagues !!! Because I am your blog’s most straight forward critique … and dont go by you emotionless, monotonous mish-mash.Would recommend you to come out, looka t the real world, and breathe some real air !!!!
Your JV folks are not the ones that care for you. And if you are referring to JV @ IIIT-H, the whole way it is being shown here is RIDICULOUS.that is not my conclusion either …do u want me to throw mathematical varibales to prove it ??? I gladly would !!!
Just say you acknowledge this comment and dont try to back answer .I Will take it as a pure sense of hidden ego …
@Ghost Runner:
I am happy to see your comment. As you asked me to acknowledge your comment, I do it. Thanks!
I am also thankful to you for reading my blogs since a long time more than my JV folks, I hope you will continue doing it.
Kindly keep reading and commenting!
Pingback: Knowledge is an Obstacle to Knowledge! « Tribulations of A Fledgling Mind