[Acting Like Godot]

I sense confusion here. I shall explain.

Contrary to what John suggests, the LOA is fully compatible with logic. The problem here is that John does not understand what logic is.

Logic is correct reasoning, based on a given set of assumptions/premises. For example, suppose that our premises are:

1. John is an ex-hippie on drugs
2. Ex-hippies on drugs should not be trusted

then it is logically correct to say:

"John should not be trusted." This statement is completely logical. However, it is by no means necessarily true. This is because the premises are open to questioning.

For example, it is possible that some ex-hippies on drugs can be trusted. It is is possible that all ex-hippies on drugs can be trusted, depending on the subject matter. It is possible that the trustworthiness of ex-hippies depend on the nature of drugs they have consumed. Etc etc.

BUT if we agree on Premise 1 and 2, THEN the statement is "John should not be trusted" is fully logical.

The question that everyone needs to consider here is how you select your premises and assumptions. Next you will see that all your premises and assumptions are based on other premises and assumptions which in turn are based on premises and assumptions, and so on.

Taken far enough, the statement "John is an ex-hippie on drugs" will, for example, lead to questions like "What is John?", "What is a drug?" and eventually further reduce to "John is subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence". Which may then lead us to some further ideas which have already been discussed at some length, earlier in this thread.

Readers will be reminded of my earlier post about how everything is a concept, and concepts arise in your own mind. And therefore how reality is ultimately arising from your own mind.

HOWEVER, for practical purposes, at some point, we normally stop reducing our premises and assumptions any further. And that point usually falls far short of the subatomic particles stage.

For example, without delving any further, we may just decide to use the following as our premises:

1. John is an ex-hippie on drugs
2. Ex-hippies on drugs should not be trusted

and therefore logically conclude: "John should not be trusted."

So in my next post, I will address the question of "suppleness" and "inconsistency" of reality.