Matters of the Logical Mind

The logical mind searches for answers that can grant an understanding.  The further this method flows into a problem; it seeks the connections between two points of understanding.  With a grouping of these understandings, a logical mind can begin to established a set of philosophies or principles that direct the mind in the decision making process.  The cognitive mind learns in this most elementary way.  In its infancy, the mind does not have the skills to collect more than the most basic stimuli, but once this foundation is created, the mind is ready to find the answers.

Therefore, if a thought about a topic is presented, then the natural reaction is for a person to bring that thought into this structure.  The thought or point of an argument finds connection with other points in the mind’s principles.  It is decided whether this information can be accepted or rejected.  Either way, it becomes the basis of a statute on that point or thought.

This also applies to the idea of using evidence to support an argument.  A mind comes to a conclusion about a situation or puzzle, so it must find a way to the answer.  However, the answer will not just be a simple response to a single question.  This leads to the formation of an argument, which requires a hypothesis and a method for solving it.  Thus, when a hypothesis is presented, evidence is gathered to support or reject this hypothesis.  If this hypothesis hardens with several successful tests of evidence, then it solidifies into pillar of principle in the mind.  The entire structure of the mind can be formed from these pillars.

At its most basic form, this is how the mind initiates the process of assembling its degree of cognizance and liberality.  The strength of the principles can become the walls that protect the mind while shutting it away from the world.  That same world supplies it the elements of its makeup and creates a symbiotic relationship. The environment that provided the elements is the very context within which the mind came into being.  The decisions made in the context of a situation or time period can explain the mind behind those decisions.

It is expected that one might wonder what this very discussion is leading to.  Simply, it is an opportunity to explain the idea of historical context and how it applies to the evidence found within it.  This idea constructs a deeper understanding of events, decisions, people, and social situations that existed to create the evidence.  One can come to understand that the historical context is the frame that holds the picture of that moment in time.  The past influences this picture, yet it is like the oxygen to a fire.  The fire is the event or decision while the fuel is the past feeding that fire.

One should also examine the very word context to have a greater perception of its part in this exploration.  Context has a couple of meaning according to Merriam-Webster.  These include: “1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning” and “2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs: environment, setting <the historical context of the war>.” It is the second meaning that applies to this discussion.

With that established as the boundaries of this discussion, it is a strong desire for one to take a single piece of historical or archaeological evidence and use it to prove the truth of an event.  A single piece alone might be enough for the simple puzzle, but there is no way that one piece can stand up to the larger debates.  If one walked into a court room with the hope of solving a crime with a single piece of evidence, it would fail quickly to support the argument. A lawyer must build a case based on a series of evidence to support an argument.  A scientist must gather samples of evidence to prove a hypothesis. A historian collects artifacts and texts to solidify them into the recorded history of our world.

Given this, I reject anyone’s claim that a single piece of evidence can claim to have all the answers to an argument.  That piece of evidence is collected and placed where it belongs in the historical context and is tested with the other elements that are contemporary.  An artifact reveals only so much in the same manner that a text can only reveal so much.  Both become subject to the intentions of those that created each and kept each in their time.  In other words, expect that evidence can be influence by the historical context and those people in it.

So, remember if someone claims an outside force or entity created something, it is also possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created it.  There is as much evidence to support either theory.

crudus animus


Tags: , , , , , ,

About I Write Irate

For me, this is a personal exploration into a part of me that has been silent for years. It is an opinion. It is an expression. It is who I am. The revelations will come and the patient reader will enjoy the craft displayed. I offer a challenge: Read this and you will come to understand a voice that speaks to the heart of the issue. It can reveal a compassion that some have left behind. Enjoy.

2 responses to “Matters of the Logical Mind”

  1. Alex Jones says :

    There is a idea that if a claim is falsifiable then it is acceptable. With claims of the existence of “God” there is no way to falsify the claim.

    • I Write Irate says :

      Understandable. And that is why I have placed God to the side when it comes to the historical context. I am searching for the Historical Jesus. I will move into that discussion down the road. For now, just establishing my view. Thanks for that very true comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: