----------------
The Formation Quest & Society
The Formative Logic and its Applications
----------------
In brief, the formative logic...
  provides standards through language which hierarchically devolve from that formation which is our humanly-common source. As what we can call "logic" within what more generally we call "philosophy," it does so if we first think in order to know how that hierarchy applies to our individual and social-group behaviors. As then known, we may or may not act or react from its moral or rational applications within and with regard to our social contract
  It's then that the formative logic morally applies to prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors ethically to be enacted or not as well as to describe their enactments as among all the rational facts which sensibly we can and do witness. That is, it disinterestedly permits us to move beyond the traditional logical systems which its source also explains and enables from the outset. We've called those systems by two names, and neither the "morality" claimed from a standardized "deduction" nor the "objectivity" from the "induction" which only yields our rational facts has met our human challenge. 
  Only the formative logic can. It alone bridges the gap between these otherwise-irreconcilable logical systems also to explain and enable their own formations. Only its logical application places both within their subordinate formations with the "morality" of the theologian and the rationally-factual descriptions of the scientist, say, only having private authority where and when we socially would contract with one another morally. 
  That's because our common source provides the referents we otherwise miss as the base assumptions ("premises") for drawing ("inferring") our conclusions. Both only exist within the  formative logic morally to prescribe and proscribe our behavior clearly as political in contradistinction with the fully-optionable private behavior we'd otherwise evidence. It's then that our source's leading truths most-highly prioritize to converge with the formative fact of our essential ignorance of sensibly-rational facts. That is, those truths and that fact socially are our common ground even while they converge upon the particulars which needlessly otherwise do divide us. 
  It then follows socially for us to protect our language-analogous and other sensibly-enacted particulars of individual behavior, that we politically must protect each individual's fully-optioned, private rights even if they logically standardize otherwise to be deductive or inductive as motivated or interpreted. Therefore, the formative logic applies socially to vest each human individual equally with primary rights as a particular entity-event within a moral social contract whether or not a true moral majority implements or sustains that contract within a moral democracy.
  It logically also follows that their politically-governing custodians would rule only through the analogues of a ruling moral law if and while all morally do contract. That is, they must act by secondary right of their social participation to be the moral custodians of that analogous contract if they'd first not abrogate it. This applies while and because each individual sensibly first forms equally with greater authority than what we infer to be that "society" to which we contractually next could refer through the logic. Therefore, they'd morally not have the right unethically to act even if the people they'd serve contractually first would abrogate because individuals ultimately are responsible morally only for their own acts before we'd apply such labels as "society."
  All this applies whether or not the people vest the custodian with politically-instituted support. With it, the custodian would act unethically by misrepresenting others custodially. Without it, she or he also could be political and morally vulnerable with all enfranchised others- would be unethical if acting to deprive unwilling or unenfranchised others of their own equal or precedent rights. That forms logically to be morally excluding. Physically denying another access to a public place with space otherwise available provides one example where and when the right of sensible access excluded first forms equally for both. If one kills the other to deny it, the right formed precedently for the deceased because the right to live standardizes to be more authoritative than the right sensibly to access any place or not.
  Such logically-obtained hierarchical standards follow from the primary truths of "inclusion" and "space" which converge to produce the formatively-moral fact of a "presumptive inclusion" which the excluders violate. A "presumptive convergence" then similarly forms from the truth of "time" within a first-unified "space-time" logically to imply moral standards for other rights, including those which vest the unenfranchised presumptively with their own social rights from and within the formative logic. This includes that humanly-common and truthful "entity-event" which sensibly forms in the particular from and within our natural environment as well as our own species in its undeveloped or underdeveloped members.
  While likely you logically can infer to conclude other applied standards yourself, it perhaps still remains for me to point out that even the thoughtful, formatively-aware logician not only shares  the inductive logician's grasp of the sensible rational facts but will find that one's own descriptive and moral authority logically attenuates with the increased relevance those particularized facts present. That is, like him and me, even you essentially are ignorant of the rational particulars where and when that commonly is a formative fact of greater logical authority itself.
  Formative logic therefore morally includes inductive logic only if we politically don't impose ourselves immorally/unethically as applied from the standardized "moral facts" which form to be its leading tenets. Moreover, none of us is omniscient or perfect even if formatively we do dedicate to be moral while inferring from its commonly-leading assumptions as the premises which next also include the rationally-sensible particulars. Yes, and this includes our knowledge of one another as well.... 

 

     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    

Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on October 9, 1999