To: Jane Hafker who wrote (115 ) 11/15/1997 7:03:00 PM From: Harmattan Read Replies (4) | Respond to
No doubt, logic has limits, but it is the first to support this observation, otherwise it would not be logical, precisely; however, the limits of logic depend on the nature of things and not upon a confessional edict. The empirical uniqueness of the ego---the fact of being the only one that is "itself"---this uniqueness cannot be explained concretely by logic, and yet logic is perfectly capable of expressing it in an abstract (metaphysical) manner without falling into the pitfalls of absurdity. To claim a monopoly on illogicality and to attribute a Luciferian fault to the elementary logic of the contradictor, all in the name of a so-called translogical (experience), but in fact objectively unverifiable, "pneumatology" --- this claim is obviously unacceptable, for it is merely an obscurantist monologue and at the same time a double edged sword by its very subjectivism; all dialogue becomes impossible, which moreover excuses the interlocutor from converting (which is your aim is it not), for man owes nothing to a message that claims to divest itself of the laws of human thought. On the other hand, the mere fact of subjective experience never offers a valid doctrinal argument; if experience is correct and congruent with first principles, it can always express itself in a satisfacory or at least sufficient manner.
