“Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”
- Alfred North Whitehead, “Adventures of Ideas”

899 words

Fuller context:

“It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”

.....................
We are in the context of the three part brain, noting the limitations of relying on the newer brain, its logics, but also taking into account the misapplication of “theoria” (lineal, physics type logic) to the multi-interactive, reflexive context of praxis, the social world. And there, the Jewish manichean element, which would attempt to change logical rules around to their interests and our detriment.

A friend of MR notes that operations of logic (mine, anyway) might be improved by observing important differences in three kinds:

Deduction: P. If P then Q. Therefore Q.
Abduction: Q. If P then Q. Therefore P.
Induction: P. Q. Therefore if P then Q.

Our friend notes that

“Interest in abduction has long history in psychology going back to pre- Jewish days of psychology - if one examines closely the “critique” Jews use, it is almost always to attack the “unsound” nature of abductive logic we must use in PRACTICE to survive not just as humans but as mammals.

Practical survival logic:  “the grass is wet therefore it rained last night”

Jewish logic: “but the sprinkler might have been on—your logic is unsound, now go die”

He quotes Robert Hecht-Nielsen to say (unlike Wittgenstein) that there _aren’t_ all kinds of thinking built into the mammalian brain—there is only one. However, abduction allows us to contrive others.

Induction is also attacked as “unsound” via “correlation doesn’t imply causation” but abduction is where the rubber meets the road.

This corresponds to my experience of Jewish logic, or the abuses thereof - the Jewish strategy of subverting abductive and inductive logic.

However, it is also my experience that Jewish interests take any advances in intellectualism - such as open endedness - and pervert them.

Therefore, one asks, if we should mark intellectual advances, such as open endedness, to our own ends while guarding against their abuse. It seems likely as well. They would use open endedness and interaction to their advantage and to our disadgantage. A bit of open endedness and ambiguity is good - it can be used by Whites for our advantage.

Again, there is a difference between Theoria and Praxis.

Note the point in this discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnA5r_2eME where the interlocutor of the popular philosopher responds, “exactly!” after having been advised to heed the reptilian, emotional brain more - and the philosopher chides that exclamation of “exactly!” as a command of the newer brain - i.e., to look for exact logics in theoria, whereas social logics, in particular, occur in praxis, and thus, especially need correspondence with the feel of the older brain.

Thus, I am wondering to what extent these logical forms (deductive, abductive, inductive) can legitimately be claimed, in our own interests, to be linear - that is, largely productive and sound logic, but relying too absolutely on theoria, whereas there ought to be some room left for open endedness and interactive component, of the social in particular, for the sake of our own agency and intelligence.

Some of these logics would seem to correspond to the newer brain - which is necessary and good, of course - “no Internet otherwise.” While the longer evolved, feeling-affective, reptilian brain, has logics of its own, there to guard against danger, noting pain for future reference of what to avoid. Without this kind of thinking, “with over reliance on the newer brain, we are stuck in one gear, often the wrong gear” and “we are susceptible to the manipulation of sociopaths.”

Our friend points to confabulation theory as a proposed means to orchestrate logical operations of the thee part brain and its success in artificial intelligence.

........................

Addendum on Whitehead and Principia Mathemetica

As I have argued elsewhere, on the basis of Whitehead and his “Principia Mathemetica”

The “class cannot be a member of itself” - there are different logical types, meta signifier vs. content membership. This separate meta-communicative level was proposed by Whitehead in what he described as an “ad hoc solution - prinicipia mathemetica” - to solve the liars’ paradox: “I am a Cretan, all Cretans are liars.”

In Adventures of Ideas, Whitehead adds that “one cannot continually investigate everything but must work from a given state of partial knowledge.” That is, one must adopt working hypotheses - more, that even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.

I have inferred from this the legitimacy and necessity, in fact, of both prejudice and discrimination - on the basis of The White Class.

One cannot evaluate each foreign individual anew, but must classify them prejudicially according to patterns and discriminate accordingly.

All of this was confirmed and moved toward operationalization with the Post Modern turn. Which, again, as we have noted above, was perverted by Jewish interests as they are wont to do.