Logic systems (and their evil twins, math systems), are the most wonderful fun; almost anyone can devise them, of whatever decorativeness and complexity one desires, and for any end, or none. They need have no connexion to observable reality — such reality only gets in the way of creative figuring. They may or may not contain whatever components the designer deigns to include or exclude: presumptions, operators, operations, rules, exclusions, special cases, whatever. And of course, a lot more can go into them and come out of them — see How To Design LOGICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS And Attain Intellectual Immortality for more. Meanwhile, here are some ways to play at designing your own system:

EVERYTHING BUT THE KITCHEN SINK

•   PURPOSES: Your system can be designed to suit any end you wish. Some possible goals may include:
  
  #   Unfettered search for truth — not as grand as it sounds — truth, an accurate model of observable reality, may be quite unsettling — requires mechanisms for verifying assertions
  #   Arrival at foregone conclusions — an ever-popular goal — perfect for supporting / substantiating your belief system (see KNOWLEDGE VS. BELIEF and START YOUR OWN RELIGION for more)
  #   Self-promotion — another old favorite — use your system to gain reputation, status, power, wealth, sex, etc. — leaves one open to charges of intellectual prostitution, but if you get the payouts, so what?
  #   Entertainment — that is, a way to order and occupy one's time — not necessary to include with any other purpose, but that's always an option
  
  

  ---

  
  
•   COMPONENTS: You can include as many of the following items as you have time, energy, creativity and/or sadistic intent for:
  
  #   Presumptions — no system starts off completely from scratch — for instance, even a truth-based system presupposes that 'truth' actually exists somewhere — but the lack of such a presumption leaves the system rather useless
  #   Operands — this is the stuff that things get done to — may include facts, fancies, ideas, values, variables, and maybe even some of those presumptions
  #   Operators — this is the stuff that you do things with — may include things like operands and presumptions, or any fun stuff you just want to show off
  #   Operations — this is what you do to the operands with the operators — may include combinations, comparisons, manipulations, obfuscations, clarifications, and/or total bullshit
  #   Rules — wherein you declare which operands, operators, operations are 'legal' in your system — what's permitted or mandatory or prohibited or inconceivable — really fun systems allow indefinite extensions
  #   Exclusions & special cases — these are the wild cards you throw in to make your system even more entertaining, productive, self-serving or brutal
  #   Whatever else — don't be constrained by any limited ideas of what a system should be like — it's your damn system, make it the way you want it, eh?
  
  

  ---

  
  
•   FEATURES: Certain implications and aspects of math/logic processing may go into or result from the use of your system, depending on how you've designed it and how it's evolved since then. Some of these features may include:
  
  #   Consistency — as mentioned earlier, your system need have no connexion to reality, but it may provide for consistent results from the same inputs — or not, if that's too boring — randomness can be a lot of fun too
  #   Timing — you can design your system to be as time-efficient or -wasting as you wish — and as engrossing or boring, luring or repulsive, free or regimented — all depending upon your priorities
  #   Modeling — you may or may not want a system that creates more-or-less accurate models of some elements of reality or fantasy — again, boredom may be an issue here — good modeling requires testing, validation, which may be more trouble than you want to deal with — it's more fun just to pop a brew, lean back, relax
  #   Proof — proof is important to distillers, drunks, printers, demagogues, lawyers and logicians, and of not much use to anyone else — but it can be an entertaining and powerful part of your system — properly designed, your system can prove whatever you want

The above is just the barest outline of the rules for playing with logic. Stay tuned for my all-encompassing book, HOW TO MAKE A MATH/LOGIC SYSTEM THAT DOES WHATEVER YOU WANT, which you will absolutely want to pay me a day's wages for. I can prove it! And until then, be sure to read How To Design LOGICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS And Attain Intellectual Immortality. But, d'ya wanna live forever? Think about it...

Other PROOF GAMES

Back in the Good Old Days on the FidoNet Philosophy echo (forum), where we chattered away like learned magpies, we had a few sayings about PROOF:

PROOF ONLY MATTERS to printers, distillers, math-heads & lawyers.

Et cetera. (On the FidoNet HolySmoke echo we said much crueler things... but I digress...) Based on those precepts, and on study of dictionary definitions, I've devised a few PROOF GAMES. You can create more also, eh?

•   One player constructs a logical proof. Other players dismantle it. The first player becomes enraged, pulls out a weapon, and dispatches the other players. Law enforcers arrive and accumulate proof of the crime. Everybody acts naturally.

  ---

•   One player pours liquor onto his hand, then applies a flame. The liquor burns. The other players attempt to judge the alcohol content ('proof') of the liquor, based on the qualities of the flame and the behavior of the player who is burning.

  ---

•   Similar to the previous game, one player imbibes an unknown liquor, and the other players attempt to judge its 'proof' by observing the drinker's actions, if any. The losers buy rounds of drinks for the other players, and play proceeds.

  ---

•   A printer strikes a 'proof' copy of a document, and the other players try to judge the proof and quantity of alcohol the printer imbibed prior to activating the press. Other players may try to strike their own proofs, without losing fingers.

  ---

•   Similar to the previous game, a minter strikes a 'proof' copy of a coin, and the other player do the same sort of dumb shit. The winner gets to keep the coins, and fingers.

  ---

•   A prosecutor proves the guilt of a defendant, whose lawyer is stoned and asleep. The defendant is incarcerated for 25 years before being exonerated. The lawyer is still stoned.

  ---

•   A mathematician proves that bumblebees can't fly, according to the laws of aerodynamics. Respectful spectators accept this proof, acknowledging expert authority. Bees fly anyway.

  ---

•   A logician proves the validity of an impossible argument. Nobody gives a shit. The logician smokes more opium and sinks into a glazed haze.

If DECONSTRUCTIONIST PHILOSOPHY Is A Game, Here Are The Rules

"What deconstruction is not? Everything of course! What is deconstruction? Nothing of course!" —Jaques Derrida

Of course there is no objective reality, no absolute truth, nothing but physical and mental constructs to which we assign meaning. History isn't real; merely various collections of obfuscations and distortions. Gravity isn't real; think about it, and you can float away. The bullet emerging swiftly from the barrel of the handgun which I am pointing at you isn't real; it will go someshere else. Probably. But before and if it hits, play this game:

1. Take the expression of one or more ideas — as text, image, sound, behaviour, artifact, gesture, whatever.
2. Break up the expression into multitudes of the smallest pieces possible.
3. To each piece, assign whatever values and meanings you may desire.
4. Assemble two or more of the resultant pieces into a new construction.
5. Write or chant a long dissertation on the meaninglessness of the work.
6. Whoever most intimidates the onlookers is awarded a free beer.
7. If you can't say something nice, say something surreal.

Have you deconstructed General Semantics lately?

Deconstruction:

A philosophy... which asserts that the essence or importance of an idea is not the obvious meaning of the idea but what the idea stands for. There need be no connection between the signifier — the idea, the word 'snow', for example — and the signified — the cold, wet stuff which falls from clouds. In history, deconstructionist philosophy has resulted in the de-emphasis on 'truth' in history.

Postmodernism:

A philosophy which asserts that the industrial, technological, and scientific approach to knowledge, which has its roots in the seventeenth century, is one form of epistimology. The 'modern' way of understanding knowledge is not superior to any other method and, in fact, may be inferior. 'Truth' and 'objectivity' do not exist in postmodernist thought.

Poststructuralism:

A philosophy which asserts that all attempts to be 'objective', 'scientific', and 'modern' are actually attempts to control knowledge. 'Knowledge' does not exist as an independent entity but is given structure, a definition, by those in power. Poststructuralists want to move beyond specific definitions for specific ideas and investigate the intention underlying knowledge. There is no correct way of relating history in poststructuralism.

Relativism:

A philosophy that asserts that there is no one correct idea or truth. Each individual, group, or society has its own values and these ideas are no more superior (or inferior) to any others. In history, relativist philosophy leads to the rejection of the idea that historians can be objective and that 'the truth' is ascertainable.

—Keith Francis

Yesterday I tried to deconstruct a car, but I was arrested. Authority figures and their lackeys just don't understand philosophy, only power. This is a terrible world. There ain't no justice. Justice can be deconsturcted, but its subtexts are all ugly. What am I to do?

What Is Deductive Logic?

A new Eastern European immigrant to the USA decides to better himself, to get an education. So he picks up a college catalog, reads thru the courses, and finds one on DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. He asks himself, "Vat is dis Deductive Logics stuff?" He's puzzled.

He goes to the college campus, goes to the room listed in the catalog, and finds the professor. He asks the professor, "Hey Prof, vat is dis Deductive Logics stuff?"

The professor replies, "Well, let me give you an example. With deductive logic we ask a series of questions, from which we can reach a conclusion.

"For instance, I might ask a man if he owns a weed-whacker. If he says yes, I'll ask him if he owns a house, because people who own houses are most likely to own weed-whackers.

"If he says he owns his home, I'll ask him if he's married, because married homeowners are most likely to own weed-whackers. And an unmarried homeowner probably won't bother to whack his weeds.

"If he's married, then I'll ask him if he has any children, because most married men DO have children. And thus he's heterosexual, with a wife and children, and a home and a lawn.

"So I'll draw the conclusion that he's not a homosexual. That's deductive logic - following a chain of inquiry, to determine that a man with a weed-whacker probably isn't homosexual."

The immigrant is very impressed, and signs up for the course. He goes back home and tells his best friend, also a recent immigrant, about his new educational program.

His friend is also impressed, and curious. He asks, "So, vat is dis Deductive Logics stuff?"

The man says, "Vell, itz like diz. Do you gotz a veed-vacker?"

His friend says, "No."

The man yells, "Getz avay from me, you goddam faggot!"

(Old joke: Newt version, detective version, dyke version, etc.
NOTE: all the above were found via Google, and none are the same as the DEDUCTIVE LOGIC tale, Another Google search DOES reveal that tale, but it won't display. Bother.)