The argument for & against reasoning


With good reason, I’ll argue with myself in the for and against of logic and emotion arguing over good sense. This is not a personality disorder, quite rational, in the sequence of thinking for oneself with their own mind. More a demonstration of how the natural process works beyond only logic thinking and teaching. There is something called projection involved, this is the metaphysical part of the being in human. As always, it goes beyond the self and the logic seeing in existence.

Territory, something physically and emotionally fought over in many ways. Land and resources being something fought over at the top level in societies, this logically drills down to a local level of fighting over parking spaces, gardens, fences and where the bin should be placed. Truly thrilling stuff. It gets a bit more varied and interesting on the emotional level, love or territory over people. Men fight a lot throughout history in physical, emotional and intellectual reasoning over territory. Whether it be an idea, a way, a woman, a sporting team, business or general offense. Trust and loyalty is a big topic that men seem to fight over.

Then women, how do they differ in some kind of generalisaton of observations? Women fight a lot over men, again a territorial and emotional thing. Women fight over children a lot, namely in competitiveness of who can produce the most talented child, again an extension of their territory and ability to produce. Women also fight a lot over style, they do not like to have their style copied if they spend a long time working on it being unique. However, they are happy to share tips on their style if they are in control of others accessing it.

My internal fight is with logic and emotion over reading these situations in entirely different ways. I see variation as a part of being human, in expressing itself and growing to learn who and what it is in nature. I see this as a natural process that requires nurturing and quite a lot of freedom and trust in the individual to work out who they are. Logic on the other hand, seems to like drilling sense into the individual to think, act, respond and see the same way as everything else. I see it as oppressive, restrictive, blind, bullying and totalitarian in a subliminal way. Although I understand and comprehend the point of logic, rules, boundaries and guidelines to help form order in chaos with laws.

When it comes to personal territory there is a space I’m very protective of, that being the conscious part of the mind. The conscious territory of my mind does not like logic drilling it with ‘know how’ in how to see sense straight. I see this as a breach of my human cognitive and intellectual property rights, my DNA, personality, speech, expression, style, form, opinions, beliefs, tastes, everything that makes me who I am in nature. Right now I’m projecting my thoughts on this subject beyond who I physically am in presence, what I am sharing and recording is my metaphysical sense. At the same time, I can feel myself growing in who I am designed to be, it’s a really nice process in freedom. It goes beyond me, and I can catch up with who I am becoming in nature because I expanded my reasoning for myself.

The internal argument was to demonstrate to others and myself the point of emotional teaching as equal to logic. Really it is not for or against, it should work in harmony as equal. Can logic see or feel the point of this making good sense?