A Study of “What Is Not Truth” — Using Logic as a Fixed Point to Survey the Vast Dark Continent Beyond Truth-Values —

A Study of “What Is Not Truth” — Using Logic as a Fixed Point to Survey the Vast Dark Continent Beyond Truth-Values — 1. Studying the Non-Logical Side of Human Beings Human beings and human societies cannot really be analyzed only through rationality, logic, or the natural sciences. This is particularly true in fields such as neuroscience and the humanities. They are difficult, but precisely because of that, they are too valuable to abandon. When we say “the non-logical side of human beings,” this can refer to things that are good, bad, or beyond such evaluations altogether. Laughter, happiness, deep emotion and inspiration High culture such as art, music, and literature Subcultures such as manga, games, and anime, and the experiences we have with them None of these have been truly systematized in any definitive way. On the other hand, there is also the human capacity for malice, for propaganda saturated with ideology that attempts to influence and manipulate others, and for political rhetoric. If we bracket off, for the time being, questions of good and evil, these too are important aspects of being human. Through fraud, agitation, and the manufacture of “atmosphere,” they have unquestionably moved societies. If so, we ought to study them head-on as well. Beyond such “organized” domains, there are yet further territories: Disturbances of consciousness, motivation, and emotion Disorders such as loosening of associations, incoherence, and “word salad” These have been examined in psychopathology in the context of normality and abnormality. In this essay, however, I will take a bit of distance from strictly medical discussions and, instead, focus on what the ancient Greeks called non-logos: rhetorical, sophistical, and non-rational modes of discourse, together with those regions that modern and contemporary philosophy have treated as “irrational,” and, accepting in advance that the result will be somewhat rambling, attempt to list, classify, and analyze them. 2. One Axis: “Truth” and What Lies Outside It We have a word, “truth.” Under this heading we may find God, ultimate laws, enlightenment, liberation. The pursuit of theology, science, and philosophy has, in many cases, been guided by a desire for “truth.” In this sense, truth often sits close to mysticism or even occultism. The spirit of Western modernity is deeply entangled with this desire for truth. Here, however, I wish to use “truth” in a narrower sense— that of logic, which handles truth-values. Logic studies forms of inference that lead from true premises to true conclusions. It is the backbone of mathematics and of the natural sciences. From this perspective, we can draw a rough line: “Truth” = what can be handled within logical, truth-functional frameworks Everything else = what is non-logical, or not easily evaluated as true or false From the standpoint of researching human nature as a whole, truth and logic are only one small slice of what human beings are. Yet when we try to look at a chaotic domain, having a “fixed point” makes it easier to see anything at all. A fixed point should be something that can be defined clearly. It is better if it is neat and does not contain too many extra assumptions. With that in mind, we can treat “truth-value as handled in logic” as one fixed point, and then look out over the expanse of “what is not truth” or “what is not easily captured in terms of truth and falsity.” In doing so, we may even come to relativize truth and logic themselves. Several strands of contemporary thought have in fact walked precisely in that direction. When the object is poorly understood, multiple vantage points are required for collecting, classifying, and analyzing it. A multi-polar approach to the object—looking at it from many perspectives, aspects, and angles—is useful both for constructing and for deconstructing it. 3. Starting from Our Present Social Situation Human beings have, at any given time, Ideologies Narratives Systems of thought and faith Reason and rational argument Desires for strength, and a need to lean on something all appearing in different forms depending on the situation. The external world and our inner worlds are vast if we say they are vast, and narrow if we say they are narrow. The human mind is strong if we say it is strong, and fragile if we say it is fragile. If we follow Buddhist theories of emptiness (śūnyatā) or structuralist lines of thought in contemporary philosophy, nothing possesses a self-nature. Everything exists only through its many ties, relations, and networks to the outside. Ideology is no exception. Throughout much of the twentieth century, the world of ideology was dominated by a small number of extremely powerful players. Marxism and communism were among the most prominent. Today’s so-called “liberals” in Japan are not straightforward direct descendants, but if we trace the genealogy back to Enlightenment thought and the French Revolution, and then move through the New Left of the twentieth century, we can see their line in: SDGs Discourses on discrimination Human rights Environmentalism DEI LGBTQ+ Compared to the Showa era, these currents may appear weakened, more opportunistic, and more short-lived. Yet as heirs to the powerful ideologies and narratives of the twentieth century, they can, at certain moments, spread like epidemics or pandemics. The putative counter-forces to these—democracy, the rule of law, neoliberalism, globalization—also, if looked at soberly, function as ideologies in their own right. Very roughly, we might say that human beings, in their social existence as well as in their inner lives, are always leaning on some ideology or other as they live. When an ideology is absolutized—made into a strong creed that admits no contradiction—something interesting happens when it collides with reality: Non-logical assertions Non-realistic or anti-factual claims Sophistical and even proto-fascistic behavior tend to proliferate. Rather than merely saying “these are bad and ought to be abolished,” it is worth observing them as mechanisms of human beings and society. How far can we go in listing, classifying, and analyzing, from as many angles as possible, not Apollonian but Dionysian elements, not authority and order but carnival, not only human goodness but also malice, cunning, and self-justification? That is the task of this essay. The non-rational elements of human beings and society are so vast that any neat summary is impossible. I will therefore allow myself to present them in a somewhat messy way, while still trying to draw something like a “map.” 4. A Classification of Non-Logos / Sophistical Discourse — A Map of the “Dark Continent” (Surface Layer) — Here I focus specifically on how words are used. These forms of discourse do not primarily aim at “the pursuit of truth.” Their main functions are: To control the atmosphere of a situation To disarm or incapacitate the other party To justify oneself 4-1. The Emptiness of Meaning: Tautological Patterns Definition: Forms that say almost nothing, yet sound as if they convey deep insight. Shinjiro-style rhetoric Statements of the form “A is A” are presented as if they express a substantive causal relation. Example: “We cannot go on like this. That is precisely why we must not go on like this in Japan.” The logical content is almost zero; only a vague sense of “resolve” is transmitted, and it is hard to argue with. Profound-sounding nonsense (bullshit) In Harry Frankfurt’s sense: not “lying” but “bullshitting.” The speaker is not concerned with whether the content is true or false; the words exist only to get through the moment. 4-2. Distraction and Topic-Shifting (Eristic Techniques) Definition: Techniques that convert dialogue from a search for truth into a contest of victory/defeat or a tactic for stalling. The “rice vs. bread breakfast” type of evasion Whataboutism (“what about you?”) Moving the goalposts These are now widely known, so I will not dwell on the details here. 4-3. Delusional / Self-Sealed Logic Definition: “Closed” logical systems that lack consistency with the outside world. Fortified confirmation bias Neologistic redefinitions (hijacking of key terms) Politically flavored “word salad,” stringing together emotionally positive terms such as “life, human rights, peace, future, children, safety,” creating only a vague sense of being on the side of justice. The internal pattern may be consistent, but the system refuses to admit external correction or verification. 4-4. Emotion and Atmosphere (Pathos / Atmosphere Type) Definition: Discourse that bypasses logic and acts directly on group emotion and pressure to conform. Moralistic one-upmanship (virtue signaling) Invoking “the atmosphere” as a reason to silence speech Turning “being hurt” into an unquestionable fact that blocks logical criticism 4-5. Sophists of the Post-Truth Age Definition: Self-conscious techniques that privilege narrative over fact. “Alternative facts” Conspiracy-theory narratives that reduce complex social phenomena to “the plot of a small evil group,” mobilizing those who prefer simple stories to complex realities. 5. An Extended View: Focusing on the Sources of Non-Logos So far I have dealt mainly with surface forms of language. That alone does not explain why people go so far as to abandon logos, or why errors gain support. To address this, I want to bring in perspectives from psychoanalysis, Nietzsche, Bakhtin, and psychopathology, and focus on: the “sources” and “structures” of non-logos. 5-1. Dionysian / Festive Eruptions (“Hot” Non-Logos) Here we are dealing not simply with a lack of logic, but with eruptions of energy that blow away logic itself. Bakhtinian carnival A festive overturning of hierarchies, truths, and common sense. Online “祭り” and flame wars are contemporary forms of this; their aim is “release through chaos.” Manic defenses and illusions of omnipotence Groundless elation, pressured speech, flight of ideas, hyperactivity. Socially, such figures may appear as “reformers” or “charismatic leaders,” drawing others into enthusiasm but lacking any logical landing point and thus prone to collapse. Verbalized impulse Blunt expressions of “pleasure/displeasure,” anger, or desire, detached from any context. Not a chain of reasoning, but a series of emotional “points” thrown out one after another. 5-2. Paranoid Over-Meaning (“Hard” Non-Logos) This region is close to delusional states or conspiracy theories. Logos is not absent; rather: excessively rigorous logos, grounded in false premises, is running amok. Paranoid completeness Internally, the chain “A therefore B, B therefore C… therefore the world is watching me” can be perfectly consistent, but it refuses any corrective input from reality. The fortress of the Dunning–Kruger effect “Knowing nothing and yet being utterly confident” is reinforced by paranoid self-justification; expert opinion (external reality) is dismissed as “the lies of vested interests.” Ressentiment’s revenge logic As Nietzsche argued regarding Christianity, weakness is inverted into moral superiority. Material defeat in terms of power, wealth, or ability is rewritten as “moral victory,” and is used to try to dominate the other party. 5-3. Hysterical / Dissociative Substitution (“Escape” Non-Logos) This is the region where realities one does not want to face (desires, frustrations) are transformed into other, “cleaner” expressions. Hysterical conversion Unacknowledged desires and dissatisfaction appear as “being victimized” or as physical complaints, rather than as articulated claims. In politics, this becomes the tendency to halt debate not with logical counter-arguments but with appeals to “hurt feelings.” Deflection through jokes and the comic Serious criticism is turned into humor or puns, thereby neutralizing it and escaping confrontation. The fortress of structural “façade” Real motives (desire, interest, prejudice) are wrapped in socially respectable codes such as “justice,” “fairness,” or “diversity.” Because this is largely unconscious self-justification, the person often has no awareness of “lying.” 5-4. Schizoid Play with Signifiers (“Fluid” Non-Logos) This is the region in which meanings refuse to settle, and only signifiers slide from one to another—for better or worse, a terminal form of the postmodern condition. Shinjiro-style constructions where signifiers circulate without ever landing on substantive signifieds Answer-like strings of grammatically correct sentences whose semantic connections are broken (“word salad”) Empty solidarity built through chains of slogans such as “bond,” “hope,” “moving forward,” functioning as rituals of group confirmation without thought 6. A Three-Story Model: Inner, Interpersonal, Cultural Seen as a whole, non-logos can be roughly divided into three levels: Inner non-logos Desire, impulse, emotion, bipolar swings, self-justification, the Dunning–Kruger effect Paranoid world-interpretations, delusional world-views Interpersonal non-logos (rhetorical / sophistic techniques) Rice-vs-bread evasions, strawman arguments, Shinjiro-style phrases, mutually escalating “political correctness” Joking deflections, gaslighting, moral one-upmanship Collective / cultural non-logos Bakhtinian carnival, Nietzschean Dionysus Ressentiment, ideological mind-control, propaganda, post-truth politics Online festivals, flame wars, memes Across these levels, “pathological,” “neurotic/emotional,” and “intentional/strategic” forms do not form separate boxes but, rather, a gradient. The same pattern of non-logos may appear as: a deliberate technique of manipulation (fraudster, propagandist), a neurotic or hysterical mode of communication, or a symptom of psychosis. Placing all this on a single coordinate system allows psychiatry, psychology, rhetoric, and political thought to speak to each other. 7. A Research Program: Some Hints To shape this into a genuine field of inquiry, we might think in terms of three stages: The level of forms Systematize the patterns introduced so far into a “typology”—a catalogue of non-logos constructions and sophistical moves. The level of functions For each pattern, identify its psychological and social functions: avoidance of responsibility group cohesion anxiety reduction maintenance of dominance self-justification, etc. The level of comparison with pathology Compare clinical phenomena—delusions, loosening of associations, neologisms—with patterns of jumps and gaps in political discourse and propaganda. Consider where to draw the line between “culturally tolerated non-logos” and what we should regard as pathological. Applied to the real world, we might, for example: Collect “non-logos responses” frequently seen in the consulting room Gather typical examples from parliamentary debate, diplomacy, talk shows, and social media and then plot these cases on the map developed here. This would allow theory and practice to reinforce each other. 8. Conclusion As we have seen, any attempt to draw a “map of the dark continent of non-logos” inevitably involves bias and blind spots. Even so, a certain outline does begin to emerge. These elements can be used to analyze existing phenomena. They can also be consciously combined and put to work in practice. They can be used with good intentions; they can also be used with malice. They can be used in fraud or in propaganda. The very fact that we can point to so many diverse, hard-to-classify and hard-to-explain patterns suggests that: Human beings and societies cannot be composed of, nor adequately explained by, truth and logic alone. We may rather need to recognize that: Truth and logic are only a small part of what exists within human beings and societies. Compared with the heyday of ideological absolutism during the Cold War, today’s world looks more like a collection of “mini Cold Wars.” If we look at parties and states that are strongly subordinated to a particular ideology, we often find them intensely serious and almost devoid of laughter. They seem to love “further study” and “taking it back to the party for consultation,” but there is little trace of Dionysian brightness or festivity. By contrast, neoliberalism and globalization entered the stage with smiles and a kind of cheerful optimism, but they also produced harsh competition, inequality, and poverty. Alongside visible smiles, there were surely many invisible tears. Methods for dealing with all this chaotic, non-logos material are, however, gradually developing. In the realm of thought, contemporary philosophy and Mahāyāna Buddhism (emptiness, Middle Way, threefold truth) may offer intellectual frameworks for organizing such chaos. In practice, SNS, AI, and, in time, supercomputers and quantum computers will likely begin to process data from this “dark continent.” Mathematics may serve as a bridge between the abstract structures and the technical implementations. It may be self-referential to say so, but if more people were to develop some affinity for contemporary philosophy, Mahāyāna Buddhism, and modern mathematics, this would not automatically make the world a better place. Even so, it might provide a shared intellectual literacy that allows a more diverse range of people to speak from a common ground. And at that point, perhaps we could look again—just a little more even-handedly and with a touch more humor—at logos (truth/logic) and at the vast dark continent of non-logos that surrounds it.