But autistic folks may well use different logic...

If one’s whole metaphysics proceeds from a different starting point or “first metaphysical division” (as described by Robert Pirsig in “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”), then the entire approach may seem nonsensical. (Seen also in the liner notes to the “Dave Brubeck Quartet at Carnegie Hall” jazz concert album, describing the writer’s difficulty interpreting a bass solo in “King For a Day” because he was intuiting the chords from a different song with the same title.)

Maybe “autistic logic” could be simulated in AI (artificial intelligence) and behavior/conclusions examined in different circumstances? If most ambiguity and subtlety is not present, perhaps there’s be a better chance of doing this in a way that produced useful results.

The NT “logic” seems like the rules for English grammar or something - idiosyncratic, maddeningly inconsistent, at times self-contradictory. (“Who dealt this mess?”) What is the hierarchy? What others think of us - image, presentation, status, ad nauseum? Clearly, something other than “accuracy of transmission of information” is at the top for NTs - maybe it’s “accuracy of transmission of intent”... or of will. Ah, there we are... good old ego.

Last revised: June 17, 2007
(c)2007 Dave Spicer
(back to project main page)