Law of Logical Flexibility

The principle that logic is flexible—capable of adapting to different domains, questions, and purposes without losing its rigor. A flexible logic can incorporate new rules, modify old ones, and shift its standards as needed. An inflexible logic is a straightjacket, not a tool. The Law of Logical Flexibility distinguishes between logic as living discipline and logic as dead dogma: real logic flexes; fake logic fractures. Flexibility is not inconsistency; it's the capacity to apply consistent principles across diverse contexts.

Example: "She used different logics for different problems—formal logic for mathematics, informal logic for everyday arguments, legal logic for contracts. The Law of Logical Flexibility meant this was not confusion but competence. Each logic flexed to fit its domain. Her critics called her inconsistent; she called herself adaptive. Flexibility had done its work: matching tool to task."

by Dumu The Void February 19, 2026

Law of Logical Liquidity

The principle that logic is like the liquid state—fluid, adaptive, taking the shape of whatever container it occupies while maintaining its essential nature as valid inference. Logic flows through different domains—mathematics, law, science, everyday life—taking the shape of each while remaining itself. It's not a solid monument but a flowing river, always moving, always changing, always the same in its essence. The Law of Logical Liquidity recognizes that logic's power lies in its fluidity, its ability to adapt without losing identity.

Example: "He watched logic flow through different cultures—Western emphasis on deduction, Eastern tolerance for paradox, Indigenous integration of narrative. The Law of Logical Liquidity explained: logic takes the shape of its container, but it's still logic. Different forms, same essence—the river of reason flowing through many landscapes."

by Dumu The Void February 19, 2026

Law of Plausibility and Possible Probability

A framework for evaluating the plausibility and probability of phenomena that seem supernatural, paranormal, or otherwise beyond ordinary explanation—such as spiritual experiences with gods (dreams, visions, visitations), levitation when no one is watching, or other anomalous events. The law proposes that such phenomena should not be dismissed outright but evaluated along multiple dimensions: internal consistency (does the account make sense on its own terms?), external coherence (does it align with known facts?), source reliability (is the witness credible?), and explanatory power (does it explain what needs explaining?). The law also acknowledges that probability is not static—what seems impossible today may become plausible tomorrow as understanding expands. The Law of Plausibility and Possible Probability doesn't prove such phenomena real; it provides a framework for taking them seriously without requiring belief.

Example: "She'd had vivid dreams of a goddess for years—not hallucinations but experiences, real to her, transformative. Skeptics dismissed them as imagination. The Law of Plausibility and Possible Probability offered another view: internally consistent, externally coherent with her life, source reliable (her own experience), explanatory (it explained her peace). Not proof, but plausibility. She didn't need belief; she needed the space to consider that some things might be real even if unproven."

by Dumu The Void February 19, 2026

Law of Logical Privilege

The principle that certain logical systems, methods, or positions are granted unearned authority—privileged not because they're superior but because they're associated with dominant institutions, cultures, or power structures. The Law of Logical Privilege argues that logic is not neutral: some ways of reasoning are privileged, others marginalized. Western formal logic is taught as "logic" while other logical traditions are ignored; scientific reasoning is treated as "rational" while indigenous knowledge is dismissed. The law doesn't say privileged logic is wrong; it says we should examine why it's privileged, who benefits, and what's excluded.

Example: "He'd always assumed that the logic he learned in school was just logic—the only way to reason properly. The Law of Logical Privilege showed him otherwise: this logic was privileged because it came from the dominant culture, because it served dominant institutions, because it was taught in dominant schools. Other logics existed, but they were marginalized. He started asking why his logic was on top."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Law of Scientific Privilege

The principle that certain scientific methods, institutions, and knowledge systems are granted unearned authority—privileged not because they're inherently superior but because they're associated with dominant power structures. The Law of Scientific Privilege argues that science is not neutral: Western science is privileged over indigenous knowledge, quantitative methods over qualitative, funded research over community inquiry. This privilege shapes what counts as knowledge, who gets to produce it, and who benefits. The law doesn't say privileged science is wrong; it says we should examine why it's privileged, what interests it serves, and what's excluded.

Example: "She'd been taught that science was simply the best way to know things. The Law of Scientific Privilege showed her otherwise: this science was privileged because it came from wealthy nations, because it served corporate interests, because it was backed by state power. Other ways of knowing existed, but they were marginalized. She started asking who benefited from her science's dominance."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Law of Logical Paradigms

The principle that logic operates within paradigms—that what counts as logical is framework-dependent, that logical systems shift over time and vary across contexts. The Law of Logical Paradigms argues that there is no logic-in-itself, no ultimate logical system; there are only logical paradigms, each adequate to its domain, each limited by its assumptions. Classical logic is one paradigm; intuitionistic logic is another; paraconsistent logic is another. None is the logic; all are logics, each valid within its paradigm. The law doesn't say logic is arbitrary; it says logic is plural, and that the task is to match paradigm to purpose.

Example: "He'd thought there was one logic—the logic, the rules of thought. The Law of Logical Paradigms showed him otherwise: different logics for different purposes, different paradigms for different domains. Classical logic worked for mathematics; paraconsistent logic worked for contradictions; fuzzy logic worked for vagueness. None was the logic; all were tools."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Law of Rational Paradigms

The principle that rationality operates within paradigms—that what counts as rational is framework-dependent, that standards of rationality shift over time and vary across contexts. The Law of Rational Paradigms argues that there is no transhistorical, transcultural standard of rationality; there are only rational paradigms, each adequate to its context, each limited by its assumptions. Scientific rationality is one paradigm; legal rationality is another; everyday rationality is another. None is rationality itself; all are rationalities, each valid within its domain. The law doesn't say reason is arbitrary; it says reason is plural, and that the task is to understand different rational paradigms.

Example: "She'd thought rationality was the same for everyone, everywhere. The Law of Rational Paradigms showed her otherwise: what was rational in court wasn't rational in lab; what was rational in one culture wasn't rational in another. Rationality wasn't one thing; it was many, each valid in its context. She stopped looking for universal reason and started learning local rationalities."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026