Alexandra Vaillancourt

Recently I’ve gotten into watching cooking shows on TV. Since I don’t have a real kitchen, only a kitchenette, I don’t have the space to cook properly.

I can live out my fantasy of being a pseudo gourmet by watching the men and women who cook on the small screen. They make it look so easy.

I’ve been to hell and back.

It started out innocently enough.

I had a slight sore throat, and post nasal drip crud collected at the back of my throat. I always get a visual of a cave with stalactites when I have post nasal drip.

Technology is not my friend.

It’s an acquaintance, sure, something I run into on a daily basis.

We chat and exchange pleasantries, but this is not something I care to know on a deep level. We don’t speak the same language. I’m not interested in what Technology has to say or what it does, or what new applications it has come up with that will blow away what it came up with six months ago!

I met a man on an airplane. I knew he would be fun to talk to the minute he opened his mouth. There were three seats in our row — he had the aisle and I had the middle. Our row-mate had yet to show up. The man said to me, “If you have a crayon, we can scratch out the number of the other seat and no one would ever know.” I wondered why he said “crayon” and not “pen”. Did he know I was a preschool teacher? Was my “I work with small children” vibe that strong?

I just read S.E. Harrison’s essay on "The Immorality of Bad Logic" (Nov. 30).

I wonder if the author can define what is "good logic"? I mean, no matter how good "logical reasoning" one may provide, it is always possible to provide even better reasoning that will disprove everything the author said. That's why traditional morality is based on intuition rather than logic. To be moral is simple — treat others the way you want to be treated. To be immoral is even simpler — just "be logical." Logic will provide you with millions of "reasons" why it is good to be immoral.

Most "modern morality teachers" distinguish themselves as being "scientific". Guess what ? In fundamental sciences, whatever is logical is dogmatic. Whatever is non-dogmatic is based on intuition and imagination that are always "illogical." All mathematical theorems have been proven using intuition and imagination rather than logic, because logic cannot create anything except tautology and emotions. The only "legitimate" use of logic is to express ideas and to find contradictions. Beyond that, it cannot "prove" anything.

So in "morality teaching" it would be wise to use intuition and imagination prior to using any "logic."