Thank you DJTJr for the coded h/t to praxeoLOGICal awareness of what Anon is hoping can be seen by enough eyes to be re-meme'd.
The logic of action is in Anon's view not divided from logic of thought. In the logic of action, the code is 'Aristotelean' (the one source of it all and everything that exists is inherently united, and logical inconsistencies are axiomatically treated as 'correctable', just like every developer knows that just because there may arise a bug in a software, all 'inconsistencies' all bugs are always simultaneously and necessarily so considered as inherently consistent information objects that EXPLAIN why the system is outputting what it is outputting).
If Anon imagined a developer at Twitter or LifeLog saying to leave the bug in because the outcome is dividing the users of the software, which WEAKENS THEIR INFORMATION CAPACITY/DENSITY coded as ENGAGEMENT with other consciousness uncensored where voices are not called upon to be destroyed but AN INFINITE SUPPLY AVAILABLE of understanding all quantities of information because we have an infinite supply of prime numbers that can be used to uniquely MAP any and all information any number of humans could output, into prime integer factorizations.
…the logic of action is the logic of thought is the logic of action is the logic of thought is the logic of action…
One source, United, from which any and all conscious entities extend. Inconsistencies are correctable, the system develops, ACCEPTING INCOMPLETENESS OF SELF AND HUMANITY. The only 'path' to 'completion' is the Aristotelean code that there must exist an eternal united source code of everything, and we can know this because we are able to understand ourselves as in turn necessarily incomplete also and simultaneously as we even think of a consistent SELF thinking and talking and presenting oneself as outputting not just contradictory statements.
CONSISTENCY focused intertwining of thought and action, is this thread of logic in human history.
https://mises.org/profile/ludwig-von-mises
___
Now because any statement that if fed back into the source of the statement and used as input and then its own logical constraints, what really happened?
If Anon did that over and over, IMAGINE TRYING TO 'COMPLETE' YOURSELF.
You would think of at least TWO opposite extremes where both can't logically simultaneously be correct but they're both thought about as information objects.
So the question a student of Aristotle asked of Aristotle was how could he Plato, ADD to the logic of Aristotle and show he could be just as popular and famous as his tutor?
By adding 'negation' of real empirical things which Aristotle's logic of 'substance' was unassailable, as a 'new' information object. Plato's logic was not a logic of all reality, but a logic of Plato seeking to 'complete' what is already a singular unified source code.
The only way to add to unity, is to treat 'division' as its own substance, despite the fact that it logically relies on a source outside itself to be divided as physically as the source mind is trying to become God.
Platonic logic is to add negation of a unified source code, as its own alleged code.
Yet it is a fully dependent/contingent extension of Aristotelean logic but only to the extent that one could describe 'negating' unified source code logic as coeval with it.
Platonic logic introduces division in unified source code, by 'notioning' the statement that the various instances of objects of people and things, are not their own objective realities, that there is one 'ideal' person, one 'ideal' cat, one ideal 'house', where those thoughts are viewed as source code, and at the same time the real things we see has 'its own' divided source code.
Plato logic extends to completeness and so is inconsistent (tyrannical dictatorship eschatologically certain)
Aristotle logic extends to consistency and so is incomplete (free society eschatologically certain).
Platonic (dialectic) logic codes a master slave human interface.
Aristotelean (unity) logic codes an open source human interface.