A better vision-logic

Pasting from this IPS post:

I will reiterate some posts from other threads that demonstrate that if anything would qualify as a paraconsistent, both/and/neither/nor vision-logic of the fold, this would be it. And of a sort one just does not find in kennilingus.

From this post quoting "Alegebras, geometries, and topologies of the fold: Deleuze, Derrida and quasi-mathematical thinking (with Leibniz and Mallarme)" by Arkady Plotnitsky.

“Godel's findings fundamentally undermine the belief that mathematics could provide an impeccible model of truth and proof. […] Derrida's undecideability extends Godel's. It goes without saying that it is not a question of abandoning logic, but of establishing the limits within which logic would apply and of exploring the areas where one must operate beyond these limits (but never absolutely outside them)” (108-09).

Which reminds me of a few other sources in the forum. E.g, see this post of Norris on Badiou's reading of Derrida, excerpt following:

“Thus Derridean deconstruction, as distinct from its various spin-offs or derivatives, necessarily maintains a due respect for those axioms or precepts of classical logic (such as bivalence and excluded middle) that have to be applied right up to the limit—the point where they encounter some instance of strictly irresolvable aporia—if such reading is to muster any kind of demonstrative force” (175).

“Derrida’s classic essays must involve...a strong analytical grasp of the logical or logicosemantic
structures that are thereby subject to a dislocating torsion beyond their power to contain or control. After all, this could be the case—or register as such—only on condition that the reader is able and willing to apply the most rigorous standards of logical accountability (including the axioms of classical or bivalent true/false reasoning) and thereby locate those moments of aporia or logico-semantic breakdown that signal the limits of any such reckoning” (179).

“Such is the requirement even, or especially, where this leads up to an aporetic juncture or moment of strictly unresolvable impasse so that the logical necessity arises to deploy a non-classical, i.e., a deviant, paraconsistent, non-bivalent, or (in Derrida’s parlance) a 'supplementary' logic.... it is revisionism only under pressure, that is, as the upshot of a logically meticulous reading that must be undertaken if deconstruction is not to take refuge in irrationality or even—as with certain of its US literary variants—in some specially (often theologically) sanctioned realm of supra-rational ambiguity or paradox” (185).

And of course this post discussing Morton's book Realist Magic, where he discusses Garfield and Priest's infamous essay "Nagarjuna and the limits of thought" in refuting the law of the excluded middle,* which the latter used to support the emptiness of emptiness doctrine. I also did the same in "letting daylight into magic." Morton also references Priest's book on paraconsistent logic, In Contradiction.

* "The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (10).