"the logic lover . . . wishes not to understand, but to use again and again their favorite magic words, as a shield against criticism and as a weapon against others."
There is a cultural foundation to the framework that the author explored: Logic can be used as a shield against personal feelings of unworthiness because being correct is evidence of moral superiority. This cultural notion of verifiable personal worth through factual accuracy is not only wrong; those who use it are doing so as a security blanket against feelings of unlovability and a lack of self worth.
The danger of acceptance of accuracy as moral high ground is that it is itself a cover for what we really are running from: that we hold inaccuracy to be proof of immorality.
Inaccurate = Wrong = no good = worthless.
The notion of unlovability then becomes validated by the argument (or spell in this case) of accuracy used to disprove the application of unlovability. Disproving the application of worthlessness in a specific instance validates the general cultural equivalence of accuracy and worthiness.
Therefore, the more insecure someone is, the more important it can feel to be right in a single instance. As if everything hinges upon it. Because, in fact, it does.The everything" in this case is the idea that one can prove ones status as worthy of love.
When someone rejects the notion of accuracy as evidence of moral superiority, the house of cards falls, leaving adherents feeling worthless. This is when adherents often became dangerous, lashing out at any naysayers, using attacking behavior and defensiveness.
Only when we walk away from the underlying foundation of verifiable (un)worthiness can we get to the point where being wrong is an opportunity. Verification of any quality necessitates the possibility of the absence of that quality.
Worth cannot be verified, because it can't be denied - you are worthy of love and happiness. Living a life of assumed worthiness opens the door to authenticity and freedom.
