EDIT: It occurs to me that I should have started with my conclusions first, to help provide some context about why some of this dry "philosophy of logic" is important to me. Let me say that before I understood a little bit about paraconsistent logic, I was mostly of the mindset that any part of human experience that can't be understood through classical logic is somehow a deficient part of the human experience. Or, to put it another way, classical logic is the best way to consider experience, make decisions, etc, and for the murky parts of the human experience that don't seem to easily fit with classical logic, the pursuit of mankind should be in the direction of learning how to beat those murky parts into submission so that they will fit with classical logic, and in that way, humanity can continue improving. I think this is a common perspective, especially among folks on the atheist, materialist side of the spectrum. The beautiful thing about paraconsistent logic is that it provides a logically sound bridge from the rigors of classical logic into the murky territories of human experience that aren't readily understood in classical logic terms. So, I'm talking about mystical experiences, here, but also emotional experiences, confusing experiences, and some significant part of experience that seems to be beneath or alongside our logical faculties--call it the dream part or the subjunctive experience or the intuition or the deeper part or that intangible part that I don't have a name for. I think it's significant, but if you're deeply committed to classical logic, it can be difficult to even be aware of these deeper parts in any meaningful way. I saw a post from Alex in this sub-forum where he expressed a desire that at least some of the posts be practice oriented. I realize that my long post below is at least partly about my thoughts and what I've read. I would say that I've long held the intuitive suspicion that, somehow, thinking is itself a practice. I believe some eastern approaches to spiritual practice do make a point of identifying intellectual analysis to be a legitimate approach. Toward the end of my post below, I speculate on whether or not certain intellectual operations can themselves be considered to be a form of energy. It's an idea that's pleasing to me, and I think it's an idea that can help bridge the gap between thinking and doing. Learning about paraconsistent logic, for me, has the effect of making it easier to sink into a more enchanted, and less classically logical, experience of life.