It all starts with establishing what an existing entity is and how it is subdivided.
For instance, all Buddhist philosophical schools accept that an existing entity is that which is ascertained by a valid knower.
What determines whether a consciousness is valid or not is whether there are other valid consciousnesses, both within its own mental continuum and external to it, that can counter its mode of perception. If they are absent, then it is considered to be a valid consciousness.
But what qualifies the value of validity?
A valid consciousness is one that definitively ascertains the object it engages with; 'ascertaining' means establishing it conclusively, namely: the consciousness, in order to know its object, must reflect it taking its aspect, like a mirror, and at the moment it ascertains it, when it reflects the aspect of its object, it implicitly eliminates every possibility of conviction or doubt that there may be a common basis between its object of perception and what is in contradiction with it, that is, if it ascertains a vase, it implicitly eliminates the possibility of conviction or doubt that there could be a relationship between vase and its opposite, that is, non-vase.
Although we can divide existents in various ways, we can say that from the point of view of mode of perception there are two categories, namely, manifest existents perceived by sensory or direct perceptions, in the sense that there is no need for a conceptual image to perceive them, and "hidden" existents, which require analytical investigation based on reasoning and thus the intervention of conceptual mind to ascertain them.
The same "manifest" existents can have various aspects of a non-manifest level, in terms of entity or cause, or situation, which are precisely grasped through the recognition by the conceptual mind investigating them.
Therefore, in relation to these two levels of existents, we can say that there are two types of valid perception, namely: direct valid perception, which spontaneously perceives its object clearly without the intervention of a mental image, and inferential perception, which is a conceptual consciousness arising through a refinement of cognitive calculation, a conceptual perceptual induction that, by the power of a correct reasoning acting as its direct cause, ascertains the object it engages with.
To indicate what a correct sign is, we must first talk about what a sign is. It is nothing but a reason, also called a "sign" because it is that definitive factor that can clarify a thesis.
A reason must be interconnected with a subject which is the object in question one wants to investigate, and a predicate, which is nothing but a quality one wants to ascertain as being related or not to the subject under investigation.
These three factors: subject, predicate, and reason are the components that form a consequence, that is, a syllogism.
In reality, the conceptual mind, even if we don't realize it, works by itself in a syllogistic mode; it is the way it creates relationships, because by definition the conceptual mind is a determinative consciousness that considers terms and meanings to be suitable to be combined or related to each other, in simpler words: it is nothing but a calculator or creator of relationships.
The problem is: when do we have a correct syllogism and a correct reason that allow us to identify our distorted or non-functional beliefs, that is, merely imaginative, and can produce this valid conceptual perception that we call inference?
The use of syllogism to induce cognitive inference is nothing but a process of conceptual mathematics where numbers are not used but categories; it is a calculation of relationships. To do this, we start by establishing what the largest category is, namely an existent, and automatically we create an opposite or discordant category that is contradictory to it: non-existent. Everything that exists falls into the category of existent, while everything that does not exist falls into the category of non-existent.
Then in turn we try to verify the various types of sub-categories of existent; there can be many and from many different points of view, but although these categories are both existent in themselves, they can be opposite or discordant categories with each other and therefore may not be related to each other.
A syllogism in itself is not correct if it does not have a subject that one wishes to know, and the person investigating must have ascertained that subject; they must have ascertained that there is a relationship between the subject and the reason they will use to eliminate the doubt whether there is or not a possible relationship between that subject and what is set as a predicate, and they must have also ascertained the relationship between that reason and the predicate.
The predicate is nothing but something that one thinks may be a possible quality of the subject and that needs to be verified. So, it is not enough for the person to be convinced or to believe or simply accept that there is a relationship between subject, reason, and between reason and predicate, otherwise a correct reason cannot be produced.
The correct reason is such if it produces a perception that eliminates doubt between the subject and the predicate. If there are doubts even between the entity of the subject itself, the reason, and what is set as the predicate, certainly the doubt between the subject and the predicate cannot be eliminated.
Once the doubt has been eliminated, and the conceptual perception that ascertains the relationship between the subject and the predicate has been induced, the correct sign has been produced and no longer serves as the correct reason for that person, because it has already fulfilled its function of eliminating doubt.
Once doubt has been eliminated through ascertainment, it no longer arises.
Why is cognitive ascertainment necessary to eliminate doubt?
Let's start with what doubt is; it is nothing but a conceptual perception that is uncertain between two positions, and it can tend more towards something that is not feasible, or towards something that is feasible, or neither. When it tends towards something that is not feasible, it is considered a distorted perception because, although it observes two positions, it is more inclined towards the untruthful one. If it is not progressed into becoming a fair doubt, until it becomes a doubt that tends towards what is feasible and then transforms into a mental conviction that tends towards the truth, thus becoming an investigative consciousness that ascertains, then it will produce a mistaken belief that will always carry with it the latency or seed of doubt and will produce distorted perceptions. The purpose of using reason through syllogism is to manifest these latent doubts in erroneous conceptions or conceptual cognitive misunderstandings and to evolve them into a doubt that tends towards the truth, then into a correct belief, and then into an inference. That's why doubt becomes an extremely important element in investigation.
Syllogisms with reasons that are not correct, or that do not have the three modes, can be used to help the investigator evolve the process of calculating the relationships of the objects in question.
What are the three modes?
A correct reason is defined to be in itself these three modes and they are nothing but three modes of relationship calculation. They are:
Subject property
Forward pervasion
Inverse pervasion or counter-pervasion
The correct reason is a subject property when the investigator has ascertained that it is related to the subject, as the subject is that reason or has that reason.
For example, if we take the syllogism:
On that mountain pass with smoke, there is fire because there is smoke
For someone who sees smoke but does not see if there is fire, on that mountain pass with smoke, such a person has verified that there is a mountain pass with smoke, so they have ascertained the subject, they have ascertained that there is smoke, but they wonder if there is fire at that point or not. The reason that there is smoke is a subject property because that mountain pass has smoke and such a relationship between mountain pass and smoke has been ascertained by the investigator.
We can say that such a reason is also forward pervasion because the person has also ascertained that if there is smoke, necessarily there is fire since smoke is produced by fire, and it is also inverse pervasion or counter-pervasion, as that person, having ascertained that if there is smoke, necessarily there is also fire, implicitly has also ascertained that if there is no fire, necessarily there is no smoke. In technical terms, they have verified that smoke is related to fire, not only that, they have also verified that smoke is not related to non-fire, which is its opposite category or its discordant class.
The relationship between two things can only be in two ways, either in terms of the same entity, or in terms of causality. There is nothing that can be related in both of these two ways. Smoke and fire are relationships in terms of causality, and they cannot be in terms of the same entity, because if they were, they should exist at the same time, but cause and its result never exist simultaneously.
A mistaken conception arises from having created a relationship that does not exist between an object and its discordant class, due to a doubt that tends towards the unfeasible and is therefore a fallacious perception.
Through the calculation of relationships via syllogism, one can bring out the latent doubt behind the possible mistaken conception and induce the person to renew the relationships and clarify the doubts through the power of analysis.
The term 'pervasion' used to verify the relationship between reason and predicate, and the absence of a relationship between the opposite of the predicate (the discordant class of the predicate) and the reason, indicates that if it is such a reason, necessarily, without any exception, it is also that predicate, and if it is not that predicate, necessarily it cannot be that reason in any circumstance.
For example, if we take the syllogism:
The subject - sound - is impermanent because it is mutable
In this case, one can have an ascertainment of the relationship between the reason and the predicate, and also of the absence of a relationship between the opposite of the predicate in terms of pervasion, as everything that is mutable, necessarily, is impermanent, and thus also in counter-pervasion, everything that is not impermanent, necessarily is not mutable.
If the reason were only related to the subject but not to the predicate in terms of pervasion or, vice versa, were related to the predicate but not to the subject, then the reason cannot become a correct reason.
Even if the reason were ascertained to be related to the predicate but also to the discordant class of the predicate, or it were ascertained to be related to the predicate but it were not ascertained not to be related to the discordant class of the predicate, in this way, it could not become a correct reason.
Since all things, starting from our mode of perception, are related and even the absence of relationship arises from interdependence, and the factor of relationship is a factor that is not visible to direct sensory perceptions, it can be recognized as a non-manifest phenomenon that requires the intervention of logical and analytical interaction to be grasped. We all know how conceptual perceptions greatly influence our direct sensory experiences, even though the latter induce more vivid experiences in us. Therefore, this educational process of reasoning becomes extremely important to actualize a deeper level of mental hygiene that then positively impacts our daily experiences and even our physical health, if not also refining our perception of the reality of things in the world.
