[Guille]

ok, I understand it.

About your first post,

I also agree that also all logics, are actually not the pure logic. This is something I thought whiles reading Wittgenstein, and it is that: who/what determines that his logic is correct? or Russell's? or any logic? well, nothing does. Logic simply depends on nature. The "pure" logic is nature's logic. I use the word logicoid to define all the logics that aren't completely logical. Most end up defining logic as illogical (including Russell himself) but this is because of the bvery begining, of the wrongness of the logic they use. Those are simply not completely logical, and thus, end up with paradoxes. But they aren't necesarily illogical. Well, a logic is illogical if this illogical word is in reference to the pure form of logic. But a logic is always logical for itself. This I do, is similar to what wittgenstein does with langauges, saying that to talk about a language we should have another langauge, well, to talk about a logic, we should have another logic. All these are my own thoughts.