Logic depends on the law of excluded middle, but to exclude the “middle” we have to have an understanding of the space where we operate. Is it two-dimensional? three? more? How many variables are there in all of reality? How many verbal variables? How many essential variables? These questions can be used to determine the space where we make our division/ create our opposition. It is like Derrida and Saussure’s assertion that words (such as “p” and “~p”) depend on the whole sign-system from which the words are derived. Saying logic is the calculation of distinction might suggest that it is universal, since distinction is commonly thought of as universal, whether it suggests the identity of a thing, or the world a thing is cut out of in order to identify it. The problem is that identities are not distinguished from the entire world (universe is a rather presumptuous word for the world, whatever that is), but from a certain frame of reference(visually) or sign-system(in language). Because of this logic is not universal, and it is not essential. Logic is mainly a way to create instructions that people can understand and follow. It is not the way the world works, it is not the way our mind works, it is merely a standard form for instructions that can be communicated because it is standard.
Logic is not a form of discovery unless you break the rules in “logical play,”- you must already assume your frame of reference before you start calculations- and that assumption determines what can be identified and how. Ideas can be more difficult to learn and understand when they are formalized into logic. The act of cutting your frame of reference out “the world” is itself a kind of distinction. The question operation is a way of expressing the necessity to think outside of a logic and its frame of reference- to expand our “operating table” to something larger. This necessity is clear when someone is caught up in a paradox.