The equivalent of Aristotelian logic to Kabbalistic terms of pairing and fertilization

Thank you very much! It's hard for me to understand why he was wrong to think otherwise, maybe because it was the fashion to start with the general and move on to the specific? Or was there some built-in error in the logic that was slowly discovered and improved upon. I don't know, but it's less interesting to me now. (By the way, Ramchal wrote the Sefer HaGyun and dealt with it extensively. It is also very noticeable in the Kalach, that many of the long twists there are based on attempts to establish logical arguments. At the time, I was tempted to examine the Ramchal's Kabbalah on the basis of his logical reasoning in the Sefer HaGyun. Those days have already passed – and in the Enad no one has yet done so, and in this sense you have understood the Ramchal quite superficially, at least in light of his emphasized desire to establish everything in the doctrine of logic. See, for example, the wonderful sentence that could be the motto of your website: "Sefer Da'at Tevonot - Kalach - Kend: "And all these are simple matters to those who know the ways of the exemplary wisdoms… said the soul – I have no doubt that it is impossible to achieve even the smallest bit that a person can achieve through the wisdom of his actions except through the ways of study and wisdom. And whoever wants to enter into these investigations without the necessary preparations and studies – is nothing but malice, and will not be able to succeed." I will comment As an aside, Rabbi Sackton of Yeshiva Hatfutsot, who edited Ramchal's Sefer Hagyun as well as Sefer Melitza and Derech Hochma (Logic in the Talmud), has been teaching Gemara for years based on Ramchal's analytical analysis of how to approach the issue. I have not heard the style and I cannot attest to where, but the experience is interesting.

The most common image of a syllogism is from the general to the particular (all X is Y. and a is also X, conclusion: a is Y). Therefore, it is customary to refer to deduction as an inference from the general to the particular. This is also accepted today.
In my experience, logical tests of everyday arguments yield almost nothing. You just get tangled up in the nitty-gritty. Only when there is something tricky can nitty-gritty help.

Thank you! And why is deduction from the general to the particular more common? Because it is easier to understand, more absorbing? (And also
Ramchal speaks of a detail not in the sense of a part of a whole, but in the sense of a detail of the whole, being more than the sum of its parts.
Also, what is the meaning of fertilization? Is there a stage in which there is some process of decomposition of the first premise by crossing it with the second premise – and only then does he draw the conclusion (birth) or does it happen immediately? It seems from Ramchal quoted above in the first principles that there is a certain process until this happens (a process in the logical sense). I will note that the pairing of the first premise with the second is, as I believe, in reality the common denominator that connects them – and this is the element that is common to both (y). From the Ramchal's examination, this pairing is what is called in Kabbalah "pairing", see its language: "For when one light, which is one measure, emerges from the two lights that precede it, which are the assumptions that precede that measure, it will be necessary that at first an action be given *in the group* (i.e. pairing) to the two assumptions, that they both act together to produce their result. And when we get down to the details of the matter, it will appear that the matters and illuminations that we mentioned, which emerge gradually by way of cause and effect, we will distinguish between a material cause and a formal cause, or we will say a general cause and a private cause. In other words, for each measure or light, two lights will precede it to give rise to it, one will give its generality and substance, the other – its details in form (pairing), and the matter will proceed from the general to the private cause (ibur). Then the result will come out From the connection that is made between the two (birth). And this is the pairing that is in the connection of the two causes that we mentioned. And the departure of the matter from the general to the particular, and still in the particular cause, before its coming into effect – will be called conception, and its coming into effect – birth….

In any case, it seems that Ramchal wanted us to look at reality as a whole logically, not at everyday claims, in order to understand the three Kabbalistic reasons that stand behind every phenomenon, and this in order to create unity in the system (this requires length and I will not detail it now). This idea is expressed, for example, in the compositions Sod Ha-Ha li-ra'yo. Here is such a passage, for example, at the end of his discussion in Da'at Tivonat on inferences and causal relationships:

(…and not only that, since every thing that is completed has its perfection as something additional to its existence, because it is possible for it to find something other than that perfection. Indeed, two things will arrive at the cause of that thing, namely its finding and its completion, because the existent cause is the complete and constant cause of existence, and the completion of the cause is not the completion of the cause but the perfection of the birth of the cause, so that when it gives birth to everything that is in its nature to give birth to, that birth will be found complete in all its perfection. And all this is simple for one who has followed the paths of wisdom):
And indeed, you have already heard above, that all the things that exist are interconnected, until they all continue one after another, and are born from one another. And all together form one connection, and the reality of one whole, which is not complete except in all these details, and on this depends the beauty and perfection of the world, as we explained this above. And this is a very broad place for us to observe and delve deeper into the wisdom of the Creator in His creation. For every matter that is found in His guidance, we will know that He has in the guidance itself a prior matter that binds it, and He calls it a cause and a begetter, and this cause is what will beget, and it is what will complete the matter that is bound and born from it. And this is the whole of the arrangements that we mentioned above, which unfold in the world from the heavens of the heavens to the depths of the earth, as all that is found, the upper and the lower, the high and the low, are interconnected with each other, and are born and bound by each other… And in this too, His existence will be examined in its imperfection and perfection. All these are simple matters for those who know the ways of the miraculous wisdoms:

I think this is because the deduction from the general to the particular well demonstrates the necessity of logical argument. If the claim is true of the general, it must be true of the particular included in it.
Ramchal's words are an ideological statement. When I see examples of logical analysis that is useful for something in reality, I will be able to address them in detail. I doubt if there are any. Many who study logic (including your faithful servant) are very enthusiastic at first, thinking that it is the essence of everything and that everything can be based on it. Perhaps Ramchal also wrote out of this enthusiasm.