So, I basically hold that logic is a necessary precondition for ontological status - a 'metaphysical' claim, appropriate enough since you will largely find it in Aristotle's so-called Metaphysics. The primary arguments I would give for this are that the principle of non-contradiction (Aristotilian) NC-A is not identical to the formal logical non-contradiction p/-p. This principle argues that a thing (even a quasi-holistic quantum inference universe) can not have contradictory properties in the same way at the same time. This means if something can possibly exist, it is non-contradictory. Aristotle uses the NC-A to by reference to p/-p. This is the elentic proof of non-contradiction. Whether or not this convinces you, I think it is demonstrably non tautological.

Epistemology of empirical information is basically doxastic consistency informed by abstraction and clarification. Some things we have direct access to by capacity to do this. This would include logic, materiality as reality; other sorts of things like that. However, other things we (as limited beings with limited sensory capacity) have ignorance of things like extension and the interplay of specific forces. This we can only gather by attempting to form theories of generalizability consistent internally and with our best-controlled observation. This will, if at all successful, improve our information about the world - which, in principle, is possible since we do have a non-contradictory interaction as a part of our non-contradictory world. The necesseties are certainly there to be picked up upon. What's more is, we don't have any choice. This rules out, by the way, supposition of non-manifest existence - anything which can not, in principle, be linked to a logically deterministic entity in individual corporeality is identical with non-existence.

I don't agree with the 'post-modernist' and analytic claims that we can not really observe the real world, for reasons above. I also don't think it's essentially impossible to try to disavow concepts like - concepts. Or belief-attitudes. It's true these are perhaps not a primary part of our basically conscious acts. But because we can comprehend logic, to the extent we can comprehend anything, and because we can apply it - we can know certain things. Yes this is limited, and so is our information, and we are prone to failures - but, naturally we are being non-omnipotent/omniscient beings. We have bounded rationality, as we perhaps must as material entities. But this does not abolish logic - such an argument being rather self-defeating anyway.

As far as language and communication of ideas - this is just a matter of information. Information system and computational logic deal with both philosophical and practical aspects of turning information into coherent abstract symbols and making it functionally reliable in other systems. We are a bit different from computers - perhaps much more than a bit - but that's a natural consequence of our having different hardware. It still follows the logic of information, and the solutions to problems of communication are logic, empirical data and innovative technical methods.

I'm confident I live in a totally corporeal Universe wherein no contradictory properties can ever instantiate in the same way, in the same thing at the same time.

The 'Matrix' VR proposition is one of empirical examination, though I have tolerably strong opinions on the matter. More ontologically-metaphysically I am claiming that logic necessarily instantiates and that there are no instances of knowledge, fact or justification which do not correspond with strict logical correspondence. To the extent of our powers of observation and inference, that is.

I basically reject Idealism, rationalism, Post-Modernism, Empiricism and logical postivism. Though I agree with different aspects of them.

what the fuck are you talking about Vichy? Speak English.

what is the difference between Aristotelian non-contradiction and the formal logical non-contradiction?

your first paragraph made me think of Wittgenstein on the mystical status of logic. But I can't make much sense of it (your paragraph)

anyway, re the last paragraph, you're a representationalist and not one for embodied cognition then?

what is the difference between Aristotelian non-contradiction and the formal logical non-contradiction
Aristotilian is metaphysical-ontological - pertaining to the status of manifestation and existence being necessarily identical, which is proveable by formal non-contradiction - p/-p.
This is a main point on existence which Aristotle makes, that is that real things are necessarily substance and necessarily non-contradictory in properties. This ontological argument would also apply that p/-p pertains in logic - although they are not tautological.

And, no, I'd say that our consciousness is a mechanistic entity of certain varied capacities which is identical to the mechanical components of it. We have direct access - direct immersion - in reality, and it to us.

Conrad, are you on track now? Vichy believes consciousness to be a mechanistic entity of certain varied capacities, and which is identical to the mechanical components of it.

I'm glad you asked for the clarification.

you know vichy, if it wasn't for child head-bashing, this thread would be kind of a turn-on.

Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain Body and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, is is a great book on embodied cognition btw.

And "the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" is a great book on the conceptual confusions related to philosophy of mind etc. (not saying I agree with all of what they say)

Good luck in working out that theory though and clearing up all the conceptual confusions regarding consciousness
I'm a quasi-existentialist in this regards; I'd say that 'consciousness' is really a lump term for lots of activity. But there is an interprative and evaluative boundry of direct-access, which works pretty well as definition of 'mine' mind versus 'thine' mind.