Far Logic, unlike close logic, is about the riskiest or most
ultimate implications of a formal system.

For this reason, it tends to be more difficult to formulate.

Typically, it has two primary stages:

1. Risk, and

2. Reward.

The rationality of the risk justifies the significance of the reward.

Thus, far logic tends to be rationality-intensive.

One of the primary tools often is to search for trivial results,
because these results can have obvious implications without
requiring excessive justification.

Other methods may involve coherent logic such as categorical
deduction, paroxysm, or visual-symbolic logics like square tooth
and jagged tooth logics.

Far logics tend to be relative to the total potential of the data,
whereas close logics tend to be relative to logic ability.

As an aside, there is also a tendency in far logic to make the
system primary over the data. This has the advantage of creating
'complex alternate islands' which can be exchanged under
different localized logic paradigms (qua physics, syllogisms,
metaphysics, or coherency), so that the logic is more universal
than local physical laws.

However, in general the focus is on risk and reward, making the
system much more intuitive than simply bulk processing of data,
or obscurantist systematizing.