A logic is also a behavior, but it is a behavior unlike the behavior of the literary or theatrical character, for whom behaving involves producing an outward sign of some deeper but abstracted motivation, understanding, or desire. By contrast logics are pure behaviors. They are abstract and intangible and yet also real.
In this article, Ian Bogost carefully explicates what he calls a logic or strategy (as distinct from an allegory, a metaphor, an image, or a myth), to mean a way of thinking and communicating.
I often use rhetoric or discourse to mean the same thing. It is a mode of problem-solving that is particular to a certain worldview. It is what differentiates liberals and conservatives, liberal arts majors and engineering majors, words people and numbers people, text people and image people, analytic philosophers and Continental philosophers, atheists and theists, country people and city people, and so on. A more precise term might be algorithm or paradigm.
I have often felt like I straddled multiple worldviews: specifically, all of those I mentioned above. That in itself is a viewpoint that places me in opposition to people who don’t believe in plural worldviews; that is, they believe that a person can only accommodate a single worldview, or that the world can only accommodate a single worldview. So, by default my plural worldviews make me Continental, existentialist, pragmatic, and classically liberal. Yet, my practical choices tend toward analytical, conservative, principled models, while my imagination is drawn by anarchistic, paranoid, apocalyptic narratives.
A conflict would occur if a fellow conservative were to challenge whether I fundamentally believe in the comprehensive, absolute truth of an assertion. I might have to say no, lacking a Cartesian rationale for regarding it as a non-reductive certainty. That’s a big deal-breaker for many conservatives, who want to lay claim to absolute, positive knowledge. Most progressives also want to claim absolute, positive knowledge, but I have never been mistaken for a progressive by a progressive, due to the aforementioned practical choices. I can rarely maintain for long my identity as a conservative to a conservative, since I can never agree with their preposterous assertions of absolute, positive knowledge.
The only viable political position then becomes libertarianism, not as a viable principle of society, but merely as a defensive position against the absolutists. I would rather live in a conservative society with a hobbled government. Political conservatives tend to be arrogant, and so they deserve to cower before anarchistic populists. Political progressives tend to be stupid, so they deserve to be mocked for their impractical idealism.