You might enjoy this article: http://www.unc.edu/~hofweber/papers/validity.pdf The author argues that logics are idealisations of everyday reasoning and miss the point that everyday reasoning allows for exceptions.

I think that logic is the consequence of reason , why ?

because reason gathers in knowledge and dwells upon and come to a conclusion, whereas logic simply dwells upon what the reasoned conclusion gives it

I'm slightly bewildered by the question. In our world (I might even go so far as to say our universe) logic exists independent of reasoning. (A v ~A) is true whether it has been reasoned or not.

Even then you're presupposing that something does not exist until we know it. That's certainly an argument one can make and argue for, but it seems unlikely to me. After all, gravity held us here on earth before we had any concept of it.

Let us say that reasoning depends on employing logic---illogical reasoning is then a contradiction in terms. Then logic (rules) is intellectually prior to reasoning; or: one must know the rules (in a general sense) before one can reason.

The question then becomes, how do we "know the rules"?

Illogical reasoning is no more a contradiction than is terrible cooking. You can reason illogically just as well as you can cook badly. After all, "X reasoned very well" is not a tautology. And "a fallacious argument" is not a contradiction.

I think a conclusion can be illogical, that is, it does not follow or is senseless, and I think an argument can be illogical (perhaps it is invalid?), but how can one reason illogically? Do you just mean one's reasoning was fallacious? If so, aren't some examples of fallacious reasoning, logical?

How could fallacious reasoning (a fallacious argument, I suppose you mean) be "logical"?

I do not know. But is fallacious reasoning what you meant by illogical reasoning? If not, what is illogical reasoning?

I do not know. But is fallacious reasoning what you meant by illogical reasoning? If not, what is illogical reasoning?

"I've lost 20 times in a row on this slot machine, so I'm bound to win soon" Anyway, that is only an example of illogical reasoning, not a definition.

?
-edit-
Well, that would be fallacious reasoning.

Let us say that reasoning depends on employing logic---illogical reasoning is then a contradiction in terms. Then logic (rules) is intellectually prior to reasoning; or: one must know the rules (in a general sense) before one can reason.

The question then becomes, how do we "know the rules"?

the rules are that reason(ing) comes first

that logic is the consequence of reason , but why is this so ?

because logic is based on reasoning , and reasoning ( the thinking about ) is based on the information given , then comes the logic

inotherwords , can logic dwell upon anything in the absence of information ?

Since the rules of logic are taken from reasoning, just as the rules of chess are culled from how people play chess, if anything, the reasoning precedes the rules of logic.

I don't see how any of this has to do with information, or the content the rules are applied to.