Sickeningly, you're studying illogic
You're a circular logician because you're studying circular logic. You're studying circular logic because you're a circular logician.
I realized you'd been studying fridge logic
If it's appropriate to make a joke, then hopefully it's appropriate to admit not to getting it; and this one defeats me.
* Goedel incompleteness theorem
(No, really! See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/para-log/ )
> That thing that you are studying… we call it denotational logic.
> - JoshH (https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/i-deduce-you-are-...)
- I'm studying logic and I'm not studying logic. Boom. 
- Since my logic has one more element than your logic, I'm studying second-order logic. 
- You're studying non-monotonic logic, but I could be wrong. 
 Principle of Explosion.
 Unbounded counting can't be expressed in first-order logics.
Are there any good resources on logic?
Of course, this is extremely dense! A book that covers this article in a pedagogical and beautiful manner is A Mathematical Introduction to Logic by Enderton.
But still, this is all formal logic. It lies at the locus of many disciplines and ways of thinking, and there are many, many formal logics to explore. It is the idea of formal logic which is important, and the SEP is a good place to put it in context.
For example, it's not useful to think an equality has 30% chance of being true, or not having a truth value, and so on. It allows building structure on solid foundations.
The proof theory of a logic is what is useful to mathematics. It's hard to beat either classical or intuitionistic first order logic when it comes to their proof theories. I think that's why nothing else really catches on. You can build other logics on top of one or the other anyway. Another perspective is that you can encode other logics in them.
edit to add -
I can imagine an even greater being studying ontological logic.