No Rationality without Poetry

October 17, 2018 Cognitive Insights, Open Religion No Comments

Rationality without poetry (‘depth’) is meaningless. Moreover: it’s not even rational. Thus, better call it ‘rationality’ (between brackets).

[see: ‘AURELIS USP: ‘100% Rationality, 100% Depth’]

Rationality is not only about concepts

Of course, conceptual thinking is of huge importance. No doubt. However, through correct conceptual thinking, one can arrive at its own limits:

  • 100% conceptual thinking – apart from mathematics, arguably – is not humanly possible. [see: ‘About Concepts’]
  • There is a realm of reality that cannot be fully conceptually grasped. [see: ‘About ‘Subconceptual’]

Rationality is – by definition – about taking into account reality as a whole. Thus, the borders of conceptuality are not the borders of rationality.

Think ‘poetry’ (in general, not only poems). Rationality is also about this.

Do you think poetry exists?

Well then: poetry is precisely beyond conceptuality. This is even why it exists.

Thus:

One should not equivocate ‘rationality’ with ‘getting rid of poetry’.

Half a rationality is no rationality at all.

‘Getting rid of poetry’ is only what it directly means: ‘getting rid of’. I hope, dear reader, that you don’t abuse rationality for such a meager endeavor.

Nevertheless, I do see it being abused this way

even by people who are otherwise rational.

This abuse is plainly not rational. The result is irrationality. Because this may nevertheless seem so close to rationality, let’s put the term ‘rationality’ between brackets to denote a lack of poetry inside:

Rationality MINUS poetry IS ‘rationality’.

Unfortunately, ‘rationality’ is a huge source of dividedness, worldwide.

People who value poetry and see ‘rationality’ being used as an instrument for abusing the same, may turn away from rationality (without brackets) altogether.

Simply put, they:

  1. equivocate rationality with ‘rationality’
  2. see the abuse of poetry through ‘rationality’
  3. turn away from rationality.

How pitiful is this?

And with huge consequences…

Specifically, I see as one of the most appalling consequences: many people (+/- 6 billion, more precisely) are stuck between one’s own deeply felt – and valuable – religious feelings and the necessity to believe in some Santa Claus stuff.

Because ‘rationality’ cannot manage depth, eventually depth has mainly irrational outlets…

It’s even worse if ‘rational’ people point their finger to depth as source of irrationality.

The source of course is multi-faceted, including ‘rationality’.

Intercultural divides. Intra-cultural divides.

What a waste!

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

The Strengths of Conceptual Thinking

In humans, conceptual thinking has been a driving force behind enhanced problem-solving, flexibility, social cooperation, and long-term planning. While Lisa’s subconceptual layer – rooted in pattern recognition and intuitive leaps – offers depth and subtlety, a conceptual layer may provide advantages that align with the natural progression seen in human evolution over millions of years Read the full article…

Depth is Formless Meaning

Forms are meaningless. Meaning is formless. You may like money or status But what really motivates you, is the liking. Money doesn’t mean anything by itself. Status doesn’t mean anything without your liking it. And eventually, you cannot consciously decide to be motivated. You cannot consciously decide to ‘like’. Try it if you, well… like Read the full article…

‘Letting Go’ is not ‘Giving In’

At first glance, letting go and giving in may look alike. Both involve release, a softening of control. Yet inside, they are worlds apart. ‘Letting go’ is meant here as what comes from strength, from trust in truth. ‘Giving in’ arises from weakness, from fear or fatigue. One opens the way to freedom; the other Read the full article…

Translate »