No Rationality without Poetry
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:
- equivocate rationality with ‘rationality’
- see the abuse of poetry through ‘rationality’
- 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!
Related Posts
Self-Congruence in Education
What if education focused less on what we pour into students, and more on what grows from within them? This blog explores how self-congruence – inner alignment between layers of the self – can transform learning from accumulation to deep personal becoming. Especially in universities, this shift may be essential. The facts are important, but Read the full article…
Gestalt and A.I.: From Parts to Meaningful Wholes
We rarely notice how naturally we see wholes instead of parts. Yet this simple fact may hold a key to the future of A.I. Gestalt psychology offers a perspective in which meaning arises through coherence rather than assembly. In today’s A.I., much power comes from handling enormous amounts of small pieces — tokens, features, probabilities. Read the full article…
Weak, Hard, Strong, Gentle
One picture’s worth In this picture, I put weak versus hard, whereas gentle and strong are rather pointing to each other. In many real-life situations, people put the two blobs in the picture against each other. They don’t want to be (A), so they fall into (B) or vice versa. I see in this an Read the full article…