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

Cultural Symbols with Personal Meaning

Cultural symbols bind people together while also shaping each individual from within. They are not abstract emblems floating above society but deeply personal resonances that live in every human being. To understand their power, one must look at both evolutionary roots and the neurocognitive depth that gives symbols their enduring energy. This depth reveals why Read the full article…

About Resilience

Resilience is not about becoming hard but keeping one’s strength and gentleness in the face of hardship. Please read first ‘Weak, Hard, Strong, Gentle.’ A natural endeavor Natural organisms strive for resilience. The most successful not only survive but also thrive, passing on their resilience to future generations through the process of natural evolution. Resilience Read the full article…

Constructionism – Constructor – Construct

If there is a constructed reality, something or someone must be constructing this reality. This is not different for any socially constructed reality ― say, any culture or subculture in its distinctiveness from others. In philosophical (radical) constructionism, everything can be a construction, while social constructionism is just mind-related (sub)culture-sceptic. The former may lead to Read the full article…

Translate »