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

Is All Learning Associational?

Most probably. This is a domain where animal/human learning and A.I. learning can learn much from each other. Three forms of learning in A.I. Generally, learning in A.I. is divided into two distinct kinds, with a third one dangling in the appendix, referring to another book (*). supervised learning: training with specific input and labeled Read the full article…

The Poetic Brain

This view hasn’t been pretty widespread in the past. It may be so in the future. Our brains are made for poetry. The deeper one delves into neuro-brain-stuff – maps, neurons, dendrites, synapses – the more it’s at risk of becoming viewed purely materialistically. Indeed, in the end, even a painting of Goya is nothing Read the full article…

12. What Did Pavlov’s Dogs Know?

Who was being conditioned: the dogs or Pavlov? The premise of conditioning Conditioning counts on a simple perspective upon the unconscious, as a collection of mental reflex-arcs. A kind of black box between Stimulus and Response which is hardly worth the effort to be opened. So, in the world of conditioning, one does not bother. Read the full article…

Translate »