Beyond rational and irrational

[Anonymous No.13202381]

Sometimes it seems as if there is nothing but rational and irrational, and the irrational can be explained in terms of perversions of the rational. For example, if I were to say a triangle has four sides, we could use the rational to explain that this is a misconstruction of a triangle. Because we know what a side is, and can say that there are 3 instead of 4. Likewise, any time we try to create a surreal thought, it can be constructed only in terms of the rational. It still has shape, color, size, it is almost as though it is impossible to escape from the rational.

Likewise, in trying to construct the surreal, it can only be explained as perversions of the rational, explained through the rational. Otherwise there is just mental static, if one cannot explain things through the rational or irrational. This is what happens when one does not know how to explain anything, and simply tunes out their faculties to focus only on more immediate rationalities.

Of course, one could protest that what many people call rational is not really rational, and human beings are limited to a human skewed perspective of their perception, rendering all human perception absurd. However, this view I reject prima facie, because Hume tried to say that there is no uniformity to perception, and Kant proposed the a-priori. To reject uniformity in the universe would be to reject truth, and then you get Donald Trump. I say prima facie because it is an inductive statement, and induction can only be strong or weak. But it is the strongest inductive inference a person can make, to say that there is uniformity to the world outside their heads.

This bothers me because I wonder how there can ever be anything truly interesting which will not be simply assimilated into the litany of facts about the world. The universe is extraordinary to the inquisitive, and dull and boring to the uninquisitive. However, in this dichotomy of inquisitive and uniquisitive, the inquisitive needs to keep collecting facts about the world which become mundane upon their careful curation, and placement upon the mantle of consciousness. Like trophies, like a collection of interesting artifacts.

The collection is satisfying insomuch as it sustains moments of satisfaction and fulfillment, but one is left with only a sum of facts about the world.

I’ve found in my brief attempts at trying to write fiction, I found that there was nothing I’ve said that hasn’t been said elsewhere, or better. If I try to write something which twists the conscience like an MC Escher painting, then I might wind up simply confusing the reader and leaving them with nothing but their assortments of rational (or irrational, depending on the person), categorizations of my irrationality. But if I could construct a maddening enough aesthetic paradox off juxtaposed descriptions, perhaps only in my dreams, I could crack the dichotomy between rational and irrational, and simply eliminate their consequences; boredom and fascination.

[Anonymous No.13202407]

Plotinus, and/or Proclus.
They developed the idea of "beyond gnosis"; nous can only take you to The Nous—but not to that first transcendent One.

[Anonymous No.13202418]

>>13202381

>Polis points to Arkalais, the king of Macedonia, who has committed many grievous sins and yet is surely a happy man and at the very least surely not miserable. Socrates though does not think that he could tell if a man was happy or miserable without knowing about the mans education and his views on justice. Polis is amazed by this, but Socrates says that “the admirable and good person, man or woman, is happy. But the one who is unjust and wicked is miserable.”

>“Doing what is unjust is the worst thing that there is. It is even worse that suffering injustice.”

[Anonymous No.13202424]

>Polis points to Arkalais, the king of Macedonia, who has “committed many grievous sins and yet is surely a happy man and at the very least surely not miserable.” Socrates though does not think that he could tell if a man was happy or miserable without knowing about the mans education and his views on justice. Polis is amazed by this, but Socrates says that “the admirable and good person, man or woman, is happy. But the one who is unjust and wicked is miserable.”

>“Doing what is unjust is the worst thing that there is. It is even worse than suffering injustice.”

[Anonymous No.13202427]

>>13202424
No happy tyrant.

[Anonymous No.13202440]

>>13202424
Morality is a spook. Emotion and fact cannot conflate, categorically. That is the is/ought paradigm. One will feel dissatisfaction with themselves only if they feel they've crossed their own morals; whether their morals be self created or a meme they gathered from society.

[Anonymous No.13202448]

>>13202381
>pomo crap
im gonna take a wild guess and say you are young. the reduction you propose is but a clue about your grasp of the things you try to explore with your words. you think everything can be boiled down to rational/irrational terms? thats probably because those are the terms you and your mind can fathom atm.
go read some more and write some more about other stuff, your rabbit hole is both uninteresting and shallow.

[Anonymous No.13202459]

>>13202381
There is no rational or irrational, only differences between observations. We label things as such.

Question any rational observation enough and you will eventually find it to be irrational. This is the Munchausen Dilemma applied.

[Anonymous No.13202476]

>>13202440
And spooks are bad?

[Anonymous No.13202517]

>>13202440
>Morality is a spook.
Next

>Emotion and fact cannot conflate, categorically.

The existence of emotions are a fact, hence your ability to reference them. Therefore they participate in facts.

>That is the is/ought paradigm.
? Again, next

>One will feel dissatisfaction with themselves only if they feel they've crossed their own morals.
You seem to be able define morals as something that exist solely to an individual. If that is so, how can one feel dissatisfaction at crossing their own morals, when the morals are their own to do with as they please?

>whether their morals be self created or a meme they gathered from society
This is where your contradiction sticks out. You have to concede to society but call that morality a meme, but “self-created” morality is not. Yet you began by saying Morality, as such, is a spook.

YOUR FUCKING RETARDED AND BRAINDEAD PUT DOWN THE DRINK ALREADY

[Anonymous No.13202550]

>>13202381
"Rational" is a framework of the human memetic. It is a tool and nothing more. It is probably the most advanced tool we have, but it is still as limited as we are. It's impossible to think of what a higher thought process would look like because we would then be able to use it.
Every thought you have can be put through a rational process I.e. starting at A and ending at B. You can deconstruct or construct whatever you want. You can say things that aren't logical, or are, but ware confined to the limits of (human) rationality and (human) perception. The best you can hope to do, imo, is expand your metaphysical and logical understandings to include as many schools as possible and never exactly settle on one.

[Anonymous No.13202558]

>>13202381
You are trying to discuss the irrational as viewed by the rational, you do realize that?

Understand this: WORDS come from that part of you which is A WEAPON, namely the egotic/rational mind.

Trying to explain in words (or images or paintings) that which is beyond them is by definition a SYMBOL, not a SIGN

The difference between Symbol and Sign is that the second contains what is signified, while the first only references what it symbolizes

The Didache states clearly: in Life there are two paths: Life and Death. Read this passage again. Good luck

[Anonymous No.13202566]

>>13202550
>The best you can hope to do, imo, is expand your metaphysical and logical understandings to include as many schools as possible and never exactly settle on one.
This isn't a bad idea, I wish I was well read enough to do that.

[Anonymous No.13203401]

>>13202440
Define spooks and post 3 links to respected sources on moral psychology to support your argument.

[Anonymous No.13203548]

>>13202440
Morality is just acting in your best interests. Why wouldn’t you try to maximize your benefits? The problem is when you don’t have the understanding to act in your best interest. But Christianity gives us that understanding. Without the afterlife, people could harm others and still be performing a moral action.

[Anonymous No.13203915]

>>13202381

Once my doctor told me "rationality is an accident of evolution", told me to read "Bonobo" by Frans de Waal. This 20mn internet wisdom talk we had somehow topped 3 years of meme starbucks academia. Too brainlet/lazy to borrow the book though.

>inb4 muh apes

Also regarding your last paragraph, get into music history. You'll realize more clearly how we can only ride the pubes of giants.

[Anonymous No.13203960]

>>13202381
>human beings are limited to a human skewed perspective of their perception

Remove the word skewed. Now we can see that most of your post is just spinning its wheels.

> nothing I’ve said that hasn’t been said elsewhere, or better

Different problem, and you can't get out of it by not making sense. That's been done too.

> construct a maddening enough aesthetic paradox off juxtaposed descriptions

It will not be maddening. Sorry anon.

[Anonymous No.13204622]

>>13203915

Is it “Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape”?