|
Rational Paradigm = Worshipping god TRUE =
(Creationism behind the IDEA 'Mind')
'Mind' over Body = 'Ratio' over Sense = Conceptual Scheme over Paradigm = Grammar over Emotion = 'words' (metaphysics) over nature
In 'rationalism' as started in Enlightenment gradually crept the belief that reality outside human existence is built on 'human made' logic (metafysical laws). 'Rationalism' is the source of the Western Grammatical Tradition and juggles 'rational' 'words' in 'rational' logic ('ideas'), and values emotions as not 'rational'. Logicians can't handle the beauty of evolution, but they can handle 'word grammar' (logic like 'rationality). And so they find that experience must be presented in terms of their favorite grammar. This makes brilliant science fiction, only is terrifying if almost everyone takes the logician seriously. 
The arrogance of 'Rational' Logic:All persons are equal as 'rational beings' Logic defies Emotion Logic Takes Over When Emotion Fails It's always been logic over emotion 
Investing takes Logic-Over-EmotionExpressing emotions in the workplace is unprofessional 
NASA administrator Dan Goldin Chooses Logic Over EmotionRecession Marketing = Choosing Logic Over Emotion Logic Over Emotion, a Must in Real Estate Investment Oil Prices need logic to prevail over emotion When emotion wins over logic, we all lose Logic and reason win over emotion-based decisions 
Modelling Emotions with Multidimensional LogicTrust logic, not emotion A Troubled World needs Rational Thinking Learning to Win = Logic Over Emotion = Ice in the mind
 Growth of 'Rationality' in Western Society “But what if reason or rationality itself rests on belief? Then it would be the case that the opposition between reason and belief was a false one...[..]. ” (Stanley Fish, There Is No Such Thing AS Free Speech, Oxford, 1994)
Evil Error of Opinion 
Thinking difficult by describing social oceans as consisting of countless Descartian drops of water Intro 1 It is addictive like a religion to be payed for fantasizing. But monasteries proved: daydreaming (meditating) and working go very well together. Sure some Masters of Fantasy should become professional. In the past such persons were called 'jokers'. They often completely changed the game. A king had a couple of jokers and some nobles used 'a wizard'. Totally different from the smart talking multi shaped top layers of today bureaucracies. 
Nevertheless those ancient cultures of for instance King Richard worked fine.
Since Descartes invented rationalism, finished by Immanuel Kant introducing formal lying ('pure reason'),
it became popular to consider fantasizing as 'understanding' and as way to spend your day.
Immanuel Kant founded the sect 'Christian Science' (also known as 'Law and Order'), but luckily the most fanatic members were isolated
on the Island England or immigrated to the New World. Egoism was the driving force behind plundering the world and destroying evolution, while introducing 'Law and Order' on grand scale, calling it 'British Empire'.
Western Europe in lesser degree ALSO suffered under the agressive sect 'Law and Order'.English high army officers were better debaters than fighters. Much later that was reason to introduce institutes like 'fitness schools'. Fitness frenzy takes any shape, and in Japan a topsport became pulling trucks with your testicles. Knights who write long petitions about the need of fighting dragons (war against terrorism) are useless. Dragons are mainly fantasy of not very brave knights needing votes, denying their readers proper information and protection. In Western Europe especially people from the countries that were most influenced by industrialism got fed up. Common civilians in France, the Netherlands and England started protesting. Without other means they said NO to a United Europe. Because they don't want, like in industry, a Federal Europe with a fashionable 'apartheid'. A small top playing Sex and Stock Exchange games and a huge 'caste' of 'starving' tv junks (revived absolutism).
fantasizing during work
 Goto Intro 2Thinking difficult by describing social oceans as consisting of countless Descartian drops of water Intro 2 Wittgenstein: Logic takes care of itself.
That smothered the brilliant 'common sense' thoughts of the fighters for ethics:
Vico, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Kuhn. This has HUGE consequences, because you also need respect AND room for people using other logics. Because as in 2004 the Iraq conflict shows: It's nice to think rational, but more clear to say that you use Christian Mind Models Amongst others Muslim thinking is essentially different, and in many ways closer to 'common sense'. It's how thinking ADEPTS TO the thought-viruses caused by creativity that create a virtual reality.. The rigid Christian VIEW 'pain' shows perfectly the HUGE influence of absolute mind concepts. Crucifying was a primitive way of robbing humans of the freedom of motion. But not NECESSARILY 'painful'. Jesus already showed so. Ít nevertheless resulted in the everything smothering Christian view on death. Unconsciously women world wide SEEM to know that a mutulated body is not really different from a fashionable one. Wittgenstein already said: pain is in the mind. Goto Intro 3
The Enlightenment Ghost
expanded to a Mind-Murdering Phantom counting in Rational ValuesDescribing natural discrete phenomena in Descartian steps Intro 3 
Goto Intro 4The Enlightenment Ghost expanded to a Mind-Murdering Phantom counting in Rational ValuesRationalism in pure shape is Digital Computer thinking Intro 4 The very essence of 'rationalism' is that it is an engineering view. That means that it searches for differences. That results in DIVIDING reality in concepts like white and black, good and evil, christians and non christians, democracy and terrorism, individualism and collectivism... 'Correct' and 'incorrect' are cultural relative labels, aimed at creating cultural moods. In rationality often things are claimed like: 'murder is bad by definition'. Rationally 'bad'? So what is 'bad' in 'rationality' might be 'restoring balance' in say Buddhism. Being 'rational' is being member of 'rational religion'. That religion was build around'rational logic'. Rational logic was designed to be TRUE in Christian Science. Being 'rational' is PER DEFINITION not dogmatic WITHIN the religion 'rationality'. PER DEFINITION 'rationality' is 'fundamentalism' OUTSIDE the 'rational religion'. And asks for protests like Jihad. Using a 'rational view proved quite useful in engineering, though only one way of looking at things. Disastrous in social ethics, that needs accepting everything as part of a whole. Such an attitude leads to respect and love, and prevents useless fighting. Black and White thinking serves as excuse for fighting. In WWII it was used by Churchill to drop many thousands of kilotons of bombs on already defeated Germany. His Operations Research specialists advised it as 'efficient' Individualist thinking was already triggered by Martin Luther and Immanuel Kant. It stealthily evolved into tolerating murder 'Efficiency' as way of suppressing the poor was perfected in South Africa and the USA. And after WWII re-introduced in Europe. Once rational addiction has started, there is no end. In WWII most Germans were sucked by Hitler in his egocentric imagination of the world. ´Liberty´ and ´Justice´ are pilars of both UK and USA law. Individual Rights are seen as independent of Collective ethics (like Freedom of Speech). When compared to an Ant Colony, the Western World values individual ants more than the Colony. That might seem 'stupid', but see it as a generation gap between the leaving 'shark people' and the evolving 'love generation'. Freedom for all Individualist results in a few MULTI billionaires (GIGANTIC economical sharks) and billions of people serving as 'food' (tiny fishes) Freedom for all Cultures results in billions of happy people. Be wise and exchange Free Hunting for 'Sharks' (Individual Liberty or Egoism disguised) for Freedom for All 'Fishes'. Since WWII people in the Western World in politics and formal science born before say 1990 got brainwashed. Their shark-like behavior optimizes individual hunger. That way Freedom of Speech (only WE sharks make sense, and you're free to think otherwise) and Western Democracy (illusion of equality for the tiny fishes) are seen as ultimate shark rights (individual rights). Sharks and crocodiles fight until death. But, a lot of people outside 'politics' and 'science' already found a fine use for 'rational reasoning' WITHIN 'common sense'. Practically everybody who went with me to Gymnasium turned out to have a lot of sense. Logic is a fine TOOL to reduce vagueness in language. Such 'precision' is found on Technological Universities. But only 1 type of precision, resulting in 'rational consistency'. 'Rational Thinking' majorly seems to dominate 'politics' and 'science'. If people speak more than one language, then each language has own concepts (see Wittgenstein about language). The problem is that dictionaries suppress such cultural variation. 'Gods' in Western sense are absent in Africa and Asia. Muslim 'Allah' is translated in the Roman Christian fantasy 'God'. One example: 'Allah' is much closer to 'Buddha' than to 'God'. I.e. a human with 'supernatural powers'. But human. Comparing Mohammed to Jesus is like comparing a worshipped human warrior-trader in Islam in 500AC to a worshipped human prophet in earlier Hebrew Culture.
Each language provides a different framework for reality.
But in the 3 major earth cultures common sense is dominant and shared.
There are MUCH more simularities between humans than differences. And between most mammals.No mistake, individualism is fine as long as individual talents are used for progress of a substantial culture. What does it mean to split mind and body ? Roman Christianity is in 1 essential basic different from original (Zoroastrian) Christianity: spirit independent of body instead of unity of body and mind. This dividing of reality in 'un god-like' (body) and 'god-like' (mind) was designed by Aristotle, dividing reality in 'good' (eudaimonia) and inherently 'the rest' (the evil pagans). Before answering the what-question, the why-question: dividing people in 'good' spirits and 'evil spirits' allows SLAVERY And slavery was the prime pilar of the Roman Empire. As it still is of the United States Empire (though hidden in Industrialist 'fog'). Now the meaning of believing in Unidentified Flying Objects or 'spirits'. 'Spirit' is an 'a priori' (a corner stone of a system of thought). It is not allowed to be denied. That's why Immanuel Kant considered Roman Christian a priori as THE laws of nature. Implicitly as a Roman Christian you deny the views on life of Muslims and Buddhists. Explicitly that basic became hidden, but nevertheless good-evil thinking rules the Christian World. Because defense against an invisible basic (deeply hidden) is ALMOST impossible. So split between mind and body is a way to pretend: Roman Christian way of Life (dividing the unity 'reality' in heaven and hell) is THE law of Nature. The word 'God' in Christian Science was replaced by 'Understanding'. In practice it means killing thousands of Muslims without serious protests in the Western World. And calling the Muslim freedom fighter Osama bin Laden on 'Jihad' a terrorist, after killing a few hundred of Western people. In ONE 21st century Rambo or Terminator movie you see more brutal killings. But these heroes only kill 'evil' people. In Wars on Terrorism 'good' soldiers select 'evil' people to be killed.
Ivan V. Kireevsky (1806-1856) 
The Russian thinker Ivan Kireevsky admitted that Russian culture in 'rational view' was somewhat 'retarded'. The Roman Church in his view had seperated 'authority' and 'respect', by condemning natural beliefs. The Church had confused the less important (its own local views) with the more important (in Latin those outside the 'pagus', or in modern terms 'the pagans'). Kireevsky suggested that Russian intuition needs to rediscover its origins, without using western ideas. Kireevsky posed that the abstract 'rationalism' destroyed european civilization. For kireevsky, 'rationalism' is a logic for establishing relations between abstract concepts. A way of thinking that does not promote integrality, and causes a split with reality. Kireevsky promotes a philosophy of holism , of the whole man (Zarah2nd: unity of mind and body). That way of grasping reality also involves emotions triggered by other senses. In short, a collaboration of all human talents
The Thinking of Good and Evil 1. Reliance on man made 'a priori' about nature and reason rather than evolutionary intuition to justify one's beliefs or actions 2. Philosophy
3. The belief that truth is a human made 'rational' puzzle consisting of absolute finite puzzle pieces
My Comment What I learn is that rationalism favours rational thought. That's obvious, but such rational thought, (1) doesn't believe in experience, (2) is a closed knowledge system, (3) was initiated by Descartes, (4) is a doctrine and (5) is a human simulation (fantasy).
X-ray 1. Some defenders of 'rational thought' claim that rationality grounds views on facts instead of power. Mistakenly presuming that differences in talent always results in differences in 'respect'. Anyway 'rational' facts and 'rational' views. That's like looking daily to the news broadcast on tv in your own language, and thinking to know what happens in the world. In ancient time news was broadcasted by the wizard of the tribe. Common Sense was that he/she was well informed, but only about matters within the view of the own tribe. 2. Empiricism became the label for valueing sense observations using RATIONAL logic. 3. 'To deduce', 'to evaluate', 'to categorize', 'to compare' etcetera, are labels for RATIONAL procedures. RATIONAL ways to arrive at RATIONAL knowledge. Fine procedures in the subculture RATIONAL engineering, but awfully limited and even 'dangerous' when puzzling with CULTURE dependent social knowledge. Puzzling is trying to reduce the number of possible solutions. Try to 'evaluate' or 'categorize' unfamiliar and not recognized methods . 4. 'Well-justified knowledge' is a 'rational' label of the religion around the 'rational' view 'law is reason free from passion' (Aristotle). 5. ' Knowledge about knowledge' is a stealthy term for 'a priori' knowledge or 'metaphyical' knowledge (Metaphysics and Kant). 6. Philosophy of Science is a Religion. As such there's always food for word fights. 7. No doubt most people with 'rational' behavior use modest ways of 'emotion' and 'intuition'. But pointing at reasonable rational behavior is using the dubious 'rational' method 'falsification' for 'rational' proof that 'rationality' isn't that bad. The abstract model 'continuity' behind 'rationality' is PURE fantasy. In evolution EVERYTHING is discrete. As mind-model in technology this 'handicapped' view nevertheless works fine as approximation of RATIONAL values. In social ethics though where practically all values are not rational it is disastrous. The resulting 'compromising' (moving on a 'continuous' mind-scale) even in some cases in the end leads to tolerating brutal murder.
Word Fun You can't expect Romans to write a bible that attacks a basic condition of their life (slavery). That's why the Roman Catholic bible created the myth of the differnce between mental and bodily things. Neither can you expect to find a definition for rational thinking in a dictionary. But.... Imagine lions making a split between thinking and fighting. Then highly paid manager lions efficiently in a meeting of only ten minutes decide when respectfully waiting moderately paid worker lions can make the most efficient attack. Or think of Detectives making a such a split. Before every punch they phone their manager. Such a managers inputs all data about his clients position and that of the wanted fugitive in his laptop. After several minutes he/she phones back to give the resulting outcome. It is: try to give a knock-out. Or doctors dividing thinking and surgeon work. They only cut where their managers decide for them to do. If not their insurance makes problems. Going further in that way you end up putting your parents as disposal bodies in a nursery home. Quote by Robert Rosen: Ideas do not have to be correct in order to be good; its only necessary that, if they do fail, they do so in an interesting way. (Zarah2nd: the words 'correct' and 'good' used this way point at use of an absolute ethics) 
Giambattisto Vico Sure there have been adverseries of the rationalism of Descartes adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. About 1 age after Descartes the quite educated Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico died in isolation (being totally ignored because of having non Roman Christian ideas). Vico is at present described as: one of the first modern thinkers to formulate a philosophy of mythology and to base both philosophical and historical knowledge on a conception of narration. It was dangerous to oppose rationalism, or better to oppose a society that considers thinking as working AND as a way to reveal truth. The pope bases his power and being infallible on this idea. Even before the reformation (Luther) rationalism spread all over Catholic Europe. Peculiarly enough it got more grip on Protestants (for instance Calvinists) than on Catholics. Vico observed that the mind body split by Descartes led to a neglection of mind affairs. He was proven right, but had the bad luck that in the meantime the Roman Catholic church had adopted 'rationalism' as ideal 'house doctrine'. Now everyone who doubted rationalism was considered a sinner. Read some of his words: ...that the world of civil society has certainly been made by men, and that its principles are therefore to be found within the modifications of our own human mind. Whoever reflects on this cannot but marvel that the philosophers should have bent all their energies to the study of the world of nature, which, since God made it, He alone knows; and that they should have neglected the study of the world of nations, or civil world, which, since men had made it, men could come to know. ...This aberration was a consequence of that infirmity of the human mind by which, immersed and buried in the body, it naturally inclines to take notice of bodily things, and finds the effort to attend to itself too laborious; just as the bodily eye sees all objects outside itself but needs a mirror to see itself... These words of Vico amongst others explain the rational focus on the female body, and the rational neglect of female mind. Just two of quotes of Giambattista Vico: Common sense is judgment without reflection, shared by an entire class, an entire nation, or the entire human race. [...] languages: words are carried over from bodies and from the properties of bodies to express the things of the mind and spirit.
3B: Basics, Betraying and Balancing What are Basics of rationality?: In short mind-body problem, giving egoism. As showing in slavery, apartheid, world wars, management. How to Betray rationality?: Everywhere where egoism puts mind (spirit) 'above' bodily labor, as in for instance 'management'. Egoism is close, when you find the word 'efficiency'. This notion hides the belief that you have 2 kinds of work: bodily labor and mind-work (or thinking about bodily labor). And when you stumble on the artificial division sports versus politics, the rational thinking is near. How to Balance use of rationality?: In technology rationality proved to work fine, but in 'ethical affairs' horrible. Work is bodily toying, and nothing wrong with that. Thinking or having fantasies about the product of work is fine too, but does take very little energy. Respect is based on the energy someone spends for you. If he or she restricts that to thinking, than he/she deserves based on energy spent little respect.
'Rational Misconception: a self-correcting 'rational knowledge circus (science) is enough to explore reality. That's similar to saying: any logic is enough to explore reality, as long as it is 'self-correcting'. Or: researching reality from the standpoint of the inside of any 'aquarium' will do, as the exploring fishes once in a while enlarge and clean the aquarium.
Western World pretending that 'Rationalism' is not a Religion The body mind split smuggled by the Romans into Roman Catholic Christianity is also the cause of the split in the Western World between state and religion. Politics is the divinity class of the religion 'rationalism', and not really serves the interests of the people. 
The theological myth is that 'human reason' (using Catholic 'a priori') is the opposite of 'divine revelation'.
In fact Reasoning without using Experience (Pure Reason or fantasy) IS Divine Dreaming, or religious truth.There are only power reasons for dividing State and Church, i.e. to find a new church for reason. Because states are the present Churches of Science. Considering brute power as religious value it also was quite handy to prevent that stubborn Roman Catholic Popes became leaders of THE Church. I often don't agree with the Roman Catholic Pope, but religious leaders should represent the emotions living in society. He is not alone though. Osama Bin Laden is quoted about this matter: [...] for there to be any dialogue between Islam and the West we must understand that in the West religion and politics are placed in separate spheres, while normative Islam regards religion as properly integral to the political order. Whatever may be said about Bin Laden, he choses to defend Muslim basics. He might be traditional, but that's not the main issue. That is that Muslims aren't in rational view allowed to be angry about in Muslim view crimes committed by rational 'Christians'. And Osama Bin Laden translates Muslim religious anger into (political) deeds. The actual fight is a repeatal of the clash between Split of Mind and Body cultures (originally 'Catholic') and Unity of Mind and Body cultures (ALL cultures outside the 'Western World'). Australia, Canada and South America already 'half' left the Western World. So this time say half a billion powerthinking 'Catholics' versus at least 5 billion common sense people.
Basics of Rationalism Human knowledge, or human intelligence, is much more than only using rational logic. The quite circular enlightenment change paradigm, or 4 commandments of rationalism, end 17th century held: And going back to Descartes, he based his method of thinking on the following 5 assumptions: 
Truth was based on so called prescriptive 'innate' ideas, theories (immaterial). I.e. based on human-made concepts. Descartes doesn't seem arrogant to me, so this in essence arrogant assumption (humans deciding what is truth or not) must have been the 'spirit' of that time
Rational Gangs 
The question could be: is Western Society totally rationalized? Answer: probably far from that, a rough estimate is that in the 400 years since European Enlightenment 10% to 20% of the population of Western Societies became mainly rational in behavior. WHY is it then that this relatively small group has such tremendous influence? Answer: because this group behaves like a dominant hunting tribe.To become member of such a dominant tribe rational behavior or high IQ is an important selection criterion. The myth is that rational behavior equals common sense. In reality common sense' is far more sophisticated and complex than 'rationality'. In fact 'rationality' is a tiny subset of 'common sense'. This selection does not make this mistake on purpose, but in believing this myth. But the result is equally devastating, society becoming dominated by sub-gangs that THINK to be more clever, but in reality are handicapped in intelligence. USA is suffering most from spreading rationality. At reasonable distance followed by 'Great' Britain and the NATO-top. 'Rational' behavior is for instance seen in the US spending MANY billions in the Iraq war, while New Orleans in still a mess years after Hurricane Katrina. showing that 'rationally' it is worth a lot more to invest in oil, than in helping a bunch of Mardi Grass creoles in Louisiana. But it need not become a totally 'bloody' confrontation. That takes a lot of wisdom (common sense) in Western Society, and a solution as I describe in The Israel-Palestine Conflict. I.e. the media in the 3 major cultures should instead of fuelling the conflict, work together in creating a new paradigm. It's either without any doubt ending up in World War III OR showing wisdom
WHY only using the thought-concept 'rationality' in study? Now ask yourself the following questions: - WHY practing only concept within ONE type of logic - WHY only study a mathematics that is soaked with rational thought (math based on Cartesian analysis) - WHY study sociology that tries to express moods in rational numbers (rationalizing)? - WHY accept a Western Society dominated by rational thought?
Rationalism: Gray-thinking or Compromise 
Compromise is Theft  There are hundreds of rational arguments to defend compromising. RATIONALLY most of them are valid.
But looked at with 'common sense' other views come up.An example: On your property you find an oil well. Your powerful neighbour someway learns about it. He says: I'l destroy this well, unless you accept my compromise. Give me half of it, and I'll not bother you anymore. Such a blackmail is without doubt nothing but theft, based on power. Compromise can be sold as: I give half of my right, but as well as I take half of your right. It is based on the egoistic view: If I can't have all, then I try to get half (trade union behavior). There's nothing honorable in compromise, it is giving or taking and evading a fight of opinions. Compromise is reducing a problem to its rational part, and taking the average of the rational positions. Not only rational theft, but totally neglecting the by far biggest part of the problem (the not rational part). 
Rational Trip
Rational calculus proved to be an amazing tool in technology. Technicians learned how to divide the extremely limiting assumptions of 'rational' modelling in technology (virtual reality) and using common sense in reality. Not by inventing a dual reality, but by using virtual reality as a mental model. In Social Science the necessary property 'grasping math' was not sufficient available. When Social Science eager for result as in technology started using mathematical analysis, the dualism behind 'rationalism' triggered a very dangerous and devastating process. This is best seen in sociology, but resulted also in all kind of sciences using the word 'manager'. And in politics it was disastrous. It resulted in politics of egoism and compromise. And predators that kill all preys starve of hunger on long term. Now imagine a desolated rationally improved concrete beach painted in sandy color full of fully naked sunbathing 'rational' humans. Having rubber mats to lay down, and no-wear 'sand'-castles made of concrete The humans all are relaxed wearing headphones and very dark sunglasses, acting very self-assured. Listening respectfully to addictive 'rational' dreams broadcasted by their god called 'President'. This religious concentration prevents that they notice that concrete is uncomfortable and also prevents them hearing/smelling/feeling sea and wind. People could drown in the sea without being noticed. Such dreams must be marvelous, worth to die a lonely death. This is the thrilling broadcast of their obviously very specialized 'President':
The essence is recognizing the weirdness of 'rational' behavior, and still realizing that this behavior of FELLOW humans suffering a mental addiction. And it's common sense to see respect as main value, so stop discrimination based on posession of coins and rectangular paperlets ('money'). Only energy is what counts in evolution. So any effort that takes energy has a value related to that amount of energy. Universities based on only the talent in abstract thinking are as absurd as believing that a vacuum is very nutritious. Mozart was not very smart seen in IQ, but a genius in making music.
|
If the toplayer of a culture practices some belief (logic), then all other layers use
variants of that belief (copying the same logic = law and order). UNTIL the huge bottom layer.
Because using the same 'law`and order' (like 'rationality') is useless here they practice 'stay friendly while being slave' or 'being invisible'.
Finally this forced 'being nice' turns into desperate 
John Ziman must have referred to calculus (mathematical analysis) with his quote: A scientist is a person who knows more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing;
In Chinese 'rationality' is translated as