BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Reason, confusion, discussion.

  
 
el d.
05:05 / 16.05.07
Trying to understand the fact that reason is only one of our many motivations is, in fact, reasoning again. Trying to look at things which are de-facto outside of reason from within that little box seems inadequate, at best. A certain headshop-set of things does actually seem to innately get this, which can actually not be "got" in a reasonable kind of way.

I hope the issue which is confusing me is getting through to the esteemed reader. What are philosophies answers to the question which actually questions the possibility of achieving answers?
Or is that the central question of any philosophy?

The theories that first come to mind are media-related theories, expansions of platos cave parable, which at times also lead to constructivist positions. These ideas seem, however, to be focused on perception of the reality around us, when the subject should rather be our perception of ourselves.
One thing leads to another, doesn´t Nietzsche start to figure about now? The ultimate superhuman, hirs complete and utter selfness? But what is it that drives such a being? Again, logical thinking? Instinctive whim? Destiny? Chance?

Perhaps I should mention at this point of my text that the wild, seemingly random mashup of references without citations is my attempt at reasoning about the absence of reason by partly abandoning the field of it, as the perception of a closed system from within seems to be a severely limited tool.
 
 
SMS
00:01 / 18.05.07
Let me try to clarify this question. Here is what I hear you asking:

How could we possibly justify the appeal to reason with reason (since this would be circular) or with anything else (since the "anything else" could not be reasonable)?

I want to suggest a few preliminary questions: what is the motivation for conducting this interrogation into reason itself?

Is it, for instance, political? Is it the concern that the constant appeal to Reason is a death-dealing blow to certain portions of the population? There is some evidence for this. When Europeans set foot on foreign soil to establish colonies in the Americas and in Africa, they very often regarded the natives as being either without reason or being underdeveloped in their ability to reason. But every one of these claims either had a very specific understanding of the shape that reason takes or a very vague notion. In both cases, the question may not be "should we appeal to reason," but "should we appeal to the conception of reason that we now have or do we need to conceive of it differently?"
 
 
el d.
18:14 / 09.09.07
Well... yes, indeed.

The cause might indeed be political. The fact you just posted clearly illustrates the old (and new, according to Negri) imperial ideal of superiority of the western culture and thus also of our idea of "reason". To question this idea of "reason" is, per definitionem, "unreasonable", with all it´s connotations of stupidity. I do fear that even in our days, lots of people still seem to believe the African population to be "unable to reason" and thus destined for war, famine and slave-like wage labour. This assertion is, without question, absurd, but yet often accompanied with intricate reasoning about the climate, the society, the culture or whatever fact they deem worthy to strengthen their theories. But it is also clearly beatable by our idea of reason, namely the materialist brand: 500 years of colonial rule and slavery will destroy any culture, whatever their climate and whatnot.

So, again, it seems to be the very idea of "unreasonability" that is excluded by the concept of reason, applied to its fullest.

The circle keeps on spinning...
 
 
minus9
03:25 / 10.09.07
What are philosophy's answers to the question which actually questions the possibility of achieving answers?

Two areas spring to mind most readily:

i. Ken Wilber and the AQAL framework in his Integral approach.
ii. Taoism, Buddhism, etc and the concept of being present.

Re i., Wilber reasons that there are four core perspectives, namely
Upper Left: individual subjective
Upper Right: individual objective
Lower Left: group subjective
Lower Right: group objective
So there is a distinction between things we can infer accurately through repeatable and external tests (objective knowledge) and things we believe but can't prove, such as the quality of our experiences. Qualitative vs Quantitative is a similar split in the research world (I'm a scientist by trade.) There is also a distinction between our experiences from individual interaction with the world, and shared interactions with others. This often doesn't seem clear when alone, but is obvious when with others. If you are actually present when with others! :-) Different philosophers, scientists, etc usually come from one or two of those perspectives, and have difficulties reconciling their work with that from other perspectives. For more information, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQAL
http://formlessmountain.com/integral_vision.htm

Re ii., the basic premise as I understand it and experience it is that we all form mental models of the world, including the models we reason with, and ones we react to such as in our biases. To experience the world most truely as it is, with as little interference from interpretation and the mental lenses, I can use meditation and other practices to bring myself as fully as possible into the present moment. There is a very noticable shift in how rich my experiences of the world are when I hit that state. Broadband vs dial-up in terms of what's coming in :-) For more information, don't read anything but rather spend some time regularly being fully present and experience how you engage with the world, other people, information, music, etc differently. A method I use (I've been running a meditation group for many years now.) is to let your awareness focus on all of yourself, head to toe. Then, and while keeping all of you in mind, focus on where you are, the here of you. Name it maybe. Then, while keeping all of you right here in mind, expand your focus to encompass when you are, that you are in the now moment. State the year, date, time. All of you, here, now. Then let yourself stay in that flow of time.
 
 
el d.
11:10 / 12.09.07
so, to get this straight, in order to examine reason itself, we have to use something absolute, like our state here-and-now. This is getting a bit religious for the head shop, methinks.

From qhich perspective does the AQAL - Scheme come from then, according to it´s own categorisation? Lower right, innit?

Still, the problem remains: Reason tells us that nothing can be absolute, as everything we perceive is in it´s nature limited, and thus the "objective" reality could only be considered the sum of all perceptions measurable, which must be incomplete when considering Heisenberg and Schrödinger. For me, the explanation lies in the chaotic spark that emanates from these unmeasurable dephts, enabling unpredictability in even the most stable of systems and free will in a material world.
 
  
Add Your Reply