Why is reality arational and not rational?

[Manjushri]

Rationality is the property of human beings. But, you can argue that there is no reality without perception, which means that it goes through the rational filter. Of course it's not an inherent quality to the object in it, but we can argue that nothing is inherent to an object. 

[SoonHei]

Reality is infinite and must include that possibility too, otherwise it would be limited and not Infinite

 

Most "why"s fall away with this

[FoxFoxFox]

First of all the assumption that human beings are rational actors is a matter of great debate even among philosophers.

But nevertheless,

It is not correct to say that there is no reality without perception. Enlightenment is all about realizing that reality exists independent of anything else. The image of the Sun that gives light to illuminate itself is appropriate here.

To see the point for yourself, try to understand that whatever concept you may hold cannot bind reality down. 

Rationality, property, perception. These are all concepts. These are thoughts that one can try and impose on reality. But just as the your image in the mirror is not the real thing, these too are illusion.  

[FoxFoxFox]

@SoonHei But you see, all of that is also assumptions and concepts. Reality is a concept. Infinite is a concept. Your conclusion is a concept. How can i say this? When I am silent, they all disappear!

[SoonHei]

@FoxFoxFox oh I understand fully what you're pointing to here

 

Just giving response to the OP with his own wording/concept

 

Indeed, truth is in the silence

[Joseph Maynor]

This is another area where certain Enlightenment teachings can throw people off course.  It’s a paradox — reality is both rational and arational.  From the perspective of Ego, reality is rational.  From the perspective of God Awareness, reality is fluxing Experience that has no real force and effect.  God Awareness is not bought into Experience like Ego is.  Because Ego is bought into Experience and wants to advance an agenda, rationality is a position that Ego takes on reality.  But because you’ve got an Ego that stays with you like the Body, rationality is always gonna be a part of Ego just like health is always gonna be a part of Body.  So, you’re gonna have to accept both rationality and arationality.  Just like you accept both health and  ahealth.  Just because the Body isn’t mine or me doesn’t mean that I wanna be dragging around a sickly Body as part of my Maya or my illusion.  Ditto for Ego.  Just because the Ego isn’t mine or me doesn’t mean I wanna be dragging around a foolish and unevolved Ego as part of my Maya or my illusion.  The mistake a lot of Enlightenment teachers make is this idea that you can or should kill Ego and Body.  But see that’s just Ego trying to kill Ego and Body.  God Awareness is not affected by Ego or Body — but both Ego and Body are part of Experience.  It’s like a movie.  All movies are movies but some movies are more tragic than others are.  So you do wanna make room to feed Ego and Body as an Enlightened being.  But you just don’t wanna attach to Ego or Body as me.  God Awareness doesn’t have or need a Body and doesn’t have or need an Ego.  But like I said, the illusion of Ego and Body are part of Experience and follow you around.  So you do want Ego and Body to be healthy, you don’t want those to be f*cked up.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Manjushri]

Leo said in one of his vids 'reality is arational' but hasn't supported the claim. I'm trying to understand on a relative level, not the absolute. @FoxFoxFox

[FoxFoxFox]

@SoonHei

[Forestluv]

37 minutes ago, Gligorije said:

Rationality is the property of human beings. But, you can argue that there is no reality without perception, which means that it goes through the rational filter. Of course it's not an inherent quality to the object in it, but we can argue that nothing is inherent to an object. 

 I'd say rationality is within a larger sphere. There is also irrational and post-rational. One can enter states of perception with no rational filter.

You may have gotten a glimpse of this during a micro flow state. For example, physical activities with moderate risk like rock climbing, mountain biking, downhill skiing can stimulate a micro flow state - where the personality dissolves and they are "in the zone". There is perception without rationality. There are many other post-rational mind states and they are amazing.

[Manjushri]

@Serotoninluv. @FoxFoxFox

Within the materialist paradigm - do objects submit to arational or rational physical laws? I can't seem to understand why it would be arational, except for the case when the person believes that the physical world exists independently. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Gligorije said:

 

Within the materialist paradigm - do objects submit to arational or rational physical laws? I can't seem to understand why it would be arational, except for the case when the person believes that the physical world exists independently. 

I would imagine a materialist physicist would likely think that particles "obey" physical laws.

Yet, I don't have much experience in this area. Perhaps our physicists @graded24 @Elisabeth can help answer this.

 

[Manjushri]

@Serotoninluv Yeah they do. But one guy who is a materialist told me that they are actually rational laws because materialism is essentially a monism so you don't have mind/body dualistic thinking. Or something like that,can't remember. But it was a solid argument. 

 

[Manjushri]

Now I thought of an argument :

objects blindly obey physical laws, not rationally, so we say that they are arational? 

[InfinitePotential]

For me, all bets are off the table as to what Reality is capable of. Who/what is to say it can’t do this or that? Plus we have such incredibly limited perspectives, even if we include what we think we know about the 14 billion year history of this universe. For all we know, anything is possible.   

 

Plus, we can’t use rationality to prove rationality so that immediately makes it suspect.

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by InfinitePotential

[Adam M]

1 hour ago, Gligorije said:

Now I thought of an argument :

objects blindly obey physical laws, not rationally, so we say that they are arational? 

What is an object?

What is a physical law?

What is rationality?

 

Hint:they are ideas that you have projected onto your direct experince.

What is left when you cease to make these false assumptions/projections?

See for yourself.

 

Stop arguing stupid shit now...its wasting your time and that of others. Your inquiry has already been answered. There's nothing left to argue or debate about.

[Leo Gura]

Firstly, no human being is rational. There is nothing rational about survival.

Secondly, the concept of rationality depends on a duality created by the rationalist which carves up the world into rational vs its opposite. So by the very logic of the rationalist, to say something is rational is to say something else is not, which be definition means the world contains both rational and not rational things. Which means the world is not rational. If everything in the universe was rational the label "rational" would cease to have any meaning. The only value this label has is precisely because there are irrational things afoot which you wish to distinguish from the rational things.

Rationality is a self-defeating category. As all categories are. Because they are projections of the human mind.

Calling reality rational is as silly as calling reality "sexual" just because you like sex. Some stuff is sexual, but most stuff is not. Likewise with the rationality label. Reality contains sex but it is not limited to sex. Sex does not even account for 1% of reality, neither does rationality.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, InfinitePotential said:

For me, all bets are off the table as to what Reality is capable of. Who/what is to say it can’t do this or that? Plus we have such incredibly limited perspectives, even if we include what we think we know about the 14 billion year history of this universe. For all we know, anything is possible

For sure, I recently saw a Tedtalk in which a neuro physicist said it is impossible to create Artificial Intelligence that can be creative. . . . Huh, reality can do whatever the heck it wants. And how did creative humans arise?

[InfinitePotential]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For sure, I recently saw a Tedtalk in which a neuro physicist said it is impossible to create Artificial Intelligence with creativity. . . . Huh, reality can do whatever the heck it wants. And how did creative humans arise?

Hm and I’d bet that same neuro physicist believes that the brain machine in his head is capable of creativity. 

I wouldn’t be very quick to call something impossible to achieve. It used to seem perfectly reasonable to believe that heavier than air flying machines were impossible (lol at Lord Kelvin) but now we’ve flown to the moon and back no prob and are just getting started. 

[Forestluv]

52 minutes ago, InfinitePotential said:

Hm and I’d bet that same neuro physicist believes that the brain machine in his head is capable of creativity. 

I wish I was in the audience so I could have asked him that! ? 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Firstly, no human being is rational. There is nothing rational about survival.

Secondly, the concept of rationality depends on a duality created by the rationalist which carves up the world into rational vs its opposite. So by the very logic of the rationalist, to say something is rational is to say something else is not, which be definition means the world contains both rational and not rational things. Which means the world is not rational. If everything in the universe was rational the label "rational" would cease to have any meaning. The only value this label has is precisely because there are irrational things afoot which you wish to distinguish from the rational things.

Rationality is a self-defeating category. As all categories are. Because they are projections of the human mind.

Calling reality rational is as silly as calling reality "sexual" just because you like sex. Some stuff is sexual, but most stuff is not. Likewise with the rationality label. Reality contains sex but it is not limited to sex. Sex does not even account for 1% of reality, neither does rationality.

Why assume the words we're using are even tracking the same meanings?  You are assuming that other people are and/or that they should be tracking the same concepts/ideas you do when you use certain words.  The way I'm using the word "rational" is very different from the way you are.  I don't accept the idea that there's one right meaning or one proper meaning for words.  Words have whatever shade of meaning that is given to them by the writer.  That's the power of being a writer, to insist on your own meanings for your own words in a world where everybody else wants to tell you what you think and wants to interpret your words for you.  That's the arena of ideas, the marketplace of ideas, the ego of ideas.  Ideas jockeying for correctness and incorrectness, value or shame.  And this is ultimately why ideology is dangerous, because it puts us in the position where we wanna have the right ideas and correct everybody else's ideas.  But that is ultimately unsustainable -- because at the end of the day all that really matters is the extent or degree to which your ideas are benefiting your own life.  Seeking consistency of opinion is unsustainable and irrelevant, it's a distraction actually.  Ditto for wanting to have the one right answer to Enlightenment.  It's that seeking or wanting everything to fit into my point of view that you gotta watch out for.  That's the Ego of the Conceptual Understanding, which I wrote a lot about in my Journal Vol. 7 I believe.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Joseph Maynor