How do you explain post-rationality to someone who is stuck at rationality?

[Scholar]

The way I try to formulate it looks something like this: 

Vision logic or post-formal thought is the capacity to adopt multiple perspectives at once and recognize that truth is a relative phenomenon, that truth is actually an aspect of the mind and not an aspect of "objective reality". Due to that recognition one can hold multiple truths at once that are seemingly contradictory, because one recognizes that each of them contains a partial truth, partial validity. It is not merely the recognition that this is true, but a capacity of the mind. It is an ability that is easily recognizable to someone who has adopted it.

 

I get asked for research and proof that vision logic exists and I try to explain to them that I cannot as it is a very subtle phenomenon. I know from their perspective it is irrational to just believe me, or to go through the effort of trying to learn about this themselves because I am just a random person who is telling them that. So what is there to do? It seems like their formal operational cognition actually prohibits them to go beyond it.

It's like there a truths in reality that, due to the limited information we have about reality, are inaccessable to us if we follow strict rationality. It might actually be rational to dismiss me and not pursue what I am trying to communicate even though I am right. So how could one possibly nudge a stage orange person in the right direction? And how does it even occur that they themselves suddenly adopt early-vision logic? 

[Forestluv]

I've found trying to convert post-rational back into rational for a rationalist is ineffective. I've found it more effective to bring forth their own direct experience as much as possible. Trying to intellectualize post-intellectual just doesn't seem to work for me. It seems to trigger their intellectual mode of being. And as you said, they want rational proof for the post-rational. Generally, intellectuals have a very strong desire to define what qualifies as "proof". For example, they will say that they want scientific evidence or that we must have critical thinking here. I fell for this trap so many times - trying to supply them rational proof for the post-rational. It's like trying to show them that there is a unique foreign language, yet they insist that you only speak in their native English language. I'm like "how am I supposed to demonstrate this foreign language if we can only use English?"

I've been working on non-intellectual modes of being to transmit the post-rational. Empathic, intuitive, energetic modes etc. A vibe. Certain looks, eye contact facial expressions, at a certain time dropping an apple, clapping my hands, speaking in a way that throws their intellectual mode off balance. And using their own direct experience. It is very hard for people to rationalize away their own experience.

As well, as I developed more and more post-rational experience, a deeper "knowing" and grounding developed. Intellectuals love debate and intellectuals are used to bullying those at irrational levels and going into combat with other intellectuals. Yet once I had this "knowing" I was no longer thrown off by this. It is like being fluent in the post-intellectual and I think it takes years to develop. Now, when I'm with intellectuals they can sense there is a "something". That there is something different present. I can do all the intellectualizing, yet there is something extra above that. 

And it often boils down to whether they want to expand. An intellectual that wants to debate and defend their views is not open to receiving. It's generally a waste of time in that scenario. 

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I've found trying to convert post-rational back into rational for a rationalist is ineffective. I've found it more effective to bring forth their own direct experience as much as possible. Trying to intellectualize post-intellectual just doesn't seem to work for me. It seems to trigger their intellectual mode of being. And as you said, they want rational proof for the post-rational. Generally, intellectuals have a very strong desire to define what qualifies as "proof". For example, they will say that they want scientific evidence or that we must have critical thinking here. I fell for this trap so many times - trying to supply them rational proof for the post-rational. It's like trying to show them that there is a unique foreign language, yet they insist that you only speak in their native English language. I'm like "how am I supposed to demonstrate this foreign language if we can only use English?"

I've been working on non-intellectual modes of being to transmit the post-rational. Empathic, intuitive, energetic modes etc. A vibe. Certain looks, eye contact facial expressions, at a certain time dropping an apple, clapping my hands, speaking in a way that throws their intellectual mode off balance. And using their own direct experience. It is very hard for people to rationalize away their own experience.

As well, as I developed more and more post-rational experience, a deeper "knowing" and grounding developed. Intellectuals love debate and intellectuals are used to bullying those at irrational levels and going into combat with other intellectuals. Yet once I had this "knowing" I was no longer thrown off by this. It is like being fluent in the post-intellectual and I think it takes years to develop. Now, when I'm with intellectuals they can sense there is a "something". That there is something different present. I can do all the intellectualizing, yet there is something extra above that. 

And it often boils down to whether they want to expand. An intellectual that wants to debate and defend their views is not open to receiving. It's generally a waste of time in that scenario. 

Do you avoid telling people about spiral dynamics and integral psychology? Because I feel like any time I mention it people go crazy and want to know why I would ever believe in it, and it's not easy (and so far for me not possible) to make them understand.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Do you avoid telling people about spiral dynamics and integral psychology? Because I feel like any time I mention it people go crazy and want to know why I would ever believe in it, and it's not easy (and so far for me not possible) to make them understand.

I was just contemplating this last night. I was feeling really discouraged and was contemplating why it is so difficult to transmit. I've spent a lot of time trying to convey it and looking back, most of that time seemed of little value and was even counter-productive. I often try to communicate things impersonally, yet quite often people take it personally, often get offended and defensive. At times it seems to cause more harm than good. These days, I try to limit it to people that seem genuinely curious and open.

I tried teaching SD to freshman-level college students. Things went ok until we reached Yellow. Then it didn't go so well. I would say only three of 16 students were ready / open and started having real insights and mind expansion. The other students were either disinterested, resistant, frustrated, wanted to intellectually debate and fight, etc.

[Quicksilver]

What is post rationality? 

[Nahm]

@Scholar What’s being attempted is an entirely rational way. But it is all thinking. Meet them at the self imposed suffering with sincerity in love, and radical disregard for your every thought. As you’re discovering, thoughts are not so healing.  

[Joseph Maynor]

If you haven't yet transcended the Mind, you're still stuck in rationality period.  It doesn't matter what labels you use like "post-rational", or I've even seen "post-intellectual" on here.  

Edited April 5, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Quicksilver said:

What is post rationality? 

I consider rational thought to be within the intellect. It is one just one mode of being for me. To me, the term "post-rational" is not quite right because it suggests other modes of being (emotional, empathic, intuitive, creative etc) come after rational thinking or that other modes are "better" than rational thinking. I prefer to think of it as a jazz band - rational thinking is just one instrument in the band. All the instruments get integrated together to produce the beautiful music. Sometimes there is a trumpet solo, sometimes a drum solo, sometimes all the instruments are playing together at the same time.

For me, my sense of being feels healthiest when emotional, intellectual, empathic, intuitive and creative modes are all integrated and communicating with each other. What tends to happen in some people (myself included) is that the rational/intellectual mode dominates. At times, I realize I'm spending 90% of my life rationalizing/intellectualizing/analyzing. It's like 90% of the song is a drum solo. Then, I need to rebalance all the instruments.

 

[Truth Addict]

@Scholar

Belief is a very tricky thing, because it's protecting something considered the most important thing.

With enough luck you can help them out, or else, they're trapped for a while longer, or forever.

[TheAvatarState]

@Scholar Short answer, give them some psychedelics 

[tsuki]

@Scholar I would try to point towards the fact that the recognition of truth of a rational statement is not a rational statement.
When one hears a rational statement and evaluates it - its truthfulness is a feeling and it is non-discursive.

Post-rationality starts with integration of feeling with thinking and mapping their interrelationship.

[OrpheusNovum]

What I would say is that human beings thus far are the ONLY SPECIES capable of rational thought. If it was a necessity in complex biological systems, it would have been an evolutionary trait across the board. In that consideration, there are limits to rationality.