"embodied knowledge" (Rational vs Emotional)

[AerisVahnEphelia]

I find it exhausting to engage with people who aren't willing to examine themselves deeply. The more I try connecting with what society calls "normal," the more I see they reconstruct reality through emotion rather than logic. When you operate from genuine logic and rationality; where embodied knowledge and abstract thought collapse into one integrated system; you realize there's no meaningful distinction between thinking something and practicing it.

 

The difficulty lies in speaking with people locked in their own paradigm. They bring so many unstated assumptions to conversation that mutual understanding becomes nearly impossible.

 

Contrary to what Leo's recent video suggested about hyper-rationalism being the only issue, I've identified an equally problematic inverse: hyper anti-rationalism ( he also spoke of it a bit ). What's insidious is that both camps use the language of rationalism to justify themselves.

I've encountered this in:

Religious fundamentalism (traditional)

Indigenous spiritual fundamentalism (claiming indigenous guides and spiritual practices are inherently superior to European/capitalist mindsets)

 

The problem isn't the positions themselves; it's that people are using "rational" language to advance inherently non-rational claims. They've weaponized the vocabulary of logic to sidestep actual logical scrutiny.

 

[Rafael Thundercat]

Same with NewAge people.  One girl in my job always with an axiety vibe wherever she goes and than talking no stop that is all energy and ligth language and people from Lemuria shit and people from Sirius shit. And in the end she can barely be present in daily life. Is hard to see people hurting themselfs, I mean not hurting themselfs physicality, hurting themselfs with their own mind contents that goes to far from the actual reality rigth in front of their noses. 

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Same with NewAge people.  One girl in my job always with an axiety vibe wherever she goes and than talking no stop that is all energy and ligth language and people from Lemuria shit and people from Sirius shit. And in the end she can barely be present in daily life. Is hard to see people hurting themselfs, I mean not hurting themselfs physicality, hurting themselfs with their own mind contents that goes to far from the actual reality rigth in front of their noses. 

 It comes in all shapes and forms, but I've been tricked sometimes by people who champion "I'm not dogmatic" while being the epitome of dogmatism. They can't stop for a second to consider that their entire reality and framing might be assumptions. Identity gets too caught up in manufacturing an illusion of self and history.

But I think this happens way more in Americans than in French people. The religion here is hard rationalism, but when I put a French person in front of scientific hypocrisy, they usually understand there are assumptions, and I can defeat them with more rationalism. But they don't see how to do otherwise, so even if they see the problem, it doesn't get "solved." They don't dig deeper, but they grasp the surface level: that we assume reality in some way, which is already better than any kind of dogmaticism.

It's still crazy to deny that rationalism and logic are useful tools. My thinking has been called recently "white European Hegelianism," which is itself so crazy to hear, because this critique uses the very tool of the so-called "white European" to defeat them. (("Spiral Dynamics" is a tool of oppression, positioning the white man as superior; yikes, it could be indeed, but that's not what spiral dynamic is trying to achieve)).

I didn't deny it outright; I listened, but even if there were a hint of truth there, dismissing an entire framework based on its origin instead of its usefulness looks like total madness to me and I barely see how it could be solved. ( how to solve  those people ? )

When I point this out, the response is to deny the point by retreating to identity and source, questioning the authority of who made the claim.

It's as if assuming rationalism is all "total and absolute fluff" is better than examining its actual merit.
Science certainly has flaws and biases, but almost everything that exists outside of science is 99% of the time even more full of shit.

Edited 12 hours ago by AerisVahnEphelia