The Irrational Side?

[Sunstone]

Robert Bly has a poem:

"One Source Of Bad Information"

There's a boy in you about three
Years old who hasn't learned a thing for thirty
Thousand years. Sometimes it's a girl.

This child had to make up its mind
How to save you from death. He said things like:
"Stay home. Avoid elevators. Eat only elk."

You live with this child, but you don't know it.
You're in the office, yes, but live with this boy
At night. He's uniformed, but he does want

To save your life. And he has. Because of this boy
You've survived a lot. He's got six big ideas.
Five don't work. Right now he's repeating them to you.


What do you think of Bly's claim that there is an innate irrational side to human nature? Do you think, like Bly, that side is ancient, primeval? Assuming Bly is substantially correct, what is the prospect for humans to ever be completely rational? Lastly, are we so irrational that we will destroy ourselves? What do you think?

 

[jeffrey]

We do have an innate irrational side, but that keeps us from all being the same. Heaven forbid living in a world with all Spocks. Gambling. Your going to lose most of the time, but some of us still do it. It's the fun side. And I'm sure many invention has come from being irrational. Destroy us? Maybe one day. But not today.

 

[evearael]

I believe the capacity for irrational thought to be a survival mechanism. Like we a flock of geese disperse momentarily when targeted by a fox, irrationality randomizes behavior to an extent when faced with a choice under stress. It's not always useful for the individual, but healthy in its own special way for the continuing of the species.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe the capacity for irrational thought to be a survival mechanism. Like we a flock of geese disperse momentarily when targeted by a fox, irrationality randomizes behavior to an extent when faced with a choice under stress. It's not always useful for the individual, but healthy in its own special way for the continuing of the species.

I'm a bit confused. Do you mean you believe in group selection?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm not sure if, wired the way we are currently, complete rationality is an option. Jeffrey made an interesting point, though I wonder something- are emotion and rationality completely incompatable?

(Thanks for posting the poem, Phil! I've got to read more Bly!)

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure if, wired the way we are currently, complete rationality is an option. Jeffrey made an interesting point, though I wonder something- are emotion and rationality completely incompatable?

I think they are. It's my belief that the notion emotion and rationality are incompatible is a myth. I know a few people who are as much both emotional and rational as anyone is either. But maybe not everyone has the sort of basic personality for that.

(Thanks for posting the poem, Phil! I've got to read more Bly!)

You might want to read his study of poetry, American Poetry: Wildness and Domesticity. It's quite good. Also, the poem in the OP comes from his book of poetry, Morning Poems. Bly was experiencing a hiatus in his writing, so he finally decided to solve it by refusing to get out of bed each morning until he had written a poem. Clever, huh?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

The irrational is far more powerful and innate than most realise, and it doesn't have to be the demon Bly makes it out to be if it can be rooted out, understood and carefully dealt with.

I'm a religious person right? Does that mean that I find my religious inclinations rational? Not at all! I know they are irrational, I know full well they are 'myths'. I deliberately choose to nudge and channel the irrational in particular ways for my own sake, yet in order to do that without being completely at the mercy of otherwise blind irrational impulses I have to use and further develop my rational judgement to give me a rudder to choose what stays and what goes, what is encouraged and what is inhibited. They can work together.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

And yes the irrational is primitive and archaic. That's why its so powerful. If you can cautiously tap into that then you can animate the mind in creative and potentially wonderful ways.

 

[Runt]

Irrationality is the result of inadequate education and intelligence. To suggest that it is an innate human characteristic is akin to suggesting that cancer or insanity are part of what makes us human. Like cancer and insanity, irrationality is not an inherent aspect of our being, but a flaw.

 

[Revasser]

I'm not sure if, wired the way we are currently, complete rationality is an option. Jeffrey made an interesting point, though I wonder something- are emotion and rationality completely incompatable?

(Thanks for posting the poem, Phil! I've got to read more Bly!)

I agree that complete rationality is simply not an option, depending, I suppose, on how you define "rational." I would also say that while it's not an option, it would not be desirable even if it were. Complete irrationality is certainly not desirable either, of course. You need a good balance of the two and to know when and where to employ them.

A completely rational being would be a completely lustreless, predictable and downright boring being, incapable of impractical creativity and intuitive thought. No interesting eccentricities, no purely creative art, no soul-stirring music, no heart-renching fictional stories, no acts of unrestrained, irrational heroism.

I wouldn't want to live in a world full of such beings.

 

[evearael]

I'm a bit confused. Do you mean you believe in group selection?

We are a social species... we cannot survive as a species, as loners. We rise and fall based on both our own actions and that of the group.

 

[Yerda]

We are a social species... we cannot survive as a species, as loners.

Yes, I think you're right, but we don't carry traits for 'the good of the species' as you suggested earlier.

 

[Booko]

I think they are. It's my belief that the notion emotion and rationality are incompatible is a myth. I know a few people who are as much both emotional and rational as anyone is either. But maybe not everyone has the sort of basic personality for that.

I think emotion and rationality are both essential and need to work together in balance. The balance will be different for each person, for we all have different roles to play in life, but not minding the balance can be disastrous not just for the individual, but for others areound them.

Ever meet someone who's so emotional that they become flighty and are incapable of making good decisions?

Ever meet someone who lives in their head so much that they are cold and ruthless?

These are just a couple examples of the extremes of emotion and rationality. It's not usually a pretty picture.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Irrationality is the result of inadequate education and intelligence. To suggest that it is an innate human characteristic is akin to suggesting that cancer or insanity are part of what makes us human. Like cancer and insanity, irrationality is not an inherent aspect of our being, but a flaw.

Runt yeah poor education and intelligence will generally make people less likely to recognise irrational impulses for what they are, but we all do that to some degree. Just think how people are so duped by advertising. Even if they rationally know that the claims made about some product are pretentious if not downright lies they can still be influenced by their own wishful thinking and the general 'aura' created by advertising hype. Marketing people, gurus, politicians, romantic players, all sorts of people understand how to tap into people's irrational mind and use it to their advantage. Even our own minds betray us. For instance, when people fall in love much of their ability to make rational social judgments is quite literally switched off. The object of their affections glows with an otherworldly fascination and the subject becomes elated as if in some kind of dream or trance.

I maintain: the irrational is innate to human nature. Knowing it for what it is its possible to short circuit its siren call, and even bend it to your own purposes. One of the simplest ways I do this myself is believing that there is 'a better way', that despite everything we will find 'a better way'. I'm not invoking the rational mind there! I'm deliberately utilising what Jung called the Transcendent Function. So, while familiar with the emptiness & meaningless of the void I choose to believe nonetheless. I know my faith is not based upon anything real, far from it, yet that does not detract from its tenacity.

That 'flaw' of our nature is potentially a source of great strength if it can be mastered.

 

[evearael]

Yes, I think you're right, but we don't carry traits for 'the good of the species' as you suggested earlier.

Any trait that helps humans survive could be considered good for the species. Consider a mother rushing to push her child out of the way of a speeding car. She gets killed but her child lives on. Bad for the individual, good for the perpetuation of her genetic code. There are several species of bird that will feign injury to lure predators away from their young, perhaps fatal for the parent, but their child lives on. Ants sacrifice themselves for the good of their species and perpetuate their kind even those most are incapable of mating. Both genes and learned behavior influence our social behavior, and our social behavior is a key aspect of our survival both individually and as a species.

 

[Yerda]

Any trait that helps humans survive could be considered good for the species.

Circular.

Consider a mother rushing to push her child out of the way of a speeding car. She gets killed but her child lives on. Bad for the individual, good for the perpetuation of her genetic code. There are several species of bird that will feign injury to lure predators away from their young, perhaps fatal for the parent, but their child lives on.

Yeah.

Ants sacrifice themselves for the good of their species and perpetuate their kind...

Good of their colony and perpetuate their genes.

Apparent altruism doesn't equate to selection at the level of groups or species.

 

[evearael]

Allow me to clarify...

Here is what you wrote:

we don't carry traits for 'the good of the species'

This is what I believe:

Any trait that helps humans survive could be considered good for the species.

Note the placement of 'for' and 'good'. I do not see the fact the the trait is beneficial as the cause.

Apparent altruism doesn't equate to selection at the level of groups or species.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[Yerda]

I certainly agree with that.

Ah. I'm easily muddled.

 

[evearael]

You're fine! I should have been more clear to begin with...

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The thing I like about my "irrational side" is some of the thoughts that come to mind right before I go into a deep sleep. Sometimes I have caught them and asked myself "where in the heck did that come from?!". Am I crazy or do other people experience this?

In conclusion, sure I believe that we have an "irrational side", but I don't think it hurts us at all. Looking into the history of what has been considered "rational" and "irrational", I personally think it has helped humanity a great deal. I think when we are so pompous as to think that we are "purely rational", we have become as irrational as it gets and will suffer greatly for it.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria