From: Unleesh-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:27:24 EST
Subject: Re: New Year, Same Old Crap


In a message dated 1/5/99 11:59:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pyrew-AT-csv.warwick.ac.uk writes:

<< However you cannot simply ditch it
 altogether and claim that anything said by anybody has equal weight simply
 because they empathize with each other. >>

This isn't the issue at all. The issue is the Voyage you might be able to take
by Entering Other Worlds ... and "reason" can place as many "DO NOT ENTER"
signs as it wants simply because the "claims" aren't proper

The reason that I would say Reason is reactive is because it just assumes the
status quo mindstate and works from there.

But other "arguments" -- which may not be arguments, but shared statements
based upon experience --- require the person to ALTER themselves first in
order to be able to enter into the discourse. It would be absurd for a
logician to observe two people tripping on LSD and talking to each other about
their experience to say "this doesn't mean anything" or "they're wrong".
Obviously what they're saying is meaningful to them based on their altered
experience!!

I'm not suggesting that we throw outuseful tools, but discard useless ones, or
at least throw them back in the toolbox. And maybe some would be better used
than as a weapon!! What has been called "reason" has been used this way all
too often. And in this case, it just may very well be that that "toolbox"
doesn't fit this "set of problems".

Maybe logic has a particular code it applies to statements being made
publicly. But I'm not making "statements" or "claims" ; I am Sharing and
Communicating based on Encounters, hoping to reach other voyants ... through
this voyant-experience, we can then alter reason itself, alter the way we
think ...

hey, those who don't want to join the party, who want to continue along the
old lines of reason, fine, so long as they don't interfere.

Reason HAS become a cop. It is still used to this day to incarcerate people
based on whether they are in touch with officially legislated "reality" or
whether they are experiencing "delusions". Reason is no longer just policing
"statements". It is attempting to police EXPERIENCE. And it does that as well
when people are communicating about experiences, and it attempts to play some
sort of logic game or play a CSISCOP debunker role in an attempt to invalidate
Either : those communications or those experiences.It's one thing for reason
to make us wary of following another's arguments. It's another thing when it
begins to invalidate experience.

"Anyway, if I am totally
irrational why would I bother empathizing when I could just as well ride 
rough-shod over the rest of the world?"

'Cause you'd miss out on a hell of alot that way, and besides, it's usually
those with overly rationalized goals who ride rough-shod ... thusly Adorno's
need to deconstruct "reason" after Nazi Germany ...