For several months now I have slowly been contemplating reason vs. other motivations, and how perhaps it may be best for reason to take a secondary role in comparison (and in combination) to other methods of evaluation, namely, love, joy, and intuition. It may be reasonable to reason that there are better things to strive for than just reason in life, and thus, in our evaluation of life, and living of life.
This line of questioning began when I came to see that reason is the relationship, the in-between, the non-material; to put it another way, reason is the objective tool we use to connect events, it needs objects, and thus our reason always relies on its context, which are the objects it is reasoning about (the relationship between objects): it doesn’t tell us anything teleological, subjective, or meaningful about the world, it simply connects events and explains them objectively, reasonably; this is the nature of reason! Anything else deeper than the explanatory value of reason is a different category altogether; it is not reason, though reason is within it, perhaps even integral to it.
And what is our context, I ask? Reason is always under influence of our emotions, and even if you take apart and stratify each emotion logically, naming all of its components; of say, fear, desire, love, joy; we can still recognize there is something missing in our reasonable explanation, that is, the actual feeling of fear, desire, love, or joy; psychologically, these emotions exist autonomous of reason, and we can organize these autonomous emotions into different thought-categories, or different types; thus we see different emotions, but truthfully, each emotion is the relationship that feeling and thought-category has to us. If reason leads us to see itself as an enabler to see things or as a tool of reflection, then what is it reflecting and enabling for? Reason to get more reason? Reason as guided by… what? I’m saying reason is always guided our emotions and desires, and thus we must train our emotions and desires to apply to the appropriate objects; objects that have worth we can reasonably see, which may be more than just reason; that which I was saying from the beginning, perhaps using reason in this secondary way to promote love, or joy, or even other emotions that can be useful, though negative, such as our fear, pride, grief, etc, in certain situations.* Reason can be the moderator, in this sense too, to keep each emotion or ideal virtuous, in moderation, which really just describes the most efficient usage of a thing, be it emotions, reason, or otherwise; not to excess, not in shortage.
*(Perhaps reason only takes a secondary role when vs. higher emotions, but a primary role to emotions below… just a little speculation.)
My point is sometimes our immediate reason cannot see while our emotional guidance, our intuition, which takes reason as its secondary motivation, and say, love as its primary, can see what actions are best to take for myself; in terms of what? In terms of my own emotional state of well-being. In fact, we hardly ever consciously reason and evaluate in everyday life. Most of our decisions are made by our intuition. One could say it seems like reason is running in the background, just at a parallel pace, where all different types of thoughts and emotions conjoin at once (our brain actually works like that) and enters into consciousness as if it were willed. But do emotions enter consciousness in the form of certain thoughts and sensations we call emotions? Stripping emotions of their physical sensations, we can truly see what they are; fear, without the sensation, is the immediate aversion to, and rejection of something on the grounds that we are weaker than it, or that we can be harmed by it in some way: we could go further to explain the entire boundary of fear, but you get my point. This can be done with every emotion. Thus, emotions are thoughts, and do enter consciousness in this form; this calls for an evaluation of thoughts from an emotional perspective; what emotion is guiding this action? Is that reasonable? Is that good? Are there features worth wanting, worth promoting by thinking in this way or acting in that?
More often than not, when I fail to listen to my intuition I regret it later; regardless whether or not my situation turns out badly, I simply wish I would have followed my gut; and let’s be clear here, intuition is not some random whim or fleeting urge; intuition is an entire feeling about a situation after having thought about it, and even more so, intuitions often have thoughts tied up with them because it is our “whole-state” (the combination of our emotions, instincts, and reason forming to get a feeling of intuition) that creates and influences thoughts in the first place. Yet sometimes our intuition doesn’t seem to line up with the facts; what is wrong here? Are our intuitions often unreasonable, or do they contain within them a deeper reason, perhaps not concerned with what “conscious reason” is concerned with, but with what we ourselves are concerned with; our emotional well-being, or the well-being of certain desires? What I mean is, sometimes you can follow a completely logical path that you consciously agree with, but still end up worse off, as if you were following the wrong path all along, or at least, this path is less satisfying than other ones; and why? Is it because we have not followed our intuition? Nay, it is a mistake of reasoning to believe so; not everyone should follow their intuition. We must train our emotions and instincts with reason (the combination is our intuition, which is felt fluidly as a whole) to attach to the appropriate objects, one’s worth wanting: such as love. Reason is influenced by our emotions and desires, thus we can’t say whether we are actually following reason, because we never are; we are always following reason for the end of some emotion, desire, or ideal. If one’s intuition is guided by higher instincts, what I call ideals, which are past material, and more into the realm of higher thought (thoughts working against thoughts), that are past the threshold of reason, we should follow them and train our emotions and instincts with reason to attach to these objects we’ve deemed worthy, using reason as our tool to do so.
All this thought kept coming up in different books (Nietzsche) or shows I watch (The Colbert Report), and today I read a quote by Donald Trump that applies:
"Problems arise when our instincts don't seem logical or
consistent with the facts, and we don't know which to trust.
I try to get all the information, examine all the facts, and
then I usually follow my gut."
It seems we agree on this point, Mr. Trump. I suppose the next question to ask is how useful is this knowledge? How powerful is it? Should we apply this to our life? And even so, what are we doing now in these respects? To me, it seems rather intuitive to want to follow your gut and intuition, to lead you into, if not somewhere pleasant, at least somewhere new… and since we are beings whose faculty is “rational choice” we must evaluate and reflect on our intuitions, desires, emotions, thoughts, and bring them together: align our emotions and desires with our rational thoughts, and use this to train and hone our instincts, our intuition, to perhaps more reliable (in terms of our joy, or happiness) than our conscious reason. Conscious reason may become secondary to subconscious reason, or better explained as one's "level of consciousness" or emotional view from which your thoughts and emotions are trained to be guided; ultimately, your intuition.
Is life guided by intuition more fun than reason? More happy? I guess, then, what is intuition but our emotional states from which we desire things, choose things, feel things, are things? Intuition, then, is simply reason mixing with each emotion to give a general feeling or desire that one can follow, without having to think it out, the resulting creation often being meaning or joy. I like not having to think, in fact, thinking too much all the time tends to lead to degeneration, and can't be the ultimate source (of course it can be one source) of well-being, and thus, shouldn't be treated as such.
As time goes on I'm learning more and more that things have their place, and that everything is relevant to its context and content, and especially their relationship between each other: context to context, content to content, content to context. I'm learning that we each have an objective measure by which our capacities (possibilities) are weighed against by every other force, the ultimate being our perfect self, our 10th dimensional understanding, which is not typically seen as a human experience, but a part of us. These capacities work in probability waves that are in constant exchange with all of reality (which works similar waves) that combine (your internal thoughts and actions pushing out, and external events happening to and around you) to form your specific probability matrix, and then your specific probability line. We are constantly travelling across this probability line, but are able to see it in motion, and thus, affect and feel the future pulling us forward, in different, infinite directions. We can choose to elevate ourself, thus rising in our overall probability matrix (say, of all possible Aaron's) closer to our higher self, that self that attaches to the highest ideals, which are constantly expressing themselves in the universe; and why; because the universe is never-ending self-realization, and evolution over itself. The process of self-realization, the very formation of reason, creates these forces that act against each other, and then more specifically, our unique human characteristics (physical capacities, mental capabilities) view them as emotional expressions and see them through reason; the ability to freeze time and reflect on every connection.