I have this suspicion that there is no way to be context sensitive in a rational way. To make a rational context-dependent argument, you must necessarily (and paradoxically) include some irrational elements (in the form of humor, narrative, identity performance, cherrypicking...)
-
-
Thing about unbounded contexts is that it’s like the frame or-blend in AI. As you wander out of familiar bounded contexts, you don’t run into your own context ignorance suddenly. No bright flashing sign telling you, “your reason is unreliable beyond this point.”
Show this thread -
You get context creep instead. One subtle thing after the other undermining your reasoning, boiling your thinking like a frog, until you sound hilariously stupid to those with better context awareness, while convinced you’re being rational.
Show this thread -
Sure your arguments are rational. That’s a very logical way of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?. Oh wait, you didn’t know you were on a ship? Out at sea? Reason is still useful. You’re just applying it at the wrong locus.
Show this thread -
Ironically, the way to fight irrationality is with irrationality. Like a control burn to fight a forest fire. In unbounded contexts, things like jokes, stories, metaphors, identity performance aren’t ephemera that obscure the “real” argument. Theyre necessary. Why?
Show this thread -
They’re what get you to the right locus for reason to useful operate, in helping you make your case. Reason is a last-mile, local optimization cognitive process in unbounded context domains.
Show this thread -
Why? Because there’s no reasonable way to scope context down from the enormous space of possible places the argument could go. So you create a foundation with unreason. It’s not simply “state your assumptions/axioms”... that’s an ex-post clean up.
Show this thread -
Ex-ante, you have to get to the start line of reason somehow, following a trail of clues via weird leaps of anarchic thought Show me a rational argument with clean axioms and I’ll show you a cleaned-up crime scene. You can verify axioms —> conclusions, but not context —> axioms
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.