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...)
-
-
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.