Rational discussion: the death of being. Its effect on social systems

[Egeides]

This may be of a limited interest since it's just coming out of me for various reasons, with a rather sketchy line of thought. The point is to go from the limit of rationality to the limit of a social system based on production (some call it "economics", but this term seems wider to me). The reason why I put this here is mostly because I'm curious to see if I'll get any opposition (or maybe new aspects). But it is basically the start of a demonstration of the impossibility of a "most efficient system" basing myself on the simplest element of this system: human, with its nature and its limits. Unlike, I believe, Communism and Fascism (which perhaps would have made an efficient systems with ants... not humans).

Where the idea is coming from

I go somewhere. I discuss. I do absolutely nothing else than bringing rational arguments, building debates, share ideas. I know more about some people's ideas, but in fact I can discuss like this for days and still it wont necessarily really be a relationship. It will be a strictly rational matter, just as a purely professional meeting. Robotic.

Basically, what forms a human relationship is not the rational and potentially productive element but what goes around it, and often also forms a catalyst for rational and productive aspects.

Rapid thoughts

It presently seems to me that any ideology considering strictly rational factors is dying, since a human being strictly in such a "dry" rationality (which is strictly functional) is in fact a living dead. So what exactly forms the good aspect of a human relationship? All the use-less aspects? I would tend to think that it is the impression of coherent (1) and positive (2) reality that others humans bring, in part by their unexpected ways but of course also by the fact that others really look like us. Another aspect is what other humans bring: a regulatory mecanism of our self, plus self-completion from others' input. Wether or not we can rely on this impression is another matter, but I don't have alot of trouble with this.

The consequence on social systems

I think that this can mean that any system comporting humans needs to consider such aspects. Thus all these discussions about Internet being baaaaaaad :D

But it also means that a society comporting a strict material efficiency would be fairly limited from the moment it is composed of humans. Sure, it may be productive to concentrate all the energy on materially productive uses, and put no energy on a nice exterior environment and so on, but it will backlash somewhere in the longer term: should it be in general capacity to innovate, think correctly, stay organized, or else.

Purely rational taught and models based on it are death (or living death for humans).

[SpiceGuid]

great thoughts.

it ressembles a tautology that could be summed up this way:

1. the rationale is not time-independant

2. life is time-dependant

3. thus the rationale is not liveable

i don't believe in self-completion by experience with others.

by the way completion also means end, that is also death.

others are self-constructive, but only in the sense there are first self-destructive.

others are self-reconstructive but i doubt that makes me any better.

may be that even makes me worse, others do not look like me, others are part of the world. the difference between me and the others is expressed by the cogito "i think therefore i am" which in the end always means "i think therefore i am god" or even worse "i think therefore i am indifferent".

if not dangerous, others are merely a distraction.

finally i know the name of who self-completes from others' input: Frankenstein's creature.