Psychology, Lynchpin for Rationality and Irrationality

A Rational Practitioner battles an Irrational Practitioner. The irrational practitioner structures their defense in accordance to the rational confines of the rationalist’s unethical proposition that would presumably condemn the irrationalist’s creativity based on the preponderance of rationale.

You ever got pissed when a rationalist like myself decided to step in and only appeal to your rationale?

“ To an atheist [...], there is no all-seeing all-loving god to keep us free from harm. But atheism is not a recipe for despair. I think the opposite. By disclaiming the idea of the next life, we can take more excitement in this one. The here and now is not something to be endured before eternal bliss or damnation. The here and now is all we have, an inspiration to make the most of it. So atheism is life-affirming, in a way religion can never be. Look around you. Nature demands our attention, begs us to explore, to question. Religion can provide only facile, ultimately unsatisfying answers. Science, in constantly seeking real explanations, reveals the true majesty of our world in all its complexity. People sometimes say "There must be more than just this world, than just this life". But how much more do you want? We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they’re never going to be born. The number of people who could be here, in my place, outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. If you think about all the different ways in which our genes could be permuted, you and I are quite grotesquely lucky to be here, the number of events that had to happen in order for you to exist, in order for me to exist. We are privileged to be alive and we should make the most of our time on this world. “

-Dawkins, God Delusion

Psychology is flawed. Scientists and atheists fuck up on this study all the time because its a study that’s comforting and make assumptions of another person’s mind. If you find an artist turning to the tarot versus the table of periodic elements in finding some kind of formula to distill water, both othe scientist and artist’s biases towards your study of interest are flawed; only one being more irrational than the other.

So if an atheist decides to challenge that irrationalist’s form of escapism, your answer should be, “we’ll fucking see because the outcome hasn’t arrived yet.” And, as the rationalist proves why his lab activity is more progressive...

the artist counters, “at least this form of occultism is less restrictive than the space and apparel yours essentially made mandatory to protect yourselves from chemical waste. I can create more human information inside my mind at the rate faster than the rational ideas that were observed during lab experiment, freeing myself from the irrefutably complex restraints of science’s conclusion.

our psychology has more in common than you think. My regression towards bias mirrors the psychology that you may have at once had an earlier stage of development, say, for instance, a child’s, as if the unknown, raw information could be imagined in forms you couldn’t possibly seen or dreamt of until this day. Irrefutably complex, science is. yes. And, irrefutably complex this state of altered consciousness is in manifesting and shifting in forms to the consumer’s desire.

Needless to say, this vivid simulation may also be present and exclusive with the scientific craft as well. BUT, “As a visual artist, my job is to deconstruct and challenge your empiricist thought in this Age of Reason when induction and deduction reasoning inverse each other and this dichotomy presented from Jung and Freud’s science of psychiatry enlighten new perspectives for artists to emotionally grasp onto such as maps of past symbols like the tarot or the kabbalah, and to strike present-day culture in the hearts that the scientific method simplified and only went so far in it’s measure.”

Alas, 2017 continues a struggle for politics to foster a connection with scientific progress, meanwhile the unregulated sphere of artistic invention promotes for new argument, empiricist ideas to be accepted and manifested by this governing power.

“‘Violence as a contingent’ if you must say, but my emotional half feels that it’s vile based on the destruction that violence would be cataylyst for, both physically and mentally. What made Newton’s alchemy absent from his scientific accomplishment was the reductionist mentality of simplifying his dreams to a scientific formula merely representing the law of gravitation, and yet never the whole list of side effects from that law. The 21st century pertains to the psychology-philosophy debate more than anything else; 17th century on the other hand was a battle between subjects of theology and philosophy; an argument that was more-or-less repressed during medieval scholasticism. Atheism then, resulted in religious persecution. Atheism now is less considered a closeted ideal and more a forthcoming one thanks to the ideologist movements bringing it out into the open and challenging faith as it had been repressing human rights for what almost what seems like eternity now.”

So, following King’s universal laws which seems almost identical to the ones present in this field of psychology, i’d say the assimilated group to attack is everyone; more specifically, both rational and irrational people like you. It’s those people that present double standards and impose one side onto others. Artist and Scientist alike... Let people express what they want to express. If they're wrong, prove it. I, for one, welcome the fight.