Adam Blatner

The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) stated (as one of my favorite quotes) near the end of his book, Modes of Thought: “…The purpose of philosophy is to rationalize mysticism, not by explaining it away, but by the introduction of novel verbal characterizations, rationally coordinated.”

This brief passage has impressed me mightily. (Many of Whitehead’s writings deserve careful re-readings and pondering, but for now, let’s just stay with this one.)  So let’s consider what is meant by “rational coordination.” I think this process involves comparing and matching up such themes as evidence, type and sufficiency; logical flow of ideas; responses to obvious objections; questioning and refining of words, of definitions; implications for practice; comparisons with other criteria such as aesthetic beauty, ethics, etc.

I think that most people do this to a sufficient degree, enough to generate a sense of meaning in life. This is a need and and instinct, but for most people it is generally unconscious. (See what I say below about people operating between 10-20 on the spectrum.) But not that many people have really paused and made an effort to consciously rationally coordinate what they think or believe.

There’s a spectrum here regarding how much people rationally coordinate their thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and beliefs. Let’s imagine the degree to which people do this, more or less, as operating on a spectrum from hardly at all at “1,” while at “100” everything would be completely rationally coordinated.

On this spectrum, those who might merit the rank of 1-5 would, I imagine, feel painfully fragmented if not teetering in psychosis—trapped in a bad dream—nothing fits.

At 5 – 10, cognitive dissonance is resolved by the defense mechanisms, which then express deeper feelings of disconnection internally and externally through a variety of psychopathologies. More common is the mild sociopathology of simple “hardening.” Alienation is mixed with cynicism, bitterness, toughness: “I am a rock, I am an island” is a line from a Simon and Garfunkle song in the late 1960s.

At 10 – 15 other phenomena begin to kick in. People latch on to the social beliefs of their peers and charismatic teachers. Their philosophy of life is that of their culture or sub-culture, and this is clung to strongly. It can be fanatical, in fact. Non-believers are treated with hostility for threatening their beliefs.

The point is that one can participate in a kind of philosophy of life, holding very strong beliefs or disbeliefs with only limited rational coordination. The content of one’s belief is supported mainly by social pressures or vivid ideas. There is a compensating process that generates a feeling that “this is it!” based on not very strong actual evidence. There are enough supporting bits of evidence that are perceived and woven into a meaning-system with this relatively low degree of strict rational coordination—and, remember, that is the variable being considered.

On the spectrum of rational coordination that would be around 15-20 (out of 1-100), a fairly firm but unconscious philosophy of life operates. I suspect that a majority of people operate at this level. They have unconsciously assembled perhaps 35 general platitudes and another hundred or so auxiliary ideas or images that offer enough ammunition to the amplifying unconscious for it to ingeniously weave a sense of the meaning of life. For most people it works. If it cracks under the stresses of trauma or tragedy, most people are able to shore it up—or their “defensive system” (i.e. amplifying unconscious) is clever enough to make it seem to make sense again.

My wife, Allee, said that in this sense everyone has a philosophy of life. I argued with her, but with this idea that there is a spectrum of rational coordination, I can include her point and also my own:  (In other words, while most folks have a philosophy of life in a broad manner of speaking, less than 20% actually think about whether their general belief systems work as a rationally coordinated philosophical system.)

At around 20 – 30 on this spectrum, a new variable enters—the valuing of the need to consciously and somewhat rationally coordinate one’s belief systems. I sort of feel that for the activity to be worthy of the term “philosophy” there should be some conscious effort in this direction, a clear valuing of the activity and effort of coordinating what doesn’t fit.

(Perhaps that should be called “philosophy proper,” because most folks neither do it nor feel any great need to do it. Indeed, I think Socrates may have been somewhat elitist in his opinion that an unexamined life is not worth living. I live among many wonderful people who don’t examine their lives and their lives are clearly worth-while. I prefer to examine life philosophically as an aesthetic value in my life, but I would hesitate to presume that my tastes are “better” than those who don’t share this taste.)

At any rate, at 20 – 30 on the spectrum of rational coordination, some degree of searching for confirmation, for arguments, for further evidence begins. This may involve reading various self-help books or others aimed at the general public. religious discussion groups, Bible study, non-fiction book reading groups, classes on topics related to spirituality, philosophy and the like all fall into this part of the spectrum. Some effort is given to backing up the emerging belief system.

However, fundamental assumptions are not even questioned. It’s amazing how much the illusion can be generated that “Wow, I’ve never thought through this material so thoroughly—this must really be philosophy!” even though the whole process is pretty thin.

My estimate is that 2% of people operate at a level less than 10 on the spectrum of 1-100 of rational coordination, 8% between 10-15; 65-70% of people are okay operating between 15-20; 10-15% operate at seeking rational coordination of their beliefs and thoughts at a level of 20 – 30. That leaves less than 10% of people who seek this sense of whether things really, truly make sense to them when subjected to more rigorous criteria of rationality!

At 30 – 40, the activity may be called philosophy, and the quality of reading and discussin includes a bit more digging int the assumptions and criteria. Many undergraduate courses in philosophy in colleges, adult education programs, or at seminaries operate at this level.

At  40 – 50 on the scale of rational coordination, people begin to cast a wider net, reading books, going to lectures, checking out less familiar philosophical or spiritual systems. In college, this would include more upper division seminars. The activity begins of daring to question assumptions and are beginning to offer the tools for rational coordination, for evidence, for logical trains of thought.

At 50 – 60 comes an interesting twist that isn’t readily considered in beginning philosophy classes, and that takes on the criteria for thinking itself, the meta-psychology, and meta-theory, looking at fairly basic assumptions regarding the nature of truth, what is the proper way to assess truth, stuff like that. Is pragmatism more important than strict logic? How do we test the validity of a hypothesis for things that seem to elude objective test-ability? We’re getting into the folks who write about philosophy—more like 1-2%

At 60 – 70 on the scale of rational coordination this last theme becomes more acute. We are faced with the problems of poetry, myth, qualities that cannot be subjected to reason alone. The challenge here is to construct a meaning system that is workable but not so tight that it sucks the emotional juice, the qualities of mystery, wonder, delight, compassion, and enthusiasm right out of the process of philosophizing.

At 70 – 80 we are at a turning point. Beyond 75 it’s almost as if rational coordination as a value begins to fall apart. What’s needed is a different criterion for philosophy, one that weaves in some degree of what to people who think at the 20 – 50 level seems like “mysticism”—as if that were not a good thing.

I confess my own bias here that my present thinking is that 74.3 is optimal—a mixture of rational coordination, creative mythmaking, a spirit of play, an edge of faith (as an inclination to turn towards positivity), a generous under-pinning of love (this is the real criterion, as it all cooks out, kindness, tact, tolerance…).

At 70, the rational coordination begins to become thicker and thicker, because reason is being asked to explain, sufficiently justify, and include too many aspects of life, and reason itself can’t do this. If reason is the prime criterion at this level, there’s no room for words that are poetry.

At 80, the philosophy may be rationally coordinated, but it’s so thick that even relatively intelligent students have to analyze it meticulously, arguing over the meaning of this or that passage, unwittingly bringing their own interpretations to the weighting of certain words. They don’t realize that other factors are operating at this level that are more powerful than mere reason: Which archetypes grab you? What are your deepest biases? What are your emotional needs? When the implications of a certain turn of interpretation might threaten your pocketbook, your security, your status, and a slightly different interpretation might support these elements, can you remain impartial?  I think when the effort at rational coordination begins to squeeze out other criteria for wisdom, love, play, etc., it gets too dry and makes reason into an idol rather than a servant.

Going back a little: Around 58 on the scale, you begin to appreciate the awkwardness of semantics—that a word might have a different subtle meaning or feeling tone to different people. At 64 on the scale, you become aware of the nature of complexity in the mind, so that it dawns on you that it is absolutely impossible for two people to mean the same thing, especially about non-trivial words. (Like fingerprints, there are enough variables in play, memories, personal temperament, interests, background, etc., so that a given concept is experienced with a slight turn or tone that must differ. Much of the time it makes little difference, but on the big issues these slight differences tend to generate whole sequences of interpretations that end up being different.)

Is it possible to go above 90 on a scale of rational coordination? Sure, but only about tiny and trivial matters. The big things expand—there are too many variables in play to be coordinated. Is this true for people at different ages in their lives? True for those being born, or those about to die? True for people living in other cultures? If we meet extra-terrestrials from another planet or even dimension, would this be true? I think the ideals of either absolute truth or rational coordination are thus asymptotic limits—like perfection or the speed of light, theoretically impossible to achieve.

But really, I’m quite happy with the mid-point: That I can meet and play with people who really think about what’s going on, who can make some effort to rationally coordinate, question hypotheses, look at basic assumptions, sustain a pleasant dialogue while doing this—I’ve enjoyed a few relationships with such folks. I’m aware that this kind of discourse is by no means run-of-the-mill, and it would give headaches to a fair percentage of the population, but it’s optimal for me. (Hey, there are people who would rather put up with the humidity if they don’t have to deal with the cold; and others who would put up with more cold if they don’t have to deal with the humidity, so people are different.)

In summary, the activity of philosophizing can be imagined to operate on a scale of degrees of rigor in rational coordination from 1 to 100, and this essay has described (provisionally) some general estimates of various levels along that path. I am not much concerned about the exactitude of my numbers or the percentage of the population that may be thought of as operating at this or that level—it suffices to warm up to the general idea. Again, blogs are a media that allow for thoughtful interaction, so your comments are welcome.