I understand very well what it means for a set of statements to be consistent (or non-contradictory) but what does it mean to say that something cannot be grasped by reason?
Fixed Cross wrote:
“What are your thoughts of the Lacanian Real on this, is it related to that mass which subjects by its irrational vitality which cant be penetrated by truth, which cant be employed? Is this connected to deep layers of the mind, theta wave, massive interpersonal conjectures and echo’s of that which is known as truth?”
Topical description of truth value do connect to interpersonal descriptions of very closely related familiarly organized levels, and they even exist on largely spaced ( out) and increasingly dissimilar models or recognition. Except at the vanishing point>level , these manifest within higher field of energy-particle distribution, where affectance still. differ,to a more finely tuned higher frequency receptor. This is in tune with Your Huxley interpretation between projector and receptor.
At the lowest level ( almost a straight, non oscilatting line, the very minimal level occurs at the level that is just past the identifiable duality.
So it sets the stage at that level, and becomes the lowest identifiable taboo-symbolic function
at the collective level.
I would instead say that urges accept or reject the cognitive knowledge’s urge restrictions (currently studying James’ physics of psychology 
). The urges (“Perception of Hope and Threat - PHT”) determines all behavior. The urges are the emoters or emotions - impetuses - activists - motivators - lobbyists. Knowledge would be the perception of what is or isn’t - presenting what the real-world options are that are available - what can or cannot be done - perception of the actual situation - perception of God.
The urges internally vote in order to attempt a motion (“I move that —” - “bring the vote to the floor”). The parliament or congress inclusive of other urges - including those reluctant to attempt what is perceived as undoable (and possibly dangerous) compete for administrative power to carry out their impetus.
It is merely a competition of urges - some accepting the perceived boundaries of reality inherent in knowledge and some blind to such boundaries - the conservatives and the liberals. All mental factions cannot see what every other faction sees - literally different viewing angles or viewpoints or bubbles of belief.
The analogy that you are suggesting is that (in this case) the liberals are the irrational (ignoring restraints) and the conservatives are the rational (respecting the restraints). They compete in their mental parliament for priority and authority to spend the energy and money to do what they have the urge to do.
Ok - with you so far.
and you saw how far that got. 
Yes - what is wanted and what the real options are - both must be respected (except in the US).
I wouldn’t make that sweep. I think feelings CAN be either rational or irrational (void of rationale). And perceived knowledge might not be rational true knowledge. And that is why the never ending competition continues on - neither is always right or wrong. Experience teaches which was wrong at the time and suggests which might have been right. That would be the learning process and why Senators really really really should be experience people and why the O’Biden globalist authoritarians are pushing as many inexperienced and foolish people into the US Senate (and entire US government) and why fathers are being silenced and canceled (“Keep them Mericans as dumb as they come.”)
“Do we want to look at the world That way or This way?” Voting and experience after the fact would adjust which ontology to use (socialistic or constitutional for example or God exists or doesn’t exist) - “which boundaries do we want to set as the best hope and threat scenario for the future?”.
Ok I think I am still with you -
I have a little trouble with “sees itself” and “understands itself” - but I agree that mathematicians find way to deal with liberals and nonsense.
Now -
What was your question again? 
Can philosophy find ways to deal with nonsense? 
The only reason mathematicians make progress is because they follow the logic restrictions - they are the conservatives (unlike those in CA now preaching that 3+3=7 - “just because we want it to”). So you are really asking if rational philosophers can find a way of dealing with irrational philosophers - right?
In maths, they are not allowed to vote.
So should we not allow illogical/irrational philosophers to speak?
That would fix the problem.
James’ Resolution Debate process lays that out - forbids illogical statements. The problem is that it takes rational people to monitor it (much like in maths).
What I think you are really asking is whether irrational people alone can find their way out of the forest.
- only by accident.
Heidegger sees first and foremost through his own lens; he can certainly be classified as someone for whom a time before him and a time after him can be named, that is, as someone who himself set a milestone. In this sense, Heidegger also interprets truth in a Heideggerian way. That means concretely: He interprets truth as unconcealment (ancient Greek: alethia).
Heidegger started from the Pre-Socratics, especially from Heraclitus, and claimed that with Plato the change of the essence of truth began.
How Heidegger interprets Nietzsche in this context:
“Truth is the kind of error without which a certain kind of living being could not live.” (Nietzsche, record from the year 1885, The Will to Power, n. 493). If truth, according to Nietzsche, is a kind of error, then its essence lies in a way of thinking, which falsifies the real every time, and that necessarily, insofar as namely every imagining stands still the incessant “becoming” and sets up with the thus established, opposite to the flowing “becoming”, a nonconforming, i.e. false and thus an erroneous as the supposedly real.
In Nietzsche’s determination of truth as the falsity of thought lies the assent to the traditional essence of truth as the rightness of stating (logos). Nietzsche’s concept shows the last reflection of the outermost consequence of that change of truth from the unconcealment of being to the correctness of looking. The change itself takes place in the determination of the being (das Sein) of the being (das Seiende [the “attendant”]) as idea.
According to this interpretation of being, the attendant is no longer, as in the beginning of Western thought, the rise of the hidden into the unconcealed, whereby this itself as the unconcealment constitutes the basic feature of the attendant. Plato understands the presence (ousia) as idea. However, this is not subject to the unconcealedness, in that it brings the unconcealed, serving it, to appear. Rather, vice versa, the shining - appearing, seeming - determines what may still be called unconcealedness within its essence and in the only reference back to it. The idea is not a representing foreground of the aletheia, but the reason that makes it possible. But even so, the idea still claims something of the initial, but unknown essence of the aletheia.
Plato’s thinking follows the change of the essence of truth, which change becomes the history of metaphysics, which has begun its unconditional completion in Nietzsche’s thinking. Plato’s doctrine of “truth” is therefore nothing past.
Cf. Heidegger, “Plato’s Theory of Truth”, 1931/'32, Lecture, 1931p. 35-36, 39.
One would thus have to create the paradisiacal situation where truth is not “set against the commandments and prohibitions of power”, where “to pursue truth” not means “to unleash the onslaught of chaos upon oneself”.
It is not possible to make rational numbers from irrational numbers. For centuries, mathematicians have been working to turn irrational numbers into rational numbers.
My reasoning was that it must also be the case in philosophy that the irrational cannot simply be made rational. One can integrate the irrational, so that one can work with it (as one can calculate with it in mathematics), but one cannot eliminate it from the world, e.g. by simply declaring it to be something rational. In philosophy it must be possible - and it is possible - to integrate the irrational in such a way that it results together with the rational in something real (as in the case of mathematics also: real numbers as a set with the two subsets of rational numbers and irrational numbers).
He did at first. But he owes everything, and is explicit about that, to Nietzsche, who dug up the presocratics and established the epistemological revaluation which Heidegger does so much to develop.
I recommend the 4 volume series of his lectures on Nietzsche in which he explores the relationship of truth, will to power and value. You’re apparently a guy who can handle that kind of thing.
Except in the USA.
If you have feelings, you have feelings; if the reason comes in, it is the reason, and the reason is rational.
Since we have enough irrationals here in this forum, it would be a possibility: to try to pick them up in the forest first, sometimes bring them back to the forest, and keep doing so until at least some of them know the way out of and to the forest and soon may realize that they can live better outside the forest. 
.
When were these four volumes first published?
There are several books by Heidegger on Nietzsche.
By what hand have you/we to “pick them up”? They are a squirmy lot. They cherish their bubbles of mis-belief and defend them.
Gauging by what you posted concerning Heidegger and Nietzsche - they seem to be of the mind that because all people live in illusion and irrationality - it is only their irrationality that keeps them alive - and so a good thing. And from that - Truth, Reality, and God are irrelevant (the current authoritarian globalist narrative).
I would argue that among all irrationality there are elements of rationality - within all illusion there is a degree of truth. Among all the peoples throughout history - there are a very few rarely acknowledged rational people. Among all those attempting maths, there are the few who can remain rational. And since success is contingent on “aligning with reality” (James’ definition of “True”) it is those very few elements of truth that manage to cause the very slow - over thousands of years - progress that mankind has made.
The fact that most people are irrational only means that no good will come until they are - by whatever means - restrained or somehow dominated by the very few rational people - “picked up out of the forest” - extorted out of the obfuscation.
I think the Bible referred to it as “forming Man from the clay”. Chairman Mao referred to it as requiring ruthless military action to overcome the complacency. James’ Resolution Debating requires the authority of a moderator. Societies require a police to maintain their civility. There must be some form of rational leadership - regardless of the goal - else all is just “dust” or “clay” or even “the void of randomness” - “the loose spirit” - “the sea”.
It seems to me there must be an authority or dominance of rationals to pluck the irrationals from their mental cloud or forest or bubbles of belief that they cling to so fearfully. Uniting is so very much more difficult than dispersing. The universe itself displays this by having such an extreme proliferation of relative nothingness compared to gathered substance (“mass”). No matter how compassionate - the “or else” must not be forsaken.
What would be that means of plucking? What “hand” is there to form?
Don’t the rationals have to unite themselves first into a rational body capable of “picking them out of the forest”?
The obfuscation is disappearing with the nearing of the eradication of the rain forest.
Nature will serve the problem.
Those trapped inside will be cleansed by the rain
No, they were not concerned with “the authoritarian globalist narrative” at all. If one has good arguments for the statement that up to now truth has been misunderstood or that is taken for truth what is false, then one should already take this argument seriously, even more so if one sees oneself as a philosopher. If you forget the question of being, you have also forgotten philosophy - it doesn’t have to be, but it can be a disadvantage - for all.
Not mankind but European people have made the progress, have always carried it on and are still carrying it on today. But these people are in the process of dying out. The other humans as the huge human rest are interested only in the pleasant side of the Occidental technology, but do not want to do anything for the fact that this can be preserved, but hate it. In other words, these other humans have an ambivalent relationship to Occidental technology: they fight it to the death, but want the luxury it brings.
I totally agree with that.
What I say is that we must not underestimate irrationality, so we must not disregard it, because that would be perhaps even the biggest mistake!
Remember how the mathematicians did it with the irrational numbers! They gave them an extra area (“the forest”): a subset of the set of the real numbers. Since they did that, more peace has returned to the world of numbers, so that mathematicians could turn to new problems. In any case, no more “revolt” is expected from the irrational numbers.
In philosophy or in real life it is different, although the problem is basically not much different. So we have to integrate the irrationals philosophically and also in terms of life, so that they don’t overwhelm us and maybe even defeat us in the end. That’s why I opened this thread, and that’s why I opened it in the philosophical subforum rather than the mathematical one. It is an important topic!
By the word “integrate,” I can never mean “support” or even “reinforce,” which is what the O’Bidens are already doing: giving the irrationals the certainty of victory, supporting and reinforcing them where they can. If we - the rationals - continue to downsize, especially demographically, then we are helpless against the irrationals. So we have to come up with other measures. “Integrate” in this case means “subordinate” and “mitigate,” “immobilize,” “pacify”.
…
I was just about to reply to the rest of your original text.
Where did you hide it?
Volumes Three and Four which I have with me here are from 1961.
He still deviates in certain important nuances from Nietzsche, sometimes without seeming to be aware of it (he sets out explicitly to “think Nietzsche’s singular thought”) ; seems to be a question of different instincts. Still - Heidegger is the most diligent thinker that I know and his fine tooth comb tracing of the implications of Nietzsche’s approach to truth is simply an entirely crucial thought process in the final stages of western metaphysics.
Note that N considered himself a prelude, as I see it Heidegger is the only philosopher until recently who actually furthered his work, our work; in this sense I agree with you on the rank and position he holds.
Yes. Thank you.
“For only if truth in its essence is correctness can it be incorrectness and illusion according to Nietzsche’s interpretation.”
I honestly don’t remember it but it was about some people stuck in the forest like Tarzan and
Some hunters finding them and , took them back home and tried to change his backward ways. But it didn’t work so they gave them some money to go back but he was never to have recovered the piece of mind that he enjoyed before or something similarly vague.
And when I woke up all i remember they all look alike , and acted entirely lost and machine like.
Ok now I think I have gained more of what you were intending - due to the word “integrate” - I hadn’t given that word enough attention.
But now it seems that you are making a Leftist argument for inclusion and equity.
“Integrate” and “Inclusion” are very similar but with an important (recently ignored) difference. They both mean to bring the outside in but to integrate implies an assimilation into the existing order whereas to merely “include” means to just let them in and join the party - “Equity”. Even criminals are integrated - but not merely included (not supposed to be anyway).
You seem to be saying that logic should include illogic - that sanity should include insanity - that rational should include irrational.
Of course there is a lot more illogic than logic - a lot more insanity than sanity - a lot more irrational than rational. So of course an inclusive government should include more irrational and insane people than rational and sane people - (O’Biden’s administration) - make sure that an equitable proportion of the vast majority of uneducated or stupid people have authority. That seems fair - right?
What would you expect to come from that? - just look at the O’Biden administration policies - or the US Congress - a predominance of the irrational being included in the process. The end result? Irrational leadership and outcomes.
So yes the irrational can certainly be included and overwhelm the rational. Trying to include the rational afterwards might be a trick.
But you said “integrate” - and that means that the irrationals must be a part of an ordered (rational) system - that presumably accomplishes its goals - succeeds.
- In maths the irrationals are integrated by using them as examples of something unacceptable and are circumvented as being a part of the final solution.
- In logic the same occurs - “Because we know that this kind of logic doesn’t work we cannot continue down that road”.
- In law the same occurs - prisons.
- In politics - well not so much lately - but it used to be that way too - “We certainly can’t allow another of This bloke!”.
- In stories - the villain is a necessary part of the underlying theme.
That is a common way of integrating the bad with the good - integrating opposites into a positive success argument, process, or narrative.
So by identifying and naming the irrational - the rational can (if in authority) isolate it as example to help propel a positive rational outcome.
There - integrated. Integrated yes into proper place - never in authority.
But never - ever allow simple “inclusion” else all is lost by the overwhelming irrationality represented (the US Congress and OBiden administration).
I had no idea, im sorry, but does such set forest guaranty some universal principle or contrary?
On the level of a logical foundation, or, or rather does a ‘quantumized logic’ work to assure that synthetic awareness of such an anology as presented? Rather then reasoning such premise by a virtual probability of real occurrences.
If the above make little sense, then please put it down to the mistaken blundering ravings of a quantum computer out of it’s element , which may be the case, and totally off it’s mark.
Because I knew that with word “integrate” could cause misunderstanding, I started to add something before you replied to the above post. Have you read the added yet? If not:
We should not let anybody dictate to us the meaning of any word (think of George Orwell). The word “integration” has never meant anything political in former times. But if it means something political now, it should not be left to one side alone. That would be a mistake again!
Get your words straight! 