Great again said:
“It is also interesting to note the parallel between the history of Occidental mathematics and the history of Occidental mathematics”
Ok
I suspect that today a course like that would be similar to the courses on “Critical Race Theory” taught in the US -an “anti-race” course that declares that all whites and anything whites are better at accomplishing is racist (taught of course by racists). They would end up teaching that anything that whites do is irrational (and that includes all rational maths, logic, philosophy, and any other intellectual skills).
Let us not be irrational about this. Irrationality should be acknowledged, not necessarily taught. Sometimes there is some irrationality in the creative process.
More to the point, we should not become unreasonable, and we should know that we are all fallible enough to be irrational at times.
Shouldn’t we be well aware of all of these irrational “ideas” in order to draw conclusions about how to deal with them rationally, how to face this on a rational level?
Of course we should!
Have you ever heard of “gain of function research”?
“We need to know about the absolute worst massively deadly virus that can be made.”
“How best do we do that?”
“We need to create the worst possible and investigate it.”
“Isn’t that a bit dangerous?”
“It’ll be okay. We will keep it in the lab.”
How did that turn out? Seemed like a good idea at the time.
An irrational idea is like a virus. Investigating it from a distance - through a barrier - with expert rationalists - sounds like a good idea. Where did the idea of Marxism, Nazism, and Communism come from? - COmunisticVirulent-IDea-19.
But maybe we can make it even more deadly? Shall we? ---- COVID-20? The sky’s the limit. 
Would you even know anything about what you just talked about, if you didn’t already know something about the irrational?
In what you have told, there is already so much knowledge about the irrational, that you could almost not tell anything more, if you had not always taken it into account.
Maybe that knowledge about the irrational is dangerous for many, but that is just also one of the main points to be discussed here.
I mean, we are here or should be here in a philosophy forum, right?
Doesn’t this take us back to my original concern - “integration vs inclusion”? Are you being very careful in making that distinction? In politics, they don’t.
The COVID-19 virus was being created and studied in global communist New York. The Yanks are savvy enough to ensure a very high safety standard (essential for integration - not so much for mere inclusion). The safety concern was respected enough that Mr Obama said - “time to stop this - it is too dangerous”. The gain of function research was “officially” stopped (but with carefully worded loopholes).
But then a tragedy in the globalist scheme happened - Mr Trump got elected.
As a result, Dr Fauci used a loophole to move the project to communist Wuhan. The safety standards in China are very poor (no real concern for public safety). The thought was that the intended use of the virus might have to be bumped up ahead a bit and China has been designated to be the global communist leader anyway.
That is how integrating an irrational idea became inclusion of a bad idea - a perceived nefarious Godwannabe use.
And once they could not remove Mr Trump from office - the irrational idea found its freedom.
Mr Trump then broke all historical records to find the rationality to offset the irrationality - a vaccine.
So there are three primary concerns involved in “integrating” irrationality into a rational world.
- Good rational intent - not common subtle nefarious agendas.
- Isolation by competent rationalists.
- Compensating rationality being the priority.
I saw where James noted that posting on this particular site was safer because it is so small and isolated (a respect for safety - self-censoring). In another thread on psychology he noted that “one has to be careful when speaking publicly about this topic” (again a respect for safety - self-censoring). But does everyone here do that? Definitely not. But it is small and a bit isolated.
Is there good rational intent here? For some. But for all - definitely not. Are their irrational pursuits adequately compensated by the rationalists - vaccines? I think maybe yes and no. For some who actually read through the arguments - there are enough rational responses to compensate. But how often are there “leaks”? How often do people hear only the irrational and don’t read or care about the rational - “vaccine deniers”? I think quiet a lot.
This board might be more compared to Wuhan than to New York city. And James isn’t here to vaccinate the participants. I think the greatest saving grace here is the lack of creative irrationality/disease talent. It is a good thing that James wasn’t a Marxist/Communist/Globalist Irrationalist - “Godwannabe” 
People are terrified of reason.
In completing Heideggers work on Nietzsche and thus completing western metaphysics, I revealed the absolute responsibility, essentially, of the human being for his rationality; this is what our decadent culture finds absolutely abhorrent.
Ive resolved so much that people still want unresolved, because the resolutions places responsibility with the thinker, in a way that was hitherto only known in occult circles.
The western culture of man is, if we look at the gladness whereby people accept what their little screen-machines tell them, quite dead, finished. I suppose my completion of the work of philosophy fits to this. The end of the western metaphysics comes at the end of the west.
What lies ahead now is either nothing or something new - something brought about consciously with self-valuing logic at it’s heart as indeed all great cultures have unconsciously had it at their heart.
The bottom line is that rationality is made of what western fools call “irrationality”, but which simply means “substance”, which in turn means valuing.
“A valuing” is a thing both fulfilling the criteria for rationality and irrationality; it is an actual being.
It is literally impossible for someone with “slave morality” to even grasp the possibility of thinking as pervasively as that; slaves are those who stand outside of their own arguments, who think without being.
But almost all of western thought has been slavish in this sense. All of it has feigned to seen an entrance into its origins, but has really scorned and insulted, defiled whatever opportunity arose for such an entry. And this continues; the sordid will to stay outside of ones own thinking persists and is unfortunately now having its physical effects.
The Chinese have had their methods of including their thinking in their thought for millennia, thus they are prevailing over us, sad moralistic eunuchs refusing to acknowledge the fundamental reality of valuing.
Ironically though it is commanded by self-valuing logic (the explication of the will to power logic as holding itself as the interpretation of the world as interpretation) that all but the most sublime humans scorn and shun it; as they can not value its historical context in terms of their own self-valuing; they can not appreciate the lineage, the roots, the specific human quality that brought it forth, because it is not the quality of egalitarianism but rather of philosophic and cultural elitism.
It’s all rather comical. But it works as a selecting mechanism. All that works as a selecting mechanism among western culture is quite comical in somewhat of a sordid sense - the current events are extremely comical if one gets beyond morality - the end result of this is inevitably going to be a cultural-economic pyramid, where the masses have no longer their own bodies or minds, and the elites possess truly divine prerogatives and, more importantly, divine joys.
The world is to be transformed into such hierarchy as once existed in Greece, which Nietzsche called the body of Dionysos, or just, Dionysos; a spectrum in which every element had its proper place, supported by happy slaves, ruled by lofty aristocrats. This is, evidently, the true nature of man; to exist in an enormous hierarchy, for as it is said, men differ from one another much more than men in general differ from apes.
But you never answered my question concerning self-valuing being used in an irrational way. It sounds like pure capitalism (not regulated at all). What is the vaccine for it in case it is used nefariously - the rational response to the irrational outbreak?
The distinction rational-irrational is voided here, in as far as both pertain to existence. Existence is neither (or both) rational nor irrational in its ground;
but since reason is an eminent virtue without which little can be built, it is imperative to use self-valuing logic in a rational way to determine what can exist, how irrational being can be welcomed into rational edifices, to vitalize it, to make it truly existent and especially, resilient -
as edifices will always be attacked, it is imperative to enforce them using the same ‘method’ that allows for irrationality to even exist at all, which is the logic of valuing.
Selfvaluing logic works on the most fundamental ontological level, basic capitalism is merely an ephemeral phenomenon, transient in terms of the cosmos; to forge it into something more impressive man would indeed need to understand the nature of value as being sacred and the source of all being, rather than a by-effect of materialistic processes. Materialism is to be abandoned; all matter is brought about by the self-valuing logic and perishes by it; all wealth is amassed by it and distributed by it, - but only when the principle is understood can wealth lead to greater wealth.
See self-valuing logic rather as the science that can give rise both to virus and vaccine as well as to life-enhancing creations.
We are currently under the dominion of the stupidity of man - never in written history has mankind been this stupid, gullible, deserving of being enslaved. This process will run its course. A few years ago I was already a misanthrope in the sense of the extremely contemptible stupidity of mankind in general but the past 20 years have managed to astonish even me by the display of gullibility. Nature just doesn’t tolerate such weakness.
Manind at this point displays the near absolute absence of self-valuing logic; men are perfectly incapable of an unwilling to set their own terms, their only terms are fear and obedience, and they’re I imagine the most stupid creatures the cosmos has likely ever produced -
so, if you ask how can self-valuing logic help to bring about a superior political system in which liberty is guaranteed, the answer is; it can do so when it is carried by a great number of very intelligent and robust human beings. It cant do it by itself. Humans need to actually be the standard of their own liberty; they cant sit there and hope for a moral god to give it to them.
But okay to begin with, this is what needs done:
To never relinquish ones highest standards, under any condition.
To never obey an authority which has even the faintest whiff of corruption.
To never obey laws which one considers to be in conflict with ones highest standards.
The central essence of it all is the power of value-standard-setting.
All true beings have, by definition of their Being, this power, but only the utmost elite of the will do employ it.
So you really are talking about a never-ending battle of Godwannabes - Hell(enism).
Irrationality is about behavior and processes (such as arguments). Items are not irrational - only how they are used. So when it comes to self-valuing the question is how it might be used. And from what you just said is the “need” - it appears that your intent is purely to use it irrationally - restoring the never ending conflict between gods and Godannabes.
I think you need a vaccine, mate.
The ignorance betrayed in this…
picturesque.
This is christian ‘thinking’ - clear enough proof that the end is all you have coming.
Simply due to the detachment from reality that christianity requires and has bred.
You display a remarkable combination of deep-bred ignorance and indecent dishonesty.
You seem to take pleasure in lying, twisting texts, preying on the lazy… your joys must be very thin and transient.
Christians…
Lack of gratitude is another christian quality that youve displayed. I went to considerable trouble trying to clarify myself to a mind such as yourself. Apparently all you can do is spit at a gift.
You people…
But good. I suppose Ive ultimately said what Ive said primarily if not only for those who have a knowledge of Heidegger, which perhaps means only the OP. I pray that he is not too proud to take it into consideration.
“Always accuse your enemy of what you are doing yourself.” - the virus.
Let’s see if we can integrate your affliction and irrationality -
Can you give references for those accusations (a vaccine for irrational accusations)?
A little sunlight?
Even the threat of sunlight drives the viral and vampiric bad ideas away. Irrationality breeds in the dark. But that is a form of exclusion - neither integrating nor including - but isolating and possibly cancelling. So merely shining sunlight - exposing the harsh truth - does not achieve integration of this kind of irrationality.
I think to actually integrate bad ideas they have to play a constructive role - or used to cast into your enemy’s population (similar to deadly viruses and other bioweapons). So they can be integrated as a weapon. And they can be integrated as an example of what to not do by rational professors (if you can find any).
What I think you cannot do in trying to integrate irrationality is to just let it freely spread. But that gets us into the delicate issue of censorship and propaganda.
I suspect the best way to handle censorship and propaganda issue is through “herd immunity” - get so many people aware of the rational response to irrational ideas that there can be freedom of speech. The USA had that for a while but got subverted by “the invisible enemy” - breeding in the dark.
I think religions and authoritarian, propagandized nations attempt a type of herd immunity but they usually want immunity from rationality to protect their irrationality. So a higher concern involving herd immunity would be a leadership or authority that was actually rational and strongly immune. People have not been very successful at producing that - which I think is what led to the US Constitution making the declaration - “God given rights” - making any effort to overrule those rights impossible.
With such an authority a type of “vaccine ministry” could be established with the purpose of insuring that any bad ideas released had first a formulated vaccine to prevent massive damage to the population before the ideas were released. The task of the authority would not be to propagandize a particular narrative but rather to creatively design compensating “antibodies” or “vaccines” before an outbreak occurs. The vaccine would need to be distributed before the irrational idea was released - like teaching a child to be aware of certain scams before they get taken by a shill.
And then that allows us to get into the “gain of function research” - the actual justification for it (not merely “to study” - but specifically to vaccinate).
I think the issue has always been - creating and maintaining that truly rational and altruistic authority. And that leads back to “by what hand do we pick them out of the forest”.
The problem has always been there, only it was not so noticeable until not so long ago, because the dichotomy of rationality and irrationality was not so noticeable as it increasingly is again today.
When by far the most rational culture entered the world stage and with its age of rationalism actually wanted to make it really clear that rationality can be stronger than irrationality, more and more became possible faster and faster. The Enlightenment seemed to make everything possible as far as rationality and its consequences were concerned. There was talk of “progress”. Philosophically speaking, the Enlightenment was a “philosophy of dawn”. After the Enlightenment, the “philosophy of the dusk” slowly returned. It asserted itself first slowly, then ever faster becoming, thus with exponential increase. Although the Enlightenment has still not completely disappeared, the remnants of it that are still there are becoming weaker and weaker. The sun no longer shines as brightly.
You are talking like a “philosopher of the dawn”. The dawn promises the day, the brightness, the sunlight.
I am basically a “philosopher of dawn” too, but I also know the “philosophical dusk”. I have always had a sense of the “philosophy of dusk” as well, but most of my life I have been involved with enlightenment. You could perhaps say that I have invested in the “dawn” on the one hand for private reasons and for professional reasons, and on the other hand in the “dusk” for only private reasons. I have always been interested in both sides, but basically I am also more of an enlightener.
Every individual has an immune system - the human one is being trampled on right now - and in my opinion, a community also has an immune system (cf. “herd immunity”), but it must be constantly maintained and strengthened in order to be able to react appropriately to the challenges and dangers at any time.
An “immunity doctor”, whom one sometimes wishes for, would not have an easy time with me, because I know that corruption is now at home everywhere, even in every private space. Now, when the rulers, thanks to the technology that the technicians put at their disposal, make more and more plans, mixing the rational and the irrational, the result is almost always an irrational one. This is largely due to their irrational ideas, desires and goals and also to the fact that these are mixed with rational considerations, not in such a way that they are controlled, i.e. integrated like the irrational numbers together with the rational numbers into the set of real numbers, but in such a way that the irrational takes over rather quickly. There are enough examples from history for this. Rulers are also only humans, and the irrational is almost always stronger than the rational. Being rational also means fighting against irrationality, and since irrationality is always already there, this fight against it can also consist of integrating it in order to be able to control it more effectively. - Hence this thread, hence the question in the title of this thread.
If people want to have immunity from rationality in order to protect their own irrationality, then it is up to the community to not allow that to happen if that community is committed to rationality. It is similar to loyalty or solidarity (not meant communistically) in a community, which is always also undermined by simply taking advantage of it. By this I mean what is known in history and economics as the “tragedy of the commons”. Someone can refuse loyalty and solidarity to a community for perfectly rational reasons. However, the motives and the goals in doing so are often irrational nonetheless. That is why it is important to be clear in advance whether and how to deal with undermining. After all, irrationality always finds its way. In fact, you quickly end up with a dictatorship.
In any case, I believe that we are heading toward something similar to what the ancient Romans did at the time of their civil wars, when in the end there was no alternative but to bury the republic and impose something new, a mixture of republic and monarchy - the principate. Rome had to expand - “expansion is everything” (Cecil Rhodes) - and therefore it had no other choice if it did not want to perish immediately. Those who renounces the necessary expansion are lost. In other words: Either Rome should not have begun with the expansion at all and would have remained small and probably at some time be conquered by a stronger power, or it would have have begun with the expansion and probably at some time gone down as an overstretched and therefore collapsed empire conquered by a stronger power.
I think all of that would have made a superior OP for this thread. 
And I have realized something concerning the maths analogy -
In mathematics there is a number line that orders all rational numbers. And the irrational numbers, even though they don’t actually fit onto that line, each come very close to a small range of rational numbers. The irrationals could be placed on a line just above the rationals and in order.
So with that I thought the act of organizing all rational and irrational thought would end up with a similar “integrated” understanding of all thought - rational AND irrational - just order them.
Obviously that wouldn’t be easy but then I remembered James’ “Resolution Debating” in which a type of tree of knowledge grows through experience, categorizing, and documenting the debates - to eventually order all thought and also which person accepts which thoughts (and for heavens sake don’t tell the Chinese 
).
That resolution debating requires 3 people - a logic monitor and two challengers. The monitor must be a very strict rationalist with a keen eye for logic compliance. I tried an experiment with Magnus to see if we could somehow mutually monitor and that certainly resolved what it was that was causing the disagreement but because of it being what it was - further debate became problematic. It turned out that we had different definitions for the symbol “…”. As usual the problem was that same - “get your words straight” issue. And I think those kinds of things become branches of the tree where anyone who agrees with one definition takes off with others who also agree on that definition. Every resolved dispute leads to either a willing correction or another branch of thought and associated persons.
Resolution debating is proposed as a way to discover exactly what the differences are between people’s beliefs and allow them to identify their own group. A “tree of knowledge” grows as well as a “tree of personalities”.
I now think that enacting that resolution debating process takes care of this proposed concern of integrating because it orders literally all belief - rational or not.
But still there is that issue of forming the “hand” although now it seems it only requires a designated logic monitor and willing debaters. So merely 3 people of specific nature and you have it accomplished.
And now I remember that it was proposed as an open-for-continued scrutiny in his Constitution of Rational Harmony - Restoring Sanity. That makes up for an imperfect monitor.
After you recommended the Mithus book to me, I started reading also some posts about “Rational Harmony”. In one I read (I don’t remember the exact wording) that according to James the substructure (the fundamental constitution) must be exactly right to avoid even the slightest error (as in all governments) corruption (he called it “cancer”), and that James’ efforts to create such a constitution is said to have resulted in a “Constitution of Rational Harmony”.
People understand “harmony” as something that is emotional at first. And in fact: Harmony has a lot to do with emotions, with feelings, feelings are considered irrational. Also James would probably not deny this, but probably also say that with his concept of “rational harmony” harmony is also to be produced by rationality, and this in turn can be understood as an attempt to get something irrational rationally under control - just as I already said in my opening post.