Some Reflections on the Relationships Between Influence and Rationality

I have spent a lot of time with the exact formulation of that title. What is a lot? What is a little? Somehow this line of thinking reminds me of the Pensees / Blaise Pascal, and the title itself seems situated nearby to Descartes’ Meditations yet perhaps even closer to Edmund Burke’s flowery view from a distance away upon France. [1]

For me, rationality is closely related to the mathematical relationships within ratios … and how numerator and denominator relate to one another. There is a strong accent of perspective here, a relativity … a judicial weighing of different points of view. In the extreme case, this leads to a pluralism of perspectives, such that plain and simple concepts such as “true” and “false” (or “right” and “wrong”) become superfluous.

In contrast, influence comes across as completely straight-faced declarations regarding undoubtable statements of fact. These statements may be completely bogus or claimed as valid reflections of reality. Their validity stems from something completely different: quasi-religious beliefs. [2]

for image source, please see “Human Resources are the Disconnect at the Intersection of Do-It-Yourself and Highly Regulated Markets“

The main reason why I say quasi-religious is that most people believe things without realizing their beliefs are a kind of religion. On the contrary, most of these folks will vehemently argue against religion — religions are crazy organizations for crazy people.

I myself have also been a fan (remember: that’s short for “fanatic” 😉 ) of this, that or the other thing. Yet these days, idols and idolatry have essentially become blacklisted in my own outlook.

Instead, I feel much more motivated by nature and the natural forces of natural language. I (too) believe in the underlying evolutionary principles which separate indigena from propaganda.