But it is hard–impossible, really–to know for sure how many people are affected by Developmental Trauma Disorder. It is a new diagnosis. It appears in many ways. It is perhaps like an inflammation of the soul. It is perhaps the true genesis of all evil.
I was reading an article by Stephen Pinker (I saw his picture for the first time, and was struck by his dandyish hair style, and presumably underlying sense of affectation), and it occurred to me that, while Reason is vitally important for all human undertakings, that he is asking the wrong question.
The question is not what is rational, but how do we become fully rational human beings. He, himself, is clearly not a rational human being. He rejects the science of the afterlife, of psi, of everything non-physical, but extremely empirical and hence scientific on his own terms.
I am tempted to postulate that people who “live in their heads”, who overemphasize reason and rationality, might be presumed to suffer as a group from developmental trauma. They were not loved enough at some point. They don’t REALLY understand love.
Reason is a natural outgrowth of emotional health. If you are trying to get from A to B, then reason is the best way to do it. Since you are emotionally healthy, you will reliably choose the best path.
But reason tells us NOTHING about what to value, and about when protecting our own emotional health might require detours and rerouting on otherwise straight lines. It is rational to protect one’s emotional well being, but if one is insensible of what that might mean, then this aspect of rationality is lost.
And in the same sense that Robespierre trod a straight line from the Revolution equaling human well being, to the destruction of all possible opponents of the Revolution also equaling human well being, I think it quite appropriate to fear, in the abstract, all people who would fetishize both “science” and “reason”.
If one assumes perfect rationality is possible, then there is no logical reason it cannot be canonized in a single authority with supreme power. It is made supremely powerful because it is supremely rational, and because by definition what it considers an abomination must be wrong. If it follows the methods of “science”, then it is infallible, just as we are told, in many ways, that the IPCC is infallible, and the “science is settled”. Those spouting this view lack the political clout to create their tribunal, thus far, but the principle is there already, and the social support for it is there as well, among many, who already clamor for the heads of dissenters.
In reality, of course, a singular authority represents a perceptual choke point, which kills many possible ideas. This is the reason “science”, properly understood, can NEVER be understood as anything other than ALL the opinions represented by people who follow the method. If it is uniform, it can be ASSUMED to be dead. Where there is only one opinion, it can only mean the others have been killed, figuratively or literally.
As I have pointed out before, Newton’s Laws of Motion, which are as canonical as a body of ideas describing physical reality can be, were shown to be incomplete and wrong in some cases. This is why we now use General Relativity which, itself, may one day be superseded. As a final answer for the nature of reality, it is clearly wrong, as it cannot incorporate the discoveries of Quantum Physics.
A better tomorrow will necessarily, structurally, need to begin with comprehensive, deep, emotional health and well being. It will necessarily begin with people learning about, getting in touch with, and learning to meet their true emotional needs.
This is the only logical approach.