Rationality and Totality, Part II

My plan is to cast about in oceans, mud puddles, and witches’ brews in order to catch onto any strands of “rationality”, “totality” or any of the other key concepts we’ve identified as important to us, (for example myth, autonomy, overcoming, critique,) not to come up with a best meaning or relationship or theory, or the “true” definition of rationality, but in order to discover what we want from the historical Enlightenment. This is similar to what I wanted to do by examining “myth is totality” as desire. I didn’t, and maybe couldn’t, finish that. What I wanted to say is whatever fault I may have found with “myth is totality”, as desire it is perfect. (Even if I did conclude “myth is totality” is a metaphoric desire, which for me is a suspect desire, it is still, as desire, perfect.)

I register a nearly immediate, but vague, association of totality with unity, and further, I think of the drive to unity, the drive for union—which brings to my mind the thought of eros and thus an association of totality with the erotic. And I wonder—is totality a rationalized eros? Is totality something like a rationalized love? And thus, a “love gone bad?” (Because to my mind a rational love is a sickened love—does anyone agree? I would like to return to this, later.) Returning to our very brief theory of the Enlightenment, we could now have, “Enlightenment is the overcoming of 'love gone bad' through critique.” Not so bad!(But I don't think it represents the historical Enlightenment.) I’d also like to tie “love gone bad” to the Enlightenment’s concepts of autonomy, because I think the Enlightenment’s concept of autonomy is loveless, and that's ruinous.