Temporary but Unrepentant Umbilical to Furthur Thought-Insanity, Part XXXV

Carlos-o(∞): “You say we have an effortless access to non-totalizing thinking. You are the one saying this. It’s odd, because we-of-the -o(∞) are the ones to talk about ‘effortless’ access, if it is to be talked about at all. We-of-the -o(∞) are the ones who act on instinct, on effortless intuition. When you speak of an effortless access to non-totalizing thinking, what we hear is you speaking of non-totalizing thinking as uncritical thinking. We-of-the -o(∞) instinctively (as is ‘proper’ for us to do) object. We-of-the -o(∞) rely on you to be critical, reflective, a bit cautious, a bit reserved.”

Carlos-O(1): “ In a way, I was trying to establish an analogy between postmodernity and the Enlightenment. As rationality was something the Enlightenment thinkers largely presupposed, so is non-totalizing thinking for the postmoderns. Non-totalizing thinking is for the Postmodern what rationality was to the Enlightenment. You’ll notice the Enlightenment thinkers do not make a problem of rationality. They do not find themselves amidst a quandary every time someone makes a claim to the rational. There may be question of whether this or that claim is rational. That’s not the same thing.”

Carlos-o(∞): “ Yet this is something we find objectionable about the Enlightenment. What seems to us most problematic and difficult, most questionable, remains unquestionable,(e.g., rationality.)We see no advantage to replicating this condition in the postmodern—we don’t see any advantage to that(e.g., with non-totalizing thinking.) We can, and it seems we must, make non-totalizing thinking our primary problem—we must not presuppose it.”

Carlos-O(1): “ You think non-totalizing thinking can be examined (objectified?) without making it dead, totalized?”