I agree, especially that reason does not drive most action. I do not believe we are even close to understanding the fundamental fabric of reality and that most of observed scientific fact (even from a physics standpoint) is emergent rather than fundamental. I think that reason my not drive as many decisions as we think it does but it does create the water of reality that we swim in. In that sense it may be the thing most tied to theology and the least tied to modern science. It seems that science may be emergent and reason is fundamental, it’s just hard to prove something is fundamental through an emergent process (scientific).
Discussion
Often I find myself confused in conversation, and then it is clarified when I find I am talking to one who believes in an eternal, unchanging universe, about which we can hold some truths, while I myself am thinking not so much of what is changing as to the change itself being the only eternal. Your reference to “the water of reality that we swim in’ makes sense to me as what I call a stable complexity of conversation - that about which our experience allows us to share in understanding. It is all beautiful to me, what I get @walker to mean about ‘Drink the Sunlight’. Those things conversing and that which the conversation is about both change. What emerges from that process cannot be understood by what came before.
Yes completely agree, maybe there is no absolute truth and everything is relative to the constant change. Studying the past doesn’t necessarily align with the future.
Can you conceive of an emergent process devoid of change? Change becomes fundamental accordingly.
In my way of thinking, reason is a continuation of passion by other means. Science is a rationalization of technology (i.e., the arts, the products of humanity) and the instruments we create to measure our experience. The experience itself, and everything in culture that affects it, is all we have to share and in that sharing, new things emerge.