LOTHA

PREAMBLE

As we’ve explored in other articles you can check out here The Path to Vibrational Emancipation: From Uncertainty to Clarity and here The Feeling of Isolation in Contemporary Society ;

Human thought is largely the fruit of social programming—that is, a social construct for the most part (in reference to involution).

The consequence is that we crave a sense of security (both physical and psychological—see references to Maslow and Rosenberg in psychological and educational sciences.

Maslow => https://bit.ly/3IZTuZD

Rosenberg’s Hierarchy of Needs// list of universal human needs => 3.2 of https://bit.ly/4o5cCnS

But from an essential perspective, this security is just one illusion among many. In the absolute, security doesn’t exist! So, how do we navigate that?

INTRODUCTION

This theme of the passion/reason duality has been debated by countless philosophers across the centuries. If we were all gathered around a table right now, we’d understand each other—especially through our differences. Because we know what it’s like to be a thinker.

That said, it might be worth letting go of the urge to « settle » it once and for all, even though the ancients debated it endlessly.

I think today, it’s not necessary. In the absolute, reason and passion are integrated. At their core, they’re the same. No real divide exists, but humans love to complicate things and over-intellectualize…

If we limit passion to the seven deadly sins, sure, they clash. I’m convinced it’s impossible to deny even a sliver of the Church’s influence on those lines of thought.

Moreover, can we reasonably claim their ideas on this weren’t, in the absolute, shaped by the Church?

The early philosophers took this opposition as their starting point, and in a way, that’s not wrong. I’m just saying that in the society we live in today, this view is not only incomplete (if it were fully true, why do we still suffer?) but also leaves us here, still questioning its validity—and still suffering because of it.

This tension is an illusion because humans have been conditioned to believe they’re limited by their five senses. Perhaps to obscure—or even dissolve—the full range of their capacities, or what Nietzsche called the will to power.

All perspectives have merit, but I find the passion/reason shortcut highly debatable. I believe it’s time to revisit this issue and offer a view that’s not necessarily « right » or « true, » but simply different.

THESIS

This duality is an illusion because passion and reason can only coexist through—and with—the capacities of discernment, lucidity, and intuition. That doesn’t mean they’re independent of each other.

It simply means they exist but aren’t opposed or opposable. They’re woven into the human condition, and their unfolding must be just as integrated—an extension of that very fabric.

Could we truly tame passion and let reason dominate without the clarity of an integrated judgment?

5 Dimensions for This New Perspective

• Reason
• Passion
• Intuition
• Lucidity
• Discernment

It seems these elements allow consciousness to emerge—without them, we couldn’t even question ourselves, reflect on our capacities, let alone distinguish and articulate them.

What I’m proposing today is a fairly integrative vision.

I’ll let you discover it.

DEVELOPMENT

From my perspective, it’s hard—nay, impossible—to deny a fundamental flaw in the oppositional approach. Reason and passion aren’t opposed or opposable; they’re complementary. Yet, this complementarity isn’t self-sustaining on its own. It thrives with other elements.

If we use reason tempered by measured passion (which wouldn’t really be passion anymore, would it?) and passion (unmeasurable) guided by reason (in the objective, quantitative sense), could we lean toward balance? Even if so, how do we know when it’s truly achieved? Through what?

Let’s pause and reflect:

• When passion surges, where’s the lucidity?
• What’s intuition’s role when we give in to our passions?
• Does letting passion sweep through us mean we’re fundamentally shortsighted?
• Is lust a stroke of genius?
• Reason… why didn’t they just call it intelligence?

If we see intuition as a form of intelligence that mobilizes discernment—and thereby « judgment »—in tandem with reason, which is inherently objective and quantitative by nature, then yes: intuition is a kind of judgment that complements reason.

Passion can exist without discernment, but if we’re eager to strike a balance between the two (reason/passion), we need it.

That’s where discernment and lucidity come in, and intuition isn’t just some « inner voice »—it’s an intelligence that integrates reason, or rather, a kind of flow that enables the very movement we’re talking about.

In other words, intuition and discernment go hand in hand—they feed off each other, and their interplay with the other dimensions is constant. Think of them (these two) like the vagus nerve, nourishing the muscles and organs of our entire system.

All this leads me to wonder:

« Okay, we’ve always pitted passion against reason because we feel it, live it—so we assume it’s ‘real.’ But is intuition not real? Lucidity? Discernment? »

Being lucid is being intelligent.
Being intuitive is being intelligent.
Exercising discernment is a form of intelligence.
Reason is a form of intelligence too…

And that’s where it all comes together: we’re talking about different things that are, at bottom, fundamentally and essentially the same. The differences and nuances—where they exist—are in how they’re experienced and mobilized.

CONCLUSION

Allow me to paraphrase—with a touch of light irony: « The heart has its reasons that reason knows all too well, and that passion stubbornly refuses to look at. » Of course, as you’ll have gathered, this doesn’t sum up the preceding development—a friendly wink.

Human thought always involves dualities. And that’s well-known in various spiritual, esoteric, « mystical, » and philosophical circles.

But they don’t exist in essence. The universe isn’t built on dualities but on polarities. And those polarities are independent of living species’ conditions.

This passion/reason duality has long fueled the anguish of life’s impermanence for many individuals alienated by the tension it creates and the fleetingness it breeds. I get the debates our dear philosophers had—it’s entirely justified given the scope and real impact of this perspective on human thought’s evolution.

This integrative vision opens up possibilities that may have gone unexplored until now. Maybe it’s exactly what we need for each of us to become integrated people—in the Jungian sense, whole and complete.

To wrap up, I invite you to reflect.

What impacts has this passion/reason tension had on your life?

What have you done so far to break free from this illusion, if that’s been your goal?

What are you ready to do right now, after reading this article?

Take good care of yourselves.

Lotha.net