On the Fallacy of Reason.

In the enterprise of Reason, many leaps are taken and forgotten. Might it be said they are forsaken [mistakenly]?

In a text, there is no Reason intrinsic to it. What we call Reason is a series of extrapolations that abstract away from the given text and make it appear as though connections existed betwixt phrases and words where in fact no such connections are ever intrinsic to the text its self; they are entirely the product of the reader’s imagination. Thus the leaps of faith that we call “logical consistency” contain WITHIN THEIR SELVES what we call contradiction – the opposite of consistency, by definition, and therefore its absence. All contradiction is the absence of consistency, and vice versa. Need I elaborate further along the lines of Reason, aiming to establish myself in this camp, now that my idea, if entertained, would lay waste to it? Perhaps, because an idea by its self without a proliferation of other ideas enshrouding it is nowadays accorded the dignity of a solitary grass-blade struggling against an overpowering layer of cement.

Since all pretense towards Reason is therefore extrapolated FROM a text, so it is that all accusations of “contradiction” are equally arbitrary. Might it not be said that any contradiction could be just as easily called a paradox? After all: Why presume that Reality Its Self would accord with the illusory principle of Reason, if [even] language does not do so in Reality?

Dm.A.A.