Draft below - uncontrolled copy

I find it interesting that we rarely question the idea that there are two seperate and distinct realms of inner humans experience. There is supposed to be a rational realm and an emotional realm.

Attempts have been made to integrate our understanding of these two distinct realms and I’m sure we can make detailed observations about how they are related based on either our own personal experience or as experts on psychology, logic, ethics, epistemology, or any number of cross-discipline studies.

But why do we see them as different in the first place? What if the time comes that we finally understand the inner emotional realm and the inner rational realm to be one and the same, two sides of the same coin, or perhaps both grounded in some foundational third realm?

We would under those circumstances still be left with the question of: Why did we consider them seperate for so long? It clear the we consider them seperate not just in the same way as the discovery of any unifying scientific discovery reveals the root of other disparate knowledge - this isn’t just a matter of the discovery of atoms and molecular knowledge bringing together disciplines such as chemistry, metal working, and the root cause of properties in fluids.

There is clearly an attachment to this distinction between the emotional and the rational that is itself deeply part of the human experience. We want to appeal to and defend this distinction regardless of our level of understanding. It seems important to us all that this distinction should be able to be made.

Why is it so important us? I think the answer lies in our interactions with others. If you think about the inner emotional realm you understand that your inner emotional realm is different to that of others. You can’t really ever know what others are feeling. But it’s also part of your interactions with others that you can always define your own feelings such that others cannot understand them.

The same is try though of the rational inner realm. You can’t every truely know what others know - or what they understand of what they know. In your interactions with others you must consider what they have chosen to share with you even about what they themselves believe they understand of what they know. Even when they do share what they believe they understand of what they know you can question that at any level. Alternatively, you may yourself not know enough to be able to question it.

The distinction between the inner emotional realm and the inner rational realm has utility in interactions between people. I believe this is in fact where the distinction comes from. It appeals to us and endures because of this utility.

When we interact with others we can do the following with the rational or emotional realms:

With either realm we can claim that the other does not know (or feel) what they know. This is the first order of utility.

With either one of the realms we can further claim that even where there is understanding from the perspective of one realm that understanding doesn’t count for the other realm. This is a second order utility that gives us the ability to declare “you are right but it doesn’t matter because of how I feel” or “I don’t know what the facts are but this is how I feel”.

Higher orders of utility also exist and particularly exist when we move from individual one-on-one interactions to interactions with groups, of “others”, or if we consider group-to-group interactions.

A third order of utility could be considered the ability to think of any disagreement to your rational thinking to be based on an emotional response. The opposition can also be easily imagined. Where the response to a strongly held belief that has been classified as emotional can be disarmed regardless of its validity be simply classifying the response rational.

A fourth order of utility might combine the two scenarios. By combining both the idea that you can’t know the inner realms individually, and the idea that as long as one person’s response is classified (or re-classified) as being in a different realm to what is being responded to we form a forth order of utility that creates a matrix of dynamic tactics that allow content-free conflict. We can flip between these tactics as arguments evolve. Where “argument” is used here simply to represent anything that might otherwise cause us to think too hard, something that creates cognitive dissonance, or something that might otherwise make us question our t beliefs.

In conclusion, I belief it is entirely possible that their is no distinction between the rational and the emotional realms. I believe we are simply classifying the thoughts of ourselves and even more freely the thoughts of others into these categories so these beliefs can be protected from others. We have, in effect, over thousands of years built up a distinction that has utility from the perspective of interactions with other people but no real distinction in reality.

There I an interesting line of thought this conclusion opens. If there is no distinction between these two realms and the distinction have been created because it help manage interactions with other people then what of the difference between humans and other animals? Could it be that our insistence the exceptionalism of humans - and of souls and of higher consciousness - could simply be a reflection of the more complex interactions we have with others? Could it be that the fact the humans can communicate with more depth strengthens this distinction between the rational and emotional realms and that this distinction itself creates consciousness?