When a paranoid schizophrenic mathematician who was arrested for going to a gay bar ends up reducing the entirety of the social sciences to just one sentence after having lost his government security clearance but is then redeemed by being allowed entry into Princeton as a professor and researcher, we are either being confronted with the absurdism of Camus or the nihilism of Nietzsche as the explanation for human existence, or there is perhaps a deep message and a profundity of meaning behind this kind of mind-boggling phenomenon. Nevertheless, for such a phenomenon to occur, we are essentially presented with the limitations on “rationality” in our choices and our strategies in prompting what are thought to be optimal outcomes. Thus, from scientific empiricism, we are brought to a reckoning with a phenomenological or existentialist worldview and ontological state which can best be explained by an individual or a set of individuals who have established synchronicity and understanding with such an ontological state and worldview.
And when there are clear limitations to “rationality” in terms of decision-making and strategy on both a micro-economic and macro-economic level, the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition is thus vindicated over a historical materialist tradition in the sense that intuition becomes the default guide in an economic, political, and social context that is defined by limitations on what is thought to be “rationality.” When intuition spurs a defection from an ontological state and worldview which is defined by “rationality” and modernity, it is essentially the result of a reckoning with a phenomenological and existentialist worldview and ontological state that has developed as a result of a broader and deeper survey of reality. Thus, the limitations of “rationality” and modernity thwart the attainment of a survey of reality which captures an ontological state and worldview that exceeds and surpasses such limitations on the attainment of that goal.
In turn, when we capture an ontological state and worldview which exceeds and surpasses the limitations of “rationality,” we are dealing with something cosmological and universal. Therefore, there are cosmological and universal undercurrents to the patterns and trends which are developing on an empirical level. And in order to understand the cosmological and universal undercurrents of the patterns and trends on an empirical level, one must exceed or surpass the limitations of “rationality” and modernity that are imposed on the prevalent ontological state and worldview which underpins the empirical worldview in both the modern and postmodern ages.
In order for an ontological state and worldview to capture reality – with reality being the totality of everything which exists – one’s ontological state and worldview have to enable an epistemological status, scope of research, and ultimate source that are cosmological and universal in scope. In essence, patterns and trends that are observed and studied empirically or phenomenologically are part of something cosmological and universal in scope. Thus, in all of our dealings, we are confounded by something cosmological and universal in scope. If we were not confounded by something cosmological and universal in scope, what would explain the aforementioned phenomenon?