Thinking that is reactionary always comes at a cost. It starts with an act of rejection, yet more often tha not it remains committed to the logical framework that it apparently rejects.
~ Sepper, Understanding Imagination, 3.
I have been reflecting on this particular piece as it puts into words a dillemma I have had for quite some time. Whenever we engage the other with a set of tools, let us use the tools of logic, it is assumed that logic is universal. When one does not follow the same logic as others do, we enter into the idea that they are less cultured, primitive, barbaric, as they are not using the same logic we are, especially if we are trained. At that brings concern. Logic is as varied, or produces as varied results as the imagination may produce, since it follows a criteria, and criteria is vairable as well. Only when we start universalizing the criteria do we see uniformity. But that is just as dangerous! In uniformity we lose the very eventfulness that makes us unique, and that is difference, how our experiences shape who we are and how we rationalize things by way of the imagination.
The quote by Sepper awakens us to questions: if are responses are reactionary, we respond in the way of efficient causation; that is, we respond to their thoughts, and fall into the trap of using their logic. But what if we responded by moving from the efficiency of a quick response, to one that is constructed, that includes how we think? What if we deconstructed the question, and introduced how we ourselves are envisioning or seeing the world? If what we are trying to reject is the logic behind the response, then our responses need to move away from a reactionary response to one that is reflectiive and creative.
As I reflect back on some of my teaching moments, I remember times when I have been more reactionary than reflective and creative with my students. Maybe, if I am aware of my self, it was because of my insecurities, my own trying to form and shape what I think, that I may have given a reactive, inflamed response. As I try and do now, as I see the wisdom of my mentors and colleagues, my responses should be creative, asking the one asking the question to see their own logic, with its own presuppositions, to look at it from a different perspective, to see how perspecitves have the ability to be angled, shaped, to see in novel ways.