REASON AND NON- REASON

(Are they two different entities?!)

G.M.Subhasree Iyer

The present reaction paper is based on the article â??Science(s) of the Mind: Fort-Da between the windscreen and the rearview mirrorâ?? by Anup Kumar Dhar.

The author discusses the reviews of the sciences of the mind in reference to the knowledge of Reason and Non- Reason. He takes his readers through a journey of a series of attempts by different people to define Reason, as different from Non- Reason. Through this journey he stunts his readers by asking if the distinction between Reason and Non- Reason is merely reduced to â??Madnessâ?? and â??Breakdownâ??. Furthermore, he also tries to analyze the â??Mind of Reasonâ?? and â??Mind of Non- Reasonâ?? and later states that when we only know about our minds partly through introspection, then how will we understand other peopleâ??s minds, especially the minds of the Non â?? Reason â?? if reduced to Madness or Breakdown. This paper later foregrounds the question of â??Whoâ? in relation to Non- Reason, for which he takes off with a question of the patient- client in the psychiatric clinic in relation to how the institution of mental health refers to Non- Reason? In the later sections of the paper, he takes us towards the relationship between Doctor Reason and Patientâ??s Non- Reason and very intelligently triggers the idea of Reason reducing Non- Reason to mere Madness. He also gives us an outline of the critiques of the Organized Psychiatry and of Freud in particular and Psychoanalysis in general and also discusses Freud return to Non- Reason and lastly Foucaultâ??s stand on Non- Reason.

This paper takes us through a number of unanswered and thought provoking questions. When we term something as valid, the very thought that comes to our â??mindâ?? is that it can be reduced to something Reasonable and when we term something as invalid, its called Non- Reason. However, we can analyze the long forgotten question about how does the doctor treat the client; whether as â??Madâ?? as â??Threatâ?? or â??Victimâ?? in the society and in psychiatric clinic. As the author quotes a statement made by a mentally diseased namely-

â??aapnara shudhu monke bandhte jaanen, monke bujhte paren naâ?

(All of you {psychiatrists} know how to rein over minds; you donâ??t understand the mind)

This clearly shows the deprivation of the doctor- client relationship and also the attempt to make things understandable and non- understandable. The attempt of the author to bring out the history about Cartesian Reason clearly shows Non- Reason being reduced to something lacking other of Reason; to that which is not yet Reason; or less than Reason. The mention of the anti- psychiatric movement of 60- 70â??s tells us about the notion of insanity as illness (or perhaps non- reason as madness) and through an exposition of mental illness as a myth, helped dilute the crisis in the dominant biomedical, institutional psychiatry.

Further, the author helps us travel backwards to the time of Freud and the theory of Psychoanalysis which helps us think whether it is a theory instituted through attention to language of irrationality- phantasy- dreams and also when we term him as a philosopher sensitive to silence(s); it leads in to a grave situation of what was Freudâ??s relation to silence and what was the institution of silence as a separate language- discourse- entity- treatment- reason and non- reason (otherwise madness).

Reason and Non- Reason is equivalent to Normal and Abnormal. The very brain of the normalists lie in coercion with the other called abnormal. The fundamental principles of the disciplines like psychiatry, psychology lie in this discrimination of abnormal from normal. With the issue of the reason and non- reason unsolved, how are all these disciplines ruling their sphere efficiently?

With a series of discussions and readings on Reason and Non- Reason and also after reading through this article â??sciences of the mindâ? by Anup Kumar Dhar, it makes me believe Non- reason as a child forsaken and deprived, crying under the scorching heat of surpassing generations, for justice! Moreover, it seems certain that Reason and Non- Reason have been put in to two different entities, with no proper stand for Non-Reason to substantially arise (the aspect long forgotten)! When we take a close look on Foucaultâ??s work (1988); we can see as to how silence was imposed on Non- Reason, and how Non- Reason was personified in to an object of knowledge clearly tells us the denial of accepting Non- Reason as a separate entity in par with Reason. Thus, I donâ??t regret to state that science and psychiatry —- are as dubious as Non- Reason, as these disciplines (â??strangelyâ??) deal with what is called MAD- otherwise called SILENCE- otherwise called NON-REASON, which remains a Herculean task to be solved in its true sense. Lastly, in relation to the client and mental health institutions; it makes me ponder on the issue of:

What is Reasonable and Non- Reasonable otherwise termed as What is Mad and Non- Mad and What is the Discourse of the Mad (if there is anything substantially called Mad) and What is the language of the Silence(d) and lastly what is insanity (if there is anything called insanity in its true sense)!!