A philosopher should have a mind that is very open – to new ways of thinking and unusual judgements. But the more you open your mind, the harder it is to coherently and rationally process and formulate what comes flooding in – the multiplicity of corresponding, simultaneous and parallel aspects, dimensions and possibilities of existence or meaning!
So there is a dilemma in philosophy between narrowing ones mind to better be able to rationally process, formulate and communicate thought and opening ones mind – progressively bringing into visibility and then examining and questioning deeper boundaries and assumptions – which is necessary for more profound philosophy.
Or, to rephrase and maybe clarify this juxtaposition:
Rational analysis or criticism requires a narrowing and tightening of definitions and concepts. One tries to isolate an object [of inquiry], tuning out or eliminating all else.
Whilst if one doesn’t just want to destroy ideas and adapt ones existing theory/reality accordingly but wants to be capable of finding something new, something different from ideas present in and produced by culture – thoughts that don’t [just] seem wrong from the previous perspective but instead seem weird or alien – then mind must be expanded, consciousness relaxed, and boundaries dissolved in order to allow oneself to see and change* ones pre-existent [cultural] structures/frameworks of judgement, conception and perception. In case this still sounds out-landish, consider: Ones way of analysing an object must itself be subject to philosophy, and as it can’t be applied to itself, as this eventually leads to an antimony or a confusion of levels, it must simply be looked at**.
And indeed philosophy’s whole purpose should be to keep [our] reality’s structure alive, supple and adaptive, i.e. avoiding ossification around tightly fixed [theory] frameworks: Philosophy seeks new ways of thinking and seeing.
*by ‘change’ I really mean that one loosens or liquifies a part of ones mind and then lets it work itself out. That’s how it really works, and I think what doesn’t work is deliberately and urgently seeking and choosing a substitute identity for that part of ones mind, as discussed in previous notes.
**Or you could also think of this next [recursive] step thus: you have
to allow your mind to open/relax, and only then can your method itself
become object of the usual kind of analysis. For usually ones method’s structure remains, for expediency, assumed and unquestioned. I ultimately don’t think this view works
though – truly the work of philosophy or analysis is always
founded/grounded/standing in a level that is non-rational and unseen,
and if one tries to move down in order to bring that level into
rationality, one then uses a next non-rational level. But this is fine: Non-rational conception is perfectly legitimate and indeed is a fine foundation for rational thought under the condition that one keeps looking at this foundation – instead of denying it – and keeps it free of [anti-philosophical] restraints imposed arbitrarily, letting it adapt and grow as required. It grows like a plant or a fungus or a river, and so is very reliable (and beautiful).