>>Do you agree that <reason> is not the judge of all things? Do
you agree that legitimate action and valid beliefs may be be
based on principles other than those of <reason>? Do you
agree that, while <reason> should be highly valued and
regularly practiced, it should not be made to rule or bind
any individual against their will?<<
I am not sure of the interpretation to give this. "Reason" is a bit broader to me than "rationality", because I generally think of it including both critical, and justificational elements. To me "reason" is the result of rationality. "Rationality" is a process, specifically the process of rational criticism. But since we all start life at different points, and move through different paths, we are all going to enter the process of rational criticism with different sets of justifications.
That always leaves open the possibility that we are going to come to different conclusion that are reasonable. Reasonable minds, can and do differ. However, on the whole, the results of rational criticism are assymetrical - on the whole the results tend more toward greater agreement, and less toward greater disagreement.
Sorry to not directly answer this series of questions, but we may revisit them again. But I will give at least one as complete an answer as is reasonably possible.
>>Now, where were we? Ah, yes...
Being a slave to <reason> leads inevitably to delusion.<<
Okay, I will try to give this a true meaning. If you believe that there is only one possible reasonable conclusion to any question, you will probably turn into a genuine "logic nazi" and will fill your own and perhaps others lives with delusion. Being consistently rational, is not the same thing as this.
Non-
Rationalism</A> -
http://www.law.mita.keio.ac.jp/~sehagi/kogawara3.html
Pancritical Rationalism - http://www.extropy.org/pcr.htm
-Jake