Rationality with no regards for Reason

In an earlier blog entry sometime last year I sought to expand what might be considered rational, however I'm not sure if I made this distinction between making a rational decision and making a decision according to reason. The two are not the same, and is significant to make note of it. What is rational to me is not necessarily rational to another, where reason tends to lack the same connotative plurality and ambiguity in what is rational. Therefore I can rationalize even the most unreasonable actions, in fact most of my poorer decisions are highly rationalized. Working at Borders Books part time I manage to rationalize buying "just one more book" three times a week or so. Needless to say, my speed-reading is not up to the task of my bibliophobic tendencies. This book-buying addiction is perhaps rational for me since my duties and hobbies include reading and study...though I neglect other possible consequences and rational actions in pursuit of personal interest. Perhaps it is this personal interest that is driving a wedge between a rational decision and a rational decision in accordance with reason. I have not yet suggested what is meant by reason and I don't expect to put forward a concrete definition of the term since words by their very nature are adapted and conformed to those who rationalize. Free reason is characterized by its fluidity, its dynamism; though it is limited by its awareness, by the possibilities at a socio-temporal point in history. Free reason, universal reason, transcendent reason then only exists in a single moment free of time and is gone as that moment passes. Reason is contingent upon circumstances then. And with the understanding that this is a multi-cultural world where rationality is not concretely defined, reason is a teleological notion, wherein lies the search for Truth among the differences that separate and mark existence. I'm not debating whether or not this teleological characterization of the concept is in fact pointing towards a divinity, or perhaps towards a greater understanding of ourselves, or perhaps towards new life-saving technology but it is pointing somewhere towards something. Can we associate reason with logic as we define it today or does that perhaps limit what can be reasonable? Are we preventing ourselves from understanding reason in the utilization of modern philosophical and mathematical logic, or perhaps defining reason a bit more linearly. This linear reasoning is where those in academia tend to fall (at least in my experience). The conditioning of an academic to logically assess any given situation is a very handy skill when analyzing business scenarios, when going into scientific fields, or going into any fields where predictability is important. But this approach only limits academics in how and why they think and research the way they do. Are we as academics making a contribution, helping to inform and inspire others to understand what is reasonable or are we merely arguing amongst our ourselves apart from non-academics (I use these terms loosely)? As academics we're perhaps cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and later feeding their appetites to supply us with grant money for our research. Our rationalization of our lives becomes unreasonable since reason should encompass more than just personal gain. True reason has no place for 'us' and 'them' only Truth. An aside: I wouldn't hastely try to separate reason and art.