LogicWings:"Is this a quote, or is this you speaking? And are you asserting this is true?"
No, that is not me speaking. Yes, I believe it to be true, and yes it is a quote. I gave you the link to the source in Post #90 above
The source is Robert W.Godwin, Ph.D (a forensic clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics).
Here it is again with more context:
Winks, Links, Finks, and Shrinks - ".... because of the nature of UNCONSCIOUS LOGIC...."
[snip]
".....Now, as Jimmy Carter might say, back to our regularly scheduled pogrom.
There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation. For a metaphysical naif such as Sam Harris, whom we briefly discussed yesterday, there is only empiricism and reason, which is the beginning and end of his startling contribution to philosophy. As if we haven't known for the past couple hundred years that the absurd philosophy of materialism exists. For how absurd is it to employ a faux version of intellection to prove that intellection does not exist?
In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.
Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.
Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism. Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known.
It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent.
For this is the bottom line: either my spiritual writing is a product of intellection, spontaneously produced on the spot each morning just because I enjoy doing it; or it is a product of delusion. But either way, it is not susceptible to rational refutation. Either you get it or you don't. (I shouldn't even put it that way, because it implies that I'm infallible or something; let us just say that you either enjoy it or you don't -- the ultimate purpose is not to promulgate a dogma but to provide material for the reader's own intellection.) Those who do get it are, like me, either deluded or just enjoy the intellection. It's just a feeling we have. But feeling, like everything else, runs along a vertical continuum. There are feelings and there are feelings, but they are hardly the same thing (another good topic for a future post).
**** Now, this is not always true of my political writing. Obviously there are some areas "at the margins" that are subject to a purely rational approach; for example, raising the minimum wage either causes inflation and unemployment or it doesn't. That's an empirical question. Likewise, either the models used to predict catastrophic weather changes are accurate or ridiculously flawed.
But even with politics, I would say that the majority of my stances are a result of intellection, not reason. For example, my understanding of the spiritual primacy of liberty leads me to reject the left, which always erodes liberty. My opposition to "affirmative action," or government enforced discrimination, is rooted in principle. This is not something I can be "talked out of." Likewise, my belief in low taxes and a small federal government is a reflection of my principled belief that this arrangement produces better human beings and is vital to our collective spiritual evolution; or my belief that competition will produce a better educational system, or that capital punishment for murderers is a deeply moral act of cosmic and divine justice. (Perhaps I should add, when it is carried out by civilized people, not barbarians -- which gets into a whole different set of issues. For example, I am open to the idea that Muslims should not carry out the death penalty until they can comprehend the sacredness of life -- in short, unless or until they develop Judeo-Christian values, for the identical act of punishment can be a result of justice, or mercy [for the victim but also the perpetrator if he is able to understand that wishing to be put to death is the only way he can even begin to show atonement for his crime], or sadism, or scapegoating; once again, it is the "link" that is most important, and nowhere in the Islamic world is there the regard for life that those of us who are beneficiaries of the Judeo-Christian tradition take for granted.)"
No, that is not me speaking. Yes, I believe it to be true, and yes it is a quote.
Good. I did not want to impugn you with a proposition you did not agree with. The construction: . . . no rational operation can provide its own content.
Is a refutation of Kant's a priori conceptualization of knowledge. And I happen to agree that a priori is not a valid concept. I just wondered if you understood that.
".....Now, as Jimmy Carter might say, back to our regularly scheduled pogrom.”
Well, to quote Jimmy Carter for anything? And did you really mean pogrom? (As Vinnie Barbarino once said, “I'm so confused!”
There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation.
Well, since most of this conversation has been about intuition - I'd say you missed the boat.
In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses.
Do you understand the difference between percepts and concepts? Percepts are 'empirical data'. Concepts are knowledge, two fundamentally different things.
Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content.
A complete non sequitur from the two previous sentences (Undistributed Middle Term Fallacy) but as previously noted, refutes the concept of a priori.
Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.
This is getting painful. Remove the unnecessary negatives (contrapositive) and you have -
Evidently, it goes without saying that this personal decision can be reduced to reason.
Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism.
emotional intelligence concerns evaluation not perception. I don't even know what unalloyed rationalism means. As opposed alloyed rationalism?
Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known.
Have you considered taking up poetry? That is all this assertion is.
It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent.
Have you considered giving up the drugs and alcohol?
For this is the bottom line: either my spiritual writing is a product of intellection, spontaneously produced on the spot each morning just because I enjoy doing it; or it is a product of delusion.
Well, you nailed that one. It is the latter.
But either way, it is not susceptible to rational refutation.
I do my best to refrain from couching it is such terms: But in this case you are wrong. If it is illogical, it is irrational, by definition.
You may not understand this, you may not agree with it, but for those of us who understand reason, it is true. To quote your next line:
Either you get it or you don't.
And you, apparently, don't.
Those who do get it are, like me, either deluded or just enjoy the intellection.
As noted, you're deluded, that is precisely my point. (Well, actually I don't really think you are 'deluded', that would be rude. I think you are in over your head.)
It's just a feeling we have. But feeling, like everything else, runs along a vertical continuum.
“Vertical continuum.” I like that, says exactly nothing. But, in reality, feelings (emotions) are derivative of values. They do not precede perception but are subsequent to it. Thus feelings (emotions) are not a means of gathering knowledge about reality, but evaluating its importance to you. Two completely separate things, or modes.
But even with politics, I would say that the majority of my stances are a result of intellection, not reason.
Please explain how you accomplish intellection without employing reason.
For example, my understanding of the spiritual primacy of liberty leads me to reject the left, which always erodes liberty.
Well, I don't understand how 'spiritual primacy' relates to liberty. I would agree though that the left always erodes liberty.
Likewise, my belief in low taxes and a small federal government is a reflection of my principled belief that this arrangement produces better human beings and is vital to our collective spiritual evolution;
Agreed, “low taxes and a small federal government . . . this arrangement produces better human beings” but collective spiritual evolution is a concept I cannot agree with, in any sense of the phrase. First of all, “collective” anything is fallacious as a social construct. It is the basis for Marxism, socialism and liberalism. Since spiritual development is individual, not collective, I don't know what this phrase means.
. . . capital punishment for murderers is a deeply moral act of cosmic and divine justice.
I don't see how government implementing a legal sanction is cosmic and divine justice rather than secular justice but if you say so.