Replies

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.

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.