[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Case]

[Ham]
I think we're both trying to make the same point; i.e., Reason is the use of
logic to justify intuitive insight.  As I said before, "insight, intuition
and logic are the tools of philosophy."  We need all three to "systematize"
or codify a belief as a theory.  And all tenets of that theory must be
consistent with the fundamental belief.

[Case]
I agree we are making similar points here. I have long expressed it as:
Reason is a tool for rationalizing prejudice.  

In light of what you say above I would be willing to restate this as:
Reason is a tool for examining insight.

I don't like the word justify in the context you have it. Justification
quickly degenerates into rationalization of prejudice a little too often for
my taste. I think justification results from insightful consensus. 
 
[Ham]
Gained "acceptance", perhaps -- but "power"?  Don't forget that, apart from
philosophers, most people put their trust in empirically demonstrated
theories.  The philosopher presenting a hypothesis for Creation, let's say,
is handicapped in this regard.  He can offer no empirical proof for his
theory; it's "only" a conviction based on intruition, reasoning, and logic.
Those who see no truth or value in the concept are of course free to call it
a "fantasy".  Similar labels were once applied to the theories of Copernicus
and Galileo.  And objective evidence for their theories was available to
anyone with the intelligence to discover it!

[Ham]
You're saying that objectivity is agreement by consensus?  I doubt that this
would satisfy the objectivists.

[Case]
I am not an objectivist.

[Ham]
Thoughts and intellectual constructs are processed by the brain; values,
however, are pre-intellectual and are sensed psycho-somatically.  (I believe
this is consistent with Pirsig's epistemology.)

[Case]
The brain processes electro-chemical activity. It allows for the
excruciatingly complex release of heat into the atmosphere. Our thoughts are
a property of this dissipation of sunlight.

[Ham]
My hearing is binaural.  Why do you consider it one-dimensional?

[Case]
This is the same process as the eyes converting two dimensions into three
via stereoscopic vision.

[Ham]
I've previously stated that dimensionality is the mode of human experience.
What is your point in explaining its dynamics to me in neurological terms?
[snip]
I would not call logic and reason "modalities".  Logic is really the science
of reasoning, while reason itself is the process of intellectual
comprehension.  Logic can be "properly applied" to intuitive reasoning as
well as objective facts.  If this were not true, we could not develop
metaphysical theories.


[Case]
Because reason and logic are not processed in the same region of the brain
as insight. There is a pre-intellectual, psycho-somatic functioning
intelligences running in parallel in each of us all the time. The brain is a
community or network of intelligences that function together but can
function alone. Insight is a different brain activity that reason and logic.
These things are fairly plastic in how they can relate. Perhaps a philosophy
about how they should relate should concern itself with how they do relate.