[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Ham Priday]

Case said:
> Intuition and insight are not used to conceptualize.
> They are not processes with starts, middles and ends.
> They spring to life full blown. They often occur when ideas
> connect spontaneously almost without effort. They may
> proceed from months of futile effort where nothing is
> happening, then the ideas coalesce. As with Pirsig's
> example of the conception of Quality forming like a seed
> crystal. This 'felt right' to Pirsig if he had not explained it,
> written it down, gone through the work of justifying his
> insight, it would have been just another wet dream.
> Logic is a tool philosophers use to justify their intuitions.

But he did write it down, sort it out, convert it to a logical proposition.
That's how he was able to conceptualize the insight, that is, structure
Quality as a plausible theory.  And those "months of effort" before the
"ideas coalesce" surely lay a foundation for the insight that finally
arrives.  You may be talking about the proverbial "flash of insight" we call
an epiphany, which rarely can be put to words and communicated to others
conceptually.

Case, previously:
> Truth has neither capacity nor necessity to be believed.

Ham:
> Do I translate this correctly as meaning that truth is incapable
> of being believed?  How do you justify this assertion?
> What do you believe, then?
> Is one of your beliefs that there is no necessity to search for truth?

Case:
> No, I am saying that Truth does not have a capacity. Capacity
> or volume are not properties of Truth. Some of us have the
> capacity to perceive Truth.  But this is a property of us not of
> Truth.  Truth does not have a need to be believed either.
> It does not have needs or ends.

Truth is not a "thing" -- not being -- but it does have Value for the
believer.  That's why I asked you what you believe if not Truth.  Nothing is
absolute except Essence.  As far as human reasoning is concerned, there is
no "absolute Truth".  But truth has no meaning or purpose if it can't be
believed.  Which is why I say that the value of truth lies in its capacity
to be believed.

Case:
> Belief systems that rely on intuition alone do not exist
> or at least I can not think of one.

I may believe that the stock market will crash on Monday.  George Bush
believed that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction.  Many believe that
the Second Coming is imminent.  These are not all belief "systems", but they
are intuitive beliefs supported by some kind of logic or reason.

> Beliefs become systematic through the application of reason
> and logic to intuition. Intuition is transmitted and spread to others
> via reason and logic. Intuition can also be spread through art or
> personal charisma as well. The point here is not that intuition is
> not valuable but rather that it is not tied to reason.  It is more
> primitive than reason.

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.

Ham, previously:
> Thus, using Quality as the assumed fundamental reality, the MoQ
> posits an non-objective epistemology with an evolutionary foundation
> and a multi-level theory of Organic, Inorganic, and Intellectual
> development.  Using Essence as the fundamental reality, Essentialism
> posits a primary division of awareness and beingness whose mutual
> affinity differentiates the experienced world.  One could also say that
> Darwinism and the Theory of Relativity are intuitively reasoned
> concepts that include empirical observations.  Within their respective
> frameworks, all of these theories are held together by the consistency
> of the deductions with the fundamental thesis.

Case:
> One could say the Darwin and Einstein had intuitions which
> stood up to the tests of reason and experimentation and gained
> power as a result. Your theory of Essence seems to be a private
> fantasy of your own that is likely to remain that way.

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!

Case:
> The Pharisees were students of the Torah (The Law).
> The first century Pharisees were the founders of modern
> Rabbinic Judaism.  E.P. Sanders suggests that Jesus actually
> was a Pharisee. Sanders provides many examples of how
> Jesus used the logical and storytelling techniques of the Pharisees.
> The famous Golden Rule for example is actually an inversion of
> Rabbi Hillel's injunction to "Do not unto others as you would
> have them do not unto you." Jesus is called Rabbi several times
> in the New Testament.

Yes, I am aware of that versions of the Golden Rule can be found in pagan
writings.   Karen Armstrong recounts that Hillel the Elder was rumored to
have quoted this variation to a pagan who offered to convert to Judaism if
the Rabbi could recite the truth of the Torah to him while he stood on one
leg.

Case:
> Subjectivity is irrelevant to everyone but the subject.
> I take solipsism seriously. Ultimately subjectivity is ALL
> that matters to me.  But if I wish to join the rest of the world
> I have to play by the rules, and those include providing
> reasons why my subjective states should matter to anyone else.

I provide reasons for the "rest of the world".

Ham:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "objectified" in this context.
> Could you elaborate on this?

Case:
> Objectivity consists of intersubjective agreement.
> It is the intersection of the sets of my experience
> and your experience.

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

[snip]

Case:
> Anyone who holds beliefs that they can not empirically or
> rationally defend is at least defective. For example, a young man
> had a fever which damaged a portion of his cortex. He appeared
> to be normal and acted fine; however at home until he began to
> speak to his parents about those "other" people and his "other"
> house. He was convinced that the people he was speaking to
> were exact replicas of his parents who lived in a house identical
> to his own. He would ask them to take him to his real house, that
> he was tired of the replica. Eventually the parents arrived at the
> solution of walking him out the back door around the yard in
> back in through the front door where upon he was satisfied.
> Neurologists working with the young man concluded that the
> damage caused by the fever had resulted in an emotional
> disconnect between what the young man saw and what he felt.
> Since he saw his parent and his house but did not feel the
> emotional connection to them he concluded they were different.
>
> If you are seriously concerned with the relationship between modes
> of thinking you would do well to look into neurobiological research.
> Our thoughts, perceptions and logical constructions are the product
> of brain activity. They do not exist in its absence.

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.)

> As a brief example consider the senses. For most people vision
> is the primary sense. It is essentially two-dimensional. Our brains
> take two dimensional information and convert it to three.
> Hearing is one dimensional it originates at a point distant from us
> and we can orient ourselves toward the source forming a line.

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

> Smell and taste are zero dimensional and vary mostly in intensity.
> Touch and kinesthetic sense are three dimensional as a network
> of nerves in space. Our brains are able to organize simulation from
> multiple dimensions into multidimensional representations of the
> world around us. The brain does this in multiple modalities.

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?

> Logic and reason are such modalities as are emotion and
> intuition. Many times the act integrating these modalities results in
> confusion as reason tends to drift toward the feeling rather than the
facts.
> Logic when properly applied is a tool for overcoming this drift.

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.

Ham:
> Are the hypotheses of a Bob Pirsig or a Ham Priday nonsensical
> because they can't be objectively validated?  If our experience of
> reality is constructed from Value, then I submit that Value is closer
> to Truth than the objects of our experience.

Case:
> Your propensity for self aggrandizement never ceases to amaze.
> In this post you have compared yourself to Darwin, Einstein and
> now Pirsig for the second time. As I stated earlier Darwin and
> Einstein have withstood lots of logical scrutiny. Pirsig is being
> scrutinized. You and I are just a couple of guys who can type.
> Get over yourself.

I am also being scrutinized, Case.  (Or hadn't you noticed?)  Anyway, I got
over myself some time ago.  What I'm trying to get over now is that
anomalous "otherness" that seems to trouble the MoQ monists.

Regards,
Ham