[MD] Re the intellectual level

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


[Ham said]:
> Reason IS confined to being informed by the objective world.
> That's what reasoning is. To intellectualize is to reason objectively.
> Can anyone deny this?

[Ron]:
> I can, To intellectualize can be to reason intuitively, that is,
> In action, reasoning involves a conscious attempt to discover
> what is true and what is best.-wiki ...
> [quoting Ham]:
> Thus, for the Essentialist, the "moral imperative" is: Rational,
> self-directed Value. (And it doesn't even require a knowledge
> of levels or patterns!)
>
> Thus Allen Greenspan's dilemma, no "moral" guidance,
> Rational, self-directed value is Hedonism sans moral integrity,
> Intellectualism without ethic is tantamount to evil for one may
> "rationalize" anything to justify that self directed value. This is
> why this current rational is meeting with disaster.
> In other words Rand supports the fleecing of the populace
> (AIG bailout) to the greed of the few. Is'nt this what is so
> repulsive about soviet communism and the like?

Your assertion that objective reasoning necessarily lacks moral integrity is 
unfounded.  Even "intuitive reason" is based on relational principles.  I've 
been dealing a lot lately with metaphysical propositions and tenets, and I 
can assure you that the greatest impediment to expressing them logically is 
that all reasoning is relational.  Both Morality and Ethics are rational 
systems founded on relational values.  If morality were absolute (indigenous 
to the universe), there could be no such thing as individual freedom.

I won't comment on your suggestion that a former Federal Reserve Chairman 
was motivated by "hedonism sans moral integrity" in his efforts to keep the 
economy working, because such a slanderous charge only reveals your bias 
against capitalism.

However, you are right that the values on which man acts are his free 
choice, and intellectual ability is not "equally distributed".  Nonetheless, 
I would submit that such choices determine the course of history, and man 
(individually and collectively) has the potential to achieve the moral 
system that his value-sensibility drives him to accomplish.  Freedom is a 
double-edged sword.  That's what is so challenging about an amoral universe. 
We can be misguided by ideologies and doctrines that lead to disastrous 
consequences (i.e., the "unpropitious" application of rational value). 
That's why a fundamental belief system that resists indoctrination to 
manipulative agendas imposed by power-seekers is an important part of our 
reasoning.

But we can also be enlightened by moral precepts that lead to salutary 
results.  When we do so, our "moral integrity" serves as an example for 
others who will see our behavior as a reasonable model to emulate.  Thus, 
the incremental progress of mankind can be understood as the process of 
balancing individual values against universal reasoning.

Thanks, Ron,
Ham