Of Women, Intuition, and Moral Reason

.

Of Women, Intuition, and Moral Reason:

.

American women, tending to be more and longer sheltered, more often reason with feelings over facts. In that respect, they tend to be more manipulable by skilled demagogues, practiced in promising to spin riches out of nothing but fantasies. Who else has our wealthy society too long sheltered from reality? Keynesians, fiat money printers, dopers, family haters, felons, illegals, victim mongers, race baiters, mobsters, miracle promisers and their prey. Traditional American producers are no longer in the majority. Indeed, the majority tend to think traditional American men are no longer needed, now that they are convinced that wealth can be established and preserved out of nothing more than wishing it so. It will take more than one generation to wash this nonsense out of the pipeline. Simply put, you can't convince practiced fantasists with arguments based on facts. The school of reality will have to impose a time of hard knocks in order to wash away the accumulation of delusions. Unfortunately, that school will also wash away and replace many of the fondest memories of the moral potential and "ought" of America.

.

With respect to moral potential, "Ought" can only be derived from "Is" in respect that "Is" includes not just the quantitative, but also the qualitative. Even then, Ought will not be derivable as a measurable quantitative. Rather, Ought is derivable qualitatively, not with quantitative experience, but with qualitative Intuition of a kind that appreciates not just the appetities that are whetted by hormones within glands and brains, but also the meta appetites for experiencing meaningful purposefulness, with which feedback of meta apprehensions the universe responds and dances.

.

One does not empirically or quantitatively demonstrate the Intuition of which I write. Rather, one lives it. One does not quantitatively prove one's I-ness, consciousness of identity, self awareness, or free will. Nor does one prove the existence of other beings and perspectives of such I-ness. Rather, one qualitatively and holistically senses, experiences, and lives one's I-ness. One does not measurably prove fellow perspectives of I-ness. For all one knows empirically, such other perspectives may be solipsistic tricks or fluxing presentations of a singular consciousness. They may be nothing more than iterations of a same unconscious, highly advanced, biologically-based, holographic projection or machine, coordinated to dance to meta dreaming of a single puppet master. Empirically, a mortal being cannot prove otherwise. However, based on insight derivative of common sense experience, one can reasonably, qualitatively, intuit otherwise. One can Intuit that other beings and perspectives are conscious and do experience merit and appreciate free will and meaningful purposefulness. One Intuits such based on experience of a quality of I-ness, not based on mere empirical measures of unconscious substance. One does not weigh I-ness; one experiences and intuits it.  Based on living experience, one can reasonably, qualitatively, empathetically, intuitively believe in conscious moral purposefulness --- not empirically prove it.
.
INTUITION:  Mechanically minded people tend to assume everything is reducible to the quantitative.  To them, Intuition of an existent is something that must necessarily be provable, empirically.  Or, if it cannot be tested empirically, then they pronounce it meaningless (as if music and poetry were necessarily meaningless unless what makes them music or poetry could be mathematically delimited).  In essence, these people assume there is no such an existent as a non-quantitative qualitative, and then claim to have proved it because (lol!) it cannot be quantified!  For mechanically minded people, Intuition of a kind that cannot be empirically tested is generally considered to be meaningless.  However, if there does abide such an existent as a non-quantifiable qualitative, then would not the only way reasonably to hypothesize about it and test it be with a kind of inutition that cannot be empirically tested, i.e., an intuition for the purely qualitative?  Would not the only possible and reasonable "test" for an intuiton of a pure qualitative consist in the test availed in social life?  Would not such intuition consider whether accepting it makes generally reasonable and useful sense for the purpose of explicating, establishing, and preserving a decent, moral civilization that broadly facilitates human expressiveness?  After all, what other test could there be, concerning issues of moral qualitatives?  Direct, internal, subjective experience of a here and now connection with a qualitative existent, by definition, could not be tested quantitatively, but only in qualitative experience.  To assume a non-quantitative qualitative cannot meaningfully be tested except quantitatively is to confuse assumption with evidence and proof, as if one could prove an assumption merely by assuming it.  TEST:  In good faith and good will, what does the core of one's consciousness suggest to one, with regard to a qualitatively connecting Source of consciously empathetic appreciation?  To each mind of good faith and good will, how often will such intuition redound in much the same way?  Why might that be?  Alternatively, if you don't believe such, how do you expect with mere empiricism to inspire people to progress or evolve to produce or preserve a decent civilization?  Suppose you abstract further, and tell people they have been selected by the unfolding of Nature to believe in something that does "not really exist" merely because such a trick of belief can enhance advantages for survival and reproduction?  Well, then, does that itself not beg a question:  Isn't that trick of belief itself a qualitative, and isn't your faith in its value for natural selection based more on a preferred mode of assuming, than on empirical proof?  After all, how many species find evolutionary value in such a trick, if that's all it is?  In other words, why presume a purely quantitative Nature does (or should?) favor such a trick for purposes of natural selection, unless there's some innate, qualitative Aspect that so avails Nature?  Moreover, suppose you convinced everyone to be "bright" enough to accept your view of life and beingness.  In the name of what science or hubris do you presume therewith to inspire the establishment or sustenance of any desireable civilization?
.