Apology to Alexis Jacobi

[Iwannaplato]

Aren't our values, ultimately founded on heart, feeling emotions? Do they determine at the core what we choose to value/prioritize? From there reason works out application, and then also implication: if we value X, then Y is a threat to that. From what non-emotional vantage do we form a base?

I draw a distinction between feelings and sentiments. For example people today are obsessed by their *feelings* -- emotions. But in contrast, and just for an example, the best poets work in the realm of ideas and sentiments.

It would be in my view enormously wrong to negate *the heart* in the sense it is often meant. But there is another side to the *heart* and I refer to the Latin concept of intellectus.

(Latin intelligere — inter and legere — to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto).

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

Well, again, I can't see how we have values without emotions. There is a non-rational core to what we prioritize, care about, love, hate, try to make, etc. Without emotions, the intellect is just hollow calculation as far as values. It wouldn't know where to begin. It could just as well decide ants were the most important creatures or be antinatalist or, really, anything at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don’t negate emotions or feelings. I suggest that real decisiveness in respect to values, is arrived at through processes on a higher end of a hierarchy.

Higher intellect, higher sentiment.

[Iwannaplato]

I don’t negate emotions or feelings. I suggest that real decisiveness in respect to values, is arrived at through processes on a higher end of a hierarchy.

Higher intellect, higher sentiment.

I'm not sure what you mean by real decisiveness. Do you mean the ability to commit to the values?
I wasn't saying you negate them entirely, but it seemed values could be arrived at without them. And then in the context of not giving a rat's ass about his feelings. And then in the context of this quote:

Latin intelligere — inter and legere — to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto).

The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul.

especially the bolded part. Amazingly in the context of the Catholic Church it's all left brain stuff - take the left/right brain distinction as a metaphor or literally.

And just to make sure it's clear: I am not saying the intellect and those various functions are not important to values.

[Alexis Jacobi]

especially the bolded part. Amazingly in the context of the Catholic Church it's all left brain stuff - take the left/right brain distinction as a metaphor or literally.

Older Catholic theological and moral writing is hyper-intellectual. I am often impressed. But I am inclined to respect Catholic philosophy and I admit a sort of defensive love for many achievements of the Church. (I was not raised in it).

Still, I remain a square peg and cannot fit myself into so much of the trappings.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary: I cannot accept your apology. However, if guilt bites at you I will accept a monetary fine. It has to hurt a bit though. Start at $250.00 and depending on your guilt level go up from there.

I gUaRaNTeE you’ll feel better!

[Iwannaplato]

especially the bolded part. Amazingly in the context of the Catholic Church it's all left brain stuff - take the left/right brain distinction as a metaphor or literally.

Older Catholic theological and moral writing is hyper-intellectual. I am often impressed. But I am inclined to respect Catholic philosophy and I admit a sort of defensive love for many achievements of the Church. (I was not raised in it).

Still, I remain a square peg and cannot fit myself into so much of the trappings.

I appreciate many things about the Catholic Church. The mood of many churches. The fact that they take their rituals seriously and are precisely not as secular and rational as Protestants tend to be about their worship. Even if I dislike the symbolism of the mass, I appreciate that they are willing to have mystery, emotion, awe and non-verbal communion directly in the center of the practices. I like that many became obsessed with Mary, a kind of unconscious acknowledgement that the trinity is lacking something and these male deities actually need a woman and there is something almost holier and kinder than the 3 in one male parts. I like that there is darkness in the religion. Not moral darkness, though there's that also, unfortunately, but literal darkness. So much of Protestantism seems lit by fluorescent lights.

There are many things I admire about the Enlightenment, and many problems when it takes over everything or even most things,and it put a nail in the coffin of paganism...for a long time. But Catholicism is vastly more pagan than Protestantism.

The left brain takeover in the Enlightenment has damaged us severely.

None of the above description of what I appreciate about Catholicism means I don't also have some seriously negative things to say about the Church. But it does manage to keep alive some things the Enlightenment has been trying to kill. And that's why I viewed that Catholic Opinion, oh so left brainy opinion you quoted, as ironic - not intended to be, but ironic. Some people and organizations don't know what's good about them. And of course also what bad.

The Western tradition has had many upheavals. It's a set of traditions, with pockets of resistance, often hidden in plain sight, but often just in a village here or somewhere hidden in the cities, where the horrible white light of Rome in more modern forms, we could almost call it corporate white light, even before corporations, came along to kill and convert everyone to the machine.

Which traditions? Which hierarchies? Which radical then gets considered a conservative now?
It's no coincidence that postmodernism arose in the West, not for example the Middle East or even Asia.
It's no coincidence that the founding of the US eliminated many hierarchies or reduced their power and influence.

I am a pragmatist in many ways, but I have also never liked the domination of the left brain.
And now the psychopaths have their fingers on the buttons of the Technocrats in ways that are global and deep: deep into our DNA, deep surveillance everywhere, deep as impossible to keep out nanotech and so on. But sure let's focus on decadence while the technocrats keep inventing ways for the psychopaths to control and replace everything including us.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I agree very much with all that you wrote. If I commented it would be to fill out the same general assertions with repeated or expanded statements.

Which traditions? Which hierarchies? Which radical then gets considered a conservative now?

Those are questions that have answers.

[Iwannaplato]

I agree very much with all that you wrote. If I commented it would be to fill out the same general assertions with repeated or expanded statements.

Which traditions? Which hierarchies? Which radical then gets considered a conservative now?

Those are questions that have answers.

I'm sure they do. I do ask rhetorical questions, but those weren't.

I'll add one more: why does it seem like conservative heroes often eliminated/reduced hierarchies and broke with tradition?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll add one more: why does it seem like conservative heroes often eliminated/reduced hierarchies and broke with tradition?

I think that if you provided an example I might understand better what you are referring to.

[Iwannaplato]

I'll add one more: why does it seem like conservative heroes often eliminated/reduced hierarchies and broke with tradition?

I think that if you provided an example I might understand better what you are referring to.

I did that earlier in another thread regarding the founders of the US. It might have been in response to Wizard and not you, I can't remember.
Protestantism did this in relation to Catholicism. (Conservative Catholics may well consider this a mistake, but Protestant Conservatives can't do that).
Allowing the Bible to be written in English (or whatever the native language is of a land) is a reduction in hierarchy.
Even Wizard and you if you have, speaking about not believing in God, is a result of a reduction in hierarchy.
Voting instead of genetic lineage is a reduction in hierarchy.
Landowners getting to vote - if it's only them - is still the result of a reduction in hierarchy.
Freedom of speech and the press are reductions in hierarchy when put in place.
Some could speak/write only, then many more could. Some could criticize downward, more can later.
Freedom of and from religion, reduction in hierarchy.
Impressionism, reduction in hierarchy in art - along with any other now considered ok forms of Art. One may hate certain kinds of modern and postmodern art, but, I hope, most of us would think it's alright that a variety of takes on perspective, color use, composition, realism to less realistic (or potentially more realistic) forms of art, at least many of them one should be free to consider beautiful.
The allowance of class mobility - again a kind of genetic hierarchy, if the genetic connections are questionable - is a reduction in hierarchy. Anyone's children might legally shift class.
Hypothetical equal treatment under the law - this is actually had some serious setback in the last couple of decades. Not just the fact that the rich can get better legal representation, that has been there all along, but a systematic viewing of wealthy people differently for the same crimes. There are many cases where the same crime leads to no sentences for the rich person, because the shock of prison would be too great for them. Also how pardons are handed out and how courts view defendants per se along class lines, there have been terrible changes. But in any case, going back further in time, there was this idea that you would be judged regardless of class in equal ways. One of the fundamental principles of the US and I would guess one that Wizards would agree with, for example. He murders his wife or Bill Gates murders his wife, each with the same weapon for the same reasons, should receive the same sentencing. That ideal. That was not the case earlier in Western History.
I'm sure there are all sorts of other hierarchies that have been reduced and led to traditions that conservatives, now, approve of and think of as tradition.
Rights to privacy not based on class or wealth. In practice always shaky, but there was the idea put into practice that authorities had to get court approval to search a home. Before, it was a defacto right for nobles, unless they specifically moved against the King, say. With lower classes having their privacy torn open based on whim and suspicion and this legally.

And so on.

Hell, the right to bear arms.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, I gave some examples above.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, I gave some examples above.

I think then that if we are to define — that is also if we are to value and desire — so-called conservative and traditional values, and to contemplate policy, then we would have to see conservatism and traditionalism as programs that attempt to build upon •metaphysical• platforms. As for example a Christian cultural ethics (or Hindu, Buddhist, etc.)

Another way to see them is to contrast them with aggressive, certain, forward-thrusting movements (obviously Marxism is a great example) that are dedicated to refuting and attacking those established values and their hierarchies.

Yet your point is valid: for example the origin of the US was both a radical innovation and an effort to define a sound foundation in defined values seen as bedrock.

[Iwannaplato]

I think then that if we are to define — that is also if we are to value and desire — so-called conservative and traditional values, and to contemplate policy, then we would have to see conservatism and traditionalism as programs that attempt to build upon •metaphysical• platforms. As for example a Christian cultural ethics (or Hindu, Buddhist, etc.)

Those traditions will produce different values and different conservatisms.

Another way to see them is to contrast them with aggressive, certain, forward-thrusting movements (obviously Marxism is a great example) that are dedicated to refuting and attacking those established values and their hierarchies.

But isn't that true of Christianity (and Judaism before it), also? Couldn't the pagans, polytheists and others have called the monotheisms aggressive, certain, forward-thrusting movements.

Yet your point is valid: for example the origin of the US was both a radical innovation and an effort to define a sound foundation in defined values seen as bedrock.

And I would say they defined new values - ones that had been brewing in other places, for example in France, but new nonetheless.