Intuitionism.

To surrender to one’s Intuition is to surrender the clamp of conscious control to the Other. How long can one live without permitting this to happen? Why does my professor insist that Intuitionism is a false criterion for ethics? In truth, it may be the only sensible one! Life abo0unds in such possibilities that only a totally sedentary person could deny that one’s Unconscious Mind knows infinitely more than does one’s consciousness. One feels a connectedness with it intuitively, and therein is paradise, and therein is Sanity: The recognition that Life is paradise. What could be more native to the Soul than the immediate, felt, uncontroverted and all most unrecognized recognition that everything is divine manifestation, peculiar and more Alive than one’s own self, boundless and totally interconnected with it? Like the caterpillar that curses the frog for asking too many questions, this is our native state. Only excessive intellectual bullying and teasing creates that schizophrenic split that primitives call the Death of the Soul. When one first makes the Visionary State an object of knowledge by remembering it in its absence, how could one call this loss anything but a vile death??

All ethical thought must at first be felt. We do not act ethically out of an infantile fear of reproof; that could not be ethical. Some passion moves us, charging us with direction. This wells up from the body and fills the heart long before it settles in the mind. This is the impulse to transcend boundaries, no different from the love that one feels for all things, but that it moves towards people.

Surely paltry reason could not occupy this role. Reason is an aesthetic trend, as is causality. Logic only appears amidst symbols. Only once experience has been reduced to abstractions – and this is all ways done with the intent to Control – can it be made “sense” of. But who would trade unadulterated Splendor and spontaneity for the feebleness of estrangement betwixt subject and object? What Integration could one descend into if one began with a schizophrenic split, no different from the Christian [and Platonic] tradition of severing one part of the Soul from the other? Why pretend towards a knowledge if that means to pretend that the World is known but hidden, as though our relationship to reality were always a debilitated one, a disempowered and passionless subservience to the Socratic ideal? And what could be more pompous than to presume upon one’s own knowledge, reducing all to the Self as though no Other wove in and out of every action and decision, haunting the medium before us with potentialities that the Self does not yet comprehend except by feeble wisps of intuition? Is all systematic thinking not just interference aimed to impress?

My professor insisted that the “competent ethical reasoner” – the one that has learned how to reason – would not be a Schindler. What this means is that his ethic justifies with pitiful subtlety the deaths of thousands of Jews. For what end? Comfort? Survival, for the love of God? The fuck. It is nothing short of neurotic. Then he has the nerve to generalize and to say that all boys of fifteen think highly of their own sexuality. What sort of unanimal beast romps into the hidden life of a young adolescent boorishly and, in the words of the Bard, tries to sound him from his lowest note? Besides: Any one could meet so arbitrary a description, because the Signifier never adequately signifies the signified. What perversion then to reduce a child to an object.

Dm.A.A.