Here´s my manifesto. An one-man-stand-manifesto. A man tired of endless explanation about everything: Down with logic!
After a long time trying to search logic arguments to bind my perceptions; to create propositions that could explain my own intuitive insights on a clear, objective and 'irrefutable' way, I came across a conclusion that this effort is somehow useless. And almost a detour to the real search of truth
The core of the question is that my perceptions come 'a priori', before their explanations. My conclusions are born already finished and even so - I act as if they themselves are not enough - I begin to search for mental schemes that better fit on a logic explanation that could define my perceptions in a objective way.
But it happens that the nature of these perceptions are diametral opposed to the rationalizing schemes: the former is born in the dark room of my mind, acting independently on creating links between apparently disconnected events and taking 'ready-made' conclusions out of the hat. While the latter is the opposite. Logic - if well used - serve as a path to the true. The conclusion is if you did not use logical paths to come to the conclusion, to use logic to explain what was perceived by intuition is a mistake. Is a attempt to transform the perception of truth on a kind of mental play.
This kind of 'impressionist' thinking is more or less like what Marcel Duchamp used to do in the 20th century´s 'avant-garde': to find new meanings to old or common objects. If you try to do a kind of reverse engineering on the subject, you can find yourself on a nowhere land. Or in a even worst place.
The brilliant a 'calculus' demonstration may appears it always will be based on two foundation pillars: logic and its cousin-brother, mathematics. And these two lead us to a world of mandatory demonstrations from time to time.
And with this, everything becomes solid and solid & sensible is the world of economy and sensations. To try to explain human motivations and needs uniquely by sensorial and economic elements without taking the real nature of human spirit into account is a formidable reduction.
How can we explain God in logic terms? Of course is possible to catalog clues and to number out subtle evidence of His presence using those paths, but those demonstrations, even the most evident ones, demand some talent for abstraction of the hearer almost to the same level of speaker´s abstraction to be fully perceived.
By all means, my auto-definition as 'classic-liberal-conservative' is much more a kind of mental habit - of trying to catalog my beliefs into something eatable and reasonably known by the common-sense - than a real explanation of myself.
I believe that every human being and in special his thoughts are uncatalogable by nature. Everyone is an island. But we live in a world that seems that everybody is thinking the same way or some values - like the militant leftism - gained a false importance over others values, so this 'conservative' label serve as an unmistakable declaration of contrariety.
Like and old song from an old Brazilian rock band that used to say 'I feel like a foreigner, a passenger from a train, that does not come here'. This definition maybe appeared on automatic-writing from the (leftist) author but it´s a expression of truth.
My own definition as 'classic-liberal-conservative' is before all a declaration of war. And the same time a declaration on faith on the balance. Because 'liberal' and 'conservative' can only survive if they live in an egalitarian arrangement. Like Aristotle´s words "to keep everything in its right measure". This is the real secret.
And declare war against easy definitions, to the mental plays that lead many people or to a kind of childhood´s leftism or to a radical economicism - both sides of the same coin.
And as 'coin' is a very specific economy subject I keep out from this question.
(To be continued).