The concept of noesis mentioned by Mr. Auster is very interesting. There are many intelligent people, that is to say, people who would score well on one of the standard tests, who nevertheless seem to believe many obviously foolish things, often in a dogmatic manner. I have always thought of this as resulting from no more than a failure to apply their intelligence to important areas of existence, perhaps simply accepting attitudes or opinions conventional within their social milieu. Sometimes such unexamined attitudes are clung to with considerable vehemence, because these attitudes, however unexamined, have become central to personal identity. While one might think it odd that someone gifted with high intelligence would fail to apply it in trying to think through important issues of existence and the human condition, Mr. Auster’s comment raises the idea that perhaps there are people with a high g-factor, that is to say, whatever it is that is measured by the IQ tests (and I do believe that it is something real), but who lack the ability to penetrate deeply and see connections to first principles. Perhaps there is a kind of higher level intelligence, which may include an intuitive or creative component, which sets those who possess it far above the merely bright. Or perhaps it is a question of deadness of soul, in which a bright person simply lacks the intellectual curiousity to want to apply his mind to the higher things, and is content to use his gifts in a purely practical fashion, as in pursuing a career.

There is a sureal quality to the whole Reagan expeience. One of Reagan’s advisors from the 60’s had such a profound feeling upon first meeting the man that he had a series of deeply disturbing dreams that convinced him Reagan should, and could be elected President long before any such movement was thought about. Reagan himself had a dream until middle-age of a shimmering white house with high, arched windows, that he felt he must have in some way. These dreams stopped when he was elected to the Presidency. And I will never forget E. Morris telling the story of Reagan standing in his office, his mind almost ruined by his disease, in or around 1996, clutching a small replica of the white house that was in a fish-tank in his office asking the visitor what this object was ? He said he knew it was a very important thing he held, very important, as he stood there soaking wet, gripping the small white house hard in his hand.

Phyllis Schlafly writes of Ronald Reagan’s rejection of détente:

—————

Reagan bought a half-hour of television time on March 31, 1976, raising what the media labeled “the Kissinger issue.” He quoted Henry Kissinger as telling Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, “The day of the United States is past and today is the day of the Soviet Union. My job as Secretary of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position available.” Reagan correctly identified Kissinger’s worldview as the policy of surrendering U.S. strategic superiority of the Soviet Union, missile by missile, bomber by bomber, submarine by submarine. Reagan and his followers rejected this as unacceptable….

Of the many times I met with Ronald Reagan, I count as the most important my visit with him on March 28, 1980, in his Los Angeles office. I directly asked him, “You did promise, didn’t you, that you would not reappoint Henry Kissinger or give him any role in making our policy toward the Soviet Union?” Reagan replied, “That’s right; I did.”

Reagan kept his word to me and to America, both in the backroom negotiations during the 1980 Convention and throughout his two terms in the White House. Reagan reversed the Kissinger policy of accepting second-place to the Soviet Union and adopted the goal of victory over Soviet Communism.

http://www.reagansheritage.org/reagan/html/phyllisSchlafly.shtml

—————-

The story above regarding Reagan’s refusal to accept the basically treasonous position of Kissinger and other liberals vis-a-vis the Soviet Empire is most telling. Reagan’s sense of what lay behind the Soviet Empire - evil - was truly noesis. It was a quantum leap over and above the materialistic worldview of Kissinger et al.

In 1980, all but a few intellectuals regarded the Soviet Empire and America as morally equivalent. This isn’t terribly surprising as most intellectuals abandoned traditional morality in favor of nominalism decades ago. Reagan knew better. He truly understood the fundamental character of the Sovier regime, even if he didn’t know Lenin’s first name - a slip the liberals repeatedly ridiculed him for. (They naturally failed to mention that Lenin wasn’t his real last name, either.)