intuition

[clyde]

Intuition definitely uses logical processes. If it didn't, it would be useless.

Kevin;

I understand intuition to be "a gut-feeling", meaning that it does not rely on the intellect or logical processes. How do you understand the functioning of intuition?

clyde

[PJ818]

Simple intuition, to me, is the lowest form of mysticism (and usually is in the form of "something's wrong" rather than "something great just happened")

Mysticism - 2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)
3 a: vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

I also see "prophets" as being synonymous with mystics.

The trouble was how this worked in the Bible. I'm currently of the mind that Christ used the word prophet to relate on their level of understanding because of so many prophets in the OT.

On the spiritual side, Messenger would be more like it. Folks who have 'ears to hear' are sent Messengers, so their experience is actual rather than based on feelings or dreams/visions.

Visions also appear to be from the 'dark side'. I've known a couple of folks who saw Jesus (appear at the bottom of their bed or in a room) - and they couldn't stay clean/sober no matter how hard they tried. Joan of Arc had visions - and look at the carnage that ensued.

This appears to be a different phenomenon than the 'bright white light' experience. Many reports have this as effecting dramatic life changes.

Since I've experienced neither form, this is still in the sorting-out stages.

[Kevin Solway]

Intuition definitely uses logical processes. If it didn't, it would be useless.

I understand intuition to be "a gut-feeling"

In its crudest sense it is a gut feeling, in its purer sense it is a sense of knowing.

meaning that it does not rely on the intellect or logical processes. How do you understand the functioning of intuition?

The brain is programmed to function logically. It does this either consciously or unconsciously.

[clyde]

How do you understand the functioning of intuition?

The brain is programmed to function logically. It does this either consciously or unconsciously.

Kevin;

It seems to me that the brain also functions in many other ways (e.g. - perceiving, feeling, etc.), so intuition may or may not include reasoning.

clyde

[Kevin Solway]

It seems to me that the brain also functions in many other ways (e.g. - perceiving, feeling, etc.), so intuition may or may not include reasoning.

Intuitions can either be rational and right, or irrational and wrong (except in the case where a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day, by chance).

[Pye]

As processes rather than things, intuition - as well as reasoning - in and of themselves - do not guarantee the objective rightness of any given thing reasoned or intuited. As processes, like organs and immune systems, they can malfunction. What is always right about them is their relationship to the reasoner or the intuiter. What is absolute in this is subjectivity. No one can exceed their own instrumentation.

That we can reason and/or intuit our way to more and more things that appear to apply to more and more subjectivities (and object-ivities) is the greatness of reason/intuition. That in and of itself, it has no ceasing as process, as long as sentient being is there. But it does not and cannot speak from any greater view than the subjective-collective. (and this is the greatness of humility).

This is especially illustrated when all anti-absolute arguments are pointed out as absolute sayings in themselves. This does not illustrate the unfailing rightness of reason, but rather, its limitations.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

clyde, with Kant's redefinitions, the word intuition developed a secondary meaning apart from gut instinct. This secondary meaning is a lot closer to what modern philosophy refers to when the term intuition is used. It is one of two types of knowledge. The example on the Wiki is a chair: "chair" is an intuition, whereas the qualities of the chair ("brown", "wooden", etc.) are concepts (the other form of knowledge).

[clyde]

Trevor;

It seems that the definition of intuition as a form of immediate knowing does not rely on logic.

clyde

[Tomas]

clyde, with Kant's redefinitions, the word intuition developed a secondary meaning apart from gut instinct. This secondary meaning is a lot closer to what modern philosophy refers to when the term intuition is used. It is one of two types of knowledge. The example on the Wiki is a chair: "chair" is an intuition, whereas the qualities of the chair ("brown", "wooden", etc.) are concepts (the other form of knowledge).

clyde wrote "a gut-feeling" ... not "a gut-instinct"


ps - pick, pick, pick ;-)


.

[bert]

As processes rather than things, intuition - as well as reasoning - in and of themselves - do not guarantee the objective rightness of any given thing reasoned or intuited. As processes, like organs and immune systems, they can malfunction. What is always right about them is their relationship to the reasoner or the intuiter. What is absolute in this is subjectivity. No one can exceed their own instrumentation.

That we can reason and/or intuit our way to more and more things that appear to apply to more and more subjectivities (and object-ivities) is the greatness of reason/intuition. That in and of itself, it has no ceasing as process, as long as sentient being is there. But it does not and cannot speak from any greater view than the subjective-collective. (and this is the greatness of humility).

This is especially illustrated when all anti-absolute arguments are pointed out as absolute sayings in themselves. This does not illustrate the unfailing rightness of reason, but rather, its limitations.

very well.

intuition is corresponded to natural belief and compels belief through that which is experienced reacting, and dominant in turns; everything has to associate itself through its definite emotion; those failing 'to copulate' lose cogency and fall apart.
so by its own workings belief is limited for you.

the nature of belief (referred to Know Thyself) equals all possibilities true by identification through culture to an idea of time, so what is not timely(Now) is not true, and what is not true, prognose. thought of one thing implies another as contradicting but not dissociated, belief is to make the apparent more convincing. what belief is, its "being", is the limit imposed on the capability of the vitality. to beloieve at all as such is a concentrating and schooling to exclude the implied by a hypothesis or faith that reflects non-worryingly or deceitfully rationalizes the rejected. Truth is not the truth of formula.

[brokenhead]

On the spiritual side, Messenger would be more like it. Folks who have 'ears to hear' are sent Messengers, so their experience is actual rather than based on feelings or dreams/visions.

It is interesting that Islam uses the term Messenger, at least in the "translations" of the Koran I have seen. (I put "translation" into quotes because Muslims do not believe the Koran can be translated. They refer to tanslations as "interpretations," I believe.)

Jesus was one of these Messengers sent by Allah. The Koran states that we are not to distinguish beween the Messengers sent by Allah, as they are from Him, the One, and to do so would be putting ourselves on a level exalted enough to judge the message they bring. The main thing the Muslims have against the Jews, as it explicitly says in the Koran, is that they killed Jesus, they killed Allah's Messenger.

This appears to be a different phenomenon than the 'bright white light' experience. Many reports have this as effecting dramatic life changes.

Since I've experienced neither form, this is still in the sorting-out stages.

I have had the "bright white light" experience, and I am still in the sorting-out stage.

For me, it was a drug experience, but as I do not use drugs recreationally, I felt myself to be more or less in control of the situation. There was a period in my life where I was able to repeat it in order to continue the learning I believed I was doing, the increase in first-hand understanding and knowledge. Again, this is first-hand in the sense of no other human involved.

It is life-changing, as true knowledge should be. I have to mention that I came away with the certainty that there were some things I learned that I was not permitted to say. This is because of my failings alone: were I to try to convey these particular things, my lack of ability to communicate them properly to the right people at the right time and place would cause more misunderstanding than understanding.

Others may scoff at a statement like this. I probably would, too. Let them. It's proabably in everybody's best interest to dismiss it as a statement stemming simply from drug use and not to be taken seriously. I, on the other hand, have no choice but to take it seriously because I know what I know.

But one of the things I do feel I am "permitted" to relate is that the "white light" experience is there for everyone. No one has to be here. A prisoner with a life sentence can opt out without using external means. But it is not easy. It requires total surrender and it requires faith. In other words, you have freedom in this, but not on your terms.

[David Quinn]

Trevor;

It seems that the definition of intuition as a form of immediate knowing does not rely on logic.

clyde

It is not really an immediate form of knowing, though. An intuition in the present is invariably the result of past logical processes, however poorly executed they may have been. An intuiton bridges gaps created by past attempts to resolve things logically.

For example, a person brought up in a Christian society might have a gut feeling that there is a God. Such a gut feeling is usually caused by the absorption of Christian myths perpetuated by society and the individual's subsequent attempts to think logically about them. In effect, he has laid the ground work for the intuition to take place.

This explains why purposeful, rational thinkers tend to have the most profound and far-reaching intuitions. The gaps they create are situated far closer to the very heart of matters.

-

[clyde]

Trevor pointed to this:

Kant divides intuitions into groups in several different ways. First, Kant distinguishes intuitions into pure intuitions and empirical intuitions. Empirical intuitions are intuitions that contain sensation. Pure intuitions are intuitions that do not contain any sensation (A50/B74). An example of an empirical intuition would be one's perception of a chair or other physical object. All such intuitions are immediate representations that have sensation as part of the content of the representation. The pure intuitions the human mind possesses are, according to Kant, those of space and time. Our representations of space and time are immediate representations, and do not include sensation within those representations. Thus both are pure intuitions.

-- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_o ... nd_concept

[brokenhead]

Trevor;

It seems that the definition of intuition as a form of immediate knowing does not rely on logic.

clyde

It is not really an immediate form of knowing, though. An intuition in the present is invariably the result of past logical processes, however poorly executed they may have been. An intuiton bridges gaps created by past attempts to resolve things logically.

For example, a person brought up in a Christian society might have a gut feeling that there is a God. Such a gut feeling is usually caused by the absorption of Christian myths perpetuated by society and the individual's subsequent attempts to think logically about them. In effect, he has laid the ground work for the intuition to take place.

This explains why purposeful, rational thinkers tend to have the most profound and far-reaching intuitions. The gaps they create are situated far closer to the very heart of matters.

-

This was what I was trying to get across in the other thread Drug Life:

The answers are all around you. I have been saying this all along. The Hindu concept of shrauti by which the seeker simply intuits truth without its being specifically told to him is far from miraculous: he has been instructed up until that moment of epiphany and has gleaned a truth. If it is indeed a truth, it is ancient. It is merely new to him.

I think this is an extremely important point to grasp. You use the term absorption above. I think that in one way or another, what we learn, we have been taught.

[Kevin Solway]

what we learn, we have been taught.

We are taught by Nature, but not necessarily by other people.

[Peter L]

Some great mathematicians instantly get the answer to a complex problem, while the not-so-great need to follow through with the appropriate logical processes in order arrive at the same answer.

At first, when we're learning to count, we take it step-by-step and use our fingers. After a while, a sort of mental imprint maybe formed. It's sorta like setting up an electrical circuit, once complete, the light bulb turns-on, instantly - at the flick of the switch.

So, it makes sense to think that a perfectly rational person will have perfect flashes of insight (intuition). To explain one would merely backtrack in order to understand how one had come to a particular conclusion.

Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind and his ability to predict future technologies (ex. the helicopter). Although, it's much more likely that future generations probably took the idea from his work.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Intuition is a compound like imagination. Its sources are many-fold and the way a picture or idea arises is too complex to consciously trace. Yet we can distinguish between ordinary intuitions, gut feelings about weather, events or people and higher intuitions that inspire our reason and higher understanding.

Here's some things I wrote before here about intuition in philosophy that might help to provoke some thought:
------------------------------

There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard-of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition.

Intuition is another word that shouldn't be confused by the modern denigrated interpretation of it. It's the closest Nietzsche comes to describing knowledge or truth of the Absolute. The only way this can make sense is that Nietzsche was using Spinoza's pyramidal order of imagination, reason and intuition, and since Nietzsche was a great admirer of Spinoza, a 'kindred spirit', this is quite likely. In Spinoza's Ethics part II Proposition 42 for example (surrounding propositions are related too).

It is the knowledge of the second [reason and knowledge] and third [intuitive science], and not that of the first kind [opinion or imagination], which teaches us to distinguish the true from the false.

This proposition is self-evident. For he who knows how to distinguish between the true and the false must have an adequate idea of the true and the false, that is to say, he must know the true and the false by the second of third kind of knowledge.

Spinoza describes his "intuitive science" like this, in Scholium 2 from proposition 40.

This kind of knowing advances from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things.

Going back further to Aristotle's Posterior A we have:

Thus it is clear that we must get to know the primary premisses by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. Now of the thinking states by which we grasp truth, some are unfailingly true, others admit of error-opinion, for instance, and calculation, whereas scientific knowing and intuition are always true: further, no other kind of thought except intuition is more accurate than scientific knowledge, whereas primary premisses are more knowable than demonstrations, and all scientific knowledge is discursive. From these considerations it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premisses, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premisses-a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration cannot be the originative source of demonstration, nor, consequently, scientific knowledge of scientific knowledge.If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge. And the originative source of science grasps the original basic premiss, while science as a whole is similarly related as originative source to the whole body of fact.

[bert]

Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind and his ability to predict future technologies (ex. the helicopter). Although, it's much more likely that future generations probably took the idea from his work.

helicopters, planes and tanks were already drawn by the egyptians

[brokenhead]

what we learn, we have been taught.

We are taught by Nature, but not necessarily by other people.

Not necessarily other human beings. Everything is ultimately a product of the Divine Logos.

[David Quinn]

Trevor;

It seems that the definition of intuition as a form of immediate knowing does not rely on logic.

clyde

It is not really an immediate form of knowing, though. An intuition in the present is invariably the result of past logical processes, however poorly executed they may have been. An intuiton bridges gaps created by past attempts to resolve things logically.

For example, a person brought up in a Christian society might have a gut feeling that there is a God. Such a gut feeling is usually caused by the absorption of Christian myths perpetuated by society and the individual's subsequent attempts to think logically about them. In effect, he has laid the ground work for the intuition to take place.

This explains why purposeful, rational thinkers tend to have the most profound and far-reaching intuitions. The gaps they create are situated far closer to the very heart of matters.

-

This was what I was trying to get across in the other thread Drug Life:

The answers are all around you. I have been saying this all along. The Hindu concept of shrauti by which the seeker simply intuits truth without its being specifically told to him is far from miraculous: he has been instructed up until that moment of epiphany and has gleaned a truth. If it is indeed a truth, it is ancient. It is merely new to him.

I think this is an extremely important point to grasp. You use the term absorption above. I think that in one way or another, what we learn, we have been taught.

It goes without saying that relying on what we have absorbed or what we have been taught is fraught with peril, as is relying on the intuitions that have been generated.

The superiority of the intuitions enjoyed by the rational thinker stems from his dismantling of everything that he has aborbed and been taught.

-

[brokenhead]

It goes without saying that relying on what we have absorbed or what we have been taught is fraught with peril, as is relying on the intuitions that have been generated.

The superiority of the intuitions enjoyed by the rational thinker stems from his dismantling of everything that he has aborbed and been taught.

Can you really dismantle everything while you are still using some of it?

[David Quinn]

No, that's why it is best not to use any of it.

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

-

[clyde]

No, that's why it is best not to use any of it.

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

-

It seems you haven't rejected utterly everything you learned.

clyde

[brokenhead]

No, that's why it is best not to use any of it.

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

-

It seems you haven't rejected utterly everything you learned.

clyde

Thank you, clyde. I think that is what I'm trying to get at. I believe I understand the "dismantling" process to which David is referring. But I am not convinved it is possible to do in an absolute sense in practice.

[David Quinn]

No, that's why it is best not to use any of it.

Reject utterly everything that one has learned and start afresh, that is my dictum. Accept nothing but the logical process.

It seems you haven't rejected utterly everything you learned.

clyde

How so?

If you are thinking about my acceptance of logic, it should be realized that it is impossible for anyone to reject logic as it underpins every coherent thought we have.

We can certainly block out conclusions that are pointed to by the logical process (due to attachments and learned views that one hasn't yet dismantled), but we can't abandon the logical process itself, not without abandoning our minds in the process.

There is no other means to challenge and dismantle everything that has been learned other than by making use of the logical process. Aside from raw perception, it is the only thing inside our minds which is unbiased and belief-free.

-