“Yes Ornamental - If intuition cannot be conceptualized or understood using concepts then this attempt at shared understanding is indeed futile…” – gw
Are you suggesting that intuition can be known/understood using concepts and words? “… If our experience of intuition (as both process of accessing 'knowledge' as well as the implied subject matter of that process - then your experience of it is as valid as mine and vice versa. So that if I choose to view it through the prism of experiential logic (which I choose to do) you should endorse my perspective…” – gw Perhaps I missed the part where you explained what you mean by ‘experiential logic’. If so, just direct me to it please. I couldn’t find much that appeared reasonable online. “… My experience of the color red may or may not be exactly like your experience of red and according to you we will never be able to know….” – gw In many ways, true, we won’t know…unless perhaps some very strong empathetical sense was used. This would be a new topic of course. “… Ok - substitute intuition for the red color. Is there a difference in perspective…” – gw A difference in perspective? In such rarefied topics, language matters. I’m not sure exactly what you are asking here. Guessing, I will say that the visual ‘sense’ is of a different nature than that of ‘intuition’ even though neither are direct results of concepts and language. One could add that the auditory sense, the kinesthetic sense etc. are all ‘different’ in some ways. On the other hand, from the perspective of the unity of all, they are all aspects of ‘mind’ (not thinking alone, more along the line of cognition) So, while there is sameness…one can, when broken into constituent parts, discriminate differences too. “…There is also a rather elevated tone that so called intuitive knowledge is vastly superior to lets say any of the remarkable findings of science…” – gw Again, I’m not sure of what you mean by ‘elevated tone’ so hesitate… As to superiority let alone being *vastly* superior, they are of different scales…different types of stuff…so, such a claim is nothing I would posit without a great more discussion and unpacking of what assumptions are being used. “.. If so it can't really be objectively validated as it cannot be adequately described in words. By what standard of value should such high sounding people be endowed with superior value simply because they are convinced of the importance of their experiences in and of themselves…” – gw I can’t speak to this, not knowing who you are talking about let alone their beliefs. Also, the term ‘objective’ in this context can be misleading as ‘standard of value’ can be too. I’m open to a more involved discussion here if you are interested…if not, that is fine too. Much of this particular part of your post is a red herring when associated with my posts though. Oh, and we would have to delve into your concepts of ‘convinced of’, ‘importance of’, ‘experiences’ as well as ‘self’…just way too many assumed meanings here to make much discussion of value without a great deal of unpacking. “…Throughout history there have been countless people in all sort of positions who are utterly convinced they have a penultimate connection with the Absolute truth, the nature of reality, union with the God Head, cosmic consciousness, and the likes. Good enough - so what?”- gw Having the ‘second to last’ connection wouldn’t be of much importance now would it? ;-) Of course there are people with personal convictions when it comes to such things and I dare say you have studied such things more than the average person in the States, right? I’m assuming that your rhetorical ‘so what?’ is unnecessary to respond to since you have included quite a few fallacies here including: Complex Questioning Appeal to Complexity Argument by Fast Talking Argument by Question …and perhaps Reifying, Confusing Cause and Correlation, Causal Reductionism, Psychogenetic Fallacy, Reductive Fallacy etc. If in fact your question is serious, then apparently for you such things are of little to no worth so there is not much more to discuss, right? On Feb 21, 10:56 am, [email protected] wrote: > Yes Ornamental - If intuition cannot be conceptualized or understood using > concepts then this attempt at shared understanding is indeed futile. If our > experience of intuition (as both process of accessing 'knowledge' as well as > the implied subject matter of that process - then your experience of it is as > valid as mine and vice versa. So that if I choose to view it through the > prism of experiential logic (which I choose to do) you should endorse my > perspective. My experience of the color red may or may not be exactly like > your experience of red and according to you we will never be able to know. Ok > - substitute intuition for the red color. Is there a difference in > perspective. > > There is also a rather elevated tone that so called intuitive knowledge is > vastly superior to lets say any of the remarkable findings of science. If so > it can't really be objectively validated as it cannot be adequately described > in words. By what standard of value should such high sounding people be > endowed with superior value simply because they are convinced of the > importance of their experiences in and of themselves. > > Throughout history there have been countless people in all sort of positions > who are utterly convinced they have a penultimate connection with the > Absolute truth, the nature of reality, union with the God Head, cosmic > consciousness, and the likes. Good enough - so what? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 1:27 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > “Ornamental - If I understand you correctly you are saying that > intuition can only be known intuitively…” – gw > > True…how else could it be known? It is not a mental construct…it is a > direct apprehension, one analogy of which is vision. One can only know > what the color red is by seeing it. > > “… So if I am correct this is the primary debate between science and > religion (as knowledge by faith)…” – gw > > You may be correct…however I don’t view it this way. As I understand > it, faith is not knowledge. It may be ‘debated’ in the sense you > present it, but again for me, such is but confusion. > > “…Ultimately one's view of intuition is derived from a person's basic > assumptions about the knowledge of and acquisition of knowledge as > well as what is meant by knowledge in the first place.” – gw > > When you use the term ‘view of intuition’, of course. Mainly because > you are talking about concepts again. Epistemology can enter into such > a discussion; however it doesn’t change the nature of knowledge/gnosis > nor of wisdom/Sophia. One can try to express what red looks like. One > can try to express what love feels like. One can try to define the > nature of things not based upon concepts. However, in each and every > case, the result is not nor can it be an accurate representation…an > analogy perhaps, but not an accurate one-to-one analysis. > > On Feb 21, 8:37 am, [email protected] wrote: > > Ornamental - If I understand you correctly you are saying that intuition > > can > only be known intuitively. So if I am correct this is the primary debate > between > science and religion (as knowledge by faith). Ultimately one's view of > intuition > is derived from a person's basic assumptions about the knowledge of and > acquisition of knowledge as well as what is meant by knowledge in the first > place. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 11:00 am > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > I find the analysis of intuition by analytical cognition a strange and > > unproductive exercise at best. We can only know what intuition is > > through its use/application/experience. > > > On Feb 21, 6:02 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm much more interested in Molly than Bernstein. It's obvious some > > > people's brains work differently. Definitions of intuition are very > > > shaky though - in Kant it more or less replaces perception. We have > > > something of a tendency to make it into something very special when > > > what's actually going on probably isn't. I can remember being > > > regarded as something of a 'savant detective' when all I was doing was > > > thinking when others couldn't. Classically, cops get to think they > > > are smart when all they are doing is routinely expecting people to be > > > liars because most of the people they deal with are. Analysis of > > > perverse cases shows they and lawyers get into all kinds of > > > unnecessary paranoia and make hideous mistakes. Francis is about > > > right on Bernstein, but to be fair the guy is saying he's outlining > > > the area in speculation. > > > > In the creative negative, we have to recognise that much said on > > > intuition is a tempting kind of sales pitch - more or less "you can do > > > wonders without the hard work". Given I also believe much science and > > > 'being clever' is mystification (an area which also joins science and > > > anarchism) I have some sympathies here - but don't want to be sold > > > unnecessary double-glazing. Biology, perhaps for obvious reasons the > > > most materialist science, has long been into the potential of a 'world > > > of information' and keeps finding more and more material communication > > > systems and makes use of much special teleological reasoning - with > > > sceptical riders. > > > > One of the things we'd have to get to grips with to know more about > > > how we define intuition is how reasoning in our practical systems can > > > go so wrong. The Nico Bento case in the UK is a good example and > > > another is about to come under review. In this one, an adopted son > > > was convicted of the murder of his parents, sister and her two > > > children. The mad sister was originally thought to be the culprit of > > > a murder-suicide. Her parents were threatening to have the kids put > > > into care at the time. Disclosure is pathetic even after 25 years, > > > but the case hinged on a silencer found by a cousin at the crime scene > > > some days after the incident. Scratch marks made by the silencer (on > > > the end of the vermin rifle used in the killings) now seem not to have > > > been made in the incident, but some time afterwards. This has been > > > established through analysis of pictures of the crime scene. The case > > > per se doesn't concern this discussion, but the way apparently decent > > > minds get carried away from proper analysis in this and many other > > > cases does. What we often don't do is get as far as we can with > > > empiricism before we get into the speculative and start making up > > > fancies and falsifying 'evidence' to justify them. > > > We need to 'dream stuff up', but not allow this to become dogma > > > pursued by self without integrity. I used to beat most people I > > > played at chess as a kid, but as soon as I played some really good > > > people against the clock, knew they were working in a very different > > > way from me and I could never compete. Brains scans now go some way > > > to explaining why. I was in the top 1% in maths, but utterly useless > > > compared with the best. Not many of us armed with a prism, thick > > > piece of glass and a magnet would stick the things together and see > > > the light change, let alone go on to devise Maxwell's four equations. > > > Far too many of us think we can spot people lying on behavioural cues, > > > yet can't when tested. We think we can do critical reasoning, but > > > mostly can't when tested. We say we understand what a judge has > > > directed when part of a jury, but only a third have, when tested. > > > Riggers may have a point (certainly we should get into more > > > description like this), but what might we find with some lab equipment > > > around whilst 'introspecting'? One dreads, of course, what Francis > > > may be up to with Lycra, a suspiciously devilish-sounding instrument, > > > especially after his 'catwalk admissions'! > > > > I now regard Nulabour as an evil. This did not flash into me as > > > 'intuition'. > > > > On 21 Feb, 12:26, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The information is sensed. I feel it in my stomach first- sort of a > > > > nauseating fear which moves up my spine to my brain. This happens even > > > > when I let events unfold, as in betrayal or dishonesty- but that might > > > > be either shock or perverse curiousity. > > > > > On Feb 20, 7:02 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > The difference between intuition and intellect is speed. I don't > > > > > accept > > the definition of intuition as somehow being able to channel uninterpreted > > information. This is a seductive and absolutely unproven hypothesis parallel > to > > Jung's concept of connecting with the collective unconscious. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: fiddler <[email protected]> > > > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 7:18 pm > > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > > > > The primary definition and example of intuition is exactly what you > > > > > listed here. Such ideas as people intuiting a lie or the path through > > > > > a maze are commonly found in this category. Molly is referring to the > > > > > pseudo-sciences of parapsychology. People such as Bernstein try not to > > > > > use the prior and discredited definitions due to the obvious lack of > > > > > any evidence that they represent anything real and are constantly and > > > > > wrongly applying improper terms in it's stead. > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2:54 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Pretty much what you ruled out of your definition. Perception using > > > > > > our actual physical senses. It's been proven that people give off > > > > > > different odors(pheromones or hormones or perspiration or whatever) > > > > > > while experiencing certain emotions. I think there are certain > > > > > > people > > > > > > more sensitive to these forms of stimulus then others. Sharks can > > > > > > smell a > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
