Interesting set of words Gibbs, but prior to my having a one-to-one correlation between the term ‘intuition’ and the experience itself, I seriously doubt if you apparent analogy nor comparison with/definition of, cause effect would have let me know what intuition was…
On Feb 21, 10:25 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Yes - try this out. It is known that a movie is constructed by putting a > number of still photo shots side by side and then speeding them up to 32 > frames per minute - In so doing this will produce an illusion of motion in > what is really single shots. > > So too the differentiation between intellect which is perceived as an idea > which is really a chain of causes and effects. When you speed the connections > up you blur the connections which is experienced as an immediate grasping of > something significant. The immediacy of cause and effect connections blurred > is experienced as an intuition. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 12:36 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > Rephrasing it in a way that may better convey my meaning Gibbs: > > Are you suggesting that intuition can be known/understood using > concepts and words *when the person being told about has never > experienced intuition*? > > On Feb 21, 4:52 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Are you suggesting that intuition can be known/understood using > > concepts and words? > > > ABSOLUTELY! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 7:14 pm > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > “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 > > ... > > 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.
