I guess we learn the meaning of words as children, we learn what intuition 'means' from our folx or whatever.
Once a fair few years back I took my family out for the day, and my oldest son aksed me if we had been here before, I told yes I and your mother have, it is your first time. He explained that it felt familar, I said to him ahh deju vu. Now he knows what that means. On 22 Feb, 14:11, [email protected] wrote: > But ifpeople can't describe it so there isome unanamity as to what > theexperience is like how does one know it is inturtion they areexperienciing? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiddler <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 2:45 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > But again, every thinking person understands or has felt intuition. > It's much the same concept in the mental arena that breathing is in > the physical. No matter how people attempt to re-describe it, the > original concept is unchanged. > > On Feb 21, 11:07 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Ok its a lousy analogy. How about people who are blind from birth > imagining > site. Help me out - you know what I mean> > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: fiddler <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 1:50 am > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > > this is shown as untrue throughout history, only slaves that actively > > refuse to contemplate freedom do not contemplate freedom. Just as only > > people that refuse to admit a concept exists do not allow the concept > > credibility. You find this mostly in people that love dissemination > > and those that argue silly points like...well... > > > > On Feb 21, 10:44 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Ok you win - I suppose a slave would be numb to the concept of > freedom if > > they never tasted any in their life. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 1:39 am > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > > > 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: > > > > ... > > 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.
