Perhaps. Or perhaps as words have more than one definition, they are using a sligthly skewed one? Or perhaps it is acceptable in debate to first clarify your definitions? Or perhaps as langauge is changable such monkeying around with words is normal and also acceptable? Or just perhaps?
Heh I really wouldn't like to say. On 22 Feb, 15:22, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > That is the problem with people like molly and bernstein, people that > like to change definitions or misapropriate words to fit whatever idea > they want to propose whether or not the word fits or has a different > definition. > > On Feb 22, 6:11 am, [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.
