I think this is a good point, the meaning of words, for each of us, may change as we mature and change. This is also the challenge for a good group facilitator, determining and exposing semantic differences within the group so that the group can come to common meanings and move on. For me, inspiriation is that direct knowledge of self, whereas intuition is direct knowledge between myself and other or object. As Neil and Gibbs point out, the direct knowledge may involve the gathering of knowledge to the point of "knowing" spontaneously as well as the use of the many, more subtle senses that we humans have beyond sight, hearing, taste,touch and smell.
Suddenly (with or without effort) mentally being in a scene many miles away and being able to describe it in detail as it unfolds or prior to it happening has been documented many times as precognative or remote viewing experiences. It can come in a vivid dream or while awake. It is this type of intuition, I think, that is examined in the Bernstein study. It can come in the form of a feeling that something isn't right, or a complete experience that includes the viewing of it in incredible detail. But I think fiddler is right, we all have it in one form or another. On Feb 22, 11:13 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Umm naaa I don't think so OM. > > At the start of his life perhaps so but as he grows into adulthood, he > will talk to others about their experiances, and although some may be > similar some will not, and he will ask (of himself) but why do they > use the same word as dad did, and in time he will see the common > thread and so understand the word. > > The other part yep I agree. > > On 22 Feb, 15:58, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Words are subjective in nature. Lee, your son will associate that term > > with the specific experience...place and situation. Others will not. > > None of us come to any language term with the same set of historical > > experiences nor understandings. > > > On Feb 22, 7:25 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
