Lee, the operative word is "similar".... On Feb 22, 8:13 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.
