Ingo Swann
04Feb96
* * *
Through the years I've studied and collected an extensive archive
of intuition experiences. But I would like to add more of them
via the Internet, as it is world-wide and cross-cultural. A great
deal remains to be learned about intuition. So if anyone who chances
to read this document can contribute a personal anecdote, it would
be exciting to receive them. The contribuion can be posted publicly
or privately emailed, anonymously or under an aka. Many thanks
in advance.
*
As already mentioned in several essays I've provided regarding
remote viewing (distant-seeing), a large spectrum exists of the
superpowers of the human biomind. Remote viewing is but one of
these.
Experience has shown that each of the superpowers is better understood
if organized information is available about them all. I thus propose
to provide rudimentary essays in which a number of superpowers
are discussed within the contexts of what I've discovered during
the many decades I've studied them.
Quality understanding about the superpowers has been at an all-time
low during the modern epoch. It is fair to say that pre-modern
cultures had a better grasp on them.
The existence of the superpowers was at least generally accepted
within the pre-modern cultures -- - whereas during the modern
period their existence was generally denied under the rubrics
of "the irrational" and "non-scientific."
The fuller spectrum of the superpowers was lost sight of under
these modern rubrics. And, in fact, the concept that the superpowers
do range along an INTERCONNECTED SPECTRUM vanished altogether.
The existence of this spectrum, and its curious and exciting nature,
needs to be reestablished.
*
Those phenomena we collectively identify as "intuition"
play an essential and fundamental role within the spectrum of
all the other superpowers of biomind.
The first notable factor of this role is the broad-base extent
of experiencing intuitive episodes among almost all specimens
of our species.
Intuition is the only part of the full spectrum which, population-wide,
is experienced wholesale and species-wide. Compared to this enormous
extent, most other of the superpowers are experienced only rarely.
Our species owes an absolutely enormous debt to intuition, the
basic biomind superpower.
It is almost impossible to conceive what our species would be
like without it. All, or certainly most creative advances have
their origin in some kind of intuition. As can be easily shown,
"intuitive advances" have been present within our species
from time immemorial.
But beyond that, individuals use it to regulate and guide their
lives when it is active in them. The evidence for this is also
exceedingly strong. So not only is intuition linked to creativity
but also to individual survival.
*
Since intuition is of such immeasurable importance, it is surprising
how little is actually known about it. We use the word a lot,
of course. But beyond that very little in the way of organized
knowledge exists.
For reasons difficult to understand, intuition has been of very
little interest within parapsychology, of practically no interest
in science and psychology, and of no interest in psychiatry.
On the other hand, an extensive literature about intuition does
exist. But it is a disorganized literature, and often quite shallow.
Thus, there exists within our species a superpower we know exists
and which is important --- but of which we know almost nothing
save that it does exist.
*
This present discourse, and the two to follow, are offered
in an attempt to point up factors which might permit the attentive
individual to construct a more profitable mental information grid
regarding intuition.
Intuition cannot really be understood unless the existence of
the human biomind "sensorium" is established. But unless
reasonably correct background issues and definitions are first
established, the cognitive approach to the sensorium will be out
of kilter.
This first essay, then, deals with problems, issues and definitions.
The second will discuss the sensorium. After this, in the third
essay, the anecdotes and other evidence about intuition will make
better sense.
A great deal has been published regarding intuition. I have tried
to keep up with the materials --- since intuition is one of those
so- called "paranormal" topics which have interested
me through the years.
Although some readers might disagree, my survey of the literature
shows that during the last sixty years not very much has been
added to our pool of intuition-knowledge.
My four-decades-long survey includes older sources, subsequent
psychical and parapsychological studies, the few psychology efforts,
and documents that deal with intuition's role in creativity, as
well as meditation techniques relative to intuitive development.
My sources also include the many self-help books of the most recent
modern period which propose to help people enhance their intuition.
I have no wish to contest those self-help efforts, and each reader
of them would have to answer whether they were helpful or not.
But in general, it seems that the sum of all of the literature
is very little. Much has been written, but little has been learned.
Why this is so of course has its place within these three discourses.
If we say that intuition is a situation, then getting into it
requires a point of entry. I have selected three of many possibilities
along these lines.
By way of discussion, though, when people seek to enter into a
situation, such as intuition represents, most people will automatically
try to utilize what they believe they know about it.
Another way of putting this is that they will attempt to utilize
their EXISTING mental information grids in order to get into the
situation.
This is all to the good IF one's existing frames of reference
are permissive of intuitive functioning. However, if, for example,
the frames are out of kilter regarding correct information, then
one's intuitive faculties probably won't function very well.
This is the same as saying that you can make something work only
if you understand it and its component parts. After all, there
is a difference between correct and incorrect information.
*
It is accepted that ALL specimens of the human species PROCESS
INFORMATION. Doing just so is one of the major hallmarks of our
species.
It should be added, though, that humans don't just process information,
but that various specimens of them process it for better or worse
in terms of what is understood or not, and also in terms of the
evidential outcomes of the processing.
It thus would follow that if faulty information points are installed
in one's mental information processing grids, then the ultimate
output of the grids would also be faulty in some way.
I'm well aware, of course, that most people don't like the idea
that their grids might have faulty information points. Indeed,
this issue can become quite volcanic and/or somewhat soap-opera-
like.
But in any event, absorbing or acquiring information points is
a cummulative process --- and it is safe to say that all people
have acquired a fair share of faulty ones.
Faulty information points account for thinking grid failures,
and as such tend NOT to be permissive of excellent functioning
regarding the faculties inherent in the biomind.
In this sense, then, intuition faculties are naturally indwelling
within our species and within each specimen of it. If individuals
have problems with their intuitive faculties, then most likely
the fault is with their malfunctioning mental information grids
which are not permissive of intuitive functioning.
All valid entry-points into the intuition situation, then, must
consist of a discrimination between correct and incorrect information.
*
The FIRST ENTRY POINT we will consider is why intuition should
be considered a superpower of the human biomind.
We can easily distinguish between the powers and superpowers of
the biomind because the superpowers can be seen to transcend matter,
space, time and energy. Our species possesses many powers that
don't, or apparently don't, transcend the laws which govern the
physical aspects of life on Earth. The powers indeed work WITHIN
the known laws of the material situation on Earth.
But the first and foremost signal feature of intuition is the
time and space transcendence thing. Regarding time transcendence,
intuition is very notable regarding "premonitions" of
things to come (in the future.)
Regarding space transcendence (which is a bit more tricky to discuss),
people intuit what's happening at another place in the past, present
and future.
Many books of anecdotes regarding intuition exist. In particulars
the anecdotes may differ, sometimes radically and strangely so.
But they all have one thing in common. The time-space transcendence
thing.
*
Indeed, everyone EXPECTS intuition to transcand time and space
--- and in fact no one would call anything intuition if it did
not. And this expectation is the same today as it was in prehistory
and all that has transpired in between.
*
Here, then, is the first and foremost face value factor of
intuition --- time and space transcendence --- and it is the factor
against which hardly anyone will argue.
*
The problem here, though, is not that intuition transcends
time and space but that the modern sciences held that time and
space COULD NOT BE TRANSCENDED.
This is a very important point, and so a small discussion is in
order.
In most, or even all, premodern societies the fact that intuition
existed was never in question, either in theory or in practice.
Noted skeptics of intuition did exist, of course. But their objections
were centered on the often proven failure of intuition --- focused
on the failure, not on the existence of it.
With the onset of the modern technological period, however, at
about 1845, what is now called "classical" physics began
enumerating the laws of the physical universe. The "laws"
became laws because back then none of the steady states of matter,
energy, space and time they represented could be seen as "disobeying"
the laws.
*
Thereafter, and by a series of unfortunate situations, it began
to be thought that NOTHING could disobey the laws of matter, energy,
space and time. And this "nothing" came to include,
by assumption, the faculties of the human biomind --- even though
it was well-known that the human mind thinks in terms of past,
present and future.
With this assumption began a complicated and confusing quagmire
regarding intuition that exists until this day.
But there is a bottom line within this quagmire that has to do
with mental information processing grids at the individual level.
If the concept that time and space --cannot be transcended-- is
locked in one's mental grids as an information point, then this
concept will be inimical to one's intuitive faculties. This will
be the case whether the information point is subconscious or conscious.
*
To help make this clear, just imagine processing an intuitive
time-space transcending signal through an information grid which
has even one point in it that holds that time and space cannot
be transcended.
I have talked with any number of people who want to enhance their
intuition --- but who also wish to remain intellectually and politically
correct with regard to the modern science attitude that time and
space cannot be transcended.
If I've made my point here, then it would be clear that high-stage
intuition can take place only via information grids that are properly
and positively constructed regarding the time-space transcending
faculties of the human biomind. Any information point which denies
this will cause the intuitive faculties to crash, or at least
malfunction.
*
The SECOND POINT OF ENTRY I've selected has to do with the
utter inadequacy of modern definitions of the word "intuition."
Most people don't at all realize that very many definitions of
intuition have been offered up, but that none of them appear to
be really serviceable except in quite shallow ways.
My trusty dictionary gives the following definitions:
(1) immediate apprehension or cognition;
(2) knowledge or conviction gained by intuition;
(3) the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition
without rational thought and inference;
(4) quick and ready insight.
By these definitions, or a mix of them, one assumes one now knows
what intuition is --- right? These four definitions actually appear
to be defining an inexplicable form of magic --- the something-out-of-nothing
thing.
Here it needs to be pointed out that all of the types of intuition
ALWAYS deal with some kind of information and information outputs.
And since this is so, intuition obviously is the result of some
kind of information processing.
You can look up these or additional definitions if you want. Even
more complex and lengthy ones exist, and you might wish to bemuse
yourself with them, too.
But I doubt you'll discover one which gives, for example, "the
faculties or power of mind and cognition to transcend time, space,
and matter and energy as well."
*
The situation (and the problem) here is that if one reads through,
say, a thousand or more anecdotes and examples of verified intuition,
one will eventually see that there are MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF
IT.
If different kinds of intuition exist, then it's worthwhile wondering
why all of them should be called by one word --- intuition. After
all, it would be important to discriminate among what is going
on during an intuitive episode.
As to locating scholarly literature that attempts to distinguish
between the different types of intuition, well, it is difficult
to locate any. Most discourses on intuition argue philosophical
beliefs about what it is. However, "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
(Paul Edwards, Ed., 1967) makes an effort to identify seven typs
of intuition. These are worth quoting and considering --- although
I warn that your thinking synapses might get a little dizzy doing
so:
Begin quote:
1. Intuition as unjustified true belief not preceded by inference,
in this (the commonest) sense "an intuition" means "a
hunch." The existence of hunches is uncontroversial and not
of philosophical interest. [Remember I'm quoting the Encyclopedia!]
2. Intuition as immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition,
where "immediate" means "not preceded by inference."
This is a philosophically important sense, since philosophers
have found it puzzling that one can have knowledge, and thus justified
belief, without having made oneself aware through the process
of inference of any knowledge of a concept.
3. Intuition as immediate knowledge of a concept. "Immediate
knowledge" here means, roughly, "knowledge which does
not entail ability to define the concept."
4. Intuition as a nonpropositional knowledge of an entity - knowledge
that may be a necessary condition, for, but is not identical with,
intuitive knowledge of the truth of propositions about the entity.
The sense of "intuition" is exemplified by:
5. Sense perceptions, considered as products of a cognitive faculty
distinct from the faculty of forming judgements concerning the
entity sensed;
6. Intuitions of universals, or (as in Kant) of such insensible
particulars as time and space - intuitions that are necessary
conditions of our intuitive knowledge of a priori truths.
7. Mystical or inexpressible intuitions that, unlike sense perceptions
and intuitions of universals, do not make possible knowledge of
the truth of propositions about the entities intuited - such intuitions
as Bergson's inexpressible intuition of duration, Ficht's intuition
of the Transcendental Ego, and the mystic's intuition of God.
End quote!
If, having read these seven kinds of intuition, anyone can now
tell me what intuition is, I'd be glad to be so advised. Meanwhile,
welcome to the quagmire I mentioned earlier.
*
Well, if you're wondering what the hell you've just read, don't
worry too much. The above has been amusingly offered merely to
show that certain philosophers have been aware that different
types of intuition exist --- but which philosophers probably haven't
sifted through the monumental anecdotal evidence of intuitions.
The "disinterest" of philosophy in hunches, though,
is interesting, since it can be shown that most philosophies themselves
derive from someone's hunches.
Hunches are among the most widely-shared aspects of our species
intuitive faculties and therefore would seem important. And, as
well, from some hunches some of humankind's greatest monuments
and successes have emerged.
*
You will note, though, that the time-space thing made it into
the line-up, although merely as "insensible particulars."
Since time and space are usually entirely sensible, it is puzzling
why they are philosophically considered "insensible."
If you care to read again through the seven types, I suggest you
activate your sense of humor -- - if it hasn't already kicked
in. In any event, the Encyclopedia seems to be talking about states
of consciousness rather than about intuition --- this a point
worth noting and remembering.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch of our nomenclature problem regarding
intuition and its definitions, we now must undertake scrutiny
of the actual origins of our term "intuition."
Dictionaries state that the term is eytmologically taken from
the Latin "intuitus" --- the meaning of which is given
as "to look at, contemplate" as taken from the Latin
"in" + "tueri" ("to look inward as in
to introspect.")
Well, we can introspect our imagination, fancies, desires, lusts,
illusions --- none of which are intuitions, factually speaking.
However, after the etymological bit, the modern meaning of "immediate
apprehension or cognition" is applied backward though time
to the ancient Roman period --- and thus we are led to believe
that the Romans utilized the term in the same way we do today.
Well, although it took me about five years to discover it, nothing,
NOTHING of the kind is the case. As shown immediately below, the
differences are extreme between the ancient meaning of "intuitus"
and the modern meaning of "intuition".
For references, if you wish to consult them, the ancient meaning
of "intuitus" is given in the Oxford English Dictionary,
in the 1892 version of The Encyclopedia Britannica, and is discussed
at length in my own book Your Nostradamus Factor (Simon &
Schuster, 1993).
Now, I can't know, of course, how many who read this will immediately
discern the absolute differences between the two definitions.
So I'll assume that none can in order to present all of the differences.
For starters, the ancient meaning of INTUITUS has introduced the
concept of "felt relationships." "Relationship"
is a term which has very wide applications. Today, though, we
tend majorly to use it in referring to family, friends, and meaningful
others regarding sex, emotions, love, etc.
Yet potatoes and the earth they grow in have relationship to one
other. In physics, various atoms and particles have relationships
to others. In psychology, the human psyche has a relationship
to its past and future. Each born specimen of our species has
a relationship to what it is to experience and become.
*
In English, the term "relationship" is taken from
"to relate" which, in turn, is taken from Latin terms
meaning "to carry, to re-carry or carry back, and to bear
or tolerate. Our modern meanings give (1) to give an account of,
and (2) to show or establish logical or causal connection between.
Regarding the ancient meaning of INTUITUS, then, "relationships"
appears to refer to connections or what goes on BETWEEN things
--- but especially if the connections are causative and result
in something.
*
Now, the teaching in our modern times held that the human possessed
only five physical senses. Yet, upon inspection of these Famous
Five, none of them nor all of them together can account for directly
perceiving or experiencing what goes on, can go on, or doesn't
go on between things.
Indeed, you can easily confirm this yourself. Your taste receptors,
for example, can tell you nothing about the connections required
to make the cake. Your eyes alone cannot tell you if someone is,
connection-wise, emotionally or sexually available to you.
Indeed, the realm of connections (relationships) within which
we live is very much larger than the physical realms within which
our physical senses operate.
But it now must be pointed up that the human species SPECIALIZES
in discerning connections and relationships between and among
things. Indeed, this faculty (as it is often called) is among
our chief assets regarding creativity, inventivenes and survival
--- none of which our physical-5-senses by themselves can establish,
much less guarantee.
*
The only possible explanation here is that we possess a spectrum
of senses which are additional to our physical-5. And it is this
spectrum of senses which are grouped together under the venerable
terms of "intuition" or "intuitiveness."
If we add to this the concept that connections (relationships)
themselves range along a spectrum from the grossly to the highly
subtly perceivable, then we can get the idea that intuition itself
ranges along a spectrum from gross to subtle. This would enable
us to begin identifying the very many types of intuition, roughly
so at any rate.
*
The only real difficulty here is that in our modern period
FEELING has not been considered a sense, except in the case of
tangible touch. And so the phrase "felt relationships"
is awkward regarding sensing something by, well, feeling-sensing
it.
Even so, feeling-sensing is a carrier of information, almost precisely
in the same way that our physical-5 senses are based in receptors
that receive and identify information. Anything that carries information
really should be called a "sense" --- and we could,
if we want, begin to think in terms of intuitive receptors relative
to the whole of the human sensorium. (See Part Two forthcoming.)
*
Returning now to the differences between the modern definitions
of INTUITION and the ancient definition of INTUITUS, we can begin
to realize a number of inconsistent relationships between them.
*
First of all, it is interesting to notice that none of the
words used in the ancient definition of "intuitus" are
used in the modern definition of "intuition."
Yet, even today when someone experiences or suffers an intuitive
episode, they are very likely to speak of it as a "feeling,"
often as a "gut feeling" or a felt "hunch,"
or merely as "I've got a feeling about" thus or so.
*
Second, the modern definition of "intuition" identifies
apprehension, cognition, or knowledge --- but does not specify
about what. The ancient definition, however, specifies that "intuitus"
refers to felt RELATIONSHIPS (such as between or among things).
Indeed, if we consider this very carefully, relationships between
or among things are not usually very apparent as far as surface
observation goes.
Some relationships are easier to deduce, of course. But a very
great many relationships between or among things are very subtle
and often invisible to the cognitive intellect. And these seem
to require intuitive feelings to identify and sort them out.
*
Third, as given in the modern definition of intuition, immediate
apprehension, cognition and knowledge are presented as states
of and within themselves --- as states of INTELLECTUAL awareness.
In other words, they are not attached to objects or subjects of
any kind, nor to the relationships between them.
It is now helpful to learn that the ancient Romans used a Latin
term, "intellectus," whose meaning had to do with states
of intellectual awareness --- such states as apprehension, cognition
and knowledge, and all of which we today normally associate with
intellectual processes.
Now, get ready for a real banger!
For we will see that in our modern contexts the ancient definitions
of intellectus have been introduced into the modern definitions
of intuition --- while the ancient definitions of intuitus have
been lost altogether.
*
If your head is spinning about now, don't worry. All that has happened is that rationalists have constructed our modern definitions. And rationalists don't like feelings. This will become clear when we compare the modern definitions of intellect and intuition below.
*
Now, to increase our clarity here, let's talk our way through
these four definitions.
First of all, we can immediately see that the concept of "felt
relationships" has DISAPPEARED in both of the modern definitions
of intellect and intuition. In their modern contexts, then, by
definition neither intellect nor intuition deal with felt relationships.
*
Second, we can see that "felt relationships" linked
intuitus and intellectus together, but in two different ways.
Intuitus looked at and contemplated felt relationships, while
intellectus perceived and discerned among them. In a certain sense,
then, intellectus and intuitus were two sides of the same coin,
or twin brother and sister.
*
Third, to now point out an oddity, in our modern English exists
no conceptual term that has to do with dealing with "felt
relationships."
*
Fourth, we can see that intuitus/intellectus represented an
interconnecting biomind holism by the definitional link of "felt
relationships." We can also see that the modern definitions
of intellect and intuition break them apart, and that neither
deal with "felt relationships."
*
Fifth, to now point out an oddity, in our modern English exists
no conceptual term that has to do with dealing with "felt
relationships" --- except one which is seldom used and is
often considered obsolete: SENSORIUM.
*
Sixth, the modern definitions of intuition DO NOT fit with
the chief phenomenology of intuition -- - which is ALWAYS expressed
as feelings by those who experience some kind of intuition. The
modern definitions do not even include the word "feeling."
*
Seventh, we can now perceive, opaquely so at least, that intuition
is composed of sensed feelings which result in the hunches of
intellect, for a hunch is a cognitive analysis derived from what
has been felt
*
The whole of this possibly torturous nomenclature discussion
has been to point up that the modern definitions of intuition
have eliminated the feeling component of intuition, and that the
definitions of intuition and intellect have eliminated the concept
of "felt relationships."
The modern definitions, then, are not only inconsistent with the
historical terms from which they are allegedly derived, but inconsistent
as well with real human experiencing. Yet, if there is one environment-system
all of us live within, it is the all-inclusive environment of
relationships of all things.
It is therefore of little wonder that there are so many problems
regarding the "developing" of one's intuition. If definitions
are being used by one's intellect which are inconsistent with
the true aspects of intuition, then those mis-definitions will
warp one's cognitive biomind grids regarding of what intuition
really is.
*
In the above nomenclature contexts, the use of the word "immediate"
in the modern mis-definitions of intuition is suspect also. A
laborous study of examples of intuition show that the greater
bulk of them do not take place "immediately."
Some seem to do so, of course, as in a "flash" of intuitive
insight. But the greater bulk of them "build up" over
time --- as if the relationships they are working with are being
readjusted until, in some kind of contemplative sense, they are
got right. This is especially the case with creative or inventive
intuitions. In these cases, once the relationships are got right,
the familiar flash of creative hunch or insight occurs.
Additional mis-concepts regarding intuition will be discussed
in the next two documents of this series.
*
The great nomenclature carrier of the virtual definition of
intuition has, of course, been "gut feelings."
This phrase, and in many languages, is actually a very ancient
one. In modern times, however, it was considered as a vernacular
element (common, vulgar, or gutter-speak.) It was therefore not
suitable for literary, cultured, scientific, philosophical, or
dictionary discussion. Thus hardly any scholarly discussions regarding
gut feelings can be located.
The greatest jeopardy to our understanding of intuition, though,
has been the elimination during modern times of the original definition
of intuitus --- to sense and look at and contemplate felt relationships
(of things, objects, subjects, topics, ideas, people, and whatnot.)
The emphasis here, of course, is on "felt relationships"
or "feeling." Among all of the hundreds of examples
of intuition I've studied, there is not one which is independent
of the element of relationships --- and, as well, there is not
one independent of sensing-feeling.
In other words, intuition always occurs relative to something
else --- with the relationship often being felt before it is cognitively
understood within the intellect.
Indeed, at the personal level, if you have ever experienced an
intuition you might now have a look at it and try to find the
felt relationships that were involved.
In any event, those individuals who are reasonably good at spotting-sensing-feeling
relationships between things usually have a higher quotient of
intuition. This aspect will be expanded upon in part three of
this series.
*
To complete the picture of the quagmire which has been the
topic of this first essay, we now have to account for why and
how "felt relationships" disappeared as a concept during
the modern period.
During this period (roughly about 1845-1980), our cultural environments
became increasingly rationalism-oriented.
"Rationalism" was defined as (1) a theory that reason
is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent
of THE SENSE PERCEPTIONS AND feelings [emphasis added]; and (2)
a view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational
are the fundamental criteria in the solutions of problems.
*
The modern term "reason" is taken from the Latin
"ratio" which meant to compute or count. However, the
modern definitions are: a statement offered in explanation or
justification; a rational ground or motive; the power of comprehending,
inferring, or thinking; the proper use of the mind (we can wonder,
can't we, who is to decide what the "proper use" is
to be.)
*
The first difficulty here, and the first fatal flaw, involved
decisions regarding what is rational and nonrational. As most
of us are aware now, plenty that was earlier considered nonrational
later became rational --- for example, space travel, geodesic
domes, ecological relationships, as well as, by the way, the Internet
itself, and etc.
The second difficulty and flaw concerned whether reason was superior
and independent of the sense perceptions and feelings. Well, at
base, the human biomind organism is first a sensing-feeling organism,
and in each and every case it learns later to think (properly
or not and depending on the accuracy of the information points
in its grids.)
Since this is unquestionably so it is difficult to see how the
fundamental sensing-feeling elements can be subtracted so as to
free reason completely from them. It is now somewhat understood
that when the sense-feeling components of an individual bio- mind
organism are reduced or closed down, its reason also is reduced
or closed down.
Additionally, what is held to be reason or rational is relative
to environments, positive and/or negative nurturing situations
and the extent of knowledge.
*
All of these factors considered, it is difficult to see how
"pure" reason can ever be arrived at --- except in some
science-fiction sense, the very kind fiction that lent its character
the rationalist modern age.
It is abundantly understood that intuition takes place without
the benefits of rational reason --- a factor which most modern
documents labor to impress whether pro or con regarding intuition.
Indeed, there is hardly such a critter as a "rational intuition."
All intuitions are sensed feelings --- and an overly large share
of them fly directly in the face of reason and the so-called rational.
*
In any event, the modern age of rationalism DID NOT evolve
a science of sense-feeling --- because doing so was precluded
by its theory that sense- feeling was inferior to "pure"
reason detached from them, and as such was of no scientific or
philosophical interest.
All of the human superpowers of biomind, including the many identifiable
types of intuition, telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote-viewing
are directly based in sense-feelings. And all of them have been
stigmatized as nonrational, hence irrational, during the modern
age of rationalism dominated by the pure science-fiction goal
of "pure" reason.
1. The identifiable basis for intuition is species-wide and
thus the most spontaneously and frequently experienced of all
the other superpowers of the human biomind.
2. In the context of direct experiencing of intuition at the individual
level, it is universally expressed as some kind of feeling. Examination
of anecdotes and other evidence of intuitive episodes reveals
that the feelings are always associated with some kind of connectiveness
or relationship between two or more things which are felt before
they are cognitively sorted out.
3. Modern definitions of intuition avoid the inclusion of the
feeling-sensing always associated with real intuitive episodes.
Thus the modern definitions are inconsistent with virtual intuition,
and are hence intellectually misdirecting.
4. If the intellectual map of intuition does not accurately duplicate
the real and virtual elements of intuition, then the map will
act as "noise" regarding comprehension and understanding
of intuition and probably decrease identification of the information
loads the intuitive signals are carrying.
5. A review of the nomenclature history involved shows that modern
definitions of intuition are actually defining intellect elements
rather than intuition ones. The same modern definitions have eradicated
the historical link between intellect and intuition --- which
was "felt relationships." The direct link of intuitus/intellectus
has therefore been destroyed relative to the modern grasp of what
is involved.
6. The modern period, then, has not possessed either a correct
intellectual or phenomenological map regarding intuition and its
various elements and types. The reason these maps have not come
into existence is because of ideological partisanship broadly
affixed to the theory of modern rationalism which elevated intellectual
reason and diminished the importance of the feeling-senses.
7. The result has been the emergence of a superficial quagmire
regarding the identifiable elements of intuition as a biomind
system of senses existing in addition to the well-known physical
senses. This biomind system of senses transcends time-space in
ways the physical senses alone do not.
*
We now need to move expeditiously on to the second part of
this discourse --- the Sensorium.
(End of part 1)