The fish in the cup

I love your fish Mary! Bettas are a favorite of mine too, I only have one right now that my husband bought me as a present When I was younger I'd always have a few in my room, I liked buying the sicker bettas and nursing them back to health, lol. When I get settled into my new place I want a KING betta! Those suckers are huge!


ON top now...
This is a really cool thread, great insight into the Page of Cups. The fish also appears in the King of Cups right? In the ocean right next to him? So perhaps another function of the fish is to relay information to the higher ups, or to someone in general.

To go off of what Magpie9 said, about logical types needing to listen to their intuition, I think that ties in to the idea that not all of the court cards are exclusively representative of their suits...meaning that while this page belongs to the cups suit, this page has qualities of the Swords (logic). The courts don't always exclusively represent their suits!

I always identified the fish as a babel fish a definition which, apart from amusing me, surprisingly fits in with the more erudite responses. The fish becomes an aid in understanding and communicating with people different from ones self.

I defy someone to convince me there is a difference between logic and intuition.

firemaiden said:

I defy someone to convince me there is a difference between logic and intuition.

Click to expand...

?
Logic is based upon fact or quantifiable (izzat a word?) data.
If A, then B.
If X is false, therefore Y is true.

Intuition has no factual basis. It is not based upon fact, it exists in the absence of fact or hard data.
If X is false, therefore Y is true except in this instance because Z is a specific shade of green that I associate with a episode from my childhood.

.traveller. said:

?
Logic is based upon fact or quantifiable (izzat a word?) data.
If A, then B.
If X is false, therefore Y is true.

Intuition has no factual basis. It is not based upon fact, it exists in the absence of fact or hard data.
If X is false, therefore Y is true except in this instance because Z is a specific shade of green that I associate with a episode from my childhood.

Click to expand...

ON the contrary, factual relevance is THE thing which defines an otherwise silly fear as INTUITION. If intuition has no factual basis, it is not intuition, it is a silly fear, or an error. If we do not recognise the logical steps that took us from point A to point B in a reasoning, it does not mean that those steps were absent. If a thought has come to you APPARENTLY "intuitively", without revealing the intricate dance of steps it took to get there, it does not mean that the steps were absent, it means only that the speed of connections from one synapse to another was so fast, we were not aware of how it happened.

Or, from the reverse perspective: logic, is intuition slowed down so we can observe its intricate steps. If we are aware of the tangoing feed-back loops of thought, observation and emotions, we RECOGNISE we are thinking "logically" -- EVEN THOUGH we may have been unaware of 15 of the intricate steps in the dance that got us from A to B.

Intuition is supersonic logic.

What a load of tripe.

firemaiden said:

ON the contrary, factual relevance is THE thing which defines an otherwise silly fear as INTUITION.

Click to expand...

From the first sentence you changed the nature of the original argument and instituted a logical fallacy, followed by circuitous reasoning (another logical fallacy) in the second sentence.

Of course, if you cannot argue logically without resorting to fallacies then it is not surprising that you see logic and intuition as one in the same.

A pity. I was looking forward to a good discussion.

Firemaiden, you are off your feed. Nobody who reads like you do is not a believer in and practitioner of astonishingly strong intuition. You're just bored and looking for a fight. Maybe you should discuss this with your toaster?

I believe in intuition, darlings, but I believe that it is composed of very fast logic.

.traveller. said:

What a load of tripe.



From the first sentence you changed the nature of the original argument and instituted a logical fallacy, followed by circuitous reasoning (another logical fallacy) in the second sentence.

Of course, if you cannot argue logically without resorting to fallacies then it is not surprising that you see logic and intuition as one in the same.

A pity. I was looking forward to a good discussion.

Click to expand...

We make the assumption we have two opposing faculties, because we accept the words as they are defined. But ask yourself what is logic, really? What is intuition really? Is there any such thing as intuition? Or are my hunches arrived at my means of logic so swift I cannot perceive it?

Of course we make the assumption that logic and intuition can exist independently of each other because we define them as such. But we have no understanding of what really happens inside the human brain, which pathways our synapses use -- do they jump from one part of the brain to the other? or do they follow a linear path so swifly it cannot be detected?... We cannot know that our apparently intuitive thoughts arise without the use of logic. We can only assume they do.

So in that case, Logic is intuition slowed down? I don't buy it.