Intuition Discussion Launched from Key Word Thread

intothemusic

Teheuti said:
If intuition is 100% accurate as a couple of people here have stated, then, if something believed to be intuition is incorrect, and it was not, then it is not, by this definition, intuition. But we can only know this after the fact, when the knowledge is proved true or false. Until proven a person may continue to falsely think it is intuition.

So we need to assume that, using standard definitions of intuition, "knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception" and "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference" is always 100% accurate.

If such knowledge is proved incorrect, it is what? Ego? And it must be something other than knowledge obtained neither by reason nor by perception. By process of elimination, the ego must operate by reason or perception. Or is there some other thing that looks like intuition but is not really? If so, what is it called? There must be a name for this process other than ego (since ego is an aspect of self an not a cognitive process), but what is it commonly called?

It all technically comes from ego. But if we choose (for arguments sake) to not call it ego, I'd call it thoughts and personal desires (self-delusion). Desires often lead to self-delusion and get in the way of intuition. Look at the people the audition for singing shows-- and tell the camera they will be the next Crowned King! Meanwhile they can't carry a tune. Delusional? Or "Sarah" might tell her best friend, "Amy", who is having a hard time conceiving "I think you're definitely going to be able to get pregnant. I promise you! I feel it!" Yet Amy it is confirmed that Amy can't have children. Was that Sarah's ego? Was she delusional? Well, her personal desire, was so strong for her friend to be happy, that she couldn't see or feel it any other way. She was too close to the situation.

Intuition is to me, is quite simply, "lucid insight." Knowing information I have no intellectual reason to know. If I didn't see, nor read about it, nor did I hear it and it has nothing to with information I received on a mental level... then how do I know this information that has proven to be accurate? Intuition or even empathic accuracy.

Barleywine

Teheuti said:
If intuition is 100% accurate as a couple of people here have stated, then, if something believed to be intuition is incorrect, and it was not, then it is not, by this definition, intuition. But we can only know this after the fact, when the knowledge is proved true or false. Until proven a person may continue to falsely think it is intuition.

So we need to assume that, using standard definitions of intuition, "knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception" and "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference" is always 100% accurate.

If such knowledge is proved incorrect, it is what? Ego? And it must be something other than knowledge obtained neither by reason nor by perception. By process of elimination, the ego must operate by reason or perception. Or is there some other thing that looks like intuition but is not really? If so, what is it called? There must be a name for this process other than ego (since ego is an aspect of self an not a cognitive process), but what is it commonly called?

I think I follow you here:

If intuition is always 100% correct, then any knowledge assumed to be intuitively derived that is proven to be false must have been obtained by some means other than intuition. (Ergo, it can't be called intuitive.)

If the knowledge is in fact correct but was obtained through the exercise of reason or perception, it is not - by the common definition - intuitive in nature, it is rational.

So some other faculty is at work in these cases. I agree that "Ego" is not a process, it's a component of the psychological landscape. So what are we left with? Precognition? "Sixth sense?" Another type of extrasensory perception that involves "the acquisition . . . of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information." That doesn't sound much different from the standard definition of intuition.

Perhaps it's the collective unconscious breaking through into waking awareness? Or some other kind of racial, tribal or ancestral memory? Maybe deeply buried subconscious associations that are summoned to the surface by the suggestive nature of the imagery? Nobody has mentioned "past-life" memory yet, either. (But maybe I had better not open up that one; "the jury will disregard . . .

) Any of these (other than subconscious association, which is typically experiential) assumes that we are somehow "encoded" or "imprinted" with knowledge that bypassed our cognitive threshhold. Possibly it's embedded in the DNA of those with the gift?

I can't offer anything in answer to the question that hasn't been hashed over already, other than to say "I know it when I see it," and also that I consider any such information obtained by "irrational" means to be provisional until proven correct. (That's why I like to present it in a symbolic or allegorical way during a reading.) For that matter, though, anything that comes out of a reading that qualifies as a "forecast," no matter if it is based on intuition or is simply "keyword mining," is provisional as far as the known facts of the situation can demonstrate at that time.

Teheuti

intothemusic said:
If I didn't see, nor read about it, nor did I hear it and it has nothing to with information I received on a mental level... then how do I know this information that has proven to be accurate? Intuition or even empathic accuracy.

How is this different that ESP/Psychic ability?

intothemusic

Teheuti said:
How is this different that ESP/Psychic ability?

It's not different. When you said in another post that you were empathic/intuitive.. well, that is a psychic ability. in fact, anyone with a modicum of empathic ability, has a modicum of clairsentience (which is technically categorized as a psychic ability--and the most common form of it).

Barleywine

intothemusic said:
It's not different. When you said in another post that you were empathic/intuitive.. well, that is a psychic ability. in fact, anyone with a modicum of empathic ability, has a modicum of clairsentience (which is technically categorized as a psychic ability--and the most common form of it).

I'm glad you brought this up. In an earlier, slightly different incarnation of this topic, when I argued that in trying to do electronically-delivered "remote" readings for another person (as in e-mail, Facebook, forum PM, etc.), readers are either injecting their own bias into the proceedings or are simply exercising psychic abilities, I was firmly (although politely) shouted down and told it's intuition, divine inspiration, or some other less disreputable form of insight. I like to have the querent in the room and directly engaged; the modern fixation on "distance" reading - without the option of immediately validating our observations with the querent - can potentially introduce too much subconscious "static" and opportunity for misapprehension for my taste. But I do appreciate that it's a more effective way to make money as a reader.

Teheuti

In answer to if there was any difference between intuition and psychic ability:

intothemusic said:
It's not different. When you said in another post that you were empathic/intuitive.. well, that is a psychic ability. in fact, anyone with a modicum of empathic ability, has a modicum of clairsentience (which is technically categorized as a psychic ability--and the most common form of it).

This is the problem. You see the majority of educated people have designated a difference between intuition and esp/psychic abilities - precisely so as to differentiate between the lightning fast awareness that comes through unconsciously perceived normal sensory input, memory and other factors, and an extra-sensory perception. Unfortunately, the New-Age / Spiritual / Tarot community has decided that "intuitive" is a more acceptable word and so use it as a substitute for the more woo-woo psi or clairvoyant, etc.

There are the whole of the scientific, research, business and philosophical worlds out there for whom intuition is a faculty that can be explained and studied without any spiritual or extra-sensory explanations. In this framework there is no need for intuition to be defined as 100% right. Instead they study under what conditions it is right or accurate and when it is wrong, so that we can refine our use of intuition.

Why not just call psychic abilities what they are since there is no substantive debate about what the term means?

BTW, while clairsentience is a psi ability, there is something called empathy that is a normal human function that doesn't require any spiritual or "clair" part. Recently they discovered something they call "mirror neurons" in the brain that appear to be the early training ground for empathy.

Teheuti

Barleywine said:
In an earlier, slightly different incarnation of this topic, when I argued that in trying to do electronically-delivered "remote" readings for another person (as in e-mail, Facebook, forum PM, etc.), readers are either injecting their own bias into the proceedings or are simply exercising psychic abilities, I was firmly (although politely) shouted down and told it's intuition, divine inspiration, or some other less disreputable form of insight.

I think you are voicing some important concerns. Ideally we could do some research to discover what differences and similarities actually exist when using different mediums;-0. Some people find they can be more objective when not working face-to-face, but we may miss some important clues.

The fact is that we interpret the cards slightly differently given different clients. In an email reading we may get no more information than the following question:

"What will come from getting involved with Person A___?"

Would our answer (with the same cards) be exactly the same for each of the following?
Client, a high school student; Person A, a drug dealer.
Client, a 45-year old married man; Person A, his secretary.
Client, an 85 year old woman; Person A, an 89 year old woman.
Client, a 24 year old single man; Person A, a 22 year old single woman.

intothemusic

Teheuti said:
In answer to if there was any difference between intuition and psychic ability:
This is the problem. You see the majority of educated people have designated a difference between intuition and esp/psychic abilities - precisely so as to differentiate between the lightning fast awareness that comes through unconsciously perceived normal sensory input, memory and other factors, and an extra-sensory perception. Unfortunately, the New-Age / Spiritual / Tarot community has decided that "intuitive" is a more acceptable word and so use it as a substitute for the more woo-woo psi or clairvoyant, etc.

There are the whole of the scientific, research, business and philosophical worlds out there for whom intuition is a faculty that can be explained and studied without any spiritual or extra-sensory explanations. In this framework there is no need for intuition to be defined as 100% right. Instead they study under what conditions it is right or accurate and when it is wrong, so that we can refine our use of intuition.

Why not just call psychic abilities what they are since there is no substantive debate about what the term means?

BTW, while clairsentience is a psi ability, there is something called empathy that is a normal human function that doesn't require any spiritual or "clair" part. Recently they discovered something they call "mirror neurons" in the brain that appear to be the early training ground for empathy.

There is "empathy." To have empathy for someone. Ex. "Narcissistic people tend to lack empathy." Then there is "empathic ability" the ability to feel and sense energies. "get a vibe." What I'm referring to isn't scientific. Hardly. This is all faith based. Just as eastern medicine is constantly being questioned by science and western medicine. The same goes for the word "intuition". I'm not using the word "intuitive" like..."the app is fairly intuitive." I'm referring to to the word "intuition" as in the spiritual term.

I believe all people have access to spiritual information via their "intuition." I believe this intuition is a psychic ability.

Now, just because you can play a couple chords on a guitar, doesn't make you a musician or a guitar player. Just because you have some "intuition" it might not be enough to call yourself a "psychic." Generally, people that call themselves "psychic" (well real ones, not the wannabe charlatans) have a very strong empathic ability and other various clair skills.

intothemusic

Barleywine said:
I'm glad you brought this up. In an earlier, slightly different incarnation of this topic, when I argued that in trying to do electronically-delivered "remote" readings for another person (as in e-mail, Facebook, forum PM, etc.), readers are either injecting their own bias into the proceedings or are simply exercising psychic abilities, I was firmly (although politely) shouted down and told it's intuition, divine inspiration, or some other less disreputable form of insight. I like to have the querent in the room and directly engaged; the modern fixation on "distance" reading - without the option of immediately validating our observations with the querent - can potentially introduce too much subconscious "static" and opportunity for misapprehension for my taste. But I do appreciate that it's a more effective way to make money as a reader.

Energy doesn't know time, or space. It doesn't make a difference if the person is in front of you or on the phone or on the computer. It's energy. If you can tap into the energy - the information will come through regardless of where you are. In fact, when the person is not in front of you-- and you can't size them up visually - all you are left with is the energy you sense/feel. Some of the most accurate readings I've personally experienced have been via a computer. It's an excellent way to make money only because you have access to people all over the world.

The whole point is to be able to tune out distractions, static etc. If the reader can't do this, then that's another story. Personally, when I begin a reading and it's via a computer - i validate what I am picking up to make sure we are connecting. If the client gives me the green light - from that point it's all good.

Barleywine

Teheuti said:
I think you are voicing some important concerns. Ideally we could do some research to discover what differences and similarities actually exist when using different mediums;-0. Some people find they can be more objective when not working face-to-face, but we may miss some important clues.

The fact is that we interpret the cards slightly differently given different clients. In an email reading we may get no more information than the following question:

"What will come from getting involved with Person A___?"

Would our answer (with the same cards) be exactly the same for each of the following?
Client, a high school student; Person A, a drug dealer.
Client, a 45-year old married man; Person A, his secretary.
Client, an 85 year old woman; Person A, an 89 year old woman.
Client, a 24 year old single man; Person A, a 22 year old single woman.

Is it really objectivity they seek, or do they just find "live" settings uncomfortable, or desire freedom from the inconvenient realities of client unpredictability and annoying push-back? Staying centered and in your "comfort zone" is a cinch if you don't have those pesky humans staring at you! I'm not saying that readers who ply their craft solely on the internet are cynical, just unavoidably less dialed in to the sometimes messy human dimension.

My quarrel with remote reading is that it can be such a self-referential monologue, vulnerable to being skewed by lop-sided perspectives that have little chance of producing a balanced outlook. Intuition is offered as the one-size-fits-all defense for the legitimacy of this (unless, of course, it's explained as divine endorsement). What bothers me even more is that there are likely to be credulous clients who are eagerly consuming what for all intents and purpose are private musings, and acting on them as if they are infallible. Granted, there can be electronic follow-up and feedback to "check-and-adjust," but I'm wondering how many people - at either end of the communication loop - really bother to go that far with any regularity.

The personal dialogue is what I value; after 40+ years of doing this, I still learn something every time I read face-to-face, even if it's only a subtle refinement or reinforcement of something I already knew, or an intriguing new wrinkle in human nature or development. I doubt I could ever be an impersonal, "assembly-line" internet reader with a backlog of faceless clients in the queue. For me, that would be as dry as dust, regardless of how much intuitive horsepower I brought to bear. But, in fairness, I'm not in the position of having to scramble for every dollar; it might be different if it were a major source of income. For the sake of argument, if I were ever to tackle an internet practice, I would require some kind of minimal questionnaire styled to address the sort of anomalies you mentioned. But then, people could certainly lie about their profile, leaving me as much in the dark as ever, and just as far away from producing valuable insights for them