From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2005 - 13:00:32 GMT
Hi Paul, Chin, Ant:
Several interesting takes on the subject of "intuition" from you three,
all related to a new book just out entitled "Blink" in which the author
claims, based on numerous psychological studies and anecdotal evidence,
that snap judgments and first impressions in many situations are more
accurate than gathering as much information as possible and spending as
much time as possible in deliberation.
From Paul:
> "Two words came up to me that I learned in German class long ago; they are
> the words "kenntnis" and "wissenschaft." Both words mean "to know." We use
> the word in English, "to know," the same way. The two meanings of
> "kenntnis" and "wissenschaft" are "to know as one would know one's own
> mother's face," that's "kenntnis." "Wissenschaft" would be "to know as one
> knows Mesopotamian history." To us they are just both forms of "knowing"
> but in German I am told that they are very different and that they are
> regarded as two entirely different entities. As different as blue and green
> or as different as ice and snow which the Hindi language confuses as one
> word.
>
> It then occurred to me that quality is not easily understood by
> wissenschaft, the knowledge by which you understand ancient history, but
> you can understand it so quickly through kenntnis, by acquaintance, because
> you don't even have to think about it. So this very interesting split is
> one which divides on the word "quality." Quality you can know by kenntnis.
> You say it's good - "yeah it's great, I like it" - you don't have to think
> about it, you don't have to analyse it, you don't have to sit down. But if
> you say "why do you like it? Give me the specific reasons, lay out your
> framework for understanding it," you'll find that it is a very, very
> difficult task."
From Chin:
I must admit I can't remember most of what I have read, but I'm thinking
it was Russell who said something to the nature there was also non-sensory
intuition involved. To stretch this to limits that are probably not
allowed here, I think I might say that we know intuitively all that we can
reason, and this reason can come as much from logic and reason dialect as
it does intuitively, and/or the intuition is responsible for the thoughts
prior to the words and logic spoken in the contradictory views we hold
that opposes, and advances philosophical thought.
From Ant:
Bergson (1907, p.p.176-179) then suggests that intellect is concerned with
static parts while it is intuition (which he understands as instinct that
has become conscious) that deals with Dynamic wholes.
(Platt). It looks as if the phenomenon we all recognize as "instant whole
judgment" is directly related to Dynamic Quality. Further, this capacity
to make accurate instant value assessments is built into the fabric of our
being, i.e., "instinct become conscious" as Bergson says.
Thanks to you gentlemen, and to the book "Blink," the nature of the DQ
experience has become clearer to me. Whether we can call that experience
"mystic" or not is another matter.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 13 2005 - 13:00:15 GMT