William,

Do I take it from this that you disagree with Trevor's (and my) account of
intuition, that it is necessarily about the way we deal with actual
experience?  I thought Trevor gave a very clear and useful account (walking
around obstacles, hearing birdsong etc) that immediately makes clear the
difference between intuition and imagination.  If we sit in Berkeley Square
after dark and a small brown bird bursts forth in beatiful song we intuit
the presence of a nightingale.  If, as is more likely, we sit in Berkeley
Square and hear only chirping sparrows and cooing pigeons, we will have to
imagine the nightingale - its not there!

As to why anyone should find either intuition or imagination a threat, I can
imagine lots of reasons.  What intuition leads you to suppose that people
do?

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Cody, William [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:	Wednesday, November 17, 1999 10:37 PM
> To:	Trevor Hussey; [log in to unmask]
> Subject:	RE: intuition
> 
> What is the difference between intuition and imagination?  People seem to
> be
> comfortable, for the most part, with the notion that we can imagine things
> that are beyond "objective" reality.  What is so different about
> intuition?
> Einstein used imagination heavily, as is well known, making the greatest
> strides in his work always through his famous "thought experiments."
> These
> were unique and incredibly esoteric products of one man's imagination, yet
> they turned out over the years to be "objectively verifiable."  What is
> the
> difference between this kind of thinking and intuition?  Are not both of
> these creative uses of imagination?  And why should either be a threat to
> anyone?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Trevor Hussey [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent:	Wednesday, November 17, 1999 1:23 PM
> > To:	Beverly Whelton
> > Cc:	[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:	Re: intuition
> > 
> > Dear Beverly, 
> >                      Re; Intuitions. 
> > Several contributions have been made on this issue in the last few days
> > and I may be in danger of repeating something that I, or someone else
> has
> > said, but I will try to say a little more in explanation of my earlier
> > remarks.  I fear it is speculative psychology rather than pure
> philosophy.
> > 
> > 
> >       I suggest (rather tentatively) that we and other animals proceed
> > through our daily lives, perceiving the world around us and using the
> > information so as to function effectively and avoid danger etc.  Some of
> > the information we use does not register in our conscious awareness, and
> > some does.  Amongst the latter, some is fully analysed: concepts are
> > applied to it and we may express it in language, either to ourselves or
> > publicly.  But some, perhaps the majority, of our perception may be
> > available to consciousness but is used without being conceptualized or
> > expressed in language.  Eg.  We may walk round an obstacle on a pavement
> > without registering what it was - although we would be able to do so if
> > asked.  Or we might hear a bird singing in the background and be aware
> of
> > it, yet not attend to it or identify it as, say, a robin - yet we would
> be
> > able to if required to do so. 
> > 
> >                If this is so, it seems likely that in our interactions
> > with others we will perceive, at this pre-conceptual level, an enormous
> > amount of detail (eg. body posture, facial expressions, minute gestures
> > etc.) which we do not attend to sufficiently for them to be identified
> and
> > fully conceptualized.  Nonetheless, we will use this information in the
> > interaction and in any subsequent thinking or actions.  We may call this
> > 'intuition' because we feel that we have available to us, more
> information
> > than we were aware of.  Ie. We may not be able to fully explain or
> > articulate why we feel or react as we do, but that does not mean that we
> > must have received information via a mystical "sixth sense". 
> > 
> >         I can't speak for all realists, but the reason I am concerned
> > about the more mystical versions of intuition is ,roughly, this: the
> > opponents of realism attack realists for positing the existence of an
> > independent, objective reality which, the critics claim, can only be
> > "known" via our conceptual apparatus, linguistic scheme etc.  They claim
> > that this "reality" is a construction of our minds, conceptual apparatus
> > or some such.  The main defence against this attack is to argue that we
> > have some means of gaining objective knowledge of the purported reality.
> > This must mean that we can justify at least some of our perceptual
> claims.
> > Thus if we admit 'intuition' of a kind that gives us knowledge, yet also
> > of a kind for which we can give no evidence or rational justification
> (ie
> > Mystical), we are in trouble.  People could claim to intuit all sorts of
> > bizarre "realities" with no fear of being shown to be mistaken.  Thus
> > 'reality' would become relative to the conceptual scheme, culture,
> > language or peculiar prejudices of the individual - just as our critics
> > claim. 
> > 
> >        Sorry about the length and vagueness of my reply. 
> >                  Trevor. 
> > 
> > Beverly Whelton wrote: 
> > 
> > 	Reading the messages from Trevor and Savina was very interesting. 
> > 
> > 	As one who consideres themselves within the realist variety, I am
> > pondering 
> > 	the risk in a precognitive view of intuition.  This would seem to
> > place it 
> > 	within the organizing structures that provide for perception.  This
> > does not 
> > 	seem to be placing intuition on the level of universal,
> > generalizable, 
> > 	conceptual knowledge that is taken as intellectual content by my
> > brand of 
> > 	realist.  Could you say more about the reported fears or concerns of
> > 
> > 	realists? or, clarify further what you take to be precognitive. 
> > 
> > 	thanks 
> > 
> > 	Bev Whelton 
> > 	-----Original Message----- 
> > 	From: savina/gwen <[log in to unmask]> 
> > 	To: [log in to unmask]
> > <[log in to unmask]> 
> > 	Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 9:40 PM 
> > 	Subject: intuition 
> > 
> > 	>Trevor, your comments regarding intuition were very helpful to me.
> > As 
> > 	>one who has moved from a realist stance on most everything to a 
> > 	>constructivist stance of most everything, I continue to see
> > intuition as 
> > 	>you have articulated it even though I didn't have all the language
> > that 
> > 	>you have now offered.  I am wondering what threat folks are
> > experiencing 
> > 	>when it is suggested that a mystical view is not necessary to a
> > valuing 
> > 	>of intuition.  It may be that many who argue against a mystical
> > view 
> > 	>tend to devalue intuition.  I guess the question could also be
> > asked 
> > 	>"why do realists often seem to fear a precognitive view of
> > intuition"? 
> > 	> 
> > 	>Savina Schoenhofer 
> > 	>
> > 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%