[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Case]

Ham,

The problem with intuition is that it is an essentially private event. For
example you have this intuition about essence and a passionate belief in the
Primary Source. But until you can frame these in terms that inspire others
to share your intuition or revelation then your passion will remain a
private event.

Case





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:29 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

Case --

[Case said]:
> Let me call to your attention the fact the Renaissance
> ended about 400 years ago. We have made progress
> since then. For example, we no longer regard intuition
> as higher that logic.

Not to make an argument out of this, but if the Renaissance ended in the
1600s, apparently intuition didn't.  The philosopher Kant (1724-1804) held
that logic and conceptual analysis alone cannot account for our knowledge of
arithmetic: "however we might turn and twist our concepts, we could never,
by the mere analysis of them, and without the aid of intuition, discover
what is the sum [7+5]"

I happen to believe it is man's intuition that led to the invention of logic
in the first place and that enables us to use it in justifying and
communicating abstract ideas.  After all, numbers, symbols, equivalencies,
and contrarieties are not just
hanging around, begging to be made into logical propositions.  They have to
be apprehended (intuitively), structured into logical syllogisms
(intuitively), and comprehended (intuitively) by those who pass judgment on
them.  In short, I don't believe we can separate reason from intuition.

[Case]:
> Plato believed that intuition gave direct access to the
> world of ideas while logic allowed us to manipulate
> conceptions of the ideals. This a bit like the conflict
> between reason and revelation in Christianity. Even the
> church fathers had the wisdom to close the canon,
> primarily to stop the flow of "inspired" writing.
>
> My own view is that intuition is a source of ideas but without a sound
> rational follow-up it is useless. Jim Jones, Charles Manson and David
> Koresh might all have appreciated your enthusiasm for intuition.

I don't quarrel with the utility of "sound rational follow-up" for all
ideas.  However, religion is founded on faith in "the revealed word" of God,
not on logic or intuition.  Therefore, I don't think we can compare
religious ideas with intuitive insights on experienced phenomena that lead
to the discovery of logical principles.

[Case]:
> As for Sherlock Holmes, he was the master of logic and reason.
> He is fictional after all but while one might say he was blessed
> with intuition, he was not limited or guided by it.  He backed
> it up with sound logic. "Intuitive" reasoning has nothing whatever
> to do with Sherlock Holmes.

Show me a "real" person, then -- a scientist, mathematician, inventor,
theorist, or philosopher -- who has not been guided by intuition, or (to
make it more feasible) who claims that intuition has played no part in his
or her logical thesis.  What makes logic "sound" is its ability to present
facts in a rational format such that the conclusion cannot be denied as
unreasonable.  I submit that this cannot be done without intuition on the
part of both the author and the reader.

Regards,
Ham


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/