Here’s an interesting perspective on intuition

[r0ckyreed]

Here’s an interesting perspective on how intuition is never wrong.
 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CbIebZXOb6P/?igsh=MTl1ZmdxZDRoYm44Ng==

[r0ckyreed]

Think about which perspective is higher or lower on intuition: Leo Gura’s or David Lions?

You can see how distinguishing higher vs lower isn’t as black and white as Leo made it seem in the video. You can have multiple intelligible perspectives, some may be more truer or may be equal. It is hard to tell whether a perspective is equal or not.

Leo says intuition can be wrong and it is important to question intuition and test it. David Lion says that intuition is always right but we do not always listen and act on the full message.

Which perspective is higher, lower, or are they equal?

Edited Friday at 04:39 PM by r0ckyreed

[Salvijus]

Intuition is always right but our ability to discern its guidence in the midst of all the clamoring noise of the ego is not always accurate. 

Edited Friday at 05:39 PM by Salvijus

[Buck Edwards]

Intuition is generally right in my experience. Often I did not listen to it. The problem is that we ignore it. 

I want to sharpen my intuition. But at the same time I want to strengthen cognitive reasoning which is just as  important along with intuition. 

[Lyubov]

The thing is right and wrong are very flexible terms that are open for interpretation and things are constantly being re contextualized. So for instance at one point in time some mistake or issue you or I went through may have been incredibly challenging at the time but what unfolded several years later you see gave you the experience to have the wisdom or strength to navigate another challenge. We may even spend years building a house around beliefs about issues we faced and mistakes me made. So from a grand perspective experience is never without learning or growth or change. So in terms of life being some straight experience like a video game where you are supposed to beat the level a certain way, no I don’t believe this is how it works and I don’t believe intuition is like the cheat book with the right answers to solve some problem. To me intuition is the filtering of our true source through the faculties of our body and mind. There is wisdom, energy, guidance and resilience built into it and it’s sort of like a relationship. We have to nurture it and put energy into it, quiet anything in it’s way. And then what may unfold we make the best of it through our perspective and the inner guidance through this intuition and accept the things the best we can which we find difficult. But that is fine, we make mistakes along the way and can lightly hold perspectives on right and wrong, trying your best to be honest, but to me intuition is a very fluid thing that is not entirely understood, there is some mystery to it and that’s part of it. Accepting the unknown and what is uncertain to unfold. 

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

You can see how distinguishing higher vs lower isn’t as black and white as Leo made it seem in the video. You can have multiple intelligible perspectives

Yes. You can't just apply my list like a baboon to get to the truth. That would be too easy. My series isn't done yet.

But as my list said, beware of perspectives which are unfalsifiable. Notice that New Agers love to construct unfalsifiable spiritual views.

Saying that intuition is always right is like saying that the Quran is always right. Same epistemic structure. So when you follow the Quran and something turns out bad, people will just rationalize it as: well, it was good for me to get into this shit because it taught me a valuable lesson about swimming in shit, so the Quran wins afterall.

Notice, we can do the same for Actualized.org teachings. Any bad advice that Leo gives must ultimately be good because even if it leads you to shit, that will be a good lesson for you in handling shit. Therefore it is definitionally impossible for Leo to give bad advice.

It is absolutely critical for you to realize that your intuitions can and will lead you into profound self-deception if you are not extra careful. Intuition is a heuristic, not an absolute. Intuition hallucinates, like AI. So you will get hallucination errors.

Edited Friday at 11:45 PM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

 

There are plenty of stupids intuitions. The stupidest intuitions are usually projections of our behavior onto other people, thus believing that we intuit their nature without even knowing them and seeing how they act, only because of the feeling they transmit in us. That's the intuition, a feeling. It's right in the sense that it's your feeling, but nothing else, things could be totally different than that feeling make us believe 

[The Crocodile]

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

intuition

 

(Mother:) “Intuition sees the truth of things by a direct inner contact, not like the ordinary mental intelligence by seeking and reaching out for indirect contacts through the senses etc. But the limitation of the Intuition as compared with the Supermind is that it sees things by flashes, point by point, not as a whole. Also in coming into the mind it gets mixed with the mental movement and forms a kind of intuitive-mind activity which is not the pure truth, but something in between the higher Truth and the mental seeking. It can lead the consciousness through a sort of transitional stage and that is practically its function.”[5]

(Sri Aurobindo:) “The true intuition [...] carries in itself its own guarantee of truth; it is sure and infallible within its limits. And so long as it is pure intuition and does not admit into itself any mixture of sense-error or intellectual ideation, it is never contradicted by experience: the intuition may be verified by the reason or the sense-perception afterwards, but its truth does not depend on that verification, it is assured by an automatic self-evidence. If the reason depending on its inferences contradicts the greater light, it will be found in the end on ampler knowledge that the intuitional conclusion was correct and that the more plausible rational and inferential conclusion was an error. For the true intuition proceeds from the self-existent truth of things and is secured by that self-existent truth and not by any indirect, derivatory or dependent method of arriving at knowledge.
          But even the intuitive reason is not the gnosis; it is only an edge of light of the supermind finding its way by flashes of illumination into the mentality like lightnings in dim and cloudy places. Its inspirations, revelations, intuitions, self-luminous discernings are messages from a higher knowledge-plane that make their way opportunely into our lower level of consciousness.”[6]

(Sri Aurobindo:) “There are mental, vital, subtle physical intuitions as well as intuitions from the higher and the illumined Mind.”

 

[Terell Kirby]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is absolutely critical for you to realize that your intuitions can and will lead you into profound self-deception if you are not extra careful. Intuition is a heuristic, not an absolute. Intuition hallucinates, like AI. So you will get hallucination errors.

How should one go about parsing true from false intuition? The process can’t be algorithmic-but at the same time, a higher level of intuition is needed for parsing .. a meta intuition of sorts.

[r0ckyreed]

@Leo Gura Good points. I do see the limits of that way of “always” thinking. But as some point, I imagine that if you hit rock bottom Absolute Truth, it might still have that same epistemic structure.

“Intuition is true because it is always true” may be false, but there is something that is tautological truth such as “Solipsism is true because it is always true.” You can say Solipsism is always true, and can backwards rationalize that too, but Solipsism could in fact be Absolute Truth. 

I don’t see how you can get around that. Absolute Truth is circular because there is nothing but itself to explain itself.

How can Absolute Truth be falsified?

I would say that it takes intuition/introspection to tell if I am backwards rationalizing or not. 

Edited Saturday at 12:10 AM by r0ckyreed

[Breakingthewall]

20 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

 

(Mother:) “Intuition sees the truth of things by a direct inner contact, not like the ordinary mental intelligence by seeking and reaching out for indirect contacts through the senses etc. But the limitation of the Intuition as compared with the Supermind is that it sees things by flashes, point by point, not as a whole. Also in coming into the mind it gets mixed with the mental movement and forms a kind of intuitive-mind activity which is not the pure truth, but something in between the higher Truth and the mental seeking. It can lead the consciousness through a sort of transitional stage and that is practically its function.”[5]

(Sri Aurobindo:) “The true intuition [...] carries in itself its own guarantee of truth; it is sure and infallible within its limits. And so long as it is pure intuition and does not admit into itself any mixture of sense-error or intellectual ideation, it is never contradicted by experience: the intuition may be verified by the reason or the sense-perception afterwards, but its truth does not depend on that verification, it is assured by an automatic self-evidence. If the reason depending on its inferences contradicts the greater light, it will be found in the end on ampler knowledge that the intuitional conclusion was correct and that the more plausible rational and inferential conclusion was an error. For the true intuition proceeds from the self-existent truth of things and is secured by that self-existent truth and not by any indirect, derivatory or dependent method of arriving at knowledge.
          But even the intuitive reason is not the gnosis; it is only an edge of light of the supermind finding its way by flashes of illumination into the mentality like lightnings in dim and cloudy places. Its inspirations, revelations, intuitions, self-luminous discernings are messages from a higher knowledge-plane that make their way opportunely into our lower level of consciousness.”[6]

(Sri Aurobindo:) “There are mental, vital, subtle physical intuitions as well as intuitions from the higher and the illumined Mind.”

 

Good points. Thinking in it again, really intuition is always true, but what could be deceptive is the mental structure that we create over that intuition . Intuition is the direct perception of the reality 

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

How should one go about parsing true from false intuition? The process can’t be algorithmic-but at the same time, a higher level of intuition is needed for parsing .. a meta intuition of sorts.

Intuition generates ideas and models, which then need to be tested via something akin to scientific method.

In the end, experience is king. All your ideas needs to be tested against experience in some fashion.

For example, if you intuit that someone is your soul mate, you can put that to the test by marrying them and seeing how that plays out. You'll likely quickly discover how wrong you were.

And if there is no way to test your intuitive idea, then you should regard it as a fantasy. For example, if you feel that aliens built the pyramids but you have no way to put that to the test, then it's a fantasy/speculation.

26 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

@Leo Gura Good points. I do see the limits of that way of “always” thinking. But as some point, I imagine that if you hit rock bottom Absolute Truth, it might still have that same epistemic structure.

“Intuition is true because it is always true” may be false, but there is something that is tautological truth such as “Solipsism is true because it is always true.” You can say Solipsism is always true, and can backwards rationalize that too, but Solipsism could in fact be Absolute Truth. 

I don’t see how you can get around that. Absolute Truth is circular because there is nothing but itself to explain itself.

How can Absolute Truth be falsified?

You are right that Absolute Truth cannot be falsified and it is necessarily tautological. But all these New Age spiritual teachings are not Absolute Truth, they are human conceptions. Absolute Truth is not a conceptual scheme. Any conceptual scheme can turn out wrong. "Big foot is real" is a conceptual scheme. Unless big foot is standing before you.

Edited Saturday at 12:33 AM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

For example, if you feel that aliens build the pyramids but you have no way to put that to the test

In remote viewing tests it's verified you can remote view past and future events.

Or in prayer it's possible to retrocausally influence the past. Praying for cancer patients from a blind list from 20 years ago, the ones prayed for in the present day had a statistically significant higher chance of recovery.

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, The Crocodile said:

In remote viewing tests it's verified you can remote view past and future events.

You can easily dream an alternate timeline, so that's not good enough.

[The Crocodile]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

You can easily dream an alternate timeline, so that's not good enough.

It's like UFOs where people dismiss every UFO case, even though the simplest Occam's Razor explanation is that it's just aliens.

That it was built with pulleys with boulders and wooden platforms and ramps is just an absurd explanation, like how most UFO "debunks" are also absurd.

And most psychicy mystical-schmystical sources point to it not being built by humans, which is valid data.

If it was built by humans they had advanced technology.

[The Crocodile]

@Leo Gura Explain this.

[Staples]

@The Crocodile Ruh roh.

[Joshe]

As someone who is highly intuitive, I understand intuition as unconscious pattern recognition of previously discovered knowledge or insights. Then, there is automatic perception of the result from the unconscious processes, which is called intuition. 

Since intuition is built by observation, knowledge, and insight, it’s certainly fallible. When the unconscious patterns being recognized are valid and the stored knowledge accurate, intuition is like magic, but if the pattern recognition is faulty or the stored knowledge incorrect, intuition leads astray. You can’t just spiritual your way to intuition. It forms only from deep observation. At least, that’s what I’ve discovered about how mine works. 

[aurum]

36 minutes ago, Joshe said:

At least, that’s what I’ve discovered about how mine works. 

You sick normie 

Do you even have a crystal?

[Lyubov]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Intuition is a heuristic, not an absolute. Intuition hallucinates, like AI. So you will get hallucination errors.

I like your word choice here and I agree, intuition is heuristic, I think there's more to it than that but this is a good word to describe it... but I would say all of life is a heuristic experience to a large degree. Intuition is always right because what is the alternative? Reacting? Letting the ego / inner child / mind / whatever you wish to call it drive the car? I don't see anything to suggest otherwise that says not to follow intuition. Life is accepting the mistakes we make and the learning process, it's a very limited point of view to expect there to be some way of living that is entirely infallible. If anything that is how wisdom is created. So to me the problem here is not on intuition but people's expectations of it and a general immature view on life. We will face challenges, that is inevitable, I would say listen to intuition to navigate these challenges, I've not found intuition to lead towards self deception but more so sober honesty. 

Edited Saturday at 05:12 AM by Lyubov