Get back on your horse or camp out. Even hiking on your own can really change you for the better. — TimeLine

I'm telling you @Lone Wolf, this is all utter bullshit. The path to happiness is not paved with hikes, camping, horses, or even the warm embrace of a lover. It is paved with this magical aural elixer from the frozen hills of Sweden:

Over the months we have known each other, we've clashed once or twice about this reason vs. intuition thing. Sometimes you've been mean to me and I went off with my tail between my legs like a frightened puppy. Poor T Clark. Now I'm ready to take you on like a man!!! :strong: Well... — T Clark

Who are you talking to? It kind of reminds me of those office gossips that start rambling broad concepts and themes in meetings as though they are indirectly trying to say something to others to justify the whispers they did near the xerox machine with Stacey.

Anyway. In a normal situation on the forum, with someone reasonable like, say, Sapientia — T Clark

Yes, yes, we get you want to act like some father of moderation. *Pats on the head

You're wrong, and you're blind. :grimace: — T Clark

The voice of reason.

To believe that reason is anything except a veneer we paste over what our hearts tell us is self-deception. I have always seen that reason is something we add later to justify what we already believe. Over the past year, I've also come to see that some people can use it as a tool to guide them to a place where they can be free of the shackles our feelings put on us. I have a lot of respect for that. — T Clark

Who said anything about a 'veneer'? Reason is there to interpret, to explain, to understand and if reason is disordered or in chaos - i.e. irrational - translating that intuitive experience is impossible. It is reliant on your reason and rationality and they are not mutually exclusive, separate where one precedes the other, but bound together.

That doesn't change which comes first. We do what we do because of who, what, we are. It comes from inside. The, I don't know, is it irony, is that you and I come down in just about the same place in terms of what is the right way to live our lives. Compassion, honesty, honor, strength, generosity, grace. I must admit, you have come closer to that ideal than I have, but that's not a matter of reason, it's a matter of character. — T Clark

Because of how I interpret those experiences, my desire to be confronted - however harsh - with my own capacity for inauthentic interpretations, for self-deceit, my desire to further ameliorate my knowledge and understanding so that when I reflect on experiences, when I try to network through the complexity and the puzzle of my emotions and feelings, I can piece it all together. My intuition is a voice that has no words, but reason provides those words and enables me to articulate what it means. Any 'veneer' is really just an inauthentic interpretation of that intuitive experience, a way to silence or settle the emotions by suggesting false ideas or methods to calm it, such as what New Ageism can provide. This is evidence of why - as Epictetus said - since it is reason which shapes and regulates all other things, it ought not itself to be left in disorder.

What you have identified is not a distinction between intuition and carefully thought out decisions, but you have only identified how it is that bad information results in bad decisions. That will be the case whether the decision is knee jerk or whether you write out the pros and cons in your unicorn adorned journal and deliberate upon the reasons for days. If I believe that people are prone to cheat because I am a cheating dog, then I will necessary allow that bias to impact my conclusion that you too are a cheating dog despite the scant other evidence supporting it. My conclusion is rational in its own right, considering my data points are derived from my own experience, which is that I have cheated much in the past.. — Hanover

First of all, using a Winnie the Pooh pen with fluffy yellow feathers at a national conference with senior executives does not make me unprofessional.

Secondly, you have not actually answered the problem here, which is that reason disordered leaves any authentic understanding of our subjective emotional experiences false. The moral dimensions of criminals and their denial of any wrongdoing or remorse is an example of our capacity to violate reason and it is not that these criminals themselves are lacking in anaclitic dependence or empathy, but that they genuinely believe that they have done no wrong.

That guy who broke my heart several years ago is in a Jezebel/Ahab relationship, and while he has such a profound intelligence and capacity to be so much more - all that I thought I saw in him - he has instead deteriorated into this cruel man because he quite literally follows and copies her, someone so empty who is nothing but a public performer. Kardashians, for instance, offer nothing to this world other than teaching people to get plastic surgery and be sexual objects and overdose on makeup, use the concept of 'normal' as a tool to justify what is actually fucked up behaviour. It is not normal. But, when everyone thinks that she is normal, he thinks she is normal too, but deep within we know the truth, we know that behaving that way is fucked up and if he is someone who doubts himself enough to follow others, he simply does not have the rational capacity to articulate that inner feeling telling him that she is fucked up.

So he goes on thinking something is wrong with him or doubts himself since everyone else is saying she is normal, so much so that he is building a life with her while taking drugs, drinking steroids and just looks like a male version of a Kardashian, no ambitions in life other than pretending - like she does - that he has a career, all about the physical, about the show and nothing about the inner, no substance. So, it is not like his behaviour toward me is sociopathic, but rather he has such low self-esteem that the games that he played with me, he is really playing with himself. It takes a level of courage to not only see that self-deceit, but to say 'no' to the people and follow this intuitive feeling, to become the King of Nineveh so to speak who listens to the voice of reason despite what everyone else does.

So you don't actually get - as clearly showcased above - the dynamics of this intuitive/rational relationship.

What I mean here is that if you have a past that is filled with all sorts of unhealthy events, those events will drive many of your decisions, and you will think them rational whether the decision is well thought out or not. — Hanover

Exactly, but when you are a child, you don't have the cognitive capacity to understand many of the experiences that you have and so as a child, how you interpret those experiences remains or is stored away as you continue grow and evolve, a kind of habitus that becomes embedded into your psyche that despite the fact rationality is actually an evolving and continuous thing, your responses and attitude to your experiences remain 'stuck' and why you think, clearly and honestly, that your responses are actually ok or normal. That feeling it gives to you makes sense, even if everyone around you is like what the fuck. If my dad is violent, someone I love and admire as a child, then what is wrong with violence? Beating nine colours of shit out of someone suddenly doesn't feel immoral. Whether we would like to admit this or not, we are conditioned by our experiences as children and our environment, but the point about cognition and about rationality is that we have the capacity to stand outside of those conditioned responses and start to analyse them... rationally.

It is true that you will never entirely be free of such conditioning as it stands to be a part of our being, our learning and language and therefore our identification with the external world, but we can access them piece by piece, we can become receptive to our reactions and understanding of ourselves and others.

And as an aside, I really do believe in the ineffability of thought and ideas. In fact, so much so, that I find those philosophies that deny it completely incomprehensible. — Hanover

I hope you mean some thoughts and ideas.

I'm telling you Lone Wolf, this is all utter bullshit. The path to happiness is not paved with hikes, camping, horses, or even the warm embrace of a lover. It is paved with this magical aural elixer from the frozen hills of Sweden: — Hanover

Haha.

I've wanted to reengage with you on this subject since our most recent previous discussion. I think it was in "Being or Having." It was the first time I really understood how committed Kant and you are to the primacy of reason. I never felt like I laid out my position effectively.

The voice of reason. — TimeLine

What is unreasonable, irrational, about my statement? I'm not being sarcastic. I think this issue highlights a weakness in your philosophy, one you don't see. I don't think I'll convince you of that, but I'd like to give you what I got from that previous discussion - an accurate understanding of where I stand. Of an alternate way of seeing things.

Who said anything about a 'veneer'? Reason is there to interpret, to explain, to understand and if reason is disordered or in chaos - i.e. irrational - translating that intuitive experience is impossible. It is reliant on your reason and rationality and they are not mutually exclusive, separate where one precedes the other, but bound together. — TimeLine

I'm the one who used the word "veneer." Thinking about it, maybe "armor" or "shield" is better. The "intuitive experience" does not need to be "interpreted." It is perfectly capable of speaking for itself, without words of course. The idea that intention and action must be mediated by conscious thought is an illusion. In my experience, most of the things I do go from wherever they come from straight to action without passing through words. And I'm not just talking about reflexive actions like breathing or repetitive, physical actions like riding a bike. I include complex social activities like interacting with people or groups of people.

For me, reason and reflection come in to stop me from doing something, change the direction of my response, or deal with an unexpected or unfamiliar situation. If you saw me in everyday life, you would see that, sometimes, it would be better if they came in sooner and more often.

Based on what you've written here and elsewhere, I understand this is not your experience. It's always seemed to me that the philosophy we end up with has as much to do with temperament as anything else. You are a willful person. I'm sure you were born that way. I'm not. Will does not work for me. That doesn't mean I'm not responsible for my actions or lack of action. Will and reason are not prerequisites for responsibility and morality.

capacity for inauthentic interpretations, for self-deceit, my desire to further ameliorate my knowledge and understanding so that when I reflect on experiences, when I try to network through the complexity and the puzzle of my emotions and feelings, I can piece it all together. — TimeLine

And here we get to why a shield, armor might be needed - because of a fear of self-deceit, of impulse leading to weak or self-destructive behavior. Which brings me to my problems with the rationalist approach. The armor can be rigid and constricting. Misleading. Words can take on a life of their own. It can be tempting for a rationalist to think that manipulating words is the same as understanding. That shows up a lot here on the forum.

One of the things that struck me in some previous discussions is that Kant and you seem to think that the only path to moral action is through reason. What that means practically is that people get judged, not on their behavior, but on their internal life, on the process they go through, who they are.

...reason disordered leaves any authentic understanding of our subjective emotional experiences false. — TimeLine

My experience is exactly the opposite. For me, the internal voice examining and reexamining everything used to cut off any connection to, awareness of, internal life. The process of healing has involved learning self-awareness without the intercession of words.

Anyway. In a normal situation on the forum, with someone reasonable like, say, Sapientia :joke: , I'd discuss the differences in our opinions and try to come to some sort of reconciliation. — T Clark

:brow:

Silence! — TimeLine

Nicely said.

And as an aside, I really do believe in the ineffability of thought and ideas. In fact, so much so, that I find those philosophies that deny it completely incomprehensible. — Hanover
I hope you mean some thoughts and ideas. — TimeLine

Some

:snicker:

:yikes:

My experience is exactly the opposite. For me, the internal voice examining and reexamining everything used to cut off any connection to, awareness of, internal life. The process of healing has involved learning self-awareness without the intercession of words. — T Clark

I understand this and I admire this, but surely there are limitations to it, perhaps even your awareness of the fact that something you read, something you heard or spoke about helped articulate it without being conscious that in fact it was this improvement in your thought or opinion that helped shape that self-awareness. You can paint a picture and it may have no words, but it could symbolise something that interconnects or pieces together the puzzle.

What is unreasonable, irrational, about my statement? I'm not being sarcastic. I think this issue highlights a weakness in your philosophy, one you don't see. I don't think I'll convince you of that, but I'd like to give you what I got from that previous discussion - an accurate understanding of where I stand. Of an alternate way of seeing things. — T Clark

My issue is that I believe you failed to understand my argument and have simply injected your personal experiences on the subject - which I respect - without consideration to what is exactly being discussed, and that makes me doubt the integrity of your position. I need more than that.

I'm the one who used the word "veneer." Thinking about it, maybe "armor" or "shield" is better. The "intuitive experience" does not need to be "interpreted." It is perfectly capable of speaking for itself, without words of course. The idea that intention and action must be mediated by conscious thought is an illusion. In my experience, most of the things I do go from wherever they come from straight to action without passing through words. And I'm not just talking about reflexive actions like breathing or repetitive, physical actions like riding a bike. I include complex social activities like interacting with people or groups of people. — T Clark

When you look at an image, say for instance the swastika, it does not have words but it explains something evil, bad, and thus it is actually speaking but without having to say anything. We create meaning and we communicate this or understand this and incorporate it into our subjective interpretations; we see an object, we interpret it and give it meaning. We have experienced, we have been taught, we understand that it is evil and nothing else needs to be explained. If someone wears the swastika on their arm, they are telling you something. It is communication, that is point.

Your intuition is there to tell you something you already understand but sometimes the capacity to interpret is not there, it is blurred and we're unable to understand or make a relation, the discourse is missing. What you have in your mind is completely different to what you feel. If you grow up in an environment, for instance, where your parents taught you very racist things, and when grown up you encounter the object of this disdain, you will feel hatred or fear for that person and not know why and you can try and articulate justifications (look at holocaust deniers), but there is a broken narrative between the two.

That is clearly an extreme case, but it explains the dynamic that leaves one experiencing the emotions without adequately understanding why at a rational level. One needs to go back, the reflective practice that takes those emotions to try and link it with the past experience and that means talking about the past, reflecting, being honest with yourself. This is how you challenge and change yourself and start articulating rationally with yourself in order to transcend those experiences, familiarise yourself with a past that has become embedded into your psyche without you knowing why.

It is not to say that my experience is not as you say, it is. But only partially. The dynamics is much more complex than that, hence the relationship.

The book "Blink" is on the topic of instantaneous understanding without internal deliberation.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink:_The_Power_of_Thinking_Without_Thinking

I've not read it, but I own it. I thought I could blink and immediately know what it said.

When you look at an image, say for instance the swastika, it does not have words but it explains something evil, bad, and thus it is actually speaking but without having to say anything. — TimeLine

I'd say the same for everything, including rocks and sticks. Everything is a representation. The distinction between the rock that you see and the word "rock" is arbitrary. Both are knowable only as symbols.

POW! That was your mind blowing. :fire:

...something you heard or spoke about helped articulate it without being conscious that in fact it was this improvement in your thought or opinion that helped shape that self-awareness. — TimeLine

Of course. It would be laughable for me to deny I am a person of words. Words bubble from my brain and out my mouth continually. Continuously. If I close my mouth, they bubble out my nose and ears. My fingers for goodness' sake. I am moved and influenced by words all the time. I come to the forum for the words and ideas - to express mine and read others'.

For me, the experience, what we are calling intuition, comes first. Much of the experience never gets put into words. There's no need. Lao Tzu writes about "action without action." Much of what I do is without conscious intention or motivation. Sometimes it does get put into words. Generally, that's a matter of communication - I communicate my experiences to others but probably more often to myself. Sometimes, often, for me, that's a self-destructive thing. Words overwhelm the experience and it gets lost.

Yes, of course, all the time I read things that I recognize immediately. That clarify my own thoughts and experiences and lead me off in new directions. You won't find me ever denying the value of words and ideas. I love them. I am them. That's probably why they are so much of a problem for me. Our weaknesses are our strengths. Our strengths are our weaknesses.

My issue is that I believe you failed to understand my argument and have simply injected your personal experiences on the subject - which I respect - without consideration to what is exactly being discussed, and that makes me doubt the integrity of your position. I need more than that. — TimeLine

I don't think I misunderstood it. I don't even reject it or deny it. My only point is that it's not the only way. It's not my way. I called it blindness because you don't seem to be able to see that.

That is clearly an extreme case, but it explains the dynamic that leaves one experiencing the emotions without adequately understanding why at a rational level. One needs to go back, the reflective practice that takes those emotions to try and link it with the past experience and that means talking about the past, reflecting, being honest with yourself. This is how you challenge and change yourself and start articulating rationally with yourself in order to transcend those experiences, familiarise yourself with a past that has become embedded into your psyche without you knowing why. — TimeLine

I don't really disagree with this description of the process - re-experiencing feelings from a position of strength rather than weakness so I can deal with them. For me, that's an act of surrender, acceptance. Facing the emotion without protection, justification. Opening myself to whatever damage it can do. It seems to me that for you it's different. Why would I expect that it wouldn't be?

It is not to say that my experience is not as you say, it is. But only partially. The dynamics is much more complex than that, hence the relationship. — TimeLine

I'm not claiming your experience is the same as mine, although I think we have a lot in common. Just this - there is more than just one path. There are more than two.

I wonder if our differences don't just come down to the idea of action without action. Acting, living, without conscious reflection. Action flowing from the heart directly to the arm holding the hammer. I make no claim I live my life that way on any consistent basis, but I know what it feels like and I know I'm happier and better when I do.

I'm not saying it's the path you should follow. You couldn't if you wanted to. It's not your way.

For me, the experience, what we are calling intuition, comes first. Much of the experience never gets put into words. There's no need. Lao Tzu writes about "action without action." — T Clark

My interpretation of reason is an acknowledgement of what you already know because your intuition is a form of communication and how that intuition manifests without words does not make it without meaning formed by prior experiences, symbolic in nature. How you reach that acknowledgement appears blurred to you, as though you just "blinked" and there you are. A martial artist practices, learns through trial and error until they reach that point where what they learn is forgotten and it becomes a part of them, embedded to an almost instinctual level. You are ignoring everything about that process, as though suddenly he just has that skill. Language and how you speak is the same. That is what action without action is and it is telling that you speak of Lao Tzu and yet speak of a schism between reason and intuition, the very philosophy of unity.

My only point is that it's not the only way. It's not my way. I called it blindness because you don't seem to be able to see that. — T Clark

You have produced zero arguments, quite literally, nothing at all other than "this is my way and you are blind" and while I am trying to have a conversation where I have already mentioned that this communication between reason and intuition involves a number of factors, you are still fluffing on about something you failed to understand. You haven't and I highly doubt can even explain what "your way" is and I have read over your posts wondering whether you are even talking to me.

I don't really disagree with this description of the process - re-experiencing feelings from a position of strength rather than weakness so I can deal with them. For me, that's an act of surrender, acceptance. Facing the emotion without protection, justification. Opening myself to whatever damage it can do. It seems to me that for you it's different. Why would I expect that it wouldn't be? — T Clark

?

I'd say the same for everything, including rocks and sticks. Everything is a representation. The distinction between the rock that you see and the word "rock" is arbitrary. Both are knowable only as symbols. — Hanover

Is not that distinction still dependent on a linguistic structure? Indeed, these connections are learned because what is communicated is always a learning process over time but the problem is not the signifier but the signified, what is understood. Using arbitrary icons misses the point, basically.

I'm disappointed. I thought you and I could reach an understanding if not agreement. From my side, it feels as though I am trying to find common ground while you are resisting.

As I said at the beginning, my main purpose here is to present my understanding to my own satisfaction, which I didn't think I had done before. Now I feel as though I have. Anything more I say will just be repetition.

Chocolate needs to be the last word. :heart:

Our weaknesses are our strengths. Our strengths are our weaknesses. — T Clark

My house is on fire. My fire is on house.

My house is on fire. My fire is on house. — Sapientia

Oh, Sapientia, you little dickens. You're so cute. I just want to pinch your cheek.

Chocolate needs to be the last word. :heart: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, shut the bloody door was always the last words I heard as I left the house.

Oh, Sapientia, you little dickens. You're so cute. I just want to pinch your cheek. — T Clark

Tad bit awkward. :brow:

No, shut the bloody door was always the last words I heard as I left the house. — Sir2u

I remember that one! Followed quickly by "Quit slamming the front door!". It was a no win situation!
Irony? Both kids slammed the door UNTIL the oldest started staying the night at his girlfriend's house (she still lives at home) and now, all of a sudden, he is VERY good at taking the time to close the door silently. :kiss:
He still gets busted coming home late because Rotties are around and have a tendency to announce people coming in the door in the middle of the night. :wink:

I believe my first combination of phonemes was: ”bip guck”.

My first words where: ”I’m Thirsty”

Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...”

Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...” — XTG

Or I woud likely say: "Hmm I wonder what that button does?" :lol:

Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...” — XTG

Mine would probably be "OH well, WTF."

Is not that distinction still dependent on a linguistic structure? Indeed, these connections are learned because what is communicated is always a learning process over time but the problem is not the signifier but the signified, what is understood. Using arbitrary icons misses the point, basically. — TimeLine

Not sure exactly what you mean. Linguistic structure includes my dog scratching at the door, which is no more or less an arbitrary icon as the sounds "let me out." The phenomenal state of the door is also just as much an icon, a representation of something real.

I'm disappointed. I thought you and I could reach an understanding if not agreement. From my side, it feels as though I am trying to find common ground while you are resisting. — T Clark

I was thinking about you today. Do you remember how you once said to me that I am someone who has her hand over a flame just to see how long I can keep it there? When you said that to me, I don't think you realised just how taken aback I was, so profound was the impact of those words because it explained so much about what I was doing up until that moment and I was able to acknowledge more about my character than you can imagine.

I am moving house, but I never explained why I am in this area first place; I came because it had a lot of bad memories for me and there were people - family members and others - who have wronged me who also live in the area. I needed to be here. I used to have nightmares that I was being chased by leopards; it was like I stopped and faced them instead. My presence was my way of saying that I am strong and that I have no fear. I was never allowed to verbally express myself to these people because they never listened or never heard me, but I made them listen through my presence. I never knew, though, that was the reason that I was here, not until you said that to me.

I had feelings for this man, I really liked him but in a very gentle way, a very kind and affectionate one and from a distance. I just wanted to impress him a little but his response was vicious and he bit me for no good reason. I hid away in pain and covered the wound. Years passed and the dressing I had over the wound was still on until Hanover ripped it off and reminded me that the man never liked me at all and he was just along for the ride. I imagined that I was still wounded only to see that I had actually healed but I wasn't aware until it was taken off; I healed myself unknowingly until it was made known.

This man is in a relationship with a 'Kardashian' kind of girl, a girl who gets plastic surgery and is all into cosmetics and everyone around him applauds and congratulates him for being with such an empty person. I realised that I already knew he was not the right person for me, because I would never like a man who would be that way, a man who has no courage to follow his heart and is a crowd pleaser. I can only love someone I admire and though I wanted him to be that man, he wasn't. I unknowingly did all those things to him because I knew that he was not right for me, but I was not aware of why I was doing that.

So we're on the same page, I understand why you think that intuition precedes reason, but I believe that the language here becomes embedded within that we form as we grow up, as we experience and as we are conditioned and while we think it is independent or separate from all of that as it is the very language of 'you' or 'I' or the language of the real self, intuition does have a language but it requires some self-reflective practice, as though a delay exists before we can acknowledge why we did it.

I was never allowed to verbally express myself to these people because they never listened or never heard me, but I made them listen through my presence. I never knew, though, that was the reason that I was here, not until you said that to me. — TimeLine

What you wrote here is beautiful~

So we're on the same page, I understand why you think that intuition precedes reason, but I believe that the language here becomes embedded within that we form as we grow up, as we experience and as we are conditioned and while we think it is independent or separate from all of that as it is the very language of 'you' or 'I' or the language of the real self, intuition does have a language but it requires some self-reflective practice, as though a delay exists before we can acknowledge why we did it. — TimeLine

Thank you for the response. It means a lot to me. I felt like I had let you down.

I want to be very clear about something - I have never met anyone whose moral judgment I trust more than I trust yours.