Intuition and Logic.

[Seth Ananda]

It seems to me in the various Buddhism vs everything else threads we have going here that the Arguments taking place are really Arguments between two different Faculties for Observing the World or reality.

 

One is the Left brain style of Logic, deduction and analysis which Buddhism is very strong in. One simply looks at what one can perceive such as the Idea of a Self. where is it? Can you find it in any one thing? what about the parts of that thing? what about the things that produced that thing, and then the things that produced them and so on. Dependent Origination is very Logical, as are many of the answer's Buddhism comes up with.

This is very similar to the western science approach which has the underlying assumption that you can only really know something by understanding is parts... You break it down smaller and smaller till all its secrets are revealed (hopefully).

This way of perceiving has brought us amazing advances in many areas of life and is really good.

 

The other way or lens for viewing the world is with the Intuitive Faculty itself. I think its the more Right brain approach. It (seems to me) to deals more in Wholes rather than the tiny bits of something. I would Say philosophy's like Taoism and many of the Esoteric or Mystical approaches are more based in the Intuitive perspective.

The Taoist Health science for instance is very concerned with the 'Whole' and its well-being where the western model gets right down to the specific thing and try's to fix it.

They learned in different ways too. Taoists studied living bodies as a whole, where the western way was to study a dead body and chop it into bits in its hope to understand Life. Both are completely Valid, and where one Fails the other can often pick up the pieces (no pun intended )

Many Schools on the side of Oneness and an underlying Substance will use much more Intuitive Methods, such as learning to 'feel the Life 'in and behind' everything, and this becomes an extraordinarily powerful and real experience. Eventually you can't help but experience the world as single Vital, Living Whole and no amount of words from the mind will be able to change this for you.

Oneness is Obvious to you Deep Feeling and experience of everything.

 

It Seems to me that the Intuitive Lens will always lead to the Whole, or Oneness, where as the Logic Lens will always lead towards the many or Emptiness...

 

Of course there are Many Schools that try to use Both... I just wanted to get across an Idea so have been deliberately Either/or...

 

What do you Bums think?

[goldisheavy]

It seems to me in the various Buddhism vs everything else threads we have going here that the Arguments taking place are really Arguments between two different Faculties for Observing the World or reality.

 

One is the Left brain style of Logic, deduction and analysis which Buddhism is very strong in. One simply looks at what one can perceive such as the Idea of a Self. where is it? Can you find it in any one thing? what about the parts of that thing? what about the things that produced that thing, and then the things that produced them and so on. Dependent Origination is very Logical, as are many of the answer's Buddhism comes up with.

This is very similar to the western science approach which has the underlying assumption that you can only really know something by understanding is parts... You break it down smaller and smaller till all its secrets are revealed (hopefully).

 

Terrible. You get an F, sir. Reason is not about breaking things into parts. For some problems examining parts is moving away from the reason! That's what reductionism is, and a reductionist approach is hardly reasonable! There are many very cogent critiques of reductionism. In fact, something that Buddhists are fighting with (the guys you praise as logical) is physicalism, or substantialism, explaining everything in terms of substances -- this is precisely where the reductionist approach leads. So the reductionists came up with the idea of atom first, by thinking that you can break a thing into parts and eventually you end up with an unbreakable part. Then they have tie the idea of substance into the idea of atom. Buddhists fight this kind of reductionism. Post-modernist philosophers also fight it, so much so, that in some corners of academia they have become rejects and outcasts.

 

So you do logic and reason a great disservice by strictly connecting it with reductionism, which is arguably illogical, if anything.

 

This way of perceiving has brought us amazing advances in many areas of life and is really good.

 

It's not that good. But some aspects of it are fun. And I suppose fun is good, but it's not as good as joy. Fun is like a cheap version of joy. It's better than nothing though.

 

The other way or lens for viewing the world is with the Intuitive Faculty itself. I think its the more Right brain approach. It (seems to me) to deals more in Wholes rather than the tiny bits of something. I would Say philosophy's like Taoism and many of the Esoteric or Mystical approaches are more based in the Intuitive perspective.

 

This is what real logic is all about. Without correct intuition of the whole you cannot be logical at all. Logic strongly depends on the correct perception of wholes. Without correctly perceiving wholes your reasoning about relations is distorted.

 

Someone like Zhuangzi is superbly logical while western logicians are busy body clerks in comparison.

Edited October 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[JustARandomPanda]

I have been contemplating where my need to debate and argue has always come from.

[Vajrahridaya]

I have been contemplating where my need to debate and argue has always come from.

 

Fabulous! If it comes from the need to be right, then definitely look into it.

 

All the best Serene!

[~jK~]

[Seth Ananda]

Terrible. You get an F, sir. Reason is not about breaking things into parts. For some problems examining parts is moving away from the reason! That's what reductionism is, and a reductionist approach is hardly reasonable! There are many very cogent critiques of reductionism. In fact, something that Buddhists are fighting with (the guys you praise as logical) is physicalism, or substantialism, explaining everything in terms of substances -- this is precisely where the reductionist approach leads. So the reductionists came up with the idea of atom first, by thinking that you can break a thing into parts and eventually you end up with an unbreakable part. Then they have tie the idea of substance into the idea of atom. Buddhists fight this kind of reductionism. Post-modernist philosophers also fight it, so much so, that in some corners of academia they have become rejects and outcasts.

 

So you do logic and reason a great disservice by strictly connecting it with reductionism, which is arguably illogical, if anything.

It's not that good. But some aspects of it are fun. And I suppose fun is good, but it's not as good as joy. Fun is like a cheap version of joy. It's better than nothing though.

This is what real logic is all about. Without correct intuition of the whole you cannot be logical at all. Logic strongly depends on the correct perception of wholes. Without correctly perceiving wholes your reasoning about relations is distorted.

 

Someone like Zhuangzi is superbly logical while western logicians are busy body clerks in comparison.

 

Thank you, I like your reply, and I totally agree that we need both Intuition and Logic,and that the best traditions will use them both, but what do you think about the Idea that Intuition and Logic are to different lens's, which see the world in two different ways?

 

Buddha sat down and attempted to see his Inner nature as clearly and logically as possible without recourse to spiritual Ideas, purely with his rational mind. He was out to discover the Truth for himself without anyone else's Ideas in the way. Very Noble

 

This is very Different to the Mystics who Actively use their Intuition to Intuit the Presence of Life/Light/Consciousness as a whole and seek to enter Deeper and Deeper into it. Look at all the Discouraging against living in your head in (some of the) the Mystical schools. They would say experience first and only study to confirm what you are realising...

Much poetry of Rumi comes to mind.

[Sunya]

how to discern intuition from delusion? many people think they are following intuition but really its just a very very subtle conceptual grasping. for many people, their 'intuition' says that they exist. progress is always made when you go against intuition, especially in philosophy. for example, its your intuition that objects exist before you, that there is an external world and you are observing separately from behind the eyes, but that is false. there is no such thing as 'external world' vs 'internal world' and objects don't exist without perception. in actuality, whatever is experienced is phenomena and depend on mind for its existence, the solidity or concreteness of things is illusory; everything is Mind. to get to that realization you have to go beyond the 'intuition' that objects exist in and of themselves.

 

we have to discern 'intuition' from 'delusion', going beyond delusion, beyond belief, is progress. intuition can never be wrong if intuition is a guiding light from wisdom, that is within all of us. so I ask again how do you discern intuition from delusion?

Edited October 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Thank you, I like your reply, and I totally agree that we need both Intuition and Logic,and that the best traditions will use them both, but what do you think about the Idea that Intuition and Logic are to different lens's, which see the world in two different ways?

 

I think that intuition informs logic and logic informs intuition. In other words, it is not two different processes but one process. People in whom these become two distinct processes are sick people in my view.

 

Intuition is a conditioned phenomenon. In other words, what you consider intuitive can change if you change your deeply held beliefs about something. In order to change beliefs they must be challenged with something authentic. In other words... if you believe that the sky is blue, but want to learn how to believe that the sky is green, you must have a weighty reason to change this belief, because beliefs do not change haphazardly.

 

So for example, if you believe that you are ultimately nothing more than a bundle of atoms, then no matter how long you meditate you will not experience any benefits of meditation beyond what you would experience from ordinary relaxation. If you believe you are ultimately limited and stupid human being, then no matter how hard you try, you will not attain any degree of success in anything. If you sit in a chair and someone draws a circle around your chair with chalk, and you strongly believe that this circle is an impenetrable barrier, you won't even make an effort to get off the chair to even attempt to cross it. Why not? Because we are incapable of producing irrational intents, except in rare and extraordinary circumstances (which you shouldn't depend on for growth and maturation). And what we consider to be rational can change. It can especially change if you lead a highly contemplative life.

 

As your sense of what is rational changes, you will be able to produce intents that would have previously been considered insane. Intent is the driver behind change and beliefs are what condition intent. We cannot sincerely intend that which we believe is impossible. So before you can produce an amazing intent, first you have to restructure your mind body to support such intent. And you cannot reliably and predictably achieve this through quietism, passivity or good luck random 1 in a million event.

 

Quieting meditation is good only if you will then use that quiet for contemplation. Let me compare this to cooking. Quieting and calming meditation is like cleaning the cooking table. A clean cooking table is very good (and some would say, essential) for good cooking. However, if you clean the table for hours and hours and never begin cooking, you will die from hunger. This is why techniques do not lead to immortality. This is why sages like Zhuangzi laugh at the artifice of techniques. Contemplation is not a technique. It's fully alive. It consists of pondering over relevant to the now profound questions, and as the now changes, what's relevant changes and your contemplation changes too. It's not a fixed technique that is unable to change with the times.

 

we have to discern 'intuition' from 'delusion', going beyond delusion, beyond belief, is progress. intuition can never be wrong if intuition is a guiding light from wisdom, that is within all of us. so I ask again how do you discern intuition from delusion?

 

There is no such thing as delusion. There is just conditioning. Intuition is a conditioned phenomenon. To make intuition reliable it has to be conditioned properly. But a reliable intuition is still as empty as a non-reliable one. Rainbows in the night.

 

To say that some view is deluded is to imply that some other view is not. In reality while some views are relatively more beneficial for certain aims, there is no view that is absolutely the best for all aims. This is because the views are empty. This is why we do not become attached even to the view that works well and gives good results for now.

 

You can have views that work well for your aims and views that don't work well for your aims. This has nothing to do with delusion. Delusion is just a convention and nothing more.

Edited October 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Interesting thread.

 

I use both intuition and logic in my life.

 

I trust my intuition but it has screwed me up a couple of times, probably because I misunderstood the meaning.

 

I prefer logic though. I feel more secure if I can rationally explain a "whatever".

 

Yes, delusion will interfer with intuition. That was likely my problem.

 

I don't necessarily agree that Taoism is more intuitively based. Taoism teaches observation and understanding those observations. It is true though that we don't cut things up and then claim to know the answers. The answers can be seen only in the 'whole'.

 

 

ps to Mikaelz: You really do exist! And so does the tree! Trust me on this one.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 28, 2009 by Marblehead

[freeform]

Intuition is a conditioned phenomenon.

 

 

Nice bit of logic there.

 

Notice what's going on in that statement?

 

What's missing?

 

It sums up nicely the pitfalls of logic.

 

What's left out is YOU. We're all pretending that this statement stands out, timeless, author-less, objective in every way. It's the ultimate truth.

 

You're selling us short gh - you're giving us words but not yourself. You're selling yourself short too. You're speaking at us in absolutes and missing out on developing an intimacy with us.

 

That's what logic tends to do when it's disconnected from intuition. Anti-relationship. Anti-intimacy.

 

Gregory Bateson is worth looking into for what logic could be.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Logic is a tool used to implement the wisdoms of intuition into the process of Living well..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

People are thinking that intuition transcends logic, or that logic transcends intuition? Both temper each other and should act in union as a seamless whole. Actually, ones logic should be so subtle that it is actually intuitive. This idea of intuition is strange as well, for some it's more like believing in natural animal cravings and fears as intuition. GIH is right, intuition is a conditioned phenomena, just like I am. Unless intuition is reflective of the highest truth which takes logic to temper, it's still merely just bondage in the disguise of an inner natural response system.

 

Only a being who is liberated from self has a truly aligned intuition, otherwise it is merely subtle habit patterns at work. Intuition must be trained as well as our logic.

 

They should be as one within a person.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

 

Nice bit of logic there.

 

Notice what's going on in that statement?

 

What's missing?

 

It sums up nicely the pitfalls of logic.

 

What's left out is YOU. We're all pretending that this statement stands out, timeless, author-less, objective in every way. It's the ultimate truth.

 

This is a pitfall that's natural in the language, and if I take pains to word around it, everything I say will be 2-3 times less concise. So, depending on the feel, I sometimes take the effort, and other times I speak using absolute language hoping people will understand that it's just my opinion.

 

You have a good point though. It's good to be reminded, and thank you.

 

You're selling us short gh - you're giving us words but not yourself. You're selling yourself short too. You're speaking at us in absolutes and missing out on developing an intimacy with us.

 

That's what logic tends to do when it's disconnected from intuition. Anti-relationship. Anti-intimacy.

 

Gregory Bateson is worth looking into for what logic could be.

 

Ah, this is a tricky subject. This is a public forum. For intimacy to develop I must be participating either one on one or in a tiny group. And the setting must be right. We must be relaxing somewhere, having tea or beer, or something like that. The forum medium prevents intimacy because even though I reply to a person, I am really speaking in front of a group.

 

Secondly, for intimacy to develop, I must personally like that person. And what happens here is that people I like don't talk much, but people who get caught in arguments with me, I don't much like and don't feel inclined to be intimate with.

 

Now, I am not stuck in that frame of mind. My likes and dislikes can change. But I am just a person like anyone else. So don't expect too much. The reason I sometimes critique the high and mighty is precisely because they are also just people. People elevate their teachers unduly.

Edited October 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

Reason and rationale depends on words and descriptives. They are in fact 3 steps lagging behind the truth.

 

Step 1. The causal phenomena in it's full spectrum totality.

 

Step 2. Perception of said phenomena filtered by the limitations of human sensory capabilities.

 

Step 3. Interpretation of said perception filtered by the individual's 'view of the world', i.e. by the belief structures on 'how the world works'.

 

Step 4. Description of said interpretation filtered by the constraints of language and the individual's linguistic capabilities.

 

And then, if someone else was to try and understand this description, it is filtered even more:

 

Step 5. Comprehension of the description given filtered by the individual's linguistic capabilities.

 

Step 6. Interpretation of said comprehension filtered by the individual's 'view of the world', i.e. by the belief structures on 'how the world works'.

 

Step 7. Description of said interpretation filtered by the constraints of language and, once again, the individual's linguistic capabilities.

 

So if we really want the "truth" we have to "catch up" with the reality of the primary causal phenomenon by riding the front of the wave of the ever-present now instead of merely catching the watered down echo provided to us by rational description. In my view, though commonly called intuition, the best term for this direct flow of knowledge is "knowingness."

[Vajrahridaya]

In my view, though commonly called intuition, the best term for this direct flow of knowledge is "knowingness."

 

The rational description is not the experience of a rational minded intuition.

 

Just like in martial arts, at first it's contrived, then it's part of the natural response system, much like riding a bike or driving a car.

 

We've acquired our human intuition over lifetimes of conditioning and each individual has their own particular so called "gifts", which is really just lifetimes of conditioning through many different types of incarnations.

 

The de-conditioning process and constant actualization of living in the "truth" is a process of breaking free from confining habit patterns and aligning through reasoning and meditative training.

 

For a Buddhist it specially has nothing to do with realizing a subtle will of all, or essence of things. Though yes, there is energy as a result of realizing emptiness as all the conditions from endless lifetimes learn to align with the truth of dependent origination/emptiness on a universal scale beyond thought. But without the condition of both thought, logic and reason, this process of realization is not possible to the fullest extent. You cannot just emote your way to realization according to Buddhist understanding of enlightenment. Intuition needs to be tempered with logic and reason and vice versa. Meditation is a process of uncovering conditioned intuition and logic and reason is the process of deepening the minds perception of what's going on within. Logic and reason is not merely it's description through language. Not at all. It's deep, subtle and fast.

[goldisheavy]

Stig, the model you present assumes that subject truly is separate from the object.

[Vajrahridaya]

My basic point is that intuition is a process, therefore it has components. The fact that two people don't intuit the same unless they are connected in that similar fashion karmically shows that intuition is subjective. Therefore it is a conditioned phenomena. Intuition is basically just unconscious processes happening beneath the conscious mind that stirs a feeling in the conscious mind without the conscious mind being aware of what's really going on underneath it. Which is why we meditate to bring the light of awareness into the sub- and un-conscious aspects of our being to make everything fully conscious. When we become aware of the components of something, we are able to manifest a language around these components to name them. In the world that language is largely "Sanskrit" which has single words that take whole paragraphs in English to explain. Chinese might have some similar completely spiritual languages in it's history as well. Though Sanskrit also can be applied in a practical sense as well, not just mystical. Much like of course Pali which is derived from Sanskrit.

[ralis]

how to discern intuition from delusion? many people think they are following intuition but really its just a very very subtle conceptual grasping. for many people, their 'intuition' says that they exist. progress is always made when you go against intuition, especially in philosophy. for example, its your intuition that objects exist before you, that there is an external world and you are observing separately from behind the eyes, but that is false. there is no such thing as 'external world' vs 'internal world' and objects don't exist without perception. in actuality, whatever is experienced is phenomena and depend on mind for its existence, the solidity or concreteness of things is illusory; everything is Mind. to get to that realization you have to go beyond the 'intuition' that objects exist in and of themselves.

 

we have to discern 'intuition' from 'delusion', going beyond delusion, beyond belief, is progress. intuition can never be wrong if intuition is a guiding light from wisdom, that is within all of us. so I ask again how do you discern intuition from delusion?

 

 

What is delusion and what is not delusion? If your point of view is not a delusion, then all others are deluded? What subtle analysis does one use to determine if one is deluded or not?

 

The problem I have with your reductionistic reasoning is the use of a hierarchical structure that classifies from superior to inferior perception.

 

Your use of we is in reference to? Are you making sweeping judgments from your point of view? Certainly seems as if you are.

 

 

You argue in a vague and general manner with untenable views and most terms undefined Ex: mind, wisdom etc.

 

ralis

Edited October 29, 2009 by ralis

[ralis]

Which is why we meditate to bring the light of awareness into the sub- and un-conscious aspects of our being to make everything fully conscious. When we become aware of the components of something, we are able to manifest a language around these components to name them.

 

What would be the utility of making everything (whatever that is) fully conscious? What would be the result of everything you experienced for the last year to instantly flood your waking state? The brain is a selective filter to enable one to survive and not be flooded by useless trivia!

 

Why the insistent use of (we) in all your arguments? Are you a spokesman for everyone?

 

 

ralis

Edited October 29, 2009 by ralis

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

What would be the utility of making everything (whatever that is) fully conscious? What would be the result of everything you experienced for the last year to instantly flood your waking state? The brain is a selective filter to enable one to survive and not be flooded by useless trivia!

 

Why the insistent use of (we) in all your arguments? Are you a spokesman for everyone?

ralis

It's a mostly Buddhist thing apparently. Almost every Buddhist book uses the "we" formulation: "When we meditate on the emptiness in our mind, we realize the true nature of our Medulla Oblogata and we must show it the compassion and lovingkindness it deserves from us, etc.,". I sometimes find it maddening, but pick up any Buddhist book and there 'we' are. Drives me kinda nurtz.

[ralis]

It's a mostly Buddhist thing apparently. Almost every Buddhist book uses the "we" formulation: "When we meditate on the emptiness in our mind, we realize the true nature of our Medulla Oblogata and we must show it the compassion and lovingkindness it deserves from us, etc.,". I sometimes find it maddening, but pick up any Buddhist book and there 'we' are. Drives me kinda nurtz.

 

Their use of "we" just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Vajrahridaya]

I won't engage with you guys. It's been deemed fruitless by both my intuition and my logic/reason.

 

I wish you guys well on your journeys.

[Tao99]

Edited October 29, 2009 by Tao99

[Sunya]

ps to Mikaelz: You really do exist! And so does the tree! Trust me on this one.

 

a dream character is telling me that a dream tree exists, LOL... that's funny!

 

you should know from all your Nietzsche readings that our whole 'world' is just a projection, a creation, a dream.

there is no such thing as 'tree' nor does 'exist' even make sense when you take away identity from form.

 

 

'tree' exists only relatively, imagine you're asleep dreaming.. everything you perceive is seemingly real and concrete.. but if you wake up to the dream and realize that its all just your projection... do ideas such as 'tree' and 'exist' and 'you' even make sense anymore? isn't it quite silly then to say 'you exist, trust me' to a dream character?

Edited October 29, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]