Monday 13 May 2019

'Constraints' on intuitive knowing (or Primary Thinking)

(Note: These are not really 'constraints', because they are not externally imposed. Nor is 'limitations' the right word. I am simply talking of the nature of intuitive knowing)

I am trying to think with the heart; that is, trying to think primarily - such that my thoughts will be realities (not merely 'about' realities...). I am trying to know intuitively, by an act of direct apprehension (and not indirectly, by making and testing hypothetical models).

And I find that this is not possible for much of the stuff in my thinking. As expected; because primary thinking is self-validating, and much of what I think is not valid.

Even more: much of what I think cannot be validated because it is Abstract - hence systematically-distorted in un-knowable ways.


Much/ Most (perhaps all) of what I am fed (to 'think about') by the mass media, government officialdom, propaganda at educational institutions and workplaces... the general world of public discourse... is Abstract. It is disconnected from the reality I experience and know. It is made up of definitions, models, hypotheses, 'concepts', 'ideals' (aims and objectives, mission statements, slogans) and the like - many of these are incoherent or nonsensical.

There is no connection between my living and this content from the very beginning.


So much modern 'thinking' takes place in this realm of Abstraction! Discussions of economics, ethics, fashion... everything, pretty much. The assumption behind it all is that My Life is a subset of these Abstractions - and the Abstractions are real, and if I cannot related my life to the Abstractions, then it is my fault.

The Abstractions (Democracy, Social Justice, The Environment, The Economy, Peace, Climate...) are the real reality - it's my job to conform to this reality...

The Abstractions are real because that is what Everybody is talking about, all the time - especially powerful people. They are real because they are on the agenda, they are voted-about, they lead-to public policy, to law - to all manner of decisions...

It is the Abstractions that tell us about the future, what to love and what to fear; tell us what to think and believe and approve about the future; and then we organise our entire world because of these Abstractions.


The world is organised to encourage or discourage 'trade', nations aim at 'growth'... then Trade and Growth are destroyed to control the Climate... The the destruction of Trade and Growth are inverted by reference to Sustainability. There are phenomena like Immigration, Diversity, Human Rights... and we are told why-they-are-Good; or we try (by thinking-about 'evidence', and by reasoning) to understand whether they really are good...

But these are Abstractions. Such knowledge is based upon simplified models, and 'tested' using perceptions which we know are not true (seeing is not believing, neither is hearing - especially not when it comes to generalities) - so we can never know about such things. The questions are ill-formed, the evaluations are of unknown meaning...


In sum, intuition does not work on Abstractions - how could it? We can know intuitively (only) about that which can be grasped intuitively.

We might know the validity of some Abstraction like an aspect of mathematics, or about the coherence of a theory - but that tells us nothing about actual, real world 'applications' of such generalities...

Thus, we can intuit about Abstractions, but we cannot intuit the extent to which Abstractions apply to specifics - which is what we are very often trying to do.


In fact, I think that the low reputation of intuition partly derives from the fact that it can-not (therefore should-not) be used to evaluate the kinds of things that feature as Most Important in modern public discourse.

We cannot intuitively answer such questions as whether women are equal with men in modern society - or whether they should be - or what it would mean if they were. We cannot intuitively know what people mean by racial prejudice, what race 'is' (or is not), whether racial prejudice is responsible for racial differences - and what any such differences mean.

Almost the entirety of the content and theme of major discourse is beyond intuition, because unreal. And this has a profound effect on us. We live inside a System that is not just evil or trivial, but which is untrue, hence incoherent, hence permanently and incurably disorientating


We can (and should) be 'using' intuitive knowing to understand well-formed questions about 'concrete' (especially personal) realities such as the goodness or evil of individuals in public life, or the effect of new changes, the quality of actual buildings or landscapes, the beauty of some piece of music - and of course in dealing with the human beings (and animals, and plants) of our lives; the Creator, Jesus, spiritual beings etc...

Such questions cannot be answered by hypothesis and evidence; can only be known by direct intuition - and we need to learn to rely upon that which (potentially) works, not that which which we know for sure cannot work.

The ability to use intuition forms a kind of litmus test of reality. The great mass of modern phenomena are beyond the scope of intuition because they are not really-real - and this is why there is unbounded and intractable capacity for error in modern life.  

The conclusion is that our public world is based upon unwarranted - indeed unwarran-table - assumptions; and is unverifiable by direct intuition. We are prevented from primary thinking so long as we are engaged in this bureaucratic-media system...

But then, we knew that in our hearts already, surely?

5 comments:

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

When I look at a small collection of items and immediately know that there are Three of them, not Two or Four, isn't that a direct intuition of how an abstraction (a number) applies to something in the real world?

When I consider something that has happened or has been proposed and immediately know that it is Good or Evil, as the case may be, isn't that a direct intuition of how an abstraction applies to something in the real world?

And, of course, what if not abstractions are such concepts as Intuitive Knowing, Verifiability, and Abstraction itself?

David said...

I find that I have made the same observations over quite some period of time now. It is quite frustrating and indeed largely impossible to try and discuss interesting/Important things without getting immediately stuck and mired in the issue of examining the underlying assumptions that the other person is bringing to the conversation. Which they invariably dont want to do or seemingly cant do anyway. We seem to live in a world of Dr Spock's who deny the reality of anything subjective, as not real. The supposedly objective 'facts' however are patently clear (or at least they should be according to them) and the 'evidence' is plain for all to see that Brexit is the best thing to do, climate change is man made, etc. But to ask 'how do you know what you claim to know?' and my Socratic attempts to discuss why people think they really do know what they insist about these things that are 'bleedingly obvious' to every intelligent, reasonable person. Well, lets just say people dont like that one little bit and it is largely regarded as insane and hostile, fighting talk. And so, my tendency is to smile, attempt to change the subject or only very lightly engage by repeatedly highlighting the underlying problems with their metaphysical assumptions. So, you can imagine, I am rapidly accumulating friends nowadays!

Bruce Charlton said...

@William - I'm aware that I am using abstraction - the point is not to avoid abstractions but about which is primary - abstractions or beings/ persons. And the non-abstract being/ person is an individual - directly apprehended. Abstrcations then are secondary, simplified models - hence ultimately wrong.

@David - Yes, the things people are most 'dogmatic' about are usually precisely those things they do not really have a clue about. Whereas they regard as unknowable or irrelevant (because a subjective matter of opinion) things they can know directly.

Simon said...

> We can (and should) be 'using' intuitive knowing to understand well-formed questions about 'concrete' (especially personal) realities such as the goodness or evil of individuals in public life, or the effect of new changes, the quality of actual buildings or landscapes, the beauty of some piece of music - and of course in dealing with the human beings (and animals, and plants) of our lives; the Creator, Jesus, spiritual beings etc...

Do you believe the results of primary thinking about these topics would be the same amongst all men? Or would it differ between individuals?

Bruce Charlton said...

@Simon - Insofar as they are true; they *would* be the same among all men.

But each man has an unique persepctive on the totality of reality, and a different ability/ capacity - and not all men are honest and diligent in their enquiries and reports.