Sunday, 28 June 2020

Those who warn you against intuition are on The Other Side

Frank Berger has done an excellent post today, in which he discusses that 'most vital of subjects' for our times: I mean intuition (which I have also discussed under the names of Direct Knowing, and Final Participation - do the appropriate word searches if need to to know more).

To generalise, I would say that it is an important rule of thumb (here-and-now, but not necessarily at all times and places) to be alert against those who warn you against intuitive knowing. Why? Because intuition is - ultimately - your only bastion of independent and autonomous - hence free - thought.

What are the alternatives? Well, one anti-intuitive point of vew being pushed is by the anti-conspiracy theory movement. Frank links to an excellent, and concise, example of this new kind of propaganda. It can readily be seen that anti-conspiracy theory is a new pseudo-academic discourse which has been much funded and pushed over the past few years; with the usual apparatus of grants, conferences, papers and books (look at the reference list for example, which show how very recent this all is). 

Just as with all other mainstream discourse in the 'social sciences' - Marxian class analysis, feminism, antiracism and colonial studies, peace studies, gender studies, climate science - this is dishonest, manipulative rhetorical discourse masquerading as objective and impartial; and intrinsically supportive of the Global Elite agenda.

And likewise it is fake-radical; while actually being a mouthpiece of the exact and evolving narrative pushed by the ultra-rich, super-powerful plans of the Supra-national, Great Reset, New World Order Establishment (as catered for by Davos, Bilderberg, the UN/ WHO/ EU etc - with The Economist, WSJ and Financial Times as its House Journals.  

So, we need to ask ourselves that vital question:

If Not; Then What?

If Not intuition - Then What exactly should be our ultimate source of authority? Because anyone dissing intuition is simultaneously pushing something else...

The United Nations? Or a Western government bureaucracy? A university? The 'legacy' mass media (NYT? BBC?). Professional research as published in journals like Nature, Science, NEJM or The Lancet? Or some NGO, perhaps? Senior Judges? Multinational corps? Or the leadership/ public relations and media outlets of one of more of the major Christian churches? 

Because in the end (and not very deep down) all these authorities are actually The Same Thing - that is The System.

The System's unifying linkages are there, obvious and complex - if one takes the trouble to dig a litle (and only a very little digging is needed - I mean ten minutes excavation on the internet).

But very few people can or will do any digging at all; and for them it is only necessary to know that every assertion needs to be checked by intuition; and any that input has Not been checked should be rejected as Almost Certainly an evil lie.

That is; not merely dishonest and incompetent, but also designed specifically to mislead and harm your ultimate spiritual well-being.

In short: anyone or any-institution advising you to ignore your intuition, or to over-ride it with some external source of mainstream authority, should be assumed to be on the side of Satan and his demonic minions; unless the source can specifically (that is by direct personal knowledge backed by intuition) be shown to be motivated on-the-side-of God, Good and divine creation.

This is one of the ways in which living in these End Times makes life very simple! Simple to discern, if not simple to live.

Almost everything that reaches us without our-selves having made a conscious effort - everything that relies on our passive or unconscious absorption, is going to be ('net', overall, in aim) Lying Evil - so we can safely use that as a baseline assumption.

Beyond such an assumption; it is a matter of inferring which side of the spiritual war the source is working-for- asking what are the actual, underlying motivations of the persons or institutions from-which the information is emanating; and that, too, is usually very easy to know.

If the side is not obviously, explicity, consciously with God; then it is evil. 

(See what I mean by 'easy'?)


Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

I half-agree with you. Certainly anyone telling you to ignore your intuition is suspect, but I don’t think it’s really possible to check *everything* by intuition. I mean, how many people have intuitions regarding such questions as the date Magna Carta was signed, or the number of chambers in the mammalian heart? And some things really are both true and counterintuitive. I remember the late Gene Ray, of “Time Cube” fame, used to insist, on intuitive grounds, that “-1 * -1 = +1 is stupid and evil”!

Bruce Charlton said...

@Wm - I think these objections are theoretical. Nobody cares when the Magna Carta was signed (except for exams) - there aren't Magna Carta 'denialists' being vilified in the mass media; Magna Carta is not an issue of our day.

Where you need to use intuition are the specific areas where people are telling you Not to use it; where people are telling you to defer to Science, the Experts, Peer Review, The Evidence etc. These are numerous taken one at a time, but come under a few large categories taht cover nearly all specific examples.

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

Well, either everything is knowable by intuition, or it isn't. Whether and how something is knowable shouldn't depend on whether or not it's an "issue of our day."

Bruce Charlton said...

@Wm - If you are understanding me to be asserting that every individual factoid in human culture and science could be directly (in mortal life) be knowable by each person's individual intuition; then I agree that clearly this would be insane nonsense, and I repudiate any such assertion!

Michael Dyer said...

It’s so odd, but I’ve thought for years about the intuitive sense. It is odd that it is something we all use nearly all the time, but we think so little about.

We are indeed taught that it is unreliable because it is relying on “feeling”, but it really isn’t “feeling” in the same sense of being identical with the storm of physical sensations that emotions can cause and as mediated by feeling fresh or tired or sick or well or what have you.

But intuition is how you drive your car, read a room, can even tell you if someone means you harm or is lying, It’s the most practical part of our intellect. It’s not perfect because we’re not perfect. It is highly suspicious though that we’re ignorant of something that would have been common sense to Christian thinkers for centuries.

I wish I could remember exactly who it was, but I heard a talk by a catholic priest once where he said devils have the most influence over our imaginations, a good amount of influence over just our reason, and the least influence over our intuition, Again, not none, sin touches everything but I can’t count the number of times where something sounds “reasonable”, but my gut was saying “somethings wrong” and of course my gut was right. Con men work on this exact principle, quieting down a marks’ gut instinct in favor of something that appeals to imagination or reason.

Ingemar said...

I think ultimately it was intuition that led me (as a child) and kept me (as an adult) to/in Christ.

As a child, a two-sentence catechism on the Person of the God-Man Jesus Christ made me instantly "get it."

As an adult, looking at the empty-souled fill the inner abyss with drink, drugs and sex led me to the horror of life without Christ.

S.K. Orr said...

I can honestly say that every single time in my life when I've had a strong intuitive sense about a situation and I ignored that inner prompting, I paid dearly for it. Likewise, every time I ever heeded that inner prompting, things went well for me. I think the forces of evil (unseen spiritual forces AND today's world leaders and influencers) know how powerful intuition is. That's why it's crucial for them to make the rest of us mistrust our interior lives and be slaves to their "leadership."

And regarding the church...I've seen it from both the Protestant and Catholic perspectives and I can say from personal experience that there are many, MANY "Christian" leaders who see the human intuition as a bad thing, a thing to be mistrusted and rejected.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Sk - That has also been my experience.

Of course there is a confusion, sometimes deliberately induced, between real intuition ('of the heart') and lower things like instincts, short-term impulses, gut-feelings and the like.

As opposed to intuition, the Other Side often encourages us to yield to these instincts/ urges - especially in the sexual arena; on the basis that they are 'natural', or that to repress them is to harm ourselves, or that their expression is a Human Right.

These are just another way that They try to corrupt and manipulate us for Their ends.

Francis Berger said...

I appreciate the link to your blog, Bruce. I also appreciate your elaboration on the topic, a topic you have emphasized and covered innumerable times here.

As Wm points out, intuition is far from perfect and has its limits, but this does in itself does not dismiss the importance and validity of intuition - certainly not to the degree that the Establishment dismisses it in that conspiracy booklet of theirs.

It's as S.K. notes above - the powers that be know how powerful intuition is - the last thing they want is people trusting their deepest thoughts, perceptions, and discernments, especially if these are grounded - even slightly - in the Divine.

Matthew T said...

when I've had a strong intuitive sense about a situation and I ignored that inner prompting, I paid dearly for it.

That's very interesting; I've never had that happen. I've had a more, perhaps you would say, anti-climactic experience - what I mean is that generally whenever I've had a strong intuition that I should "do" something, and I don't do it, then I never really find out why I was supposed to do it, and am just left with a vague emptiness about what good things might have happened.

Jake said...

Great exchange on intuition, and I liked FB's piece, also.
I'm afraid I'm just getting going at using my intuition.
I do have something to say on the opposite side of the coin. My Buddhist/atheist friend the other day started to go on and on about "settled science." He believes in something that he alliteratively calls sssettled sssscccience. It has a sort of serpent-like ring to it, especially with those s's. Almost like a spell, to hypnotize himself, and hopefully others, about how important it is to believe what the system tells you.

I explained to him that science is a partially formalized method of trying to arrive at useful knowledge of the world, but that it most assuredly is not supposed to be "settled."

Evidently, many/most people have so little intuition that even though nobody I know knows anyone who has died of the virus, they still believe what they are told.

However, there is also a remnant who do not just believe what they are told they must believe by the system. The propaganda is evidently aimed at neutering us.

I finally found a church in the area that didn't shut its doors, and where the pastor sees the birdemic as part of a sinister plan by evil. A very rural church. The pastor seems dialed in to his intuition. Perhaps being in the midst of nature and away from cities and towns allows one's intuition to speak more clearly.

Epimetheus said...

This is an astute observation from Mr. Berger. This explains all the Establishment youtube videos on cognitive biases.

Does anyone know if an exclusive focus on intuition, or "vibe," or feeling, or spirit, is capable of bypassing the normal defenses of ground-level Leftists? Are there any invisible gaps in the psycho-spiritual cul de sac of modern ideologies? I wonder if this sort of talk would receive honest consideration from New Age types. I know that my Leftist sister is far more receptive to spiritual perceptions; they bypass all arguments about evidence, worldviews etc.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Epi - In the modern condition we need to be conscious and we need to choose; this means that we need to belive that intutions have an 'objective' meaning and are not merely secondary products of wishful-thinking or the product of unconscious instincts, complexes or whatever. In order to take intuition seriously enough to rely on it; we need to have a metaphysical system that explains to us why intuition can be primary knowledge.