Reasons (and Intuitions) to prefer the Intuition to the Reason (whilst employing both.)

Reasons (and Intuitions) to prefer the Intuition to the Reason (whilst employing both.)

1.       REASON DEPENDS UPON FORCE. Logic can go on indefinitely in an infinite regression; even the ancient Greeks knew this. The moment that an elaboration becomes a “warrant” is decided by the person in power in a given situation. In 1984, truth is determined even on a mathematical level by the Totalitarian State. Winston Smith breaks with this by finding his OWN reasoning, but as will be established this is fruitless because it only function to CONVINCE OTHERS (3) and it is really secondary to Intuition; intuition comes first, and so it is really the necessary of the two. (6).

2.       INTUITION INCLUDES MORE INFORMATION. Jung posited and pretty much proved (though all science is falsifiable) that the Intuition is one’s key to a Vast Store of Unconscious Knowledge, whereas Reason prejudices egoic consciousness and habit. Even the parenthetical statement within this very paragraph was not dredged up by the force of Reason and Will (1), but it swam to the top Intuitively as the most convincing possible argument available to the writer. Wisdom depends not only upon knowledge and “clarity of thought” (as though the mind were not all ways, in its Nature, as per Wittgenstein, Logical [though if logic alone is not sufficient, as we are demonstrating, this would explain “illogical” behaviour according to a cause other than an “absence of logic”.]), but upon the intuitive* capacity to know how to APPLY that information (so that it BECOMES Knowledge rather than “sheer fact”), and perhaps most importantly knowing when to use what argument, as well as when to be silent, as not only Wittgenstein but countless yogis have attested.

For these reasons Jung scholar and mythologist Joseph Campbell called the Unconscious the Wisdom Body.

3.       REASON IS ONLY USED TO CONVEY TRUTH TO *other* PEOPLE.

4.       INTUITION IS MORE FEMININE. Intuitively, one can explain the reason that men tend to be cited more than women do as intellectual authorities. It is not the result of a prejudice. In fact, citing mainly women or even as many women as one cites men could be symptomatic of a feminist or equalist prejudice on the part of consciousness. There is no absolute reason to believe men and women to be indeterminate from one an other. Men seem very observably, for those who possess the feminine quality of Intuition, to be more showy and active, whereas women even who disavow gender tend to be more quiet and passive. But it is only symptomatic of a systematic contempt for the feminine virtues and a LACK of this feminine attentiveness that leads feminists and equalists to presume the exception to be the rule, so hating the feminine that they disown it and pretend towards a masculine-centred view of “equality” that De Beauvoir criticised and that was SO influenced by nineteenth-century Rationalism (explaining thus their systematic contempt for the nineteenth century; if we were ALLOWED by feminists to study it through its own lens it would destroy the feminist narrative) that it would have made Plath cringe.

Intuition tells you this; Reason only seeks to differ attention to arguments about “social forces” that, as stated above, are demonstrations of Force (1), for people in power are at liberty to disconfirm intuitions as all-too-personal, have a narrower context (2) for what “makes sense” and is allowed to be an argument, (a patriarchal position, as M. Woodman** defines it.), and can walk off if they are not convinced but flatter their selves as superior to the uninformed if they have succeeded in appealing to the prejudices of, or duping, others (3). And all of these are extraverted-biased. Social forces are only a determining factor for social people ([as] Jung [posited]), and those INCLUDE (as above)

1.       Force (in a Group or Power Structure),

2.       Ego (in a low-context culture), and

3.       Other people in the sense of public opinion (rather than solidarity, as will be explained in 8.).

5.       INTUITION IS MORE FREE-FLOWING. [William] James calls this the “stream of consciousness” that creative writers tap into. Jung calls it “non-directed thought”, a form more primordial than Directed Thought, or verbal language. Derrida actually corroborates Jung by claiming we prefer in a masculine-centred way the spoken word to the written word, which life-long readers know to be, in the latter case, much more enticing phenomenologically*** to the Imagination.

6.       INTUITION IS MORE IMMEDIATE. We know things Intuitively long before we can convey them to other people.

7.       INTUITION IS MORE SELF-EMPOWERING. Because now I know things instantly (5,6) and I do not need to force people to agree with me for them to be true (1, 3). Plus I know more (2) and am more well-integrated and less of a dick (4).

8.       INTUITION CREATES GENUINE SOLIDARITY IN A GROUP. Whilst a Herd of people can be miss-led by Reason, a Society of people, or a social group that respects the individuals that are parts of it, can facilitate discussion wherein conclusions arrived at by a number of people independently can be seen to have been held in common all along. Kohlberg would distinguish this in his Ethical Theory as the distinction betwixt Conventional, Level Three reasoning (Conformism to “social norm” and “social cue”) in the former case and Post-Conventional, Level Six reasoning (Moral Universals that follow Relativism and Individualism) in the latter case.

9.       INTUITION IS MORE EMPATHIC. The foot-note evidences the writer’s empathic capacity (and confidence) to imagine Rationalist arguments without necessarily feeling as though one were committing the same fallacies as the Rationalists do.

10.   INTUITION WORKS. For all the reasons above. Reason divides people from one an other in endless political discussion and arm chair philosophy occurring on the spectrum of privileged to neurotic. Intuition guides us WHETHER WE KNOW IT OR NOT. Intuition is the stream; Reason is but a craft used to carry people from one side to the other, and per chance from one end to the other. But one can swim without a craft, even if the River is Wide and Deep. The craft helps us just not top drown (in psychosis, for instance, when Intuition is given such free reign as in Romanticism that there is no discernment left on the part of consciousness to discern bad vibes from good vibes, and not ENOUGH ego to want to SHARE one’s Intuitions WITH the group, knowing them to be true regardless of whether or not the Grail is accepted, as in the Arthurian Legends and of course every myth known to man, but ESPECIALLY that of the Buddhist Bodhisattva. Oh and the Christ as well apparently.)

*This reasoning is not circular (1. Intuition matters because 2. Wisdom depends upon it because 3. Intuition matters) but rather indicative (Look: I know that intuition exists. I do not need to PROVE it to you. (3) But I am using Reason to OFFER you a chance to LOOK at it and observe it in theory. This is using empiricism against rationalism in a way that transcends both.)

**The abbreviation is of course out of Respect for the argument being made in this paragraph.

***Yes: Even [MicroSoft] Word did not recognise this word. It is real though.

Dm.A.A.