Does the idea that 'this place' is a Dream upset you?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by inavalan

What do you think is more useful to a person: intellect or intuition?

Like any tool, its uselfulness is a function of the intelligence and skill of the person who uses (or miss-uses!) either of them.
From my book:

"We’d better be careful. Even when accurate, discrimination and judgment do not in and of themselves serve good purpose. They are, in fact, quite often put to ill use. Many awards of merit and approval, for example, are just bribes aimed at procuring allegiance. And much criticism and penalization, instead of being constructive, is anti-Life in spirit and function, basically hateful. What passes for righteousness is often no more than self-serving affectation—let’s not fool ourselves and let’s not be fooled. Besides being discerning, one must be concerned enough to discover why those involved (including oneself) don’t do better and conscientious enough to do what will promote more optimal actualization, if one is to creatively contribute.

In such quest, adages and directives should not simply be accepted and uncritically followed, no matter how esteemed their source or how brilliant seeming their interpretation. Life is too multidimensional and its components too intricately interwoven for guidelines and prescriptions to always be applicable. As the occasional appropriateness and equally occasional inappropriateness of such oft-quoted maxims as “Haste makes waste” and “A stitch in time saves nine” makes quite clear, what will or won’t do the most good depends on circumstance. In this regard, there are no canonical absolutes.

However, one shouldn’t therefore decide it is better to just rely on what is thought of as intuition instead. Though spontaneously arising thought-feeling gestalts and prompts may frequently be totally appropriate and Life-affirming, they are often purely reflexive phenomena, like the excitement of Pavlov’s dogs upon hearing a familiar-sounding bell, heavily influenced by, if not completely a function of, prior patterns of perception and conditioning. As demonstrated by the fact that acclaimed clairvoyants also make erroneous pronouncements, intuition is not a totally trustworthy indication. Even the most impressive revelation does not derive from direct perception of Life’s actual layout, but is a subjective ‘projection’ based on what is ‘alive’ in the domain of one’s personal or group psyche at the moment."

Originally Posted by inavalan

What is worse for a person to be: mediocre or ignorant?

This question is not answerable because these are not compare-able descriptors. The following (also from by book if you want more commentary on the subjjet) may provide some guidance, however.

"Let us ... recognize that, no matter how superior or inferior one may be relative to others in terms of specific traits and attributes, grandiosity and obsequiousness are really pretentious postures, equally unbecoming. Given his or her circumstance, the best anyone can do is choose, from available options, the ones that will be most fruitful. If and when we “judge” ourselves or others, it should be on this score. Besides the fact that no more than this is possible, the quality of Life depends on the degree to which each of us manages or fails to do so."

[inavalan]

In my book:

• [1] to a person, intuition is more useful than intellect
  
• [2] for a person, it is worse to be mediocre than ignorant (stupidity is something else)

  - intellect without intuition equals mediocrity, no matter how high the intelligence

[Aqua-Avatar]

It’s a dream within a dream. Consciousness is the trigger to beat ego and leave Maya. As Maya is ego. Once you do, you break the reincarnation process.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Aqua-Avatar

It’s a dream within a dream. Consciousness is the trigger to beat ego and leave Maya. As Maya is ego. Once you do, you break the reincarnation process.

We all use the same words, but give them different meanings. No wonder we can't communicate nor agree with each other.

To me what you say doesn't make sense.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by inavalan

In my book:

• [1] to a person, intuition is more useful than intellect

• What comes to 'mind' is that the functioning of Intellect = the process of 'thought' de[/i]duction (i.e. exploration of a subject of concern); and that the functioning of Intuition = the process of 'thought' induction, i.e. 'inspire'ation, as when one invents hypotheses pertaining to this or that subject of concern. Both are potentially very useful, especially when 'wielded' in coordination and used to double-check and refine each other. Both are worse than not 'knowing' anything, like loaded guns are, when 'wielded' by idiots and/or emotionally misguided souls!
  
  

  Originally Posted by inavalan

  [2] for a person, it is worse to be mediocre than ignorant (stupidity is something else)

  - intellect without intuition equals mediocrity, no matter how high the intelligence

Methinks this statement reflects an emotional bias (and consequent judgmental 'prejudice') on your part. As implied by my previous statement, people with high IQs often are quite 'blind' (by virtue of 'selective' thinking, and mucho 'crazy' (by virtue of 'unbalanced' emotionality).

[inavalan]

@davidsun:

I don't define intuition as a process of thought, nor inspiration. It is knowing beyond intellectual reasoning.

Not sure what emotional bias / judgmental prejudice are you referring to. There is no reliable reasoning if you can't intuitively confirm the reasoning's conclusions. That's why scientists are so many times wrong. That's mediocrity: to be wrong and not question it.

There are four knowledge possibilities:

• to know that you don't know - ignorance
• to not know that you don't know - mediocrity - the most dangerous situation
• to not know that you know
• to know that you know

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I don't define intuition as a process of thought, nor inspiration.

Our understandings/definitions differ. That's OK. I 'understand' intuition to be inspire-ation. You say:

Originally Posted by inavalan

It is knowing beyond intellectual reasoning.

BUTT saying that only says it is something or other that is beyond (i.e. it is NOT :smile") "intellectual reasoning". It doesn't say what you understand it to be.

So there is nothing meaning-full 'in' what you say that I can relate to.

Originally Posted by inavalan

Not sure what emotional bias / judgmental prejudice are you referring to. There is no reliable reasoning if you can't intuitively confirm the reasoning's conclusions. That's why scientists are so many times wrong. That's mediocrity: to be wrong and not question it.

The 'bias' against 'science' that I refer to is illustrated by the FACT that you don't impartially relate to the FACT, which I mentioned, that 'acclaimed' clairvoyants also (sometimes, and sometimes even often) make erroneous 'predications' under the rug - instead of really considering the implications of that FACT. (I agree that 'scientists' aren't 'all-knowing either, BTW!)

Originally Posted by inavalan

There are four knowledge possibilities:

• to know that you don't know - ignorance
• to not know that you don't know - mediocrity - the most dangerous situation
• to not know that you know
• to know that you know

In 'joust' , No. 2 pertains to you as well, I think.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Our understandings/definitions differ. That's OK. I 'understand' intuition to be inspire-ation. You say:

BUTT saying that only says it is something or other that is beyond (i.e. it is NOT :smile") "intellectual reasoning". It doesn't say what you understand it to be.

So there is nothing meaning-full 'in' what you say that I can relate to.


The 'bias' against 'science' that I refer to is illustrated by the FACT that you don't impartially relate to the FACT, which I mentioned, that 'acclaimed' clairvoyants also (sometimes, and sometimes even often) make erroneous 'predications' under the rug - instead of really considering the implications of that FACT. (I agree that 'scientists' aren't 'all-knowing either, BTW!)


In 'joust' , No. 2 pertains to you as well, I think.

You seem to intend to insult me. Bye.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by inavalan

You seem to intend to insult me. Bye.

I could take your dismissively not responding to what I say as an insult. I don't because I recognize that you/anyone are just being the 'best' you can be and trying to get your point across.

Just as you have done in relation to me, my intention was/is to confront and challenge you (in this case) with what I consider to be important truth.

OK with me if you want to 'pick up your marbles' and 'go home'. I ain't paying the "I'll scratch your back no matter what" game, especially in relation to somone who projects 'superiority' on relation to others' implied 'mediocrity'. This I do across the board. I recognize the intensity and depth of your quest, Inavalan. It ain't personal.