Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 Bob - I agree with your elucidation of intuition. My point is that we render those processes conscious when possible - and it often is. Will for me, intuition is a knowledge that is not based on conscious sensory information or on normal ratiocination. It is knowledge that apears to be unfounded in the conscious processing of data but rather is experienced as appearing in consciousness fully formed "as if out of nowhere." As an example of intuition, I described the card tests I was given as a boy, and I would suggest that the word "conscious" is extremely important when it comes to an everyday definition of intuition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 Will, Bob, , WMorris116@A... wrote: > Bob - > > I agree with your elucidation of intuition. My point is that we render those > processes conscious when possible - and it often is. > > Will > > > for me, intuition is a knowledge that is not based on conscious sensory > information > > or on normal ratiocination. It is knowledge that apears to be unfounded in > > the conscious processing of data but rather is experienced as appearing in > > consciousness fully formed " as if out of nowhere. " As an example of > > intuition, I described the card tests I was given as a boy, and I > > would suggest that the word " conscious " is extremely important when it > > comes to an everyday definition of intuition. With all due respect, you guys are throwing around terms that are not well defined. Consciousness? What is consciousness? If you respond by saying, Oh there he goes again, when you get past that, just ask yourself, what is consciousness. If you have the answer, please do write it up, as the entire scientific world will no doubt welcome it. Then, everyone involved in the study of consciousness, people like Francis Crick, Antonio Damasio, and some of the most accomplished minds in the world today can get on to other matters. Look, if you really do know what consciousness is there are billions of dollars in research money that you can command. Everyone in computer science will welcome your revelation as they rush to your door with big checks. Just write it down, and make sure you get it properly copyrighted. And don't forget your poor friends in Chinese medicine. If you don't won't or can't, then I suggest that you stop using the word as if you know what it means. Sorry to be blunt about this, but there is a truism about words: either you know what they mean or you don't. I think it is a big mistake to take the " everybody knows " attitude. Everybody does not know what consciousness is. If they did, there would not be the enormous efforts currently underway to try and determine what is involved in consciousness. Somewhat analogically, everybody does not know what qi4 is. And if you know what qi4 is, please write that up, too. The money isn't as good in Chinese medical research. But I daresay that whatever your personal goals are in Chinese medicine they would be well served by being known as the fellow who defined qi4. I certainly couldn't. You've seen how long winded I am on the subject. I am satisfied with my ignorance if it serves the purpose of getting others to question themselves and their own understanding. The reason I find this satisfying is that I came to understand that the only thing that matters is one's personal development on the subject of qi4. And this involves the individual investing the time and attention to find out what it is. I believe that anybody can do this, and most students will do it...if its importance is revealed to them. That is what I see as the main " sticking point " to use your phrase Bob. By suggesting to people that there's nothing to know, that of all the things you saw in our book about qi4, none of them have any benefit in terms of clinical competence, you are forwarding a message to students that conceals the importance of their personal investigations related to qi4. And by stating that philosophy is off limits, you are proscribing the field from view. I'm not saying this to defend our book. I want to make that clear. I understand and accept your criticism. I'm not sure what to do with it in terms of revisions in the text, as it was never the aim of the book to be a clinical tool, per se. I am quite certain that our book will fail to reach, well statistically speaking everyone on earth, with the exception of a few thousand souls who can't avoid it. The point is that students should be encouraged to look and find out for themselves. And if you tell them that they don't need to look, how can they find out anything? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 Ken, Now I understand why you did not answer my question regarding how you would explain the meaning of qi to a reporter so that those reading the article would not have to put on their thinking cap. Thanks for clarifying this. -Fernando , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: > And if you know what qi4 is, please > write that up, too. The money isn't > as good in Chinese medical research. > But I daresay that whatever your > personal goals are in Chinese medicine > they would be well served by being > known as the fellow who defined qi4. > > I certainly couldn't. You've seen > how long winded I am on the subject. > I am satisfied with my ignorance > if it serves the purpose of getting > others to question themselves and > their own understanding. The reason > I find this satisfying is that I > came to understand that the only > thing that matters is one's personal > development on the subject of qi4. > And this involves the individual > investing the time and attention to > find out what it is. I believe that > anybody can do this, and most students > will do it...if its importance is > revealed to them. > > That is what I see as the main > " sticking point " to use your phrase > Bob. By suggesting to people that > there's nothing to know, that of all > the things you saw in our book about > qi4, none of them have any benefit > in terms of clinical competence, > you are forwarding a message to > students that conceals the importance > of their personal investigations > related to qi4. And by stating that > philosophy is off limits, you are > proscribing the field from view. > > I'm not saying this to defend our > book. I want to make that clear. > I understand and accept your criticism. > > I'm not sure what to do with it in > terms of revisions in the text, as it > was never the aim of the book to be > a clinical tool, per se. > > I am quite certain that our book will > fail to reach, well statistically speaking > everyone on earth, with the exception > of a few thousand souls who can't avoid it. > > The point is that students should be > encouraged to look and find out for > themselves. And if you tell them that > they don't need to look, how can they > find out anything? > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 Fernando, > Now I understand why you did not answer > my question regarding how you would > explain the meaning of qi to a reporter > so that those reading the article would > not have to put on their thinking cap. You're certainly welcome. I've dealt with the press for over twenty years, and I've learned that the best policy is to always tell the truth. There's little as uncomfortable than being caught in a lie. And a made up definition of a word is little more than a lie. It says you know something that you don't. Reporters tend to be very sensitive to people who are lying, even if they're not familiar with the details of the lie. I can't provide a blanket answer of what to say to any particular reporter who wants to know what qi4 is. Just like patients, each has to be dealt with according to his or her particular circumstances. But I have dealt with this question in the past by pointing out that Chinese medicine contains an important antidote to the poison of modern life that we call information sickness. Many particularly of my younger students and colleagues in China are quite enthusiastic about the confluence of Chinese medical theory and information science, systems science, complexity, and so on. They have taught me that qi4 means a great deal with respect to information and how it propagates through human systems, be they organic, social, economic, political or whatever kind of systems. I have a very clear memory of one of my grad students at CDUTCM explaining that the literal, etymological meaning of the character shu1, which means " acupuncture point " is " body communication hole. " A somewhat fanciful reading of the elements of the character, but not entirely unsupported by accepted linguistic interpretaions. In order to activate this antidote, however, one needs to add one important ingredient: thought. So I'd establish at the outset of such an interview that we are going to have to conduct it outside of the box in which reporters collect sound bites. And if the interview terminates there, so be it. Nothing much could have been expected from it. If it proceeds, then I'd also point out that during the course of the interview the reporter is likely to be introduced to some rather remarkable ideas that might seem either quite new, quite old, or both, and that its the kind of information that has been known to change peoples lives. These things reported, a basis has been established on which a conversation can take place about what qi4 has meant to the Chinese for thousands of years. And that's where our understanding of what it is should begin. And that's why we wrote the book, i.e. to put into people's hands (and hopefully their minds) information that proved helpful to us over many years of study in formulating our own understanding of qi4. As I've said before. It's a group process in my estimation. We were helped in such profound ways by so many individuals who gave their knowledge freely without even any hint about needing or wanting anything in exchange for what amounts to treasures... other than that we pass them on. One of the most important aspects of writing the book for us was a way to make a contribution to the tradition that nourishes us, even though the tradition is so vast and grand and our little book is such a limited thing. I think we need to expand our limits both as individuals and as members of the group. And the press can and from time to time do become involved in this process of expansion...or contraction, which depends on how we handle the involvement. One of the ways that I can tell how intelligent a reporter is who shows up asking about Chinese medicine is whether or not they ask, " So what is this whole qi4 thing? " That's the most intelligent question that anyone can ask about Chinese medicine, since it all boils down to interactions calculated in terms of qi4. So when asked, recognize that you're in the presence of someone with the requisite intelligence to be able to understand what you say and assess its merits relative to what is probably a large base of comparative data. Reporters have heard what a lot of things are. But they've never really heard what qi4 is. That's why they're asking. They typically don't for explanations of things that they either already understand or think they do. Among other things, anyone fielding such a question will probably be placed in the role of providing the first explanation of the subject that that reporter has ever gotten. Make it a good one, and the benefits can be multiplied by whatever factor is present in the medium in which the reporter works. Make it a bad one, and the same multiplier can be applied to the liabilities associated with having bad information abroad in the land. These things matter. And either they matter to us and we do something about them before the stories are written or after. That's our decision. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Quick Wiki Search for intuition comes up with the abbreviated answer of: " Intuition is the act by which the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. " It also states: " When using only intuition, the truth of the proposition is immediately known right then, the moment it is presented.[1] This is without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning " To me these contradict each other. And can be two completely different thing. The first one, comparing two ideas seems a little more like my internal process. You evaluate your outcome of one experience vs the expected outcome of another proposition. On a larger scale, when facing an opportunity, it is through intuitive reasoning where you value all of the available information against ones past experience to come up with the best course of action. There is a deductive process here, but the weights and value of that deductive equation are given by ones past experience. For me this process involves feeling my way through my past experiences. I am more feeling oriented then auditory or visual so I refer to feeling when discussing this intuitive process. Finally it through this " reasoning " that one chooses their action. And it is the results of the action that validate and provide feedback for recalibrating the assigned weights and values. Really cant get a grip around the second one because the definition excludes any context to acquire validation. Hope that helps. Wm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.