Summary: Intuition may be a form of human bio-cognitive literacy. Our ability to understand aspects of it may help us bring this intelligent system out of the marginalized edges of our science and culture towards a more centralized cultural validation.
I have been thinking that intuition is an emergent communication system. It may emerge from our collective human experience across time (past, present, and our concepts of the future).
Intuition may be:
– not bounded by disciplinary borders
– not bounded by logical frameworks, linearity, or correlation rules
– not bounded by a single system language (trans-lingual)
– not bounded by time (pan-chronological?)
– not bounded by “reality” (scenarios imagined through empathy are considered as “valuable” and as “real” events. (trans-real)
– not bounded by one level of processing or understanding (it may be the emergence of all our collective systems – everything from the chemical, to the cell, to the tissue, organ, organ system, somatosensory network, belief networks, though model networks etc) (trans-systemic, multi-systemic)
– not bounded by language and established cultural concepts, institutionalized knowledge (e.g. definitions of form vs. process, wave vs. particle, etc)
So, intution looks, smells, senses, feels emotionally, feels physically, analyzes chemistry, analyzes empathetic scenarios, etc….it takes all the calculated information in and then delivers a trans-system, emergent and flux conclusion.
In other words, intuition is like the U.N., everyone speaks a different language and this, no matter how well translated breeds “fuzzy” results of meaning. The ego system may seek to “control” the fuzzy meaning by estabilizing it; but to do that it needs to deliberate it, classify it, organize it, etc. Our inability to estabilize, understand (statically), and control meaning leads us to multi-level dissonance. In other words those that are not comfortable by the ambiguity of meaning become frustrated, unable to explain, unable to re-trace the steps through linear logic to the “temp-conclusion” that lies before them. They reject it. They discard it. They label it “non-sense” and they marginalize it. It’s an emergent quality/entity. It’s hard to map out, describe, explain. It’s non-linear and trans-logical. As long as we can’t explain it scientifically, intuition will remain a marginalized intelligence.
Yet our human system is smart, inspite of our control-seeking ego.
Creativity, empathy, imagination all may be utilizing our intuitive intelligence. Today designers are using it to design scientific tools, scientists may be using it to develop theories, (e.g. Einstein used it and recognized it as somatosensory processing), most scientists getting a “hunch” may be using it, anyone using any type of thinking may be using it to one level of recognition or another.
Most of us use it, we call it “gut feeling”, we make decisions influenced by it. Yet we refuse to recognize it as a “valid” form of intelligence.
We may benefit from a broader, cultural recognition of it. We may benefit from scientists focusing on it to understand it more. We may benefit from bringing it back from the margins.
We may benefit from incuding it into our curriculums and our training programs.
To do this we may need to collect instances where we use it across our cultural systems.