Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00643)

On Tue, 21 Jan 97, K. Paul Johnson wrote:

>In Jungian terms, intuition is a mode of perception, while
>thinking is a mode of judgment.  It is not correct IMO to say
>that you can't have valid intuitions without valid thinking
>(i.e. logic).  Since perception is prior to judgment (or should
>be, although in some Theosophical consciousnesses it's not) one
>can have genuine intuitions, even remarkably acute ones, while
>having poor or distorted thinking skills.  For example, William
>Blake, Salvador Dali, our very own Theosophical Aleksandr
>Skriabin, all really nutty people from a logical point of view,
>whose intuitive perceptions have enriched humanity tremendously.

I agree that intuition precedes thought, and I over spoke in saying that
"incorrect logic makes correct intuition impossible."  The premises of any
philosophy can only be established intuitively.  One's ability, or lack
thereof, to think logically may have little or nothing to do with the truth
of one's premises.  But, unless it's possible to not think at all on one's
premises, illogic may eventually crowd out whatever truth there is in them.
On the other hand, maybe renewed correct intuition can overcome illogic.

It may depend heavily on the situation.  I think of intuition partly as
being a tool to detect imbalances.  Determining whether one should be more
solitary or more social, or whether, in relationships, one should be more
serious or more silly, are jobs for the intuition.  Doing math problems is
a job for the mind.  An intuitive, illogical individual can probably be
quite balanced, but will have difficulty solving a differential equation.