/lit/ - Literature

>>17874774
It's when you imagine a circle with your eyes shut.

>>17874774
>it isn't immediately obvious
do some mathematics, particularly abstract proof based stuff. maybe set theory

>>17874774
You quit your bad habits, fix your sleep, wake up early and go for a walk outside, find somewhere to sit and write your thoughts in a journal. Repeat daily, it will come to you quicker than you think.

>>17874774
do not grasp at not-thinking
merely let go of thinking

>>17874774
you stop your mind by mentally creating physical white 'noise' and listen to the first ideas that pop in your head, don't reflect just wait

>>17874786
>>17874798
Neither of these are intellectual intuition in the Kantian sense, they are just regular intuition and judgments. The intuition of the mind's eye is spatial and temporal just like the outer intuition of the physical world. (Intuition is really not a great translation. Anschauung is usually meant in Kant more like "looking-on," perception of, the way you see a thing.)

For Kant, the ordinary conceptual understanding (intellect) and perception ("intuition," both of external things and internal images of things) are irrevocably split. The intellect constantly coordinates with perception (intuition): "thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." But they never blend into one another or act as the same faculty or anything like that.

What this means is that we are always seeing objects, which our perception (intuition) turns into discrete three-dimensional things in a spatio-temporal manifold, and our understanding is simultaneously applying concepts and schemata to them, relating them to thought. But again, this "seeing" of a real banana or an imagined banana is not itself "understanding" it, not itself conceptualising it. The conceptualising accompanies the seeing and vice versa. "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." In other words, thoughts are "about" the things we see and handle mentally, thoughts do not penetrate into the things. I do not "see-think" "banananess," I see various data of perception organised into what seems to me a discrete 3D object and then I can think various things about it (judgments about its nature, or its relation to me). But these things will not be drawn from "within" it, from an essence of bananess or this-banananess. They will be drawn from my own concepts of the understanding and correlated with other facts about other objects.

Reflecting on why this division between seeing and thinking is the case for us, Kant imagines a being for whom seeing/imagining and conceptualising are the same faculty. This "intellectual intuition" or "seeing-thinking" would be not just direct insight into the essence of the thing but would in fact constitute the thing itself, because if you are not externally "seeing" it but actively willing its essence forth by the very fact of imagining it, its existence in your imagining is obviously not merely an image but is the actual thing itself. By combining the faculties of perception (intuition, both inner and outer) and understanding, Kant tries to imagine a being that does not experience our limitations, and suggest that his might be the way God experiences reality: his will, thought, and perception are all constitutive of essence itself. It's a deliberate hint to Christian-platonist theology that views reality itself as God's mind. If reality is a mind, God's mind, then God is "thinking" the very being of reality.

>>17874798
>>17874813
>>17874833
>>17874852
okay thanks for the tip but it's still hard to try to do it when i dont even know what it is. does it feel like anything? is it imagining things without using your thoughts?

>>17875018
Because Kant expressly forbade this form of direct metaphysical apprehension of being to us, mystics and theosophists found intellectual intuition a useful term for describing what they wanted to do: leap over the barriers Kant had set for consciousness, precisely because he set them. Saying "I wanna do intellectual intuition" becomes a convenient way of signalling that you don't think we are limited to conventional cognition as Kant circumscribed it, i.e. sense perception and discursive understanding (dianoia) about objects of sense perception. It is a way of saying one wants "noesis," direct platonic insight with a faculty other than sense perception or discursive understanding, and superior to them.

Other than that, the methods and results claimed by mystics and theosophists vary. Some claim intellectual intuition is unitary consciousness of the One, so that there are effectively three kinds of cognition: perceptive, conceptual, and mystical ("knowing" one's direct unity with the One). Others claim that intellectual intuition gives them access to higher spheres which are differentiated, not divided into the One, or that the mystical unity experience of the One is the first or last step or something like that.

It all goes back to Christian-platonist attempts to understand what it means that we have concepts that we can directly "see" in a way that isn't quite like "sight." Sight has always been a privileged metaphor for metaphysical in-sight of supra-material realities. But it is just that, a metaphor. It results from people trying to say "When you know a mystic/metaphysical essence/truth, it's different from the kind of knowing you mean when you write it on paper or think it in ordinary thought (though perhaps related in some hierarchical way)."

>>17875026
Focus on the process, don't worry about the result. It will come and you'll know it.

>>17875018
i am thinking of what guenon called intellectual intuition, ie the mode of thought that is based on the nonhuman part of your self that connects you to divine principles or something

Intellectual intuition isn't kantian, it's neoplatonic (al-Farabi for example)

>>17875052
It is related to the Kantian paradigm. Guenon explicitly rebukes Kant for forbidding intellectual intuition because he personally hadn't experienced it. (He may have, if you read Spirit Seer.)

>>17875053
It is a reference to noesis, but so is Kant's usage of it. Kant was bracketing it in the way he did so as to expressly forbid it or delimit it from ordinary consciousness. Most of the time when people say it nowadays it's with direct reference to this because it's a coveniently clear way of saying "this line we're not supposed to step over anymore? I'm-a steppin over it"

Kant is really just returning to the quasi-illuminationist quasi-neoplatonist scholastic view of conceptuality in which our concepts are God-given but not identical with the mind that created them, or at least only identical in potentia, so that we don't intrude on the domain of God's pure thought with our own logical thoughts when we use logic willy-nilly. Compare this with Leibniz's view that God essentially endowed us with conceptual thought so that we could do exactly what Leibniz himself did, think being directly, so that as long as our logic is perfectly correct, we are making actual objective statements about being just as God would. Like Aquinas, Kant is saying, no, even when you say the statement "Being exists" or "God is a perfect being and God necessarily exists," you are not doing "the same thing" as the divine mind. There are different orders of truth.

kant is a modern retard and not an authority on anything. the intuition Guenon is talking about is, understood in the Western Tradition, is the same as that named by Plotinus as 'noetic intellect', the faculty of the highest element of the soul that is immersed in pure Being and outside the temporal. same as 'the heart' in both Christian and Islamic esoteric Tradition. e.g as known by Boethius (who was a Platonist anyway), or in tasawuf, the Ruhr or 'spirit'. you attain noetic intellect by contemplation of the metaphysical and ascetic practise, which is what 'philosophy' was intended to be in the first place - a practise and contemplative ascetic manifestation of Tradition; Pythagoras being the first to give name to 'philosophy', love of knowledge.

>>17875245
YES, that's it. so how does one "contemplate" the metaphysical? in the modern world "contemplation" usually refers to abstract and rational thinking, which are tools that do not suffice if one wants to understand the metaphysical, so what kind of "contemplation" do i have to do?

>>17875271
plato lays it out in what a philosopher king must be raised to do. contemplative endeavors like pure mathematics, geometry, physics/astronomy, and leading to pure dialectic of the 'unseen', whatever moves the mind away from matter and illusion. note: Nous/intellect and its cultivation is not the same as pursuit of the Good for itself, God and the Soul's essence; which is supra-rational and assimilation into the godhead. for that initiation is required

>>17875271
>>17875307
tl;dr, read Plato, Plotinus, the entire 'Neo'platonic canon

you should search in to Abduction/retroduction. It's an necessary part of forming any hypothesis, and inherently always involves intuition. It's the ability to affiliate pre-existing concepts together with the actual fact of the world.

1) deduction: beans in this sack a white - if I pick one it will be white
2) induction: I've picked several beans from this sack, they were all white - beans in this sack are white
3)abduction: 2) happened because human hand placed these beans in to the sack

>>17875018
obviously it isnt kant's intellectual intuition. you cant experience that since you aren't God. i was assuming OP was not talking about kant, lol

>>17874774
Read Poetry

>>17875659
Normally I ignore stupid posts and posts made in bad faith but just in case your confusion spreads to others.

>>17875271
You should begin by learning to read philosophy instead of skimming websites for instruction manuals.

>>17875026
It's like when you're taking a shower and let your mind wander, intellectual intuition how i understand occurs to everyone but only a few pay attention

>>17875889

Isn't it just another name for divergent thinking?

>>17874774
Intuition constitutes the subtle glimpse of affinity; in order to activate its prognostic potential you need to know yourself, and what you want/in what you are interested.

>>17874774
The closest i was to what some of tthese people are describing is that one time i listened to the 4th movement of Mahler's 9th but then again it might not be it and even if it bore resemblance to said intuition, it wouldn't be as authentic since it was under the influence of music and not natural or pure in the sense that it is or might be, musical.