He Who Was Not

[zenmaster]

It obviously provides utility. The point is that info perceived using the faculty of intuition may be related, suggestively, even when it has not yet been grasped - that is, integrated into experience. Because the intuition, on its own, merely points toward something, it may not add to experience unless digested or 'grasped' using rational faculties. Things actually added to experience are those which provide infinitely more utility.

Experience is not a matter of accurate translation or rational interpretation Zen.

Of course experience is a matter of interpretation, for without interpretation it would not exist. Not sure what you mean by 'accurate translation', however.

How is experience integrated into experience? Experience does not require integration, it is integration.

That's right, experience is integration resulting from evaluation.

What you are suggesting here is that an experience is not an experience unless it is rationalized and in the case that it was the result of intuitive direction, that the intuition was meaningless unless the experience is somehow deciphered for its worth and merit.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting. Back to what I am suggesting: experience is the result of conscious evaluation. The perception from intuition is indeed meaningless unless supported by experience. Not sure what you mean by 'deciphered' - there is no code.

That is like saying that road sign is only a road sign if someone actually uses it and gets to the destination that it says it is direction you to. Whether the sign is accurate or followed to destination is not what makes it a road sign.

Ironically, this is sort of like arguing with a road sign. Again, I have no idea what you mean by accuracy.

The same can be said of intuitive guidance.

All is experience.

Yes, all is experience. All is ultimately One. Meanwhile, back to third density.

I must not have been clear. It's not the rationality of experience that is being judged. Right now, here in 3D, the worldview which is called "experience" is due to the rational processing of perception. That's "rational" in the Jungian sense (i.e. feeling/thinking dichotomy).

Does the second sentence in this paragraph not contradict the following one? Is rational processing not the same as judgement?

No, it does not contradict. It was a direct response to "to the extent that they can judge the "rationality" of another's experience." Rational processing is indeed a form of judgement. Experience is the result of that. Judging the rationality of another's experience is really beyond the scope of what I'm talking about.

Pre-rational perception (i.e. from intuition) becomes responsibly "owned" as rational experience when there is some conscious act of evaluation exercised. This experience, as memory, is inheritable for those searching in the direction offered by that view.

And here is the actual point which you are trying to make, hidden in a lot of busy wording and interpretation.

(pot-kettle-black)

you are declaring that intuition is pre-rational and not worthy of its guidance until its merit is validated by the success of achieving the destination to which it points.

Not exactly. I'm indeed declaring the intuition is pre-rational, but its value or utility to evolution is significantly enhanced with conscious evaluation.

What you are missing in your determination to make intuition responsible for its direction, is the fact that intuition is always at the mercy of its recipient.

The recipient exists in an 'experiential nexus' (as Ra would say) which is shared, and does change with respect to 'subdensity'.

Intuition is the very decision making process of an individual.

No. Intuition has nothing at all to do with decisions, it has to do with perceptions.

To follow what one thinks is accurate direction or not.

Which is, again, called 'evaluation'.

The degree to which the recipient challenges that direction does not define the direction source. What you are trying to do is dismiss the intuitive process as worthless based upon your definition of it as existing only after the recipient has successfully managed it.

No, this is not what I'm trying to do. The 'intuitive process' can be (and tends to be in many cases of 'channeling') imbalanced with respect to rational evaluation. The result of such imbalanced intuition is material which is much less useful to evolution, because experience is not gained.

Let me ask you Zen, are you trying to suggest that intuition is not worth following or considering for its offerings?

No. Not sure why you would think that. I have been trying to suggest the complete opposite.

Or are you simply stating that when one is considering intuition that it is only validated by their success of utilizing it?

No. I am stating that intuition may be, and often is, related without consideration. This is the imbalance. To me it's automatically 'successful' if there is rational balance.

In either case, it is not the intuitive process that fails, but the ability of the one following it.

Whether something fails or succeeds, or someone is able to follow or not follow, is truly outside of the scope of what I'm talking about.

Remember that intuition is always reaching into the unconscious, from the framework of conscious experience. The unconscious is a plenum of potential which may ultimately only be utilized only from 'integrated and distilled experience' (hence evolution). However, the intuition can be pressed to overreach, thus not extending the current worldview but rather over extending it with vague, ambiguous and tenuous connections lacking accountability.

At best, what such vagary suggests can inspire, at worst it can impress a false frame through its necessarily biased, untempered suggestion and innuendo.