He Who Was Not

[zenmaster]

At what point does this pre-rational, or rational engagement take place during the connection between one field and another with regard to the information being shared?

If the information is merely perceived then it's the same as intuition, that is a temporally-oriented view perceiving some common reference (directly interpreted from prior experience). Rational engagement takes place when one's consciousness participates with some evaluation. If you have a memory of the experience, then it was rationally evaluated.

What you are supposing is that experience of this sort is not to be considered experience unless it is rationally evaluated.

It does not become part of experience of the individual, it does not become integrated or owned, and therefore may not be subsequently shared in any capacity whatsoever.

So at what point does a field reach the point of being able to rationally evaluate to the degree that would meet what you define as experience?

Anything subject to perception may be. So that would be 'any point'.

Also by your definition, I must ask what you do call the act of attempting to comprehend an experience or connection when they have NOT reached this point of ability that you would deem necessary to make rational evaluation?

Not sure what you mean here. "Attempting to comprehend" *is* rational evaluation. Just like the term "considering" you'd used earlier.

It is my understanding that all attempt to comprehend incoming information is both experience and rationalizing.

This is my understanding also.

I do not understand your effort to declare a degree of ability somewhere within this natural effort.

The degree of ability is with respect to speaking from comprehension (integrated experience), rather than from the suggestions of intuition still pointing at unconscious things (catalyst).

I agree with you that much handwaving takes place and that much attempt at comprehension is not done with rationale, and I do agree that it is only by applying intelligent thought process that one can discern information efficiently, but what I do not understand is where you draw this line, or why you think there even is a line.

It's very easy to "draw the line", because, for example, what they would like you to look at is inevitably exaggerated or given to inflation. Exaggeration is a form of overcompensation from what has not yet been digested, and is entirely unconscious.

Also, I would re-iterate that rational evaluation is not just analysis (linear/spatial), it does equally involve the feeling (circular/temporal) function.

we all understand that there are varying levels and degrees of intelligence and comprehensive ability when speaking on the human effort to comprehend its reality, but this process is not one where you can draw a line and say that it is only at this point where actual accurate interpretation can occur.

Again, I am in no way talking about accuracy. It's a question of balance between intuitive perception and rationality. That balance provides 'accuracy' on its own.

That is no different than saying that only that which you deem rational should be worthy of consideration.

Consideration *is* rational evaluation. Again, probably for the 3rd time now, the utility of information in the form of unconsidered perceptions is much less than those which have been considered. You can replace "utility" with "value", or "leverage" or "workable".