Intuition or intellect?

[osho]

What do you want to rely on when it comes to ingenuity or creativity? I myself intuit intuition is more powerful since intellect suffer limitation, intuition does with imagination. With something that goes beyond the domain of empirical science and has something to with spirituality.

This is my thought and I want the panel here to give their opinions.

[cafolini]

Well, regardless of spirituality which means little to me, I would say that it takes good virgin intuition to stop an infection of intellectual stupidity. Have fun.

[Serena03]

We are all 'spiritual' in some way, it's not necessarily associated with mystics/metaphysics. It can be the exhilaration of watching nature take its course or the awe inspiring feeling of gazing into the nighttime sky. Whatever kindles your motivation in life also kindles your spirit.

Anyway, given between the two factors if both cannot be held, I am often prone to intellect, despite the importance of creativity. Imagination is a useful tool towards the intellect, but I don't think this would be a very progressive society if it was solely based on imagination and never can confront reality. But embrace the two closely if you are fortunate enough to have both.

[Buh4Bee]

Is it me or didn't we have this line up on another of Osho's threads? Up there is that intuition going off again.

It's this thread: (see proof)

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64700

Osho, Paul C, Serena, me.

[Delta40]

You know, it's amazing but I didn't even understand the question! Is it would one rather have intellect than creativity?

[ftil]

What do you want to rely on when it comes to ingenuity or creativity? I myself intuit intuition is more powerful since intellect suffer limitation, intuition does with imagination. With something that goes beyond the domain of empirical science and has something to with spirituality.

This is my thought and I want the panel here to give their opinions.

Creativity has nothing to do with spirituality. Creativity is a right brain activity. We got both hemispheres for a reason and we need to use them both. :biggrinjester:

[Delta40]

Creativity has nothing to do with spirituality. Creativity is a right brain activity. We got both hemispheres for a reason and we need to use them both. :biggrinjester:

Ah. Now I see the light!

[zoolane]

Intuition. Seem to be natural choice only because I have strange feelings for certain things in people life.

Examples are:

I had feeling more precise had dream that best friend was pregnancy with second child. I phone her ask next day and she was.

Had other dream about friend and her daughter, saw mother next day and ask if everything was OK. the child was in hospital.

Also have intuition now people can react with certain situation which maybe is knowing someone to well.


or intellect?
I have knowledge which happy with but you said that you learn something new everyday whether you realize or not.

[Delta40]

That's interesting Zoo. Some people seem to have a stronger intuition than others. Do you think we're born that way?

[Serena03]

Spirituality is a product of the brain as creativity is, both can very much be related and coercered by each other depending on how one feels spiritual. Some of the most spiritual people are often very creative with their spirituality.

[ftil]

Spirituality is a product of the brain as creativity is, both can very much be related and coercered by each other depending on how one feels spiritual. Some of the most spiritual people are often very creative with their spirituality.

Hm…..people don’t need to be spiritual to be creative. It is a matter of clearing emotional blockages to reach primal creativity. Most people reach only secondary creativity. :wink5:

[Delta40]

Hm…..people don’t need to be spiritual to be creative. It is a matter of clearing emotional blockages to reach primal creativity. Most people reach only secondary creativity. :wink5:

I'm curious. Would you mind explaining the difference between primal creativity and secondary creativity?

[Serena03]

Hm…..people don’t need to be spiritual to be creative. It is a matter of clearing emotional blockages to reach primal creativity. Most people reach only secondary creativity. :wink5:

You can have one without the other, but they are often intertwined especially considering how flexible and accommodating spirituality can be through creativity. Religion, for instance, is often stimulated and endured through this mechanism.

[Delta40]

I'm confused. On what basis is spirituality entwined with creativity?

[zoolane]

That's interesting Zoo. Some people seem to have a stronger intuition than others. Do you think we're born that way?

I do think that some people have slightly physic connect to others which could called intuition.

when I was 10,12,14 and 16. I used have dream of having three sons with two years gap between all. I can still remember two names, I live near football pitch. Now soon as I found out I was having Leanne the dream stop. I have three daughters with three an bit age gap and a football pitch I can see from my window.

Also never a dream without reason behind, sometime it might occur to me straight way.

Just before my mum died, I had dream of me, my sister speaking to Catholic nun and a week later in was Catholic priest.

[Delta40]

I've got a dream dictionary which I sometimes refer to when I've had an interesting dream. When my father died I often dreamt I was fossicking through his house looking for old photo albums, then one night I dreamt I found them and they were filled with all the photos I'd wanted and hundreds of pounds in cash. I suppose that was the value I placed on those precious memories maybe.

[zoolane]

I've got a dream dictionary which I sometimes refer to when I've had an interesting dream. When my father died I often dreamt I was fossicking through his house looking for old photo albums, then one night I dreamt I found them and they were filled with all the photos I'd wanted and hundreds of pounds in cash. I suppose that was the value I placed on those precious memories maybe.

I have one called 'Dream moods' which used on occassion not much now. The weird dreams were emotional suitcase which had being carring with me for long time. I think.

[Serena03]

I'm confused. On what basis is spirituality entwined with creativity?

If we assume that spirituality can inspire transcendental thoughts, interpretations, ideas, methods, rules, patterns, thus creativity, they can hold connectivity. They don't even necessarily have to be consecutively linked; your spirituality may inspire you to read more, thence causing more creative ideas to generate. But you can be spiritual alone without producing anything from it, it's outcomes of what you do intuitively and intellectually that may vary. Creativity can also accommodate spirituality, depending on where your imagination and inspiration takes you.

[Delta40]

Thanks for explaining that. So if you can be spiritual alone without producing anything from it, is it fair to say you can be creative without being spiritual?

[ftil]

You can have one without the other, but they are often intertwined especially considering how flexible and accommodating spirituality can be through creativity. Religion, for instance, is often stimulated and endured through this mechanism.

Hm…I view spirituality and creativity as separate. It has nothing to do with religion.
I think that we have to clarify what we understand by creativity. I don’t only mean creativity such as writing, painting, or composing music. It applies to writing a mathematical formula, working up the theory, designing an experiment, or establishing business, for example. Creative people tend to be unconventional; they tend to be a little bit queer; unrealistic, they are often called undisciplined, "unscientific" that is by a specific definition of science. They tend to be called childish by their more compulsive colleagues, irresponsible, wild, crazy, speculative, uncritical, irregular, and emotional.
So, it sounds like a bum or eccentric. They are " a bum" only in the early stages of creativeness. Then, and only then, they become secondary, become more rational, more controlled and orderly.
In other words, creativity has nothing to do with beliefs such as religious or spiritual beliefs. :wink5:

[stlukesguild]

Creativity has nothing to do with spirituality. Creativity is a right brain activity. We got both hemispheres for a reason and we need to use them both.

people don’t need to be spiritual to be creative. It is a matter of clearing emotional blockages to reach primal creativity. Most people reach only secondary creativity.

I think that we have to clarify what we understand by creativity. I don’t only mean creativity such as writing, painting, or composing music. It applies to writing a mathematical formula, working up the theory, designing an experiment, or establishing business, for example. Creative people tend to be unconventional; they tend to be a little bit queer; unrealistic, they are often called undisciplined, "unscientific" that is by a specific definition of science. They tend to be called childish by their more compulsive colleagues, irresponsible, wild, crazy, speculative, uncritical, irregular, and emotional.

Can we possibly skip the pop psychology crap? Left Brain=logic vs Right Brain=creativity? Any study of the human brain will reveal that the reality is far more complex than that. Studies of stroke victims have revealed how certain parts of the brain control certain motor functions and certain types of thinking... but that is not consistent across humanity... and it can change, as has been witnessed when another part (or parts) of the brain take over for a damaged portion.

To achieve creativity is simply a matter of clearing emotional blockages? What emotional blockages? Again, I don't imagine the achievement of creativity is something that can be simply defined... otherwise it might be easily taught. In part, creativity involves a willingness to take chances... to make mistakes and fail even. It demands a certain audacity... a willingness to take on a task that seems unrealistic or absurd... to persist in a goal... an obsession that others can see no value in. Creativity also involves a certain mode of thinking... often non-linear... making analogies or connections between elements or concepts that seem to be off in left field.

I agree that creativity is not limited to its obvious role in the arts. I would also suggest that it is not limited to taking a single form. There are those who are brilliantly creative when it comes to invention. Others are far more creative in terms of interpretation. For example, Picasso was a genius of invention, while Rembrandt was a genius of interpretation.

As for the personality types associated with "creativity"... these may have some degree of truth, but I largely suspect that they are but stereotypes. Einstein, for example, was a good worker. He kept at a mundane clerical job for years without standing out in the least. As he (and others) later suggested, his form of employment was almost ideally suited to him. Had he gained the sort of academic position he was worthy of, he would have been under pressure to perform... to publish... as opposed to having the time to explore his ideas at his own rate.

Looking across the roster of great creative individuals... even in the arts, where the stereotype would suggest wild, unconventional behavior... you will discover just as many creative geniuses who were quite conventional... trustworthy... down to earth, etc...

[ftil]

stlukesguild wrote:
Can we possibly skip the pop psychology crap? Left Brain=logic vs Right Brain=creativity? Any study of the human brain will reveal that the reality is far more complex than that. Studies of stroke victims have revealed how certain parts of the brain control certain motor functions and certain types of thinking... but that is not consistent across humanity... and it can change, as has been witnessed when another part (or parts) of the brain take over for a damaged portion.


Well, you may be fun of pop psychology but I am not. :biggrin5: A. Maslow spent his entire career studying creative people and I wrote about characteristics of creative people based on his studies. You may find explanations in Bowen’s theory that are similar. But if you didn’t read Maslov’s work on what basis you have made up your mind. Pop psychology? :banana:



To achieve creativity is simply a matter of clearing emotional blockages? What emotional blockages?


Why don’t you read Maslow’s The Further Reaches of Human Nature. You may not understand it as it not only a cognitive process, but most importantly, you need to experience it to understand what emotional blocks to creativity means.

You may try to impress people with your assumptions about creativity but you can’t impress me. :biggrinjester:

[Serena03]

Hm…I view spirituality and creativity as separate. It has nothing to do with religion.
I think that we have to clarify what we understand by creativity. I don’t only mean creativity such as writing, painting, or composing music. It applies to writing a mathematical formula, working up the theory, designing an experiment, or establishing business, for example. Creative people tend to be unconventional; they tend to be a little bit queer; unrealistic, they are often called undisciplined, "unscientific" that is by a specific definition of science. They tend to be called childish by their more compulsive colleagues, irresponsible, wild, crazy, speculative, uncritical, irregular, and emotional.
So, it sounds like a bum or eccentric. They are " a bum" only in the early stages of creativeness. Then, and only then, they become secondary, become more rational, more controlled and orderly.
In other words, creativity has nothing to do with beliefs such as religious or spiritual beliefs. :wink5:


We can say Einstein was creative when he prepared his relativity theory, but was he spiritual or had a spiritual drive? He might of said he did, not necessarily in a religious/metaphysical sense, but the spirit he had for physics and science was highly kindling for him.

Speculatively, what about the 'creative' unscientific method man used to create God in order to keep people controlled and orderly? Still intelligent reasoning was used for this establishment even if the establishment alone may have seemed unintelligent. If anything though, science has little to do with creativity, it's merely the intellect that is logistically and reasonably used to derive clues which compiles data from prior knowledge and discoveries. Such as there's nothing particularly 'scientific' about both creativity and spirituality in terms of their ambiguity.


Thanks for explaining that. So if you can be spiritual alone without producing anything from it, is it fair to say you can be creative without being spiritual?

I think you can, especially subconsciously, many have created something without any particularly drive or spiritual inspiration; but sometimes the best outcomes are from the work of the spirit.

[ftil]

We can say Einstein was creative when he prepared his relativity theory, but was he spiritual or had a spiritual drive? He might of said he did, not necessarily in a religious/metaphysical sense, but the spirit he had for physics and science was highly kindling for him.

Speculatively, what about the 'creative' unscientific method man used to create God in order to keep people controlled and orderly? Still intelligent reasoning was used for this establishment even if the establishment alone may have seemed unintelligent. If anything though, science has little to do with creativity, it's merely the intellect that is logistically and reasonably used to derive clues which compiles data from prior knowledge and discoveries. Such as there's nothing particularly 'scientific' about both creativity and spirituality in terms of their ambiguity.


I think that you misunderstood me. It is not about science and I agree that science has little to do with creativity. But if we talk about science, it is about scientists who are creative or not. In other words, they have a certain characteristics I have mentioned in my previous post that are necessary to be creative or to reach primal creativity. The same applies to creative people who find a solution for a company that is on a verge of bankruptcy. I am talking about much wider understanding of creative people. Maslow called them self-actualized. Artists may not reach primal creativity but only a secondary one.

I don’t know about Einstein that much except the he developed relatively theory so that I don’t want to make any assumptions if he was creative or not. :wink5: The difference is that there are scientists who develop theory but their approach is not creative. Their achievements are a result of hard work not of creativity. It is hard to explain in a few sentences as we are talking about people who are fully integrated. Maslow needed 400 pages to explain it. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

Well, you may be fun of pop psychology but I am not. A. Maslow spent his entire career studying creative people and I wrote about characteristics of creative people based on his studies. You may find explanations in Bowen’s theory that are similar. But if you didn’t read Maslov’s work on what basis you have made up your mind. Pop psychology?

Why don’t you read Maslow’s The Further Reaches of Human Nature. You may not understand it as it not only a cognitive process, but most importantly, you need to experience it to understand what emotional blocks to creativity means.
You may try to impress people with your assumptions about creativity but you can’t impress me.

There are plenty here who have spent years in the university studying literature and literary theory... attaining a Masters and even a PhD... and yet none of them can write as well as William Blake who never attended formal school at all. If the study of creativity were all that is necessary to unlock the creative genius, all it would take to compose as well as Bach, write as well as Shakespeare, or paint as well as Michelangelo would be to make an in-depth study and analysis of creativity... and especially the creativity concerning a given art form.

But it doesn't work like that, does it? You can make all the formal studies you wish of creativity, and you will no doubt become well-versed in the theory and theology of creativity... but there is no guarantee that you will become a creative genius yourself as a result.

Surprisingly, most great writers, poets, artists, composers, dancers... as well as creative geniuses in other non-art fields... somehow succeed in their creative endeavors without wasting the least moment reading Maslow or making a formal study of "creativity".

Perhaps the old adage (was it Picasso?) is right: God doesn't engage in theology. The artist doesn't waste a lot of time discussing art criticism. The poet doesn't waste a lot of time discussing literary theory. They are all too busy CREATING to spend their time studying the "how to" manual of creativity.

[Delta40]

My psychologist says you're either creative or you're not. As for Maslow's hierarchy of needs - I aim to self-actualize but I haven't decided on a date yet!

[ftil]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

There are plenty here who have spent years in the university studying literature and literary theory... attaining a Masters and even a PhD... and yet none of them can write as well as William Blake who never attended formal school at all. If the study of creativity were all that is necessary to unlock the creative genius, all it would take to compose as well as Bach, write as well as Shakespeare, or paint as well as Michelangelo would be to make an in-depth study and analysis of creativity... and especially the creativity concerning a given art form.

But it doesn't work like that, does it? You can make all the formal studies you wish of creativity, and you will no doubt become well-versed in the theory and theology of creativity... but there is no guarantee that you will become a creative genius yourself as a result.



I wrote earlier that creativity is not limited to writing, painting, or composing music. It is not study of creativity that unlocks a creative genious.LOL! It has everything to do with transcending or resolving dichotomy. It is not a cognitive process that can be achieved by studying. People who reach primal creativity are fully integrated and this is a key to reaching primal creativity.

You know well that a number of artists or scientists had emotional problems as well as personal problems. They were not self-actualized. From psychological point of view they were quite unbalanced. We may choose Maslow’s terminology of self-actualized person, Bowen’s level of differentiation, or Berne’s balanced ego states but whatever terminology we apply, creative people share the same characteristics. Unfortunately, as research has shown those people constitute a small percentage of society. But to understand it, you have to study it. Otherwise, you will be making wrong assumptions.

BTW, it was you who said that "So many women are flighty, emotional creatures that will never be able to understand the greater complexities and subtitles of real thought that it is truly a shame that we even waste our time putting them through school.".....you should prove it .......by being open to study. :banana:


Surprisingly, most great writers, poets, artists, composers, dancers... as well as creative geniuses in other non-art fields... somehow succeed in their creative endeavors without wasting the least moment reading Maslow or making a formal study of "creativity".

Yes, many of them succeed due to a hard work but it is not what I am talking about. :biggrinjester:

[Serena03]

I think that you misunderstood me. It is not about science and I agree that science has little to do with creativity. But if we talk about science, it is about scientists who are creative or not. In other words, they have a certain characteristics I have mentioned in my previous post that are necessary to be creative or to reach primal creativity. The same applies to creative people who find a solution for a company that is on a verge of bankruptcy. I am talking about much wider understanding of creative people. Maslow called them self-actualized. Artists may not reach primal creativity but only a secondary one.

I don’t know about Einstein that much except the he developed relatively theory so that I don’t want to make any assumptions if he was creative or not. :wink5: The difference is that there are scientists who develop theory but their approach is not creative. Their achievements are a result of hard work not of creativity. It is hard to explain in a few sentences as we are talking about people who are fully integrated. Maslow needed 400 pages to explain it. :lol:


That's essentially what I was saying about science hardly being creative, like the "Origin of Species" was not technically created; although, a 'creative' compilation of language and certain organization of data was used to convey the realistic theory out. It all depends on how you use the term 'creative' though, in this case, it does not refer to the idealistic people of which you speak.

[ftil]

That's essentially what I was saying about science hardly being creative, like the "Origin of Species" was not technically created; although, a 'creative' compilation of language and certain organization of data was used to convey the realistic theory out. It all depends on how you use the term 'creative' though, in this case, it does not refer to the idealistic people of which you speak.

Well, I have written a few posts here where I have explained what I have meant by creative people. I don’t want to repeat myself. :p

BTW, I didn't talk about idealistic people. :wink5:

[Serena03]

Well, I have written a few posts here where I have explained what I have meant by creative people. I don’t want to repeat myself. :p

BTW, I didn't talk about idealistic people. :wink5:

Then 'creative' is probably not a good word for these people since it seems to give 'creativity' a bad name. So you were not referring to people who have a tendency to be unrealistic and too dreamy?

[ftil]

Then 'creative' is probably not a good word for these people since it seems to give 'creativity' a bad name. So you were not referring to people who have a tendency to be unrealistic and too dreamy?

I didn’t refer to people who are unrealistic or dreamy. If you read my previous posts, particularly my response to stlukesguild, you will see that I was talking about people who constitute a small number of society. In every sense, they are fully functioning and balanced people. It is a pure joy to be around them. :smile5:

Misunderstandings happen when we focus on a label rather than looking beyond words. :wink5: There are many terms or theories that identify the same characteristics of creative people.

[Serena03]

I didn’t refer to people who are unrealistic or dreamy. If you read my previous posts, particularly my response to stlukesguild, you will see that I was talking about people who constitute a small number of society. In every sense, they are fully functioning and balanced people. It is a pure joy to be around them. :smile5:

Misunderstandings happen when we focus on a label rather than looking beyond words. :wink5: There are many terms or theories that identify the same characteristics of creative people.

Exactly which is why we shouldn't label people, there's far to much depth and diversity in everyone's character to be reduce to a single word, then stereotypes start to seep in. At least 'unique' gives more accuracy.


I think this is what you wanted to say about this sort of personality:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199607/the-creative-personality

[ftil]

Exactly which is why we shouldn't label people, there's far to much depth and diversity in everyone's character to be reduce to a single word, then stereotypes start to seep in. At least 'unique' gives more accuracy.


Well, when I talk about creativity, I don’t view it as a labeling since this term contains many aspects of personality. It has nothing to do with stereotypes as stereotypes are cognitive constructs that limit us.

I agree that people are unique but it doesn’t mean that everybody has reached primal creativity. Primal creativity is a key not a secondary one. :wink5:



I think this is what you wanted to say about this sort of personality.


There is much deeper than that. I don’t like to simplify it as I view it as an important aspect of being fulfilled human. As I wrote earlier, Maslow spent his entire career to study creative people or self-actualized people.

[Serena03]

Well, when I talk about creativity, I don’t view it as a labeling since this term contains many aspects of personality. It has nothing to do with stereotypes as stereotypes are cognitive constructs that limit us.

I agree that people are unique but it doesn’t mean that everybody has reached primal creativity. Primal creativity is a key not a secondary one. :wink5:




There is much deeper than that. I don’t like to simplify it as I view it as an important aspect of being fulfilled human. As I wrote earlier, Maslow spent his entire career to study creative people or self-actualized people.


'Self-actualization' would be a better description, reduction to creativity alone is too shallow for the depths of this character.

[ftil]

'Self-actualization' would be a better description, reduction to creativity alone is too shallow for the depths of this character.

I agree and Maslow used “self-actualized”. However, I use “creative” but the meaning is the same. It is important to clarify the meaning to avoid misunderstanding. :wink5:

[Arrowni]

There are plenty here who have spent years in the university studying literature and literary theory... attaining a Masters and even a PhD... and yet none of them can write as well as William Blake who never attended formal school at all.


Which comes to prove that no amount of studies makes you live Blake's life. The opposite would be much cooler.

[stlukesguild]

BTW, it was you who said that "So many women are flighty, emotional creatures that will never be able to understand the greater complexities and subtitles of real thought that it is truly a shame that we even waste our time putting them through school.".....you should prove it .......by being open to study.

For someone who is supposedly capable of comprehending complex psychological treatises, I question you could possibly have misread this quote. Do I need to employ emoticons to spell out sarcasm? This quote was in direct response to your ridiculous stereotypes of men... the intent was to point out that no one would accept such stereotypes of women.

[JuniperWoolf]

You know, it's amazing but I didn't even understand the question!

You're not alone.

[ftil]

stlukesguild wrote:
For someone who is supposedly capable of comprehending complex psychological treatises, I question you could possibly have misread this quote. Do I need to employ emoticons to spell out sarcasm? This quote was in direct response to your ridiculous stereotypes of men... the intent was to point out that no one would accept such stereotypes of women.



It is getting more interesting.LOL! Since this tread is about intuition or intellect we may talk about cognitive abilities.

My ridicules stereotypes of men…….. Well, I guess I need to quote your entire post.



Yes. We are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many women can't understand men at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as a lack of higher intellectual capabilities and grasp of logic. So many women are flighty, emotional creatures that will never be able to understand the greater complexities and subtitles of real thought that it is truly a shame that we even waste our time putting them through school.


You wrote that women” lack of higher intellectual capabilities and grasp a logic”.

Have I really misunderstood you? Was it sarcasm or your opinion about women? Hm…...sarcasm as the lowest level of wit should contain some humor. It wasn’t funny at all. On the contrary, I was shaking my head with disbelief that you could say it……BTW, have you noticed that it is you who stereotype women?

Secondly, it was you who discussed a subject you didn’t study as your responses clearly showed that you didn’t read Maslow, Bowen, or Berne work. You agree with me that intellectual capabilities and logical thinking is required when we study and discuss a subject. How can you discuss a subject without studying it? Are you saying that intellectual capabilities and logical reasoning that only men possess free men from studying, allowing them to discuss a subject based on assumptions … not based on knowledge? :biggrinjester:

Thirdly, I am wondering when are you going to stop making assumptions but try to understand what others say. I was talking about many women who have expressed their concerns of not being heard and understood by husbands or partners. If you are curious, you may find vast literatures on that subject as Interpersonal and Family Therapy researches are quite impressive. You may also look at Male psychology to understand why I said that many men don’t have emotional awareness or emotional literacy. There are many male psychologists who have been researching that subject so that you should be open to a male perspective…….then to a female one. :banana:

Finally, I understand that it may be dangerous to educate women……They may demand that men study a subject before being engaged in discussion……They may also find out that their husbands or partners…..are not that smart as they want to portray themselves. :ihih:
Luckily, there are men who appreciate women and their ability to think.

I would love to hear your discussion with Arthur Schopenhauer as he said, "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."
After all, he was a man. :biggrin5:

[stlukesguild]

It is getting more interesting.LOL! Since this tread is about intuition or intellect we may talk about cognitive abilities.

My ridicules stereotypes of men…….. Well, I guess I need to quote your entire post.

Let's try again and see if you can actually get it this time. In the thread, "Public Nudity" p. 16 you wrote the following:

We (women) are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many men can’t understand women at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as luck of emotional awareness or emotional literacy as well as lack of listening skills. But they can’t master listening skills if they are no fully in touch with feelings and can’t understand the subtlety of their own feelings. They don’t understand their reactions either and will never understand others.

The post was pure stereotypical sexist bunk which anyone would have recognized for what it was were it inverted into its opposite... such as in the sarcastic post I made (in which I quoted your original post (above):

Yes. We are different, no doubt about it. I think that the problem is the fact that many women can't understand men at all. Sadly, they are convinced that they do. I see it as a lack of higher intellectual capabilities and grasp of logic. So many women are flighty, emotional creatures that will never be able to understand the greater complexities and subtitles of real thought that it is truly a shame that we even waste our time putting them through school.

Same stereotypical sexist BS. Different gender.:eek::frown2:

You'll note you saw fit to drop the final sentence with the emoticons which I would have thought would make crystal clear the intended sarcasm/irony even to those who have reading comprehension issues... but I guess I was wrong.

Secondly, it was you who discussed a subject you didn’t study as your responses clearly showed that you didn’t read Maslow, Bowen, or Berne work. You agree with me that intellectual capabilities and logical thinking is required when we study and discuss a subject. How can you discuss a subject without studying it?

Honey (disrespect intended) in case you missed out somewhere along the line, this thread asked the question as to which we considered more important, intellect or intuition. Your interpretation of intuition/creativity in light of readings of Maslow, Bowen, or Berne... or any other psychologist/therapist may just not be the least bit more relevant than anyone else' interpretation of creativity. Indeed, if we were to employ the old adage "The proof is in the pudding," it might seem far more productive to have actually studied individuals who actually achieved works of creative genius (whether it be Dante, Shakespeare, Proust, Beethoven, Bach, Michelangelo, or Picasso) than to spend the time worshiping the dry academic treatises of psychotherapists.

I was talking about many women who have expressed their concerns of not being heard and understood by husbands or partners. If you are curious, you may find vast literatures on that subject as Interpersonal and Family Therapy researches are quite impressive.

I doubt that anyone here is the least bit curious considering that the subject has absolutely no bearing upon this thread nor the thread on "Public Nudity".

[ftil]

stlukesguild wrote:
The post was pure stereotypical sexist bunk which anyone would have recognized for what it was were it inverted into its opposite... such as in the sarcastic post I made (in which I quoted your original post (above):


It was not sexist response but the response that was based on vast research. I have written a long post to explain it........and I have wasted my time, haven't I? :biggrin5:


Honey (disrespect intended) in case you missed out somewhere along the line, this thread asked the question as to which we considered more important, intellect or intuition. Your interpretation of intuition/creativity in light of readings of Maslow, Bowen, or Berne... or any other psychologist/therapist may just not be the least bit more relevant than anyone else' interpretation of creativity. Indeed, if we were to employ the old adage "The proof is in the pudding," it might seem far more productive to have actually studied individuals who actually achieved works of creative genius (whether it be Dante, Shakespeare, Proust, Beethoven, Bach, Michelangelo, or Picasso) than to spend the time worshiping the dry academic treatises of psychotherapists.

LOL! Have you forgotten what you have written? I can help you to refresh your memory.


Can we possibly skip the pop psychology crap? Left Brain=logic vs Right Brain=creativity?

You continuously dismiss important points that I have brought up and choose a convenient one you repeat like a broken record. Broken record is good ……..as an assertiveness technique but not in discussion. :banana: I said that I didn’t limit creativity to artists and I was very specific about it. I said it a few times. :reddevil:


I doubt that anyone here is the least bit curious considering that the subject has absolutely no bearing upon this thread nor the thread on "Public Nudity".

Well, I brought it up as you said that I didn’t understand your sarcasm. I didn’t as it was not sarcasm at all. :yikes:

I am tired of repeating myself again and again. I don’t expect that we can have discussion that may enrich both of us. I will look at art you may post and I will do it with pleasure. You have people who enjoy having conversation with you. I would rather spend my time reading than having a discussion that goes nowhere. Please, don't forget that it was not I who started our discussion. If you paid attention, you would notice that I lost my interest to have a conversation with you a while ago. :biggrinjester:

Enjoy your time on LitNet.

[Vonny]

...she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."


For the life of me, I don't understand why this is necessary! :crazy: What's going on?

[ftil]

For the life of me, I don't understand why this is necessary! :crazy: What's going on?

Hehehe.......you need to read Arthur Schopenhauer's essay about women.

[JuniperWoolf]

For the life of me, I don't understand why this is necessary! :crazy: What's going on?

For once I agree with you.

Please don't take this person to represent women, or the study of psychology for that matter (really, anything with that many of emoticons can be written off automatically).

[Vonny]

For once I agree with you.

Please don't take this person to represent women, or the study of psychology for that matter (really, anything with that many of emoticons can be written off automatically).

No, no that wasn't a comment on the person.

[Delta40]

What I find rather irksome are those posters who shroud themselves in academia as if somehow, it makes their view more meaningful than others. In everyday life, subjectivity counts for way more than objectivity in the long run and people will base a large portion of their attitudes and subsequent views on experience that ties in with their knowledge.

The original question of this thread is obviously open to interpretation however, common sense tells us there is no single solution, only the subjective, insightful, qualitative knowledge that we are free to express. It is a shame that some posters are determined to force their view down our throat.

The question merely asks for an exchange of ideas and opinions Personalizing threads, an obivous digression from the original question prompts me to ask where posters who take it down a notch on Maslows hierarchy of needs (the very base for example) and are obviously miles from self-actualization, are simply not worth engaging with, despite their theories, years of study and self proclaimed insight.

Shouldn't somebody post their view in a poem or something? :banana:

[ftil]

Hehehe…my conversation with stlukesguild steered some strong …….but indirect responses.
I can guess that you vote for ….intuition. I vote for both…....easer to understand others as well as communicate in direct way. :wink5:

[JuniperWoolf]

In everyday life, subjectivity counts for way more than objectivity in the long run and people will base a large portion of their attitudes and subsequent views on experience that ties in with their knowledge.

In who's everyday life?


take it down a notch on Maslows hierarchy of needs (the very base for example)

Food and sleep?

[Vonny]

Hehehe…my conversation with stlukesguild steered some strong …….but indirect responses.
I can guess that you vote for ….intuition. I vote for both…....easer to understand others as well as communicate in direct way. :wink5:

This inevitably happens in the beginning. :)

There's usually a common ground with people, though. The only exception is if you're dealing with someone who thrives on conflict.

Yeah, I think using both is what we're intended to do, otherwise why do we have both?

[ftil]

This inevitably happens in the beginning. :)

There's usually a common ground with people, though. The only exception is if you're dealing with someone who thrives on conflict.

Yeah, I think using both is what we're intended to do, otherwise why do we have both?

Hm…..sometimes we can’t find a common ground. Nothing is wrong about that. We want to be around like minded people and conversation is a tool to find it out. :wink5:

Yes, we got both mind and feelings for a reason. I love them both.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

The OP:
What do you want to rely on when it comes to ingenuity or creativity? I myself intuit intuition is more powerful since intellect suffer limitation, intuition does with imagination. With something that goes beyond the domain of empirical science and has something to with spirituality.

This is my thought and I want the panel here to give their opinions.
Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[osho]

Intellect is something you can learn from books or from your Gurus but intuition is somewhat is something different. You can intellectualize or conceptualize topics but certain thoughts but intuiting something does not necessitate your knowledge and though some panelists disagree on this I tied up intuition with spirituality, though there are obvious differences.

Even among the uneducated I find intuitiveness galore. I have seen many illiterate women with their intuitive minds. It is your six sense or your third eye. Sometimes your intuitive mind helps you to arrive at certain vision or realities or para-reality which ordinarily not realizable. That is why I call it your spiritual power. Spirituality here got confused with religiosity by many posters. I differ from all in that for spiritual is your psychic powers. Through intuition you can make the most of it


If we assume that spirituality can inspire transcendental thoughts, interpretations, ideas, methods, rules, patterns, thus creativity, they can hold connectivity. They don't even necessarily have to be consecutively linked; your spirituality may inspire you to read more, thence causing more creative ideas to generate. But you can be spiritual alone without producing anything from it, it's outcomes of what you do intuitively and intellectually that may vary. Creativity can also accommodate spirituality, depending on where your imagination and inspiration takes you.

Spirituality, creativity and intuitiveness are integral to one another, though at times there pops up a lot of misinterpretation about them. Of course we need to mingle intuition with intellect that results in creative disciplines.

[ftil]

Intellect is something you can learn from books or from your Gurus but intuition is somewhat is something different. You can intellectualize or conceptualize topics but certain thoughts but intuiting something does not necessitate your knowledge and though some panelists disagree on this I tied up intuition with spirituality, though there are obvious differences.

Even among the uneducated I find intuitiveness galore. I have seen many illiterate women with their intuitive minds. It is your six sense or your third eye. Sometimes your intuitive mind helps you to arrive at certain vision or realities or para-reality which ordinarily not realizable. That is why I call it your spiritual power. Spirituality here got confused with religiosity by many posters. I differ from all in that for spiritual is your psychic powers. Through intuition you can make the most of it


Of course, intuition is different that intellect. I agree that many women are intuitive and it doesn’t matter if they are well educated or not. I have seen intuitive women both educated and not. I also call it a six sense. The more we are in touch with our feelings and the more we can understand subtlety of our feelings, the more we begin to perceive and intuit similar texture and subtlety in the emotions of those around us. The more we feel, the more intuition gets stronger. We may call it a spiritual power and I agree it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Beliefs are cognitive constructs which is a left brain. Intuition is of a right one if we want to simplify it. I don’t call it psychic power…too much of New Age jargon. :brow:

[osho]

Psychic power and intuition are not identical and hence the two different words. They are closely related and those who think intuitively have some psychic powers and they can see things with their intuitions and psychic powers telepathically and such subtle human attributes are non-observable and non-analyzable, non-cognizable phenomena. I often feel remotely the power of such clairvoyant entity, in fact nonentity from a worldly lens though in the ordinary walks of life when I come to deal with mundane realities.

[ftil]

Psychic power and intuition are not identical and hence the two different words. They are closely related and those who think intuitively have some psychic powers and they can see things with their intuitions and psychic powers telepathically and such subtle human attributes are non-observable and non-analyzable, non-cognizable phenomena. I often feel remotely the power of such clairvoyant entity, in fact nonentity from a worldly lens though in the ordinary walks of life when I come to deal with mundane realities.


Hm.....I am not sure if psychic power and intuition are closely related. I know women who are intuitive, yet they don’t psychic power you were talking about. I would rather think about intuition in terms of feelings and emotions than psychic abilities. We may argue if sensing feelings and emotions of others is a realm of psychic power or not. Some people tend to identify it with psychic power, I don’t.

[osho]

Hm.....I am not sure if psychic power and intuition are closely related. I know women who are intuitive, yet they don’t psychic power you were talking about. I would rather think about intuition in terms of feelings and emotions than psychic abilities. We may argue if sensing feelings and emotions of others is a realm of psychic power or not. Some people tend to identify it with psychic power, I don’t.

In fact I cannot disagree with your standpoint completely since I have no evidence or empirical proof to prop my ideas since these terms are not analyzable. Their roots have in our faith than in rational science. I often relate dreams to everyday reality and I remotely believe that dreams can predict some happenings that happen in our wakeful moments. I personally had such moments and when my mother died I had a premonition of some danger in my dreams. I do not want to relate such phenomena logically and I keep such experiences private to myself until some specific circumstances demand so.

Psychic powers remain with some women more than with men and I have often some experiences with this in the village I was born and brought up.
And such women with their great psychic powers could forecast some happenings and such happenings cannot be easily described and they do not communicate their powers and they intuit and we can figure out from their peculiar verbal behaviors or some of their peculiar activities. They are observable phenomena but not re-portable.

[ftil]

I can relate to your experience as I had dreams that predicted painful circumstances and unfortunately it was true. I agree that women are powerful in terms of having strong intuitive abilities and those abilities are particularly pronounced in relation to their children.
But I think that you idolize women……a little bit in terms of women having psychic power. :wink5:
It is not majority of women. Secondly, we don’t know if that ability are of their own or if it comes from sprits.

[YW1990]

When i'm doing a painting or making art, i find myself intellectualizing before i even realize that i have even decided to consciously leap in that direction. Initiation of writing and art for me comes from intuition, but in the midst of it i can't stop intellectualizing it. Does it look good? Does it demonstrate my feelings well? If so, how? If not, how can i stage my feelings in a manner that communicates something intellectually to the audience?

You can't obliterate heart from head or head from heart. We may all be more inclined to one than the other, but in order to create any works of heart it is necessary to combine both.

[ftil]

When i'm doing a painting or making art, i find myself intellectualizing before i even realize that i have even decided to consciously leap in that direction. Initiation of writing and art for me comes from intuition, but in the midst of it i can't stop intellectualizing it. Does it look good? Does it demonstrate my feelings well? If so, how? If not, how can i stage my feelings in a manner that communicates something intellectually to the audience?

You can't obliterate heart from head or head from heart. We may all be more inclined to one than the other, but in order to create any works of heart it is necessary to combine both.

I think that it is a difference when we are engaged in the art making process to express our feelings or unblock feelings and when we make art for the audience. I only use art when I need to clarify or uncover deep feelings, and as such, it is free process from intellectualization and feelings are changing with almost every touch of a brush.

[osho]

When i'm doing a painting or making art, i find myself intellectualizing before i even realize that i have even decided to consciously leap in that direction. Initiation of writing and art for me comes from intuition, but in the midst of it i can't stop intellectualizing it. Does it look good? Does it demonstrate my feelings well? If so, how? If not, how can i stage my feelings in a manner that communicates something intellectually to the audience?

You can't obliterate heart from head or head from heart. We may all be more inclined to one than the other, but in order to create any works of heart it is necessary to combine both.

In fact both intellect and intuition are so intricately interwoven that when we are in for creative works both faculties get intermingled in a very subtle way. Read for example the works of Proust In Search of My Lost Time, one of my choicest books how he has at the very outset of the novel intertwined two polar opposite human states: Everyday wakeful reality and the other a dreamy state and there he uses his imaginative faculty. Imagination is closer to intuition and when he infuse both these juxtaposed contrasts he renders his readers striking effects. I call that the summit of creativity. If you want to be a real or creative writer you must blend both your intuitiveness / imaginative faculty and intellectualism side by side. That is not that easy and indeed one must read greedily to be a writer.

Every great writer is inspired and inspiration is born of one's innermost innateness and that inspiration is married with external resources or logistics - reading different books, building up vocabulary and organizing piquant sentence patterns and grasping the texture of what one has in focus - his subject matter.

Here to sum up: you must marry your intellect with your intuition to birth a good piece of art.