Message from @Horns
Discord ID: 394543435345952769
but what is so special about sensing vs intuiting
in your own words, what is intuiting, what is sensing, and why is one better than the other
phenomena vs the idea
Also could be seen as "what is" vs "what could be and has been"
elaborate
is this some platonic instance vs essence notion?
Sensors tend to to think that which exists is what is and explanations need to be crafted around it to explain it, and intuitives tend to think phenomena are consequences or emanations of immaterial-isms.
Whether one looks at rocks (sensors) or the waters rushing around them (intuitives)
I think the waters reach deeper to what is True.
so... you are using neologistic terms
but let me still see if I understand
sensor: see phenomenon->compile list of phenomena and their behaviors->attempt to explain
This way of looking at personality was first advanced by carl jung.
while intuitives do what?
yes, I'm aware of Jung
The language is jungian.
It isn't objective.
so attempt to summarize or explain
meet me halfway bro
so as opposed to perceiving phenomena and noting patterns, what does an intuitive do? do they just wake up with gnosis of how the world works?
intuitives tend to see or want to find principles from which all phenomena could thereafter be explained (think einstein, lawrence krauss)
Go to the root first.
Skip the tree.
I don't think like that man
Technically intuitive
You think more like that than you do a sensor.
okay, so sensors pay attention to what is, and intuitives want to find a theory of everything. Is that getting close to your idea?
Yeah, I can work with that.
so what if a sensor looked at so many phenomena and inductively reasoned so much that he too developed an explanatory theory of everything? would he then become an intuitive?
I am generally getting an impression from you that an intuitive is someone who connects dots while a sensor is a hollywood caveman retard who does not connect dots
not so much that the intuitive does not sense phenomena, but that the sensor is restricted to that alone and can't really abstract
both the sensor and the intuitive see the rocks in the stream just fine, but for the sensor it stops there because he is a retard, while the intuitive goes on to notice patterns
I think the sensor would always need to refer his theory to something observable.
A contemplation of pure metaphysics, I don't think he would do.
Like perennial philosophy or something.
so a sensor in your lingo corresponds to an empiricist in philosophic terms
Like sensor, when they're religious, usually are so because they had a personal experience of seeing or feeling the divine.
Wheras an intuitive could just know it regardless.
how?
Sensors are more empirical, yeah.
I feel like your intuitive concept requires magic gnosis