I have probably chosen to think away from the 'mystical' because I have done academic studies in psychology and mental health care. But I have read a lot of esoteric philosophy at times as well. — Jack Cummins

Occult Mysticism and Explicit Science are two different perspectives on the same world. Holistic Mystics tend to view the world metaphorically (poetically) as a system of unanalyzed concepts (symbols, feelings), taken at face value, without getting into the details. But Analytical Scientists are just the opposite : they want to delve into details, in order to dispel the mysteries, and to uncover the unknowns.

Scientists are curious cats, constantly probing deeper into dark places, and being skeptical of motives when told "don't go there". On the other hand, Mystics seem to enjoy the childlike wondrous feeling of being dependent on magical forces beyond understanding (trusting faith). Esoteric worldviews require specialized Priests or Adepts, who do the understanding of complex mysteries on behalf of the children, the flock. But scientists don't like being treated like children, who "can't handle the Truth".

Ironically, some religious people (theologians) tend toward an analytical scientific worldview, while some quantum scientists come close to being mysterians --- "shut-up and calculate". Although I lean more toward the scientific worldview, my personal BothAnd principle requires me to take into account the ambiguous realities of Cultural Relativism. :nerd:

Esoteric : intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
Note -- Both Science and Mysticism have their Gnostic Adepts, who interpret abstruse concepts for the ignorant masses. But they differ in their attitude toward "blissful" ignorance.

Mysterians : The mysterians propose that human intellect has boundaries and that some of nature's mysteries may forever lie beyond our comprehension.

Mysterian Science : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-science-ever-solve-the-mysteries-of-consciousness-free-will-and-god/

Dualist Mysterians : The “old mysterians” were dualists who believed in nonmaterial properties, such as the soul, that cannot be explained by natural processes.
https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/final-mysterians-consciousness-free-will-god/

Shut-up and Calculate : One of the biggest dangers in presenting quantum unknowns is sophism; a wasteful exercise in fruitless scholasticism and mysticism.
“If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’ ”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-70815-7_10

BothAnd Principle : Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Both/And thinking : Like fuzziness, both/and is well illustrated by the Yin-Yang symbol and Yin-Yang thinking
https://www.beyondwilber.ca/healing-thinking/both-and-logic.html

As I understand it, science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy. The miracle of democracy is group thinking. When we question what is right and what is wrong, and share our different points of view, our understanding is much greater than when we do not discuss right and wrong. — Athena

Yes, it's called "deliberative democracy". It is a tough read though. Personally, I think that is important. We should challenge ourselves. Sometimes even with opposing viewpoints. :)

Yes, I am definitely interested in listening to others, with critical but not an attacking stance. In that respect, I wait and see what happens next in the enfoldment of ideas. Really, I try to keep as an open mind as possible and, perhaps, my open mindedness will be be my downfall, but I hope that it will be something more, in terms of creativity and synthesis amidst the deluge of broken down philosophies in an increasingly chaotic world.

I think that we should definitely challenge ourselves by looking and reading all points of view, even if we end up with bad headaches in the process.

I definitely think that you make some very important points. I will try to look up your links and keep in touch, but I will do it gradually because apart from headaches if I read too much, I end up lying awake all night, thinking constantly But, I definitely value your ideas and will continue to communicate. In the meantime, I think that you have a lot to contribute to this and other thread discussions.

Symbols like letters and numbers themselves have no meaning unless we apply them to some context that gives them meaning.

We can't just put together a series of numbers and letters and expect them to have some sort of value or meaning.

Context and function comes first. So even before we choose those letters or numbers we already know what we want them to do, giving them value and meaning.

That's how I understand them to be at least.

How's this relevant to defining "real"? Is "what we want them to do", or "value", or "meaning", something real?

Is "real" confined to what is observable, or does it include things, like the above mentioned, which have an observable effect in the world, but are not observable themselves?

Is "real" confined to what is observable, or does it include things, like the above mentioned, which have an observable effect in the world, but are not observable themselves? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know in what way these symbols are not "observable." Is it in the sense that someone is conceiving a set of symbols in their heads and chooses not to reveal them?

I would think that once anyone writes or prints the symbol then immediately the symbol becomes observable.

The mentioned things, which are not observable, were "what we want to do", "value", and "meaning", not the symbols. These things are not observable, yet they clearly have an observable effect on our world.

Ah ok. I suppose, like symbols, concepts/intentions/ideas/values - once expressed, will also become real.

Added: But, that's not to say that mere utterances become true realities as in "I believe 4 is greater than 5" makes it so that 4 does indeed become greater than 5. But, what I'm saying is that my expressing the phrase "4 is greater than 5" makes the phrase itself real as I just presented it.

However, I can show how 4 can be greater than 5 if I add the letters "kg" and "lb" in the right places. lol

I get the feeling that I'm clearly out of my depth here, though haha

Ah ok. I suppose, like symbols, concepts/intentions/ideas/values - once expressed, will also become real. — 8livesleft

Now, since this unobservable, unmeasurable, aspect of... (reality?) is causal, as evidenced by the
observable and measurable existence of artificial things, ought we not assign "real" to these unobservable things? What would be the point (other than a misguided attempt to justify some form of scientism) in denying "real" from the unobservable "intention", when it has real causal efficacy.

Now, since this unobservable, unmeasurable, aspect of... (reality?) is causal, as evidenced by the
observable and measurable existence of artificial things, ought we not assign "real" to these unobservable things? — Metaphysician Undercover

In my opinion, unless verified/proven, it will remain unverified or unproven.

Yes, it's called "deliberative democracy". It is a tough read though. Personally, I think that is important. We should challenge ourselves. Sometimes even with opposing viewpoints. :) — Pantagruel

I totally agree with you but I know it is almost impossible for me to read or listen to an opposing idea. I quickly have such an irritable feeling I have to stop reading or listening. Short posts are not a problem but a whole book! That would be a long time of feeling uncomfortable. I think we might underestimate how much our bodies play into our reaction to thoughts?

Now if the culture is less intense than the culture in the US, differences may not impact the population so intensely but right now the US has a very in-your-face culture. When I was young I was taught it is rude to discuss religion or politics, and sexual lives were certainly private, but today people are very blunt about their beliefs and they want to be sure everyone knows where they stand. Our news is now biased and the young don't even know the unbiased journalism we had in the past.

Is my point of view the result of my own thinking in my later years or do others think our culture has changed to a more in-your-face culture that is more likely to become violent?

So you find it difficult to read books which are opposing views to your own. To some extent, I think that we gravitate to those which reinforce ours but sometimes I really enjoy reading opposing views. Yes, it is a good question how our bodies react to the books we read. Unless I am really immersed I usually have to get up and have a walk around every so often while I am reading.

You ask whether we are living in a more in your face culture, which is likely to become violent. Obviously everywhere is different but I think that I have noticed a bit of an improvement since the pandemic. In places where I go, like the cafes where I go to read, people seem more civil and this may be because all the lockdowns etc. have shaken up the day to day reality, often taken for granted.

Yes, I am definitely interested in listening to others, with critical but not an attacking stance. In that respect, I wait and see what happens next in the enfoldment of ideas. Really, I try to keep as an open mind as possible and, perhaps, my open mindedness will be be my downfall, but I hope that it will be something more, in terms of creativity and synthesis amidst the deluge of broken down philosophies in an increasingly chaotic world. — Jack Cummins

I just wrote of my intolerance of opposing thoughts and you remind me I see myself as a rather open-minded person. :chin: I think both are true of me. There are some things I am passionate about and many things I am just curious about. I wish so much I could travel around the world because that expands a person's consciousness and I think the more we expand our consciousness, the less judgmental we are.

In this forum the way people react to each other is awesome! At the moment I can not tolerate the political forum because those clowns are only interested in bashing each other and they totally miss discussing issues.

Our culture is missing the importance of good manners and I don't think this was always so. I collect old grade school textbooks because I wanted to know how teachers, such as my grandmother, defended democracy in the classroom. We transmitted a culture and stressed good manners. "Dick and Jane" readers were not just about learning how to read, but also learning how to live with consideration for others and good manners. These books were not perfect and contributed to sexism and racism but they are better than enticing children to read socially inappropriate books that encourage an amoral society. Over 6 thousand years of civilized development dropped from education in favor of education for a technological society with unknown values may not be a good idea?

"Relativism" brings in the cultural factor and we were not always an amoral society. In the past scientific discoveries such as pasteurizing milk and saving the lives of thousands of children, had people thrilled about science and filled them with hope for our future. Right now, that seems to be turned upside down! We believe we are at the end of times, not at the beginning of a wonderful new future. Technology and education for an amoral society may give us more freedom but it also gives us social chaos and violence and we think we are at the end of times. Something has gone dreadfully wrong.

I just looked at your links now and liked the idea by Rolf Satler, that, 'Buddhist logic is liberating because it transcends not only the restrictive either/ or of our common way of thinking, but even the both/and of the much more inclusive and healing both/and logic.'

This is an important point. In looking at ideas apart from accuracy I think the truth does include the whole dimension of the healing aspect they offer, because we are not just machines looking for answers. We are looking for thoughts to inspire us and make life worth living.

I have not travelled very much but I do not mind too much because I feel that I have interacted with so many people from different backgrounds. This was true for me when I have been working. This site is the first opportunity I have experienced of discussion ideas on an international level. Recently,have moved into a house with 9 other people and each one is from a different country, although communication is a bit difficult with language differences.

I have to admit that I cannot speak any other language apart from English proficiently.I did learn some French and German at school but did not give this much attention because I focused most of my attention on art and English tliterature. Of course, the downside is that when I read books which are not written in English I have to rely on translations.

I do think that we are inclined to act like we are the end of history. I think that it is a problem and leads us to lack responsibility towards future generations and the environment.

So you find it difficult to read books which are opposing views to your own. To some extent, I think that we gravitate to these but sometimes I really enjoy reading opposing views. Yes, it is a good question how our bodies react to the books we read. Unless I am really immersed I usually have to get up and have a walk around every so often while I am reading.

You ask whether we are living in a more in your face culture, which is likely to become violent. Obviously everywhere is different but I think that I have noticed a bit of an improvement since the pandemic. In places where I go, like the cafes where I go to read, people seem more civil and this may be because all the lockdowns etc. have shaken up the day to day reality, often taken for granted. — Jack Cummins

I have found doing simple math when I am over-excited by something I am reading, will get me back into left-brain thinking, but until now, I have never tried that when the problem is reading an opposing point of view and having very negative feelings. You and everyone else here, push me to be a better human being. This is the total opposite of the political forum! The political forum can pull out the worst in a human being and right now the US is having a serious political problem so things probably do look worse to me than others. A vacation to a more peaceful country would be welcomed.

On the other hand, the fires we had this year, and the epidemic, have triggered the best in people. At least Christmas drives for food and gifts have been very successful this year. But some of us are being downright hostile about wearing masks and shutting down businesses. It is crazy as people want both the freedom to run around without masks and to sit in bars and restaurants. They don't get those two things don't go well together and often these people do not watch the news because it is so unpleasant so they don't know the science and that hospitals are struggling. I don't think other countries are having so much trouble getting people to comply with protecting everyone's health? We seem to be very polarized between those who favor religion and those who favor science.

I most certainly don't find maths would help my thinking. What I find helps most is lying on my bed for a couple of hours, and listening to a couple of albums, ranging from alternative rock etc to dance music.

As far as health priorities go, from what I have seen in England, the answers are not simple. On one hand, it is about shutting down businesses, to protect the health of the vulnerable, but that had knock on effects. So many have been thrown into complete poverty and having to go to food banks and mental health problems have escalated, with the suicide rate rising, due to social restrictions.
While the idea of thinking of protecting the 'vulnerable' seems good it is complicated, because in doing this others are becoming the newly 'vulnerable.'

I am imagining that Christmas is going to be the biggest disaster of the year for England because the rules are going to be relaxed so much for 5 days, and I think it is likely that the infection rate is going to rocket beyond all proportions, and I wonder if Christmas is that important in the current predicament. We will just have to wait and see what happens next year because I have just seen in the news that many people working in healthcare are refusing to have the vaccine. I would have thought it would be mandatory because, having worked in healthcare, I had many mandatory rules which I had to comply with.

But I do think that most of us think of ourselves and those closest to us, but it is so important not to become insular, and to be able to see matters from other people's perspectives.

I do think that we are inclined to act like we are the end of history. I think that it is a problem and leads us to lack responsibility towards future generations and the environment. — Jack Cummins

I am so hoping the change in leadership in the US changes the whole ball game for everyone, but we are so divided things could get worse instead of better.

I want to stress the importance of "morale" and the American Spirit portrayed in the mural at the US Capitol Building. We have a high morale when we believe we are doing the right thing. Philosophy/Science, since Athens, has been the method to determine what the right thing is. Christianity did oppose that and closed all the pagan temples which were places of learning, and for a few hundred years Europe was in the grip of the dark ages. People who argue against that are not understanding the difference between technology and science. People without science can develop technology. But technology alone does not lead to moral thinking, and therefore, does not lead to a high morale.

We have the technology but our morale is so low we are not strongly behind going with science and technology. With the opposition to the change in US leadership, the new leadership may not be able to get our morale up, but if that opposition is not too strong and the new leadership can boost morale, we might realize a New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. But perhaps this is like trying to put the spark of romance in an old marriage? Our marriage to religion has us going in the wrong direction. We live in the best time in history and are so negative, few can imagine a good outcome and if we can't imagine it, we can not manifest it.

I most certainly don't find maths would help my thinking. What I find helps most is lying on my bed for a couple of hours, and listening to a couple of albums, ranging from alternative rock etc to dance music. — Jack Cummins

I love it. :heart: The ancient philosophers were adamant on the importance of good music.
Plato..."Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.

"

So many have been thrown into complete poverty and having to go to food banks and mental health problems have escalated, with the suicide rate rising, due to social restrictions. — Jack Cummins

God works in strange ways. We can not enter a New Age without realizing the wrongs of our past and stop repeating those wrongs. Especially in the US, some people believe they are superior to others and therefore more deserving. They do not realize what their advantages have to do with being superior, nor what luck has to do with their opportunity and getting ahead. God taught me the lessons in the 1970 recession when OPEC embargo oil to the US. Until then I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that those of us born white and middle class could not have. We could only play at poverty because at any time we could get a good job, or call our parents for help. It is not the experience of poverty until the economy collapses and there is no opportunity and no one to call for help.

With the mentality of abundance, we have created a worsening reality and this had to be rebalanced. That makes the terrible things of which you speak, good. Let us experience the terrible things and then come to the meeting table and talk about the importance of equality and how we might improve it. Is democracy about corporate wealth and ignoring the homeless? Is it a better education for your children, and just unfortunate that some children have nothing like the education in better schools, nor do they have lives that mean security and met needs so they can focus on their studies? Nothing is going to make people care enough about the issues than knowing "There but for the grace of God go I".

I am imagining that Christmas is going to be the biggest disaster of the year for England because the rules are going to be relaxed so much for 5 days, — Jack Cummins

I am so sorry.

I have just seen in the news that many people working in healthcare are refusing to have the vaccine. — Jack Cummins

I would not trust the new vaccines either, but I heard a report that we were ahead of the game because of previous work done on similar viruses/vaccines and how computers speed up the research process. I think a greater effort to inform the public could make a difference. :rage: We have to stop the people at the top from thinking of themselves as superior when the truth is they are better informed and hold more power. President Trump not only received better information in the very beginning, but he withheld it from the public. I think England puts more effort into informing the public than the US, which has stopped supporting public broadcasting, therefore, it does not have the funds to do necessary programs, and public broadcasting stations struggle to survive. Democracy and liberty demand a well-informed public who are then empowered to act on what they know. We need to work on this instead of expecting the masses to just obey and thinking the best way to get them to behave well is to punish them.

The bottom line may be what we believe is true of humans? Do we believe they are capable of self-government, or should they obey their superiors? If they are capable of self-government, then how do we enable them to be self-governing? What happens when we think democracy is rule by reason?

I just looked at your links now and liked the idea by Rolf Satler, that, 'Buddhist logic is liberating because it transcends not only the restrictive either/ or of our common way of thinking, but even the both/and of the much more inclusive and healing both/and logic.' — Jack Cummins

I only recently became aware of Satler's site, espousing -- among other things -- "Both/And Logic". He seems to follow Ken Wilbur, and his Integral Theory philosophy. Although I read some of Wilbur's books, many years ago, my own BothAnd Principle developed directly from the Holistic implications of the Enformationism Thesis.

Wilbur seems to be mostly influenced by Eastern Philosophy, hence may be categorized as a New Age philosopher. I agree with much of his Holistic worldview, but he focuses more on spiritual & mystical aspects of the world --- along with Transpersonal Psychology, which may be a technical term for the study of Spirituality.

My own educational background was mostly influenced by Analytical Science and the mundane aspects of Reality, but my philosophical emphasis tends more toward Metaphysics, because that is the primary domain of Philosophy --- the "Linguistic Turn" of Postmodernism, and the recent Materialistic (anti-spiritual) backlash, notwithstanding. So, we have that psychological inclination in common. And Buddhism was an early "science" of human psychology. Likewise, Taoism is essentially a Holistic worldview.

The key to all of these holistic philosophical tropes is to include all aspects of the world, rather than totally rejecting certain aspects from consideration. That way we can put our own narrow perspective (partial truth) into a broader context. :smile:

Fuzzy Logic :
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

The BothAnd Philosophy :
* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms.
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Divine Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.

Notes -- Phronesis : an Ancient Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical action, implying both good judgement and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue.
* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

In my opinion, unless verified/proven, it will remain unverified or unproven. — 8livesleft

So you agree that what it means to be real, or to be true, remains unverified and unproven. Do you also see that the following statement makes no sense?

Therefore, any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method. — 8livesleft

How could the scientific method prove anything to be real or true, when what it means to be real or true remains unproven?

Now, since this unobservable, unmeasurable, aspect of... (reality?) is causal, as evidenced by the
observable and measurable existence of artificial things, ought we not assign "real" to these unobservable things? — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe. Like the unobserved part of the universe. I doubt there's nothing there just because we haven't the tools to see that far. But then we have to go with probabilities and likelihoods. So, stars would probably exist in the unobserved universe but not floating tacos.

So you agree that what it means to be real, or to be true, remains unverified and unproven. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that all real things are unverified and unproven? I don't think that's the case. But, for sure, some unproven/unverified things are real.

How could the scientific method prove anything to be real or true, when what it means to be real or true remains unproven? — Metaphysician Undercover

What I'm trying to say is that I don't know of a better method that can identify whether something exists or not but I agree that it's not a perfect method, as in my unobserved universe example.

You seem to be a bit bogged down with the whole idea of proof, regarding truth.

Two ideas which might be useful for you to think about are the two concepts of knowledge, a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Lacey(1996) summarises the distinction in the following way,
'A priori knowledge is that which has its justification independently of experience, though it may presuppose experience from which we get the concepts it involves', whereas, 'Knowledge which can only be by at least some appeal to experience (basically the five senses, and perhaps introspection) is called a posteriori."

I think it is important to remember these principles, which you may well be familiar with, which were discussed in detail by Kant. The knowledge which is empirical, is subject to the scientific method, and experimental proof. This is in contrast to 'a priori' knowledge which includes mathematics but can also be applied to other forms of knowledge which can be ascertained through reason.

Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins

Yes, thank you for the explanation. Though, what I'm trying to do is to answer your question above. Science is not perfect but I think it's the best we have at the moment.

Both science and truth are such wide open areas. I think it is worth narrowing the matter down to the more specific. It might be worth you spelling out the actual questions you think are the underlying ones relating to truth.

I am extremely interested in the whole transpersonal school of psychology, including Ken Wilber. I have read 'The Pocket Ken Wilber' recently. In his introduction to the book, Colin Bigelow says,
' Ken has literally spent his entire life trying to touch bases of reality, and human life in particular, and see how all those pieces fit together. Unfortunately, in today's cultural and academic atmosphere, the emphasis is often on differences in human cultures, subcultures, and historically marginalised groups of any kind. These differences are indeed real, and they must be respected, but when there is no attempt in finding the patterns that connect...then we are no longer diverse, radiant, holistic of spirit...'

For readers of this thread who have not come across Wilber, I will point to one of his important ideas which is relevant to this whole area of discussion. That is whole idea of the 'witness'and he says, 'Within the deep silence of the great unborn, Spirit whispers a sublime secret, an otherwise hidden truth of one's very essence: You, in this and every moment, abide as Spirit itself, an immutable radiance beyond the mortal suffering of time and experience.'

Here, Ken Wilber is touching upon intuition beyond science. I don't think that the scientific method itself is able to grasp and measure wisdom at all and perhaps that is its limitation in trying to captivate truth.

'Within the deep silence of the great unborn, Spirit whispers a sublime secret, an otherwise hidden truth of one's very essence: You, in this and every moment, abide as Spirit itself, an immutable radiance beyond the mortal suffering of time and experience.' — Jack Cummins

When Wilbur talks like a poetic mystic, he loses me. I'm more of a mundane Pragmatist than a sublime Mystic. Nevertheless, some of the implications of the Enformationism thesis get pretty close to New Age notions of spirituality. But then, I try to keep my worldview grounded in objective Science, because mystical balloons that are not moored, tend to drift away into the ether, where fictions can feel good subjectively, but cannot be proven true factually. I try to make sense of both Ideality and Reality -- as aspects of one world. I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. :smile:

Mystic : a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect. ___Wiki

Intuition : Many people regard Reasoning the opposite of Intuition. Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, a paranormal gift, a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field.
https://thinkibility.com/2012/11/17/reasoning-versus-intuition/

PS__I prefer a non-mystical definition of "Intuition".

I have to admit that even though I try to hold onto the objectivity of science the poetry of mysticism is my real language.

I love the writings of William Blake, Dante, the metaphysical poetry of John Donne and ' A Vision' by W B Yeats. I also love fiction, including plenty of dark fantasy.

But on this site you are probably better off that you shy away from poetic mysticism as I think it is a bit taboo. But I am inclined to believe that the symbolism of literature can touch aspects of truth equivalent to the logic and methods of the hard sciences.