Journey in being


	Intuition
	Introduction
	The idea of Intuition used here begins, roughly, with that of Kant and is enhanced to all cognition-affect
	Introduction of the compound term ‘cognition-affect’ is explained later and, with greater detail, in the essays—Home
	•Intuition is the sum of the individual’s capabilities to know and relate to self and world. The Intuition includes feeling, iconic, and symbolic capabilities
	Although we have the ability to see in terms of space, time, and causation, an explicit analysis of the ability is difficult if at all possible. Although such perception is conscious, the perception is presented in consciousness and its formation is not conscious or constructed out of symbols. Rather, the perception remains at an iconic level (which is not at all to say that an analytic-symbolic superstructure cannot be integrated with or implicitly subsume the structure of the iconic.) The perception is, on analogy with computation, ‘hardware’ and the symbolic analysis is ‘software.’ The analogy is of course very rough for it is not the case regarding cognition (let alone cognition-affect) that there are but two layers ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ or that the continuum of layering is decomposable
	In Kant’s time Euclid’s geometry and Newton’s mechanics were regarded as the final description of space, time and causation. Therefore, Kant held that the Intuition, even though it is capable of improved precision, concerned—is of—the very nature of the world
	The later development of science showed (1) profound limitations to the picture of the world revealed by the Euclidean-Newtonian science of Kant’s time and suggested strongly that (2) no scientific picture so far may be taken as final
	It is sometimes thought that the progression of science has revealed that no scientific picture can be final. Although the likelihood of a final picture may be questioned, what is truly in doubt is how such finality might be demonstrated. This doubt was emphasized by Hume’s thought. The analysis of the present development shows directions—which directions are not subject to Hume’s critique—in which finality is actual and is demonstrated. One aspect of seeing the necessity of the various necessary claims that follow is that they are not subject to Hume’s critique
	Kant’s analysis of Intuition remains fundamental in showing that what faithfulness Intuition has is part of our constitution without regard to analysis of it. We now know that the source of Intuition is adaptation (which does not require evolution even though we may think that Darwinian evolution and development constitute by far the most reasonable explanation of it)
	Human knowledge may start with Kant’s Intuition but this is built upon by symbolic analysis. However, the capacity for such analysis is itself Intuitive although the area of intuition is not identical to that of the more ‘primitive’ intuition, e.g. of space-time-cause
	•The Intuition is sometimes regarded as restricted to the innate or partially innate pre-conscious capabilities that make possible the more or less conscious categories of the world, i.e. space, time, cause… Since there is no getting outside of these capabilities, at least in their own terms, they have no intrinsic but explicit measure or meaning of faithfulness. It may be thought that there is some getting outside in science or by symbolic means. The precision of some areas of science and the discrete character of the symbol lend to the idea of a getting outside of the nature of knowing. However, there is no a priori reason to suppose that relations among symbol systems (e.g. logic) precisely mirror Object (world) relations. Therefore, symbolic knowing (including logic) is also assigned to Intuition. (Limits and the nature of such limits of science are discussed later)
	Here, then, we think of the extension of Kant’s Intuition by symbolic analysis (language…) as Intuition. We do so because symbol and icon have common origins and because the assignment of absolute character to the symbol lies in Intuition. Although there may be some ways in which symbol transcends the limits of the icon, there is no universal way and what ways there are should be demonstrated and do not lie in the final nature of the symbol even though the assigned discrete character of the symbol and the development of logic encourage a view of universal transcendence of icon by symbol… Then, Rationality refers to the processes we have available to us for the valid development of understanding. Rationality will initially refer to reasons that are valid (a) on the observation side, i.e. empirical and (b) on the symbolic side, i.e. logical
	Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason included an extension of his concept of intuition by symbolic analysis. This was to have been the perfect analysis of the perfect object of—Kant’s concept of—intuition. We will find logic to be empirical, as later logicians found, logic to also be limited
	However, we will find directions in which there are perfect objects of perception and Logic. These will frame the Universal or ultimate metaphysics that will be developed below which will, in turn, frame the analysis of contingent or Normal objects and worlds
	Intuition and Object
	There is a ground level at which the organism is bound to the environment in primitive action. We will see later that this and even lower levels involve a primitive intuition—that will involve an extension of the concept of intuition
	Idea and action in interaction—higher level experience but not of the Object
	At a ‘higher’ level there is Intuition of Objects, i.e. there is the concept of the Object. Faithfulness, such as there is, may be implicit
	Intuition of the Object shows the Object but is not necessary for it
	There is no final external measure faithfulness or final meaning of explicit faithfulness. However, adaptation—ability to negotiate the world—implies at least partial faithfulness
	There is a sense in which we do not ever get completely outside Intuition to be able to verify its faithfulness—this raises the question of the meaning of faithfulness and suggests that, in general, there is no final measure or meaning to it. There is no a priori reason to suppose that even logic is capable absolute faithfulness
	However, adaptation implies that Intuition must have sufficient if implicit faithfulness. We will see that, in general, there is a sense and value in terms of which sufficient faithfulness defines the objects of our world. These general considerations do not imply that there can be no areas of high precision. Physical science is an area of high precision
	•We will explore and find directions of limited faithfulness and of limitlessness. There are some areas in which faithfulness can be given absolute meaning. These directions will form, roughly, a metaphysical framework for the entire enterprise of Intuition
	Some absolute Logical limits will be found; note, though, the distinction between Logic and logic that will be developed later. The contingent or Normal limits may be negotiated and it is herein lies adventure
	•All Intuition has an Object
	The purposes to the introduction of this assertion, its meaning and significance are roughly those of the corresponding statement for experience in what follows
	Experience, concept and reference
	•‘Experience’ is the subject side of Intuition. ‘Experience’ connects our being to being. These thoughts emerge as truth in what follows
	The idea of experience—feeling
	Experience may be characterized as what is felt when there is awareness—this is the meaning of ‘experience’ as used here. This meaning is used extensively in the study of mind. In the following, the audience should exclude all other meanings of ‘experience’ except when they are explicitly used
	In the subjective awareness of a shape, a quality such as fragrance, a thought, an emotion, an intention to act, and in the feeling of one’s body in motion—in all these there is feeling—primitive and compound, iconic or distanced from the object—symbolic, bound as in perception and free as in thought whose icons and symbols are, roughly, ‘memory traces’… In the present sense, experience is synonymous with feeling
	•All experience has an object
	Exceptions—pure experience. The Objects of pure experience may be seen as a potential Objects. However, it will be seen in Metaphysics that every experience has an Object
	Objection—solipsism—the idea that experience alone exists. Response—see the section on Objections and counterarguments—Experience and existence—for this and further objections
	The concept of an Object is the sum of experience of it—enhanced by the capacities of experience
	Since we never get fully outside Intuition or experience, the concept defines the Object. Except when the distinction is significant, e.g. when attempting to understand the nature of Objects, it is convenient and valid to conflate concept and Object.
	While we read law and form as concepts, what is read, Law and Form are Object-like and are immanent in being. Later, Law and Form may be seen as Objects
	Critical objection—since we never get outside experience, the meaning of faithfulness is in question. Response. Adaptation—that we negotiate the world with some success—implies that there is at least partial and sufficient though implicit faithfulness and, further, that there is no universal logical wanting or desire of anything beyond this. In fact, of course, there are common and scientific cases of ‘extreme’ accuracy. The discussion is taken up again in Experience
	Since the foregoing is a very condensed form of Kant’s argument—and includes both perception and thought—such Objects may be called ‘Kantian’ or Intuitive
	Intuitive (Kantian) Objects include the cases of concept in inseparable interaction with process and ‘immersion’
	Exception—illusion, hallucination and delusion. These cases may be subsumed under—group—process and trial and error
	We will see in Metaphysics that, despite reservations associated with subsumption under process, there are immensely important cases of absolute faithfulness—the necessary Objects. The necessary Objects are also Intuitive; to distinguish those Intuitive Objects that are not necessary; they will be called Contingent Intuitive or, simply, Contingent—or Normal
	While the necessary Objects are important, most Objects of our world that we deal with on a practical and day to day basis are Contingent or Normal. While these cannot be absolutely faithful, they may be sufficiently faithful. It is necessarily the case, from adaptation, that there are sufficiently faithful Normal Objects. It is revealed in Metaphysics, that this practical necessity lies within Logical necessity. The sufficiently faithful Normal Objects include cases high precision as in common perception and action and immense precision as in physical science
	That is, whatever the limitations of experience, intuition and the Intuitive Objects, there are very significant ways above in which these limits are peripheral to our being and other very significant ways that follow in which the limits are absolutely overcome
	With regard to faithfulness, Objects are either necessary or Normal. Later it is seen that the Normal Objects have a kind of necessity but not in the immediate way of the necessary Objects
	Exception—contradiction. The problem of contradiction is taken up briefly in the discussion immediately below and in detail in subsequent discussions, Objects and On Logic… The problem of contradiction, i.e. of Logic, is already implicitly though incompletely accounted for in symbolic and iconic Intuition. Consequently, concerns about contradiction need not cast their neurotic shadow on every practical moment. However, Intuition is not at all a priori complete with regard to Logical concerns and therefore Logic and the logics are topics of importance to be taken up subsequently
	Necessity of complete reference
	Although illusory ‘Objects’ do not exist in this cosmological system, it will be seen later that every consistent concept has an Object
	For the Object of reference to lie in a specific context, every ‘atom’ of the concept should have reference in the same context. If all such atoms have reference in a context, the concept has reference in that context
	Existence
	Subtitle: The idea of Demonstration
	Experience in itself exists—as demonstration of the existence of Objects of experience this is of course ‘sophistry’ even though true (since, as will be seen, experience is capable of being its own object)
	The Object of the concept exists. Applicable objections, especially solipsism, are stated above and resolved as noted
	The Object is Capitalized. Capitalization at the beginning of a sentence is shown by an altered font. Capitalization is also used for Special Meanings. Since, as will be seen, such special meanings are often ultimate, the two uses of Capitalization are mostly consistent. It is not necessary to be entirely consistent about this use or to maintain it invariably
	Objection. Various concerns regarding ‘existence.’ These objections, some well known, are stated and resolved in Objections and counterarguments—Experience and existence
	•Thus existence is a proper concept; there is existence
	From the discussion of the Objections, it is seen that the proof lies in what is given in experience and analysis of the name ‘existence.’ This ‘proves’ by example the possibility of Demonstration—proof that requires no unproven axiom. This concept is further developed below
	Since we never get outside experience, the idea of precise and final lexical meaning is without ‘meaning.’ Meaning incorporates Intuitive—Normal—and implicit as well as necessary and explicit objectivity; this means that meaning has no final mooring in general; however, this is good for that is the way it is and stands at the beginning of and allows discovery; and, it shows, that meaning is already empirical
	Being
	•Being—that which has existence in its entirety. There is being
	See Objections and counterarguments—Being—for observations, objections and responses
	Global and local description
	Description may be local or over all space and time. Since space and time or space-time may perhaps not be the only ‘coordinates’ of difference, we use the distinction global versus local (rather than spatio-temporal.) It is not at all clear that there is a universal coordination. Thus description may be patchy, i.e., limited with respect to large and small
	The words ‘is,’ ‘exist,’ and ‘being’ may be used globally andor locally. In the global sense being includes becoming