Intuition - Origin and Definition

[Wyote]

Cool, yeah I'm pretty aware of what I'm doing thanks lol

That you have stated that I'm not being barred places an idea in the minds of other that they could be barred if they don't think or believe in the same manner as you (regardless of your intent)

Yeah, my bad. I meant it directly and specifically to you in a direct response to you taking issue with me expressing my own opinions.

If you contribute by saying derogatory things about a person (which you have repeatedly in this case)

Again, I only did this in response to you and what you've said and assumed about me.
If you knock that off, I will just as quickly do the same.
So I mean I can just say nothing at any point and allow anyone to do anything really, that's very easy.
Or I can push back and get a better sense of what is really meaningful.
I've come to understand you and your motives and desires quite a bit and you've come to understand how this community functions a bit better hopefully.
I'm indirectly asking; Do you want to be a meaningful participant in this community or do you merely want to view people here as though they are data points and/or a means to an end.
You've worked with big data, maybe you should ask yourself if you've lost sight of the human element.
I'm not insinuating that you have, I'm just saying it's a good thing to be reminded of, for anyone.

Different environments call for different behaviors
Intuition amirite

 

[Wyote]

Just hook me up to an AI mind reader.
All your irritations will flush away.

 

[TomasM]

Cool, yeah I'm pretty aware of what I'm doing thanks lol

Obviously this is incorrect or you wouldn't have to ask.

Yeah, my bad. I meant it directly and specifically to you in a direct response to you taking issue with me expressing my own opinions.

You don't understand your roll as an administrator. Expressing an opinion about a topic is perfectly understandable, expressing an unfounded derogatory opinion about a person is is not ok by any administrator within the operation of the site. If you have a problem with a person then you can message them directly in private.

Again, I only did this in response to you and what you've said and assumed about me.

I said nothing about you in this thread. In fact, I have disengaged from you entirely because you are unhelpful and I find no value in what you do. That's why I talk directly to the other administrators and not you.

If you knock that off, I will just as quickly do the same.
So I mean I can just say nothing at any point and allow anyone to do anything really, that's very easy.

I can't teach you how to be a good administrator.

Or I can push back and get a better sense of what is really meaningful.
I've come to understand you and your motives and desires quite a bit and you've come to understand how this community functions a bit better hopefully.

If you believe your job is determine what is meaningful then this site is in trouble. You are a steward of information and the rules, processes, and procedures are your guideline. The role your are assuming is one of a complete control over speech.

A community is a compilation of the people. When I joined I became a part of this community and should be treated with respect and fairness.

You obviously don't understand me because if you did then you would know that I don't care to speak with you because your contribution in my threads have provided negative value.

I'm indirectly asking; Do you want to be a meaningful participant in this community or do you merely want to view people here as though they are data points and/or a means to an end.

I have never treated anyone as a means to an end. I have asked for nothing from anyone other than a discussion in the topics I've posted. If there is anyone that has a means to an end it is you who seeks to promote your own self importance and the expense of the site.

You've worked with big data, maybe you should ask yourself if you've lost sight of the human element.
I'm not insinuating that you have, I'm just saying it's a good thing to be reminded of, for anyone.

I have not worked with big data and I never said that. You obviously do not know what big data means and how that differs from what I said.

By saying it you are in fact insinuating it. That you say you're not insinuating it doesn't not change the fact that you did insinuate it. This is a derogatory and unfounded attack on me and a poor reflection on the ownership of the site. It is bad stewardship at best. Still you continue to make false assumptions and judge me when I have done nothing wrong and violated no rules.

Intuition amirite

This image clearly illustrates my point. You are talking down to your customer base and putting yourself self in a position of grandiose superiority. That you can't even see it is disheartening to all of the sites patrons.

You have literally ruined this thread with your self importance. How can I have a good discussion about intuition when you have literally crapped all over it with this childish outburst.

 

[Wyote]

Obviously this is incorrect or you wouldn't have to ask.

I didn't ask anything
I see we aren't getting anywhere here which is unfortunate.
Big mainframes, big data, the point was you were asserting big knowledge, which I just found humorous.
Anyway, I can't be bothered to sort through all of your misunderstandings here. I tried.

 

[John K]

Just a word of warning Tomas - I do tend to phrase things in language that sounds like statement. It's the old Enneagram 5 thing! These are meant as ideas to explore rather than hard edged, except where I describe my own inner experience of course.

My intent is to gain a fuller understanding of intuition through the aggregate. I do not wish to attempt to create a competitive environment where right and wrong drives egos towards a single definition. Jung was an amazing genius and has given us a gift with his insight into the conscious and unconscious mind. In my opinion we would not be honoring him if we didn't make a concerted effort to grow the understanding in a similar manner that Einstein further developed his theory of gravity in the shadow of Newton. This is not to suggest that we are as capable as Einstein but that doesn't mean we can't collectively grow the understanding through a group of high intuitives with access to a world of information (the internet).

Sorry about that - I wasn't intending to suggest you were. I was just clarifying my own position, which is that most different concepts of intuition are valid within their own conceptual frameworks - which means that it's important to be clear which one is being used in order to understand the meaning intent. I agree that they are all interesting and several of them are important parts of language in that they encapsulate different nuances of meaning in unique ways. Almost always though, when I myself use the term in relation to my own intuition, I mean as defined by Jung.

I think the story of intuition in scientific insight is fascinating. It's only part of the story though - William Blake's intuition was off the scale.

I share this trait and experience. We are truly a minority of internal depth surrounded by a majority driven by their shallow sensory functions. Yet I have found great joy in appreciating the sensory genius for the experience and awareness they foster around us.

I'm not comfortable about the value judgement here. I can understand where it comes from - many years ago, I got stuck with a group of ESTP computer salesmen on a trip from the UK to LA, and it was (nearly) hell on earth. But that's because they were so very different in how they related to the world rather than because they were by definition shallow. I come across shallow intuitives as well so it's not function-based. Some of the most impressive sensor types I met were the ISTP craftsmen I met while working in the Antarctic. These guys thought with their hands and, as I got to know them, I got this amazement and appreciation for their way of being - so very different from my own and so very engaged with the way they worked that was as much beyond me as my ways were beyond them. Like me, and like all introverted intuitives, they bring the world into themselves rather than projecting their sense of identity out into it like the extroverts, but they identify with the substance of what's out there where I identify with the patterns within me that relate to what's out there to a greater or lesser degree.

It was not my intent to suggest that a person is only sensory or only intuitive as that would be counter to the underlying foundation of dichotomies. Instead I look at why someone chooses to lean more towards the intuitive over the sensory. When I wrote this question I was specifically thinking about discussions I've had with highly intuitive people who have expressed an awareness of physical sensory deprivation.

This led me to empathize with those that are highly sensory and my conclusion was that: why would a person with highly developed senses that produced an amazing experience of reality (perhaps teetering on the euphoric at the highest level) ever choose to prefer intuition. Similarly, why would someone with an extremely high level of intuition prefer it unless that feeling of "euphoria" was somewhat diminished.

I'm not suggesting that the sensory is diminished only that the question should be explored and that there is value in understanding why more people prefer one over the other.

I really like how you challenged this assertion and I can be okay with either outcome if the information leads us in that direction.

The crucial word here is 'choice'. We cannot consciously choose our preferred functions any more than we can choose which hand we prefer - it's determined in a combination of our genes and our infancy. We can try and consciously over-ride that but the experience is, by analogy, like training yourself to use your left hand when you are naturally right-handed. You may well become quite proficient, but you'll never become at home with it like a native type does. It will drain your energy and you'll have a hard time keeping up with people who are proficient natives of that type. I experienced this before I retired working in a very NT environment and lived a lot of the time in my Ti - and it was very tiring as I can see with hindsight.

Why an infant should develop one way rather than another sounds fascinating and it may well have environmental components, but there will not be any rational choice as far as I can see. When people do experience a change of type, it's because they were mis-typed before. I tested out as borderline INFP/J when I first came across MBTI, but I'm not at all like the people I've subsequently met who obviously are of these types.

Something you may be interested in is that in my photography I seem to go through a short circuit between Ni and Se as I take a picture. I rarely set up a photograph carefully and systematically - I explore a scene with my camera hand held and take what looks right in the viewfinder. There's obviously judgement in the selection but that's almost subliminal in relationship to the dance between what I see and how I feel about it's structure and it's atmosphere. In capturing the picture, I'm synthesising what's out there and also infusing my emotional reaction to it.

I agree that everyone has both the intuitive and sensory capacity. I also believe that there are people who have a high proficiency on both sides of a given dichotomy yet choose to prefer the opposite for various reasons. For example, a person could have the intuitive capacity of a god (metaphor) and still prefer the sensory for its experience.

That said, if a person who preferred the sensory over their intuition attempted to use their intuition daily in their functions, wouldn't it be deficient? For example, if their cognitive functions were fine tuned to the sensory wouldn't they lack the ability to call their intuition quickly in a moments notice from the unconscious mind? If the mind and brain are fine tuned over a long period of time doesn't it start to lose at least some of its potential in that capacity? Also, if the brain can't quickly make an unconscious choice through intuition doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it?

The development of intuition can be incredibly valuable if it can be a plug and play scenario but is the mind truly capable of achieving this when it is conditioned for the opposite side of a dichotomy. If a person prefers the far side of the sensory spectrum could they ever achieve Ni and how close does someone need to be to Ni in order to find value using it in the real world? I don't know the answers to this but I do find value in understanding both sides of that coin.

Just to develop my thoughts further - in many ways my Se is as much a give-away about my type as is Ni. It was hard work living in Ti for much of my working days before I retired, but I am good at it - I did maths at uni (too many years ago) and I was good at that. But even so, it tired me and I couldn't compete with the best, who were dominant T's. In maths, you have to go a long way running on Ti before you get to the innovative areas that are Ni hunting grounds. But Se - I start to space out if I over-indulge. Some sensors can drive safely all day, and it seems to relax them and energise them - it knackers me after about 2 hours, and I've overwhelmed quickly by the sensory input in a noisy bar or party. I'm in a dream as I walk about and I have to hope my body knows where I'm going a lot of the time while I'm on the other side of the universe, or hiking up Mount Doom. There's no way I could ever live by choice in Se - maybe I could last longer in Si but there I'd not resist being drawn out into the inner majik lol. What I do have is the way my Se fills the world with a glow of mystery and spirit - as my least conscious function it seems to spray fairy dust all over everything out there!

YES, it was valuable and thank you for taking the time to respond. I like it when you challenge both sides of my preconceived ideas and keep me centered on understanding the complete picture. I certainly have my own biases and having a group to keep that it check will always be preferred.

It's been useful for me too to go over this ground again. As you probably realise though from the threads out there in the forum, there has been a lot of discussion about such things over the years. I fear I'm repeating much of what I've already said in the past, but then it's often good to go back over old ground and see if things look different. I'm intrigued by your OP which actually sounded more like an INTP analytical approach than an INFJ one. I started to wonder if intuition could really be approached that way - I don't think it can. But then a synoptic view of what is out there in the concepts and the literature, and how individuals relate to it all, certainly can. But in the end the acid tests is - do we know what intuition feels like within and, if we confident it is intuition that we are using, how do all the models and concepts out there stack up against these?

 

[TomasM]

I didn't ask anything

Your word:
"What of my own need to collaborate and explore? What of my own agenda?
How do we make room for INFJs to explore themselves while you endeavor to view intuition/INFJs under a microscope?"

I see we aren't getting anywhere here which is unfortunate.

Oh no, you have gone somewhere.

Big mainframes, big data, the point was you were asserting big knowledge, which I just found humorous.

I've never heard the term "big knowledge", but I am familiar with experience on how to administer systems on a large scale. I am also familiar with the term big ego.

Anyway, I can't be bothered to sort through all of your misunderstandings here. I tried.

As an administrator it is literally your job to understand, show constraint, operate by the rules, and offer a first rate experience to patrons. That's the role of an administrator even if you don't want to be bothered by it.

You are a bully.

 

[Wyote]

Those were earlier hypothetical questions I genuinely wanted to engage with but you chose to attack me further for some reason.

I've only ever been called a bully by bullies

 

[Wyote]

I should probably clarify.
I've never been called a bully a single time IRL. Not once, nor have I had any kind of interaction with people where I'm some kind of aggressor in their eyes.
Online it has happened maybe a few times on this forum only.
Really makes me chuckle every time.

 

[TomasM]

Those were earlier hypothetical questions I genuinely wanted to engage with but you chose to attack me further for some reason.

You never wanted to engage. Here is your first post in this thread:

"It's not selfishness, it's that others literally cannot/will not understand and trying to get them to understand merely breeds conflict 99% of the time.
I have lived the life of the fearless fool in one of my past lives. The only thing it accomplishes is personal psychological damage.
Many people have come to this site wanting to run their own self serving experiments regarding intuition, which is actual selfishness lmao."

You literally refuted what I said and never sought to understand how what I was saying may actually be true. You made the post completely about your life experience and then followed it up with an attack on me by inferring that I was conducting some kind of experiment regarding intuition and that I was selfish in doing so. Even after I explained that I was not pursing an agenda and that everyone was free to use the information you never reflected on your actions and considered how your words might have been unfounded, harmful and hurtful.

You've attacked me personally, my ideas, my motives, and attempted to twist every word I've said. To what end is this helpful to this thread and dialogue? There were plenty of people engaging prior to your outburst and it's obvious that other people found value and appreciation in the effort I was making. Was it really so hard for you to allow everyone to do what they literally come here to do without using your power to cause a disruption.

Perhaps it wasn't a previous life, I mean how do you really know? Maybe, just maybe, it is causing psychological damage now.

I've only ever been called a bully by bullies

Well, it all makes sense now. Those that are raised in an environment of bullies justify their actions with the very thing they are doing. And your GIF demonstrates how your are completely apathetic about your role as an administrator and how you treat people.

 

[Wyote]

Like I said, I can't undo all of your misinterpretations at this point.

I could go line by line explaining all the nuances but now your mind is set so it's best to just move on.

It is unfortunate, as I said.
Yes I am very apathetic in situations like this because I understand the futility.

Some people get me, some people don't.
That's the way of things.

 

[TomasM]

There is no misinterpretation, it's in black and white. You did the same thing in two separate threads I created with absolutely no justification. It was unfounded, rude, and unprofessional. You have reflected poorly on this site and anyone that your represent as an administrator.

It's easy to say "that's the way of things" as you use power to attack people unjustifiably.

I have broken no rules and violated no policies yet you talk about barring me while attacking me in every way possible

In my discussions with others I was led to believe that the reason so many people left here was because there were bullies. Then the bullies were supposedly removed and others people left because of friendships and connections. I couldn't understand why so many of the veteran contributors (very good people) chose to disengage but now I see that one problem was replaced with another.

I cannot and will not continue contributing to a site where an administrator will blow up my thread with accusations and attacks. It requires far too much effort to formulate well thought out content all for one person to take a big dump on it. I will not help others who will not help their self.

 

[Wyote]

Just wait until you find out how bad I am at walking

 

[just me]

I'm older than most here, and highly spiritual, Thomas. Intuition comes and goes and in different amounts at times.

A man sat next to me while having breakfast about 3 months after I fired him. I asked him what he was doing sitting next to me. He said he could eat anywhere he wanted whenever he wanted.

Immediately, my thoughts were this: "you definitely won't be eating here in the morning, because your son BXXXX is going to die in the morning and you will be there instead of here." I thought how rude my thoughts were, and turned back to finish eating. Was I hoping his son, a cocky thief, would die to keep him away? Maybe I just imagined it?

I received a phone call about 5:15 AM the next day from one of my best friends who worked with his son. I answered the phone, but was dazed and half asleep. He was talking wild, fast, and loud. He said, "just me, Bxxxx just died in a car accident." I interrupted him and said, "That was yesterday." He said it just happened less than ten minutes ago." He asked if I was OK. I asked if I could call him later, then went back to sleep thinking it might be a bad dream.

The guy's blood sugar fell, causing him to go into a diabetic coma. He ran into a large bridge support and burned.

Just told that to a good friend, who told me that was heavy intuition. Things have happened similarly over many years. I have to be cautious of what I say and what I think. What would you think, Thomas? Is God sharing things with me? Maybe He is teaching me to think positively? Forgiveness? Do I have a third eye? Intuition? I have my own thoughts, but would love to hear yours, @ ThomasM.

 

[Umai]

She's a bit heavy going for me but I sometimes dip into my Portable Hannah Arendt and I'm struck by her relentless insights in every paragraph. (She's an INTP.) She seems to dispense with the outward form of a concept and quickly expose its essence. I think Einstein (another INTP) said that “the first act of insight is to dispense with the labels”.

I'm not sure I like to take ideas that have possibly esoteric roots and couch them in the framework of science. Is it genetic or environmental in origin? Maybe it's neither? Maybe it's something more existential? Maybe, for example, it has parallels in ancient spiritual ideas of 'attachment'?

Maybe a kind of fear drives most people to attach to the outward form of things? The outward form of ethics(morality); of feeling (sentimentality); of ideas (ideologies); of spirituality, mysticism and faith (religion, ritual and belief) and so on.

That attachment to outward form can be seen everywhere, from chain store fashions to generic interior design trends, sentimental music and kitschy art, religious fundamentalism and received morality. Maybe the fear becomes mere habit, and habit becomes comforting?

Maybe it's in a weaker attachment to form, a lesser need for that existential grounding, that so-called intuition lies? Maybe, given enough inherent intelligence, when the weight of form is removed intuition can flourish?

When the labels are removed the under lying relationships are clearer. And they can be reapplied across contexts. When morality is removed right and wrong become clearer. When sentimentality is removed motive becomes clearer. When belief is removed truth becomes clearer.

Jung gave a cognitive account of intuition. He also said somewhere that it was intuition that was the gateway to the spiritual. That seemed to me an ungainly conflation of the mundane and the esoteric, but perhaps less so if much of human psychic experience is seen as an ambivalent relationship with attachment and the need for grounding.

 

[Wyote]

when the weight of form is removed intuition can flourish?

I think Ni doms carry a lot less weight of form so yeah

 

[Umai]

Emily Bronte (a 4w5 or 5w4) had no known relationships, almost no association with anyone beyond her father and sisters, hardly ventured beyond her village and was dead by about 30. But the psychological insight she displayed into several character archetypes in Wuthering Heights was uncanny.

 

[aeon]

Similar to a certain cat, one may know the what, but not the where, or alternately, know precisely the spatiotemporal location, but the details remain a mystery.

Ni, as a form of intuition, provides a means to solve for both through a massively parallel, analog neural network of tuned resonance on the edge of self-oscillation, such that subsamples of deduction potentials are examined via fractal recursion, until the zoom matches the known variables, and boom...

It is known. The Ni user pets the kitty, and a soft purr is heard.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

Emily Bronte (a 4w5 or 5w4) had no known relationships, almost no association with anyone beyond her father and sisters, hardly ventured beyond her village and was dead by about 30. But the psychological insight she displayed into several character archetypes in Wuthering Heights was uncanny.

The more you understand people, the faster you are gonna run away from them

 

[TomasM]

I'm older than most here, and highly spiritual, Thomas. Intuition comes and goes and in different amounts at times.

A man sat next to me while having breakfast about 3 months after I fired him. I asked him what he was doing sitting next to me. He said he could eat anywhere he wanted whenever he wanted.

Immediately, my thoughts were this: "you definitely won't be eating here in the morning, because your son BXXXX is going to die in the morning and you will be there instead of here." I thought how rude my thoughts were, and turned back to finish eating. Was I hoping his son, a cocky thief, would die to keep him away? Maybe I just imagined it?

I received a phone call about 5:15 AM the next day from one of my best friends who worked with his son. I answered the phone, but was dazed and half asleep. He was talking wild, fast, and loud. He said, "just me, Bxxxx just died in a car accident." I interrupted him and said, "That was yesterday." He said it just happened less than ten minutes ago." He asked if I was OK. I asked if I could call him later, then went back to sleep thinking it might be a bad dream.

The guy's blood sugar fell, causing him to go into a diabetic coma. He ran into a large bridge support and burned.

Just told that to a good friend, who told me that was heavy intuition. Things have happened similarly over many years. I have to be cautious of what I say and what I think. What would you think, Thomas? Is God sharing things with me? Maybe He is teaching me to think positively? Forgiveness? Do I have a third eye? Intuition? I have my own thoughts, but would love to hear yours, @ ThomasM.

From my experience, the sharing of desired intuitive thoughts often diminishes the likely outcome. I've also recognized that selfless acts and acts of kindness related to intuition are more likely to produce the intuitive outcome. It's as if the positive actions are encouraging the outcome of the intuitive thought, BUT is it still an intuitive thought if the person is actively trying to create the outcome or has it shifted to something else. Sure, it can be intuition prior to choice and action but what is it becoming as it begins to spread across minds in the real world - an idea? I'm not suggesting that these statements are true but that this is merely my perception. It is very possible that doing kind or positive things has a way of entering the minds of many people and then resonating out into the collective consciousness. This can also happen with extreme negative thoughts.

I think your post really demonstrates both intuition and manifestation and how they can be intertwined. By definition, intuition is knowing something where the source of that knowledge is unknown. Manifestation is producing an outcome in the world through thoughts. I recognize that these definitions are coming from my memory and can certainly be more or less than I've stated but I'm really just trying to demonstrate the difference.

Over the past week I have been journaling about intuition as I examine information from Jung, Myers-Briggs and Keirsey. I've started to recognize that the brain (sensory) and mind (intuitive) are working in junction between the subjective and objective. That everyone uses both the sensory and intuitive to function but that some people rely more on the internal than the external in their approach to the world and that this is how the persons functions begin to align their temperament. Jung spoke about how intuition is connected to the unconscious mind and how it was a mystery. He understood how quickly a solution could be obtained through intuition and I believe the reason for this is because the answer is all being generated within the mind rather than attempting to gain it through the external world.

Any time the external world has to be engaged it will take significantly longer to come to a choice because the brain's ability to process the sensory takes much longer than if all of the information is in the mind. The brain can access visual information at an extremely high rate but that diminishes when we look to the auditory or other sensory abilities. If everything about the decision is in the mind, at least conceptually, then it can be processed faster than the visual. The mind can process many aspects all at once whereas the sensory is generally focused on something singular. The mind can merge many things together but it still requires at least a minimal amount of information about the question to begin.

There is also pain and pleasure that influence this process. When there is an experience that produced pain related to the question there will be an increased level of fear and associated level of intuitive avoidance (anxiety). The same can be said for pleasure in the inverse where it produces a greater level of intuitive engagement. For example, a person who was in a car accident might immediately reject riding in a car for various reasons. In contrast a person who gambled at the casino once and won big might immediately want to gamble the very next day because their mind is telling them it's a good thing. Finally, there are situations where the mind connects pleasure with pain and this can be dangerous if it grow extensively in the mind. I'll get Freudian and say that S&M could be a case where pain and pleasure mix. This brings the next point, intuition must be developed over time if it is to be effective at a high rate and if it is relied upon prior to being developed then it can produce a lower rate of success. We can look at our cognitive functions and corresponding age development and predict where intuitions is most likely to occur at a higher rate and on a broader platform.

This brings me to some big questions:
1. Where is the mind located? We may never fully know but it's a good question nonetheless.
2. How effective is intuition across the spectrum of types and can a type that has a low rate of success develop a high rate of success on a small platform.
3. Is intuition and manifestation connected? Manifestation would be outside the boundaries of this discussion if it is not connected.
4. If the sensory and intuitive dichotomy is the core of the temperament then does that change the flat model of letters and functions we currently use in MBTI?

I'm intuitively leaning towards a model that suggests the internal subjective are more coordinated and faster whereas the external and objective are supportive. To me, there would always be a higher rate of success if the developed mind was engaged more than the brain. I briefly wrote down all of these functions by category intuitively.

Internal (subjective mind): Introversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging
External (objective mind): Extroversion, Sensory, Feeling, Perceiving

When I think of the INTJ (Keirsey description: Rationalist, Mastermind) they are known for producing highly effective outcomes. Lots of wealthy engineers and CEO's
When I think of the ESFP (Keirsey description: Artisan: Performer) they are known for being less likely to produce an effective outcome. Lots of starving musicians out there.

I bet there is a correlation between successful musicians having a mastermind as their manager. Compatability is truly an incredible thing but also can lead to volatility.

 

[TomasM]

She's a bit heavy going for me but I sometimes dip into my Portable Hannah Arendt and I'm struck by her relentless insights in every paragraph. (She's an INTP.) She seems to dispense with the outward form of a concept and quickly expose its essence. I think Einstein (another INTP) said that “the first act of insight is to dispense with the labels”.

I'm not sure I like to take ideas that have possibly esoteric roots and couch them in the framework of science. Is it genetic or environmental in origin? Maybe it's neither? Maybe it's something more existential? Maybe, for example, it has parallels in ancient spiritual ideas of 'attachment'?

Maybe a kind of fear drives most people to attach to the outward form of things? The outward form of ethics(morality); of feeling (sentimentality); of ideas (ideologies); of spirituality, mysticism and faith (religion, ritual and belief) and so on.

That attachment to outward form can be seen everywhere, from chain store fashions to generic interior design trends, sentimental music and kitschy art, religious fundamentalism and received morality. Maybe the fear becomes mere habit, and habit becomes comforting?

Maybe it's in a weaker attachment to form, a lesser need for that existential grounding, that so-called intuition lies? Maybe, given enough inherent intelligence, when the weight of form is removed intuition can flourish?

When the labels are removed the under lying relationships are clearer. And they can be reapplied across contexts. When morality is removed right and wrong become clearer. When sentimentality is removed motive becomes clearer. When belief is removed truth becomes clearer.

Jung gave a cognitive account of intuition. He also said somewhere that it was intuition that was the gateway to the spiritual. That seemed to me an ungainly conflation of the mundane and the esoteric, but perhaps less so if much of human psychic experience is seen as an ambivalent relationship with attachment and the need for grounding.

I do believe that attachment, especially as it relates to avoidance, plays a big role in the development of intuition.

I also think you are correct when you suggest things are more existential but as a people and society today, we demand the scientific for understanding prior to embracing our true potential. From my perspective, this has been driven by rapid expansion through the use of finance and technology and our fear of collapse without it. If we are to overcome this global groupthink then there will have to be a group that emerges and demonstrates its proficiency.

Jung was doing the best he could with what he had available. I think it was easy for him to see the mind as separate from the brain in a similar way that we see the soul as being separate from the body. It's not a big jump for him to land on the spiritual, which was much more at the forefront of society than it is today. I think we really have to understand the difference between the brain and the mind if we are to fully know.

I love your view points on this, it made me smile.