I think Primary Thinking -- that concept, expressed in those words -- is one of the most useful and powerful ideas you've come up with, and I would hate to see it replaced by the much weaker "Intuitive Knowing," which sounds as if it has something to do with following hunches and gut feelings rather than, you know, creating the universe. "Knowing," even with the participial suffix, denotes the passive registering of whatever is already the case, whereas "thinking" can be active and creative. You can "think up" something new, but you can only "know" what already exists.
Fair point in theory - but the test is actual practice. Are you actively trying to reorientate your life towards final participation, as first priority?
But surely terminology relates to theory rather than practice -- unless you find that the term "Intuitive Knowing" motivates you to take appropriate action in a way that "Primary Thinking" does not.
I actually like the terminology of intuitive knowing, it’s more intelligible to me than primary thinking. Although intuition has gotten confused with emotional movements of the soul my understanding is that in Aquinas and others it was the basic way human beings perceive the world around them. It is the basis of Chesterton common sense. I even listened to a fascinating sermon recently where the priest said that devils have the most influence over imagination, significant influence over emotion, some influence over reason, but the least if any influence over intuition. Our intuitions may be fallible, but they are the least likely to be actively demonic and that’s something serious.
Primary thinking looking at the words themselves should be just as intelligible, but intuitive knowledge just seems like a quicker way to get to the same meaning for me if I understand you correctly.
The blog reflects the movements of my own thinking, which reflects my spiritual 'struggles' - and I was finding Primary Thinking keeps on pushing me into trying to develop a technique. So I'm trying out a different way of framing things...
However you choose to frame it, I find your work on this topic engaging and vital.
17 April 2019 at 13:00
I have written a fair but about Primary Thinking in an attempt to clarify what Owen Barfield meant by Final Participation.
The difficulty with the 'thinking' aspect of the term, is that most of thinking is not primary - and I have felt a misleading temptation to strive to attain a new and different 'method' of thinking - perhaps a meditation technique. I know this is an error, and method/ technique is not a path to wisdom - but the call to change the mode of thinking seems to lead in that direction...
I am currently finding it more helpful to think of what I am aiming at in terms of Intuitive Knowing, with a metal emphasis on the 'ing' aspect of knowing - that intuitively know-ing something is not a thing static and categorical, but an active process; the attribute of a conscious Being.
And, for me, Intuitive Knowing is a proper goal however is may be achieved, by whatever method or technique or by none at all. I need to know intuitively - that is the goal; and how this best happens may vary widely or open-endedly according to the unique situation.
My understanding is that - in life - there is a lot which we 'know' in a shallow, contingent, secondhand fashion; but that the aim is to base all knowledge, thought, action on only that which we know directly and intuitively - know for our-selves, from that of us which is divine.
In this mortal life, intuitive knowing only happens sometimes and temporarily - it cannot be attained as a permanent state. That is sad but not tragic; because this mortal life (for those of us who have it, the minority of Men who survive the womb and early childhood) is a time of experiencing and learning - a vital yet transitional phase.
This mortal life is a time of change - the one thing impossible is any fixed state of Being. Fixity is not an option. This situation intrinsically maximises our experience; we must keep learning, because we always keep experiencing change.
Since I am still alive, I have more that I ought-to learn; more situations in which I need to discern and rely-upon direct and intuitive knowing. Beyond death - if I actively wish it - I could live eternally in a state where intuitive knowing is the norm.
But clearly, for me, there is value in continuing to live here, now, in my situation; because there are things that I can learn best in mortality.
My conclusion is that I should seek intuitive knowing; but should not despair that it is an exceptional state that cannot be held-onto. Not holding-onto is one of the things I must learn.
"Intuitive Knowing seems a better term than Primary Thinking"
7 Comments -
I think Primary Thinking -- that concept, expressed in those words -- is one of the most useful and powerful ideas you've come up with, and I would hate to see it replaced by the much weaker "Intuitive Knowing," which sounds as if it has something to do with following hunches and gut feelings rather than, you know, creating the universe. "Knowing," even with the participial suffix, denotes the passive registering of whatever is already the case, whereas "thinking" can be active and creative. You can "think up" something new, but you can only "know" what already exists.
16 April 2019 at 08:54
Fair point in theory - but the test is actual practice. Are you actively trying to reorientate your life towards final participation, as first priority?
16 April 2019 at 10:00
But surely terminology relates to theory rather than practice -- unless you find that the term "Intuitive Knowing" motivates you to take appropriate action in a way that "Primary Thinking" does not.
16 April 2019 at 10:41
@Yes that's what I mean, as I tried to express in the post.
16 April 2019 at 10:43
I actually like the terminology of intuitive knowing, it’s more intelligible to me than primary thinking. Although intuition has gotten confused with emotional movements of the soul my understanding is that in Aquinas and others it was the basic way human beings perceive the world around them. It is the basis of Chesterton common sense. I even listened to a fascinating sermon recently where the priest said that devils have the most influence over imagination, significant influence over emotion, some influence over reason, but the least if any influence over intuition. Our intuitions may be fallible, but they are the least likely to be actively demonic and that’s something serious.
Primary thinking looking at the words themselves should be just as intelligible, but intuitive knowledge just seems like a quicker way to get to the same meaning for me if I understand you correctly.
17 April 2019 at 02:40
@Michael
The blog reflects the movements of my own thinking, which reflects my spiritual 'struggles' - and I was finding Primary Thinking keeps on pushing me into trying to develop a technique. So I'm trying out a different way of framing things...
17 April 2019 at 06:16
However you choose to frame it, I find your work on this topic engaging and vital.
17 April 2019 at 13:00