Intuition vs. Projection

Wow, that is kind of amazing, because this is exactly what I've been thinking about since last night. In fact, I was talking to Dan about intuition on the phone last night. I think your definitions are good. They make sense to me.

I believe our socialization is very hard on our intuition, because it teaches us to distrust it. But everyone projects, and one really needs to mindful of that. So basically I think your post is very timely and makes a lot of sense.

After our latest discussion I kept thinking, "don't these people know when they are being lied to or not?" Then I remembered that only about 1% of the population tests accurately for that. But then I really believe we know much, much more even about mundane matters than most people realize. And I think we are socialized into doubting that to the point of not killing it exactly, but teaching us to ignore it. Parts of our minds, actually get really angry at us for not listening to them, and that is something you have to deal with when you reconnect, an angry, sulky attitude. But intuition is not an isolated esoteric ability, it works in concert with reason, and I always try to understand people's motivation. If I know what they want, and don't want, that goes a long way toward figuring out what is reliable in what they say.

But projection, that is a complicating factor, because that is basically subconcious as well. Knowing intuition from projection, I think you have to really be honest with yourself about your motivations for a long time, and then be on guard and a little skeptical. Because we all are deluded and good at fooling ourselves. So knowing what we desire and are afraid of helps.

So out of Jungian theory some Therapists/Academics developed the Myers Briggs Personality Exam. This is similar to the Aneagram in that it groups people into different personality types. There are 16 possible personality types in the Myers Briggs system. These are derived from 4 pairs of mental functions or capacities that we all supposedly have, but in this theory one will be dominate, and according to the theory we can only do one or the other at any given moment.

The paired functions or qualities are Extrovert/Introvert Thinking/Feeling Sensing/Intuition and Judging/Perceiving and each of these eight have their own definitions within the theory.

So if you are more comfortable with intuition than sensing, you will tend to be tuned into different things. For instance "Sensing" types make the best witnesses, because they can tell you what someone they talked to was wearing, what they looked like, and what was going on in the place they met. A lot of this kind of information goes right past Intuiting types. They can walk past a new paint job 50 times and not notice it for example. They can tell you all kinds of things about a person's state of mind or emotional state, though. Lousy for the witness box, because that is all "subjective" information.

As a culture, America, and Northern Europe are both strongly Sensing. Which means about 80% of white folks are sensing types, and we privledge sensing information in about every level of education, business and socialization. As a culture we strongly distrust intuition.

All these mental functions are equal from the standpoint of Buddhism from what I can tell. I don't think Buddhism privledges one or the other side, and they also have their own systems and classifications of course.

Now when I said you have to deal with an angry, sulky attitude when you reconnect, I meant that is from within our own minds. In my experience, being a very intuitive person to begin with, which I think is just trusting one's capacity to take in and process information in a holistic fashion, I gradually become more familiar with greater portions of my own mind. All subconscious is dark and filled with suppressed emotion, so as you explore your mind from an intuitive point of view, you get reactions that can be suspicious or angry or lusty or all kinds of things coming up in your own mind. But they lighten up with the light of day. It is a gradual thing.

And I think the subconscious, what we call the subconscious in the West, is the largest part of our minds. I know Rudy doesn't care for the term, but I have heard good teachers and translators from all 4 schools use it.

Anyway, this is something to be aware of. Some people are going to be more comfortable with intuition than others. Neither type or none of the 16 types are better than the others, IMO.

Thank you...
One of the reasons why I value Mahamudra practice so highly is that through the intense focus on the nature of our mind it allows us to become very familiar with all of its aspects and processes. Through years of meditation in this way I believe we can develop a real 'sensitivity' that alerts us when adventitious influences become present. There isn't anything magical... it's like becoming very familiar with anything really. Having identified the pure nature of anything and repeatedly becoming familiar with it we have a better chance of detecting when a 'pollutant' has infiltrated.

Another indication for me that something is truly intuitive is when it seems to appear from 'left field' and is 'other' oriented. If something seems to arise from an easily identified source then it seems too much like a 'gross' thought and I become suspicious. That doesn't mean that everything that 'pops' into my mind is to be regarded as intuitive... not at all. It's simply one of the criteria which I use as a guide.

In addition, when I consider action based upon these notions, if they are 'other' centric then it's certainly virtuous but it's usually the outcome that helps me confirm whether it was intuitive, retrospectively.

Tricky stuff...

I know the real definition of the conventional nature of the mind is "clear and aware". However, sometimes I think of it as an "environment", "arena" or "forum". Movement within this area constitutes thoughts and conceptions of varying degrees of subtlety.

BTW, Alex Berzin says about "clear and aware":
"Clarity" is glossed in Tibetan as "arising" – the same word used for the rising or dawning of the sun. "Being clear about something" or "making something clear," then, actually refer to the "arising of something" or the event of "making something arise," although, again, with no implication of passivity or lack of responsibility on the one hand, or conscious will on the other. The expression, "giving rise to something," perhaps minimizes connotation of these two extremes.
The English term "awareness," however, is also misleading. The Tibetan term is explained as an engaging with or relating to an object. Unlike the English words "engagement" or "relation," however, the Tibetan carries no connotation of an emotional bond. Being detached about something is also a form of engagement with it or a way of relating to it. The Tibetan word translated here as "engagement" or "relation" literally means an "entering into something." It connotes doing something cognitive with an object.

So, with clarity also meaning arising and awareness also meaning engaging the picture now has much greater depth, like going from 2D to 3D.

I like to think about this...