The main problem that all scientists and objectivists in general have had is the problem of the intuitive function. It is the most important function hierarchically because it is the spark of life itself. It is the spiritual.
Intuitive types often make the problem of understanding this function worse by appealing to it as the basis for an answer they will give to some question, as in, “I just know because of Intuition.”
Without the intuitive function there would be no other functions. The intuitive function is the most misunderstood of all because it is the one function that transcends duality. Duality is the basis of mind, or in Jungian terms, the thinking function.
The intuitive function has a direct relationship with the sensation function in the sense that it is a form of perception. Unlike the thinking function, the intuitive function does not require deliberation or weighing to arrive somewhere. Intuition is the direct apprehension of reality much like the sensation function. However, with the sensation function we do not question its mode of arriving somewhere. When you see something, you just see it. When you hear something, you just hear it. The intuitive function is like an extended form of the sensory function. The intuitive sees what is not there or what could be there.
A thought is something that can be explained via language by the defining of terms and the ordering and sequencing of those terms. Logical and mathematical thinking hold very exacting criteria for what constitutes a coherent thought.
Intellect is part intuitive. The refinement of the intellect is the thinking function, but the primary energy and fire of intellect is intuitive.
The intuitive function is powerful because it is able to arrive at the kernel of insight in a flash of inspiration, bypassing logical steps to arrive there. I would even assert that you cannot arrive at the place the intuitive does by logic because the destination of the intuitive lies in the realm of perception. The thinking function does not perceive. It judges.
The intuitive function is seen as dangerous by many of the thinking temperament because it is bound up with the function of belief. Belief does not have to be backed up by a rational construct. One is right because they have seen the truth. So, it is easy to see that the intuitive type could have been responsible for many bloody religious wars and the Inquisition.
However, I would argue that it is not the intuitive that does this but the misinterpretation of the doctrine of the intuitive, those that literalize the intuitive, like a lot of the preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t mean to suggest that the intuitive has never harmed anyone, however, the intuitive function does not fall into the sphere of morality. The moral faculties seem to originate from the judging functions; thinking and feeling.
The intuitive can be right in essence even when he is wrong on some other plane. Like Tony Montana, the central character of the movie Scarface says, “I tell the truth, even when I lie.” The intuitive function can never be wrong in the dualistic sense of the term because it transcends the sphere of right and wrong. From the perspective of the intuitive, the only thing that is wrong is all that is against the spiritual.
The spiritual is the concept of unity in mathematics. It is the number that is present in all other numbers.
The ideas of “right or wrong” and “true or false” are meaningless at the level of the intuitive. There is something true about the intuitive type even when they are factually wrong. If everyone in the world agrees that a particular tree is an oak tree, the intuitive might be within their rights to say that that particular tree might be an oak tree, however, that tree doesn’t exist. It is but an illusion that only appears to be there because of the veil of the senses.
They would be an introverted intuitive. Sensory reality to an introverted intuitive type is like a veil over the true reality.
The Intuitive Function and The Number One
The intuitive function corresponds to the number one. If you have one thing you have no mind. Mind only arises when there are at least two things, for then there is something to compare and contrast, something to differentiate from self. To the intuitive, all is self and with this self comes the subjective. The subjective is self-referenced, referenced to some self, whether it is yourself or some other self.
It must be understood that all appeals to and claims of knowledge are objective in nature. This phenomenon has its roots in the number two, or the thinking function. The number two represents primal objectivity. The objective is something observable to an observer.
Intuition backing a judging process can be dangerous because it is the wrong order of things. Judgment should never precede perception. Isn’t this what the term “prejudice” means?
A perception is never wrong. However, a judgment can be and often is. It could be said that the thinking function is always wrong because it by definition holds the prospect of error, either on its own or someone else’s part. Intuition, being whole and unified, holds no prospect for error or hasn’t yet given birth to it as the number two does. One might say the root of the thinking function is concerned with the concept of error, the prospect of something or someone being wrong.
An intuitive type can only be wrong by being untrue to themselves. It may be more appropriate to say that an intuitive cannot be wrong, they can only fail existentially.
Recap
So, what I’m trying to say here overall, is that the intuitive function is exempt from all knowledge claims and that is higher hierarchically than the thinking mind. Also, being the germ of the intellectual mind, or perhaps the primal impulse of mind, it is in a position to make assertions, yet not have to substantiate them factually.
The intuitive function must be understood because it is the forerunner to all the thinking functions we adore so much today. I could make a case that the Greeks were primarily intuitive thinkers (reference Friedrich Nietzsche’s, Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense) and that since our scientific method has come from the Greeks, it should be taken seriously.
The subject comes before the object. I am making the claim that there is no objectivity without a subject to perceive or make judgments about it, just as there is no number two without the implications of the number one bound into it. However, there can be a number one without the concept of the number two. If subject and object correspond to number one and two respectively, then logically what I’m claiming follows.
The main thesis and thrust of what I’m saying about the intuitive function and why it is the first thing I am writing about is because of my belief that it is the most important function and also the most difficult to define. The reason it is difficult to define is because it is the one function that lies beyond thinking as a function and since it is through the thinking function that we discuss these things, it is by its nature futile to arrive at it in this fashion. Though, I think we can approach a limit as we do in Calculus.
The subjective can never be wrong. It could be argued that it can never be right either but I am asserting that it is always right and objectivity is always wrong in relation to the subjective. So, we have the concepts of primal right and primal error.
As regards the claims of knowledge, which I say are objective in nature as far as science is concerned, there can be right and wrong between two or more knowledge claims within that sphere. But, I posit that the objective is always in error in relation to the subjective primarily because it splits the whole into a primary duality. It says, “This is this and that is that”, a primal error.
Self is the only truth. Objectivity is the splitting of the self into self and not-self, the latter of which we then call outside world.
So, I’m exempting the intuitive from proofs but I’m also advocating a method of trying to rigorously define each of the statements I make because I think that the thinking function is important and much of the reason I’m doing this site is to appeal to the thinking type through their mode. However, the intuitive function is the point of all.
beautifully written!
“Self is the only truth. Objectivity is the splitting of the self into self and not-self, the latter of which we then call outside world.”
are you acquainted with the philosophy of German idealism? Schelling, Hoelderlin, Hegel?
probably you are … if not, I’d recommend you a great introduction to the subject, The Invisible Remainder: On Schelling and Related Matters, by Slavoj Žižek (who, just like me, happens to be a Slovenian ENTP 🙂 it’s arguably his best book. I highly recommend it to you, because it deals precisely with the issues that you tackle in this article, although from a different edge)
I’m acquainted with the German idealists, but certainly no expert on them. I know that they represent a reaction against the Kantian thing-in-itself. I know Hegel mostly in the negative sense via Nietzsche’s and Schopenhauer’s interpretations of him, but I haven’t checked him out extensively for myself, though, from some of the stuff I have read, my gut reaction to his thinking is that it is, at the very least, inarticulate.
I like Schelling and I might like him even more if I checked him out more extensively. I like Hoelderlin from what I know of him as well.
I’ll have to check out that book you recommended. Thanks.
you should check it out, cause the statement “Self is the only truth. Objectivity is the splitting of the self into self and not-self, the latter of which we then call outside world” is the central idea of the idealists … there’re shitloads of interpretations of Hegel, some of which really don’t do justice to him – try to check out Žižek’s interpretations of Hegel, he does it in a funny ENTP way, and he points out precisely those aspects of Hegel’s thought that might be most interesting for you (constitution of the self and its relation to knowledge). since he (Žižek, I mean) has the habit of writing on everything in all of his books, the one on Schelling also contains a lot of useful insights on Hegel (it’s among Žižek’s most difficult books, though, but it’s worth a try)
if you ever want to read Hegel (it’s a tough biscuit at first, but once you see what he’s aiming at, it becomes easier, cause he just keeps on repeating a set of linguistic / logical tricks), I’d suggest you start with the Philosophy of Justice. first of all, it’s written in the most ‘normal’ language (cause, unlike his earlier works, he actually wanted to be understood here). second, it lays out a dynamics that you might find it interesting from the point of view of a personality drama.
as all of his philosophy, it’s based on a triad (the famous thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing). he starts with positive law, which could be identified with Te. he then moves to the sphere of morality, which is clearly Fi (he also describes it in this way, as a reaction to Te, and as a individualized phenomenon). but morality is too personal, unwordly, so he moves to the final level, “ethics”, which is however the sphere of social norms, the network of socially validated moral values in a determined era / place. this was the source of much controversy, as he is frequently accused of having succumbed to the a type conservativism that gave rise to an absolute state, hence fascism etc etc. but if you think about it, he’s actually describing a Ti-Fe ideal! (the (in)famous statement in the introduction of the book, “that what is real is rational, and that what is rational is real” is clearly a Ti-Fe one. we could translate it to: “all things that exist have their own rationality that we can/must discover, and whatever the mind can ascertain as being rational has a tangible validity … which is a really Ti-Fe thing to say, don’t you think?)
isn’t this fascinating, that so many INTJs strive towards Ti-Fe?
think of Marx: the drama he presents is precisely the drama of the Fi / Te split. man creates value, which is so deeply linked to his nature as a laboring being (what a Fi-Te way to describe man :)), yet this value is always taken away from him, contributing to alienation. even his description of religion (“the soul of the soulless world, the heart of a heartless condition … the opium of the people”) is so Fi … but then, what’s the solution? a communist society, where man will be fully integrated in society, and the distinction between the two won’t make sense any more. vergesellschaftetes Mensch, “the socialized man”, who is however not some kind of collective Borg, but finally a true individual, a rational yet socially integrated person. isn’t that, again, a dream of perfect Ti-Fe?
and even Nietzsche … ok, you have a lot (or actually not that much … it’s just overly stressed due to to his credentials of some kind of ‘proto-fascist’) of this “will over emotions” stuff … but if you look closely, he admires everything that’s Fe: Italian & French culture, Florentine Renaissance … and even when he praises himself (in Ecce homo), he (over?)stresses his own Fe abilities (oh, when I was a teacher in Basel, I was so charismatic & kind &open-minded & understanding & yet demanding, pupils loved me so much … oh, when my friends come to visit me to Sils-Maria, they love to rest in the shadow of my hospital and gentle and bla bla soul … oh, even my Italian landlady says I can’t be German cause I’m so elegant and outspoken and bla bla … except that I actually hate people). I really loved your text on Se & INTJs, and that’s there obviously: but isn’t there also a longing for Fe, as well?
I see this also with my INTJ friends: they’re incredibly attracted by Fe, they crave Fe, they want to have this ability … (which is logical, cause especially in modern societies, you just *have to* develop Fe abilities – it seems that ENTJs manage to do this by “faking” Fe via Te, like Frank Underwood, but INTJs are just a bit lost in an Fe world … and yet fascinated by it)
That’s interesting
Care to elaborate on that Tiffy?
sure ^_^
Blake said, ” The intuitive function has a direct relationship with the sensation function in the sense that it is a form of perception. Unlike the thinking function, the intuitive function does not require deliberation or weighing to arrive somewhere. Intuition is the direct apprehension of reality much like the sensation function. However, with the sensation function we do not question its mode of arriving somewhere. When you see something, you just see it. When you hear something, you just hear it. The intuitive function is like an extended form of the sensory function. The intuitive sees what is not there or what could be there,”
I get that. I feel like I often perceive or know things that aren’t readily visible or tangible. Although I am forever tied to the beauty of the physical world and the sensation of… lets say a cold waterfall trickling down my hand (I went hiking this weekend ^_^), Intuition is able to visualize a future and read in between the lines. It’s another way of taking in the world and making sense of it. It is able to understand and comprehend beyond the physical and the tangible. I think you described it perfectly.
” I posit that the objective is always in error in relation to the subjective primarily because it splits the whole into a primary duality. It says, “This is this and that is that”, a primal error.”
that’s pure Hoelderlin 🙂 “judgement is the primal split” (play of words, in German judgement, Urteil, can be etymologically seen as deriving from ‘primal split’, Ur-teilung … or something like that, my German is awful). that’s the text http://www.textlog.de/urteil-sein.html
Schelling was hugely influenced by this little insight, and developed a whole philosophy on this basis: identity (this = this) means a split between the subject and the object. the Being, which is prior to identity is lost, and it can only be recomposed by an act of artistic creation
Hegel takes Schelling’s insight, but asks: ok, what can Schelling actually say about this primal Being? nothing, really. “it’s like the night on which all cows are black”, as the famous pun in the Introduction to his Phenomenology goes: we don’t know anything about it, except that there was a primal split and from then on it just splits into multiplicity. but what then – if *this very splitting of one into the many* is Being?
like with Zeno’s paradoxes: Zeno tried to demonstrate that plurality & change are impossible, an illusion that covers the one & unchangeable Being posited by Parmenides. and yet, the paradox: what can be said about Parmenides Being? what do we know about it? nothing … we can only see the self-contradicting illusion of motion (poor Achilles running after the turtle, the arrow never reaching the target etc.)
this is then Hegelian dialectics: Being is nothing but the act of its own dissolution. this motion of constant splitting of reality IS Being (and since humans live in time, Being manifests itself through history, as the motion of dialectics … the unfolding of civilizations, systems of thought etc. that fall apart, giving rise to new civilizations & systems of thought that fall apart etc)
that’s my short explanation of the history of German idealism 🙂 how does this come back to Kant?
Hoelderlin himself was reacting to Fichte who tried to overcome Kant’s distinction between the noumenal (thing in itself) and the phenomenal world (the thing for us) through the notion of self-consciousness, which is based on the basic proposition of identity, Me = Me (or I = Me).
Hoelderlin says, you can’t do that, that’s avoiding the problem: identity, by positing an equation between the subject and the predicate, is *already* presupposing a previous split (the mentioned Urteil/Urtelung, judgement/primal split). so, dear Fichte, you have not only not solved the problem, but you’ve showed how this split is inscribed in the very core of human subjectivity.
Schelling, in his works, tackles also this part of Hoelderlin’s insight, namely the constitution of the subject … and this is fascinating 🙂 Žižek can explain it much better than me 🙂
Of course, I could have made the argument that the subjective is always in error in relation to objectivity and that it is the objective that comes first and it is the subjective that always holds the prospect of error. I have actually come more towards this view recently. Which doesn’t necessarily refute what I’m saying here because I make a distinction between the subject and the object as seen from a pre-duality (zero, one) perspective vs. a post-duality perspective (two and everything after).
I see the intuitive function as the seed function for all other functions to arise. I see this function correlating to the causal plane. It cannot be arrived at through logic.
It seems to me that the whole problem that Western philosophy and thought has is the problem of how something arose from nothing. Until that can be answered using a rational method, all rational approaches to philosophical matters will necessarily be entangled in a confusion that has more to do with language and its limits rather than the primary realities they are attempting to denote using these languages.
good points … I wasn’t really making any argument, I just wanted to point out how some of your reasoning is similar to what I remember from German idealism, and I thought I might try to ignite your interest to continue searching in that direction 🙂
“It seems to me that the whole problem that Western philosophy and thought has is the problem of how something arose from nothing. Until that can be answered using a rational method, all rational approaches to philosophical matters will necessarily be entangled in a confusion that has more to do with language and its limits rather than the primary realities they are attempting to denote using these languages.”
very well put!
“I make a distinction between the subject and the object as seen from a pre-duality (zero, one) perspective vs. a post-duality perspective ”
which is, again, why I suggest you dig into German idealism if you have time, cause much of it it’s concerned precisely with this, pre-duality perspective: you might find some interesting, helpful insights
I’m also including mathematical language in there too. Just for the record.
Thanks, it has ignited me. I think I am on the verge of blowing up. Which is always nice.
A great piece to mull for miles, especially contributions by Luka.
Yes, everyone loves Luka. Rightfully so. He has made some of the most insightful comments on this site. I daresay.
I’m an INFJ but some of this sounds like me. Although if I’ m being tortured I’m saying whatever the hell I need to say to make it stop. I won’t believe in what I’m saying but I’ll make you think I believe it. Is that the difference in Fe and Fi?
Sometimes when I’ve worked on math for long times, I take a break. When I want to work it out again, I suddenly have a flash, I feel that I know what it is what to do etc (although it’s only true half the time!!!!). I don’t think that is Ni, but I wonder if that’s how Ni or Ne *feels*. To me, this experience of knowing something I did not know before is impossible to describe but the lack of accompanying clarity for me is why it doesn’t seem quite Ni or Ne.
That is how I experience Ni (as an INTJ) – a sudden flash of insight, a sense of knowing . . . but it is fuzzy, vague. Holding onto a thought is like holding a solid object, holding onto an intuition is like holding onto one of those old-timey rubber-and-water toys they used to call water snakes. It’s soft, squishy, and constantly threatening to squirt out of my hands.
I also experience intuition to be a bit like Spiderman’s spidey sense. I know I’ve perceived SOMETHING, but I don’t always know what it is. Intuition is like a pointer dog, sometimes – there is a flash of perception, but I have no idea what exactly. I just know there’s something to be observed more closely, a spirit to be made flesh so to speak. And so whatever phenomena that I originally perceived via intuition has to happen several more times in my presence, except with me actively observing and trying to see what it was that I had already seen. Eventually, with enough samples, and enough Se and Te time, I can usually figure it out.
Until then, however, everything is a bit ambiguous . . . which is problematic, such as if I have an intuition of threat or danger of some sort. I can’t explain it, yet I am compelled to take action. Try explaining that to someone around you when you suddenly just decide that very nice woman over there is actually quite dangerous, and everyone would do well to stay away from her. One ends up sounding like a common gossip, or like someone who just passes judgement with no reason. (Later, with enough time, the intuition always proves to be true. But by then, no one remembers the original warning, and so the intuition is never granted the credibility by others that it carries for me.)
‘Intuition backing a judging process can be dangerous because it is the wrong order of things. Judgment should never precede perception. Isn’t this what the term “prejudice” means?’
Judging functions (T and F) represent ego, whereas perceiving functions represent superego and id respectively. Judgments coming from the ego (T and F) represent a prejudice when the person is T and F dominant in particular.
Superego dominants (Ni and Si dominants) have relatively higher ability to suppress their ego judgments in favor of `truths/realities` that their dominant functions perceive/collect from the external world. They ‘cannot’ cheat themselves, whereas ‘id’ dominants (Ne and Se-doms) can ‘lie’ to themselves and others and ‘cheat’ themselves and others relatively easily, perhaps uncontrollably, and T and F dominants perhaps choose to do that consciously, i.e. they may reject a truth/reality if it tarnishes their ego and does not sit well with their T or F values.
‘A perception is never wrong. However, a judgment can be and often is. It could be said that the thinking function is always wrong because it by definition holds the prospect of error, either on its own or someone else’s part. Intuition, being whole and unified, holds no prospect for error or hasn’t yet given birth to it as the number two does. One might say the root of the thinking function is concerned with the concept of error, the prospect of something or someone being wrong.’
Perception can be wrong too i guess. You can perceive something to be different than what it really is due to distance, vision conditions etc. It requires proximity and exposure to accurately perceive.
Perception can be wrong too i guess. You can perceive something to be different than what it really is due to distance, vision conditions etc
Yes, you can perceive something differently at different times, but, still, the perception is not wrong. Perception just is.
Let’s say you are out on a foggy night and you see what you think is a dog approaching, but, it turns out to be a wolf. That was a faulty judgment, not a faulty perception. Your interpretation of what you thought the appropriate class of object approaching was faulty, not your perception.
The most accessible and simplified example of introverted intuition I’ve encountered is Wittgenstein’s duck/rabbit illustration.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
As Wittgenstein describes it, it’s that decisive moment between ‘seeing that’ versus ‘seeing as’. When you look at the image, it doesn’t matter whether you see the duck or the rabbit first; rather, it’s that twist of the screw, the turning of the cog, when you perceive the image ‘as otherwise.’
Of course, as any introverted intuitive dominant would tell you, introverted intuition doesn’t normally come out and play as openly and unguardedly as with the duck/rabbit illustration. It often requires repeated exposure to perceptions, situations or people before the cog turns and the subconscious perceives ‘as otherwise’ and you get the ‘a-ha’ moment.
Another reason I enjoy reflecting on the duck/rabbit illustration is precisely the neutrality of perception. In the image, there are no epistemological stakes to be defended or justified, just an ambiguity to be acknowledged.
Sorry for late reply. How about we say that the accuracy of perception can change wrt conditions?
“When a safe points at the moon the fool looks at the finger.”
Among many translations of the Chinese proverb.
Sage
Fucking autocorrect
Ok, I have questions.
You consider intuitive function to be spiritual. And I strongly agree.
But in your interpretations of cognitive functions through astrological lenses, intuitive functions are symbolically represented by fire signs.
And I wonder why, for two reasons:
1) If I am reading this article correctly, then intuition should precede thinking. And it is air, which precedes fire, you can have air without fire but not vice versa (but yeah, intuition + thinking = fire + air = light = intellect; and that is why Ni-Ti seems so enlightening)
2) Etymology of spiritual leads to Latin “spiritus”, which means breath/breathing or light breeze or ghost (same goes for Greek “pneuma”), so it is air related word.
For both reasons it would make more sense to me, that intuitive functions would be represented by air signs.
But obviously you linked them to fire signs. And I wonder why.
I admit I don’t know much about astrology, but nevertheless symbolism, even though multi-layered, should be at least to degree universal, shouldn’t it? So why would it be, that spiritual in mbti would correlate to fire signs in astrology? (I’m following C. G. Jung here who claimed, that archetypal symbolism is in a way universal)
Or is it because of your understanding of word “spiritual” (which I would be very interested to know), that it makes more sense to you linking it to fire?
1) If I am reading this article correctly, then intuition should precede thinking.
You’re reading it correctly.
And it is air, which precedes fire, you can have air without fire but not vice versa
I don’t think air precedes fire metaphysically. However, yes, fire (intuition, spiritual) is often unintelligible (unmanifest) without air, or water for that matter. Air and water comprise the judging functions of thinking and feeling in the Myers-Briggs system (to me). I think of the judging functions as translating functions for the primary realities as represented by the perceiving functions of intuition and sensation.
It may be that air does represent the spiritual world proper (read intelligible). The theosophists considered Heaven to lie in the upper part of the conceptual (thinking, air) plane. But, above this plane is what they call THE CAUSAL PLANE. I posit that intuitives (at least Ni types) are primarily alive to to this plane of existence. Even before it is shrouded in the conceptual cloth of heavenly reason a level down (towards incarnation).
I was struck by Jung’s description of the Ni type as being like “a voice crying in the wilderness”. They speak (for example the prophets) but no one can hear them. They are unintelligible. The spiritual (Ni) also has “a burning” quality to it. In Indian spiritual tradition they speak of “the fire of separation”. That is very much how I would define Ni. Individuating. By process of separation. The fire that burns off everything that is not itself (the spiritual).
I would say the sign of Aquarius is the upper limit of the air plane. It is the sign of THE ANGEL. But there is higher consciousness than the angelic (above Heaven).
But yes air signs and the air element, therefore the thinking function (Ti really) are the manifest spiritual, potentially. It is true that physically speaking fire needs air to exist. But that is only on earth, or in the physical (sensation) plane. Fire and earth are opposed elementally and therefore cannot exist at the same time. This accords with Jung’s dominant vs. inferior function conception. If you’re an Ni dom. then Se will necessarily be repressed. These two functions cannot operate simultaneously, which to me is similar to saying that fire (Ni) cannot exist on earth (Se) unless you have air to make it manifest (Ti). But that doesn’t mean that air precedes fire metaphysically. The fire exists whether it is manifest (intelligible) or not.
2) Etymology of spiritual leads to Latin “spiritus”, which means breath/breathing or light breeze or ghost (same goes for Greek “pneuma”), so it is air related word.
Yes, good work. Like I said, air (and water too) is the intelligible part of spirit (potentially, and in light of the way I would use term spiritual). I’d say that air element is the spiritual in a formal sense. Air is the form (clothes) of the spiritual, but the spiritual itself (without the clothing in conceptual forms) is not something I would liken to a gentle breath or breeze.
At any rate, my understanding of the word “spiritual” is akin to the violence of the causal. At least that is how it appears if directly apprehended on earth. For the spiritual to directly exist on earth without the mediation thru the judging planes of thinking/feeling (air/water element respectively), it just looks like death.
And I think all we need to do to understand the spiritual is look to a physical flame for answers. Besides a pure oxygen fire where fire is just feeding off of pure oxygen TO EXIST ON EARTH, a fire needs material to “burn”. What does this burning mean? Well, it basically amounts to a separating of the atomic bonds that hold the material (earth element, matter) it is burning together. Thus, fire’s basic function on earth is separative. This is similar to how I see the direct apprehension of the spiritual from earth (physical plane) perspective. Fire and earth are opposites and therefore cannot exist whilst the other exists ie they destroy each other. If the spiritual (fire) exists on earth it is with the aid of oxygen (air, literally) and the only effect it can have on earth/material world is to render the bonds of its matter asunder. This is conventionally seen as “destructive”, but in actuality fire does not destroy any material it burns, it just separates the bonds that are holding the material together (atomic bonds). The atoms are still there physically.
So, back to the “fire of separation” of the Indian spirituals. They meant that metaphorically. The fire of spirit. I mean it literally. Just look at the physics of a flame. I posit that is what is spiritual.
Look at what is going on in the core of the sun. Any sun. That’s what I mean by spiritual. Primary causation. Nuclear fission. Caused by MASSIVE incoming gravitational pressure (Se). (Briefly, Se equals “gravitation field” and Si each smallest unit of matter that is a member of that field, so Si is the atom of matter, basically).
For both reasons it would make more sense to me, that intuitive functions would be represented by air signs.
But obviously you linked them to fire signs. And I wonder why.
I linked the intuitive (which I call spiritual) to the fire element. Yes. But there is the distinction I’m making between an earth zodiac and a spiritual one. I’d basically say this is Ni vs. Se zodiac. So, for the spiritual zodiac (the true nature of things), I’d just assign the fire element to intuitive, and air to thinking, and water to feeling, and sensation to earth, and in that order of metaphysical hierarchy. Then, still from this spiritual perspective, I assigned the three modes of astrology (cardinal, fixed, and mutable) to extraversion, introversion, and ambiversion (respectively).
However, much of the meaning of the zodiac signs is from an earthly perspective (what I’d call Se way of apprehending), which means that as long as you are incarnate on earth and are trying to interpret an astro birth chart of someone born ON EARTH, and because the significations of the astro birth chart refer to your birth INTO THE EARTH REALM IN A PHYSICAL BODY…well, so that’s important, the earth-time zodiac perspective. And is beyond the scope of a comment. Jesus.
Okay, I’m done. Hope that clears up my position on what I mean when using the term “spiritual” and why I assign to this to fire/intuition.
You asked very good and tightly reasoned questions. I commend you for this.
If anyone wants to respond to this comment, please go to What is Spiritual? and continue the discussion there.