He Who Was Not

[Shin'Ar]

It obviously provides utility. The point is that info perceived using the faculty of intuition may be related, suggestively, even when it has not yet been grasped - that is, integrated into experience. Because the intuition, on its own, merely points toward something, it may not add to experience unless digested or 'grasped' using rational faculties. Things actually added to experience are those which provide infinitely more utility.

Experience is not a matter of accurate translation or rational interpretation Zen. How is experience integrated into experience? Experience does not require integration, it is integration. What you are suggesting here is that an experience is not an experience unless it is rationalized and in the case that it was the result of intuitive direction, that the intuition was meaningless unless the experience is somehow deciphered for its worth and merit.

That is like saying that road sign is only a road sign if someone actually uses it and gets to the destination that it says it is direction you to. Whether the sign is accurate or followed to destination is not what makes it a road sign.

The same can be said of intuitive guidance.

All is experience.

I must not have been clear. It's not the rationality of experience that is being judged. Right now, here in 3D, the worldview which is called "experience" is due to the rational processing of perception. That's "rational" in the Jungian sense (i.e. feeling/thinking dichotomy).

Does the second sentence in this paragraph not contradict the following one? Is rational processing not the same as judgement?

Pre-rational perception (i.e. from intuition) becomes responsibly "owned" as rational experience when there is some conscious act of evaluation exercised. This experience, as memory, is inheritable for those searching in the direction offered by that view.

And here is the actual point which you are trying to make, hidden in a lot of busy wording and interpretation. you are declaring that intuition is pre-rational and not worthy of its guidance until its merit is validated by the success of achieving the destination to which it points. What you are missing in your determination to make intuition responsible for its direction, is the fact that intuition is always at the mercy of its recipient. Intuition is the very decision making process of an individual. To follow what one thinks is accurate direction or not. The degree to which the recipient challenges that direction does not define the direction source. What you are trying to do is dismiss the intuitive process as worthless based upon your definition of it as existing only after the recipient has successfully managed it.

The info that intuition was pointing at only ever existed as something which might be subject to discernment. The more vague the info, the less there is which changes. i.e. "all is one", and (obviously) therefore the less offered for balancing particular imbalances.
What is newly created in the form of experience is what changes, the basic info is going to remain the same (as, unsurprisingly, principles of evolution itself).

Of course information is not altered by intelligence trying to decipher it. Information is either accurate or inaccurate. Because some information may be vague, or that information my not be sufficiently discerned, has nothing to do with the intuitive process that directed intelligence to it.

Let me ask you Zen, are you trying to suggest that intuition is not worth following or considering for its offerings?

Or are you simply stating that when one is considering intuition that it is only validated by their success of utilizing it?

In either case, it is not the intuitive process that fails, but the ability of the one following it.