|
|
|
|
|
|
by prometheus76
1649 days ago
|
|
|
I would use "experiential understanding" instead of "intuitive understanding", but I think we mean the same thing. I am not sure I agree with your hierarchy, however. I would rather have an experiential understanding of marital arts if I was faced with a would-be attacker than I would have a "structural understanding" as you put it. In other words, for many domains of interaction with the world, an experiential knowledge is far superior to a "structural" or as I understood what you were saying a "propositional" understanding of a topic or subject. Here's another way of putting what I'm saying: when we want to learn about a tree, in the West, our first inclination is to cut it down, categorize/classify the parts, and count the rings. We think we know what a "tree" is at that point. In the East (and I'm learning this perspective from Eastern Orthodox Christianity), if you want to learn about a tree, you plant one. Maybe more than one. Nurture it. Prune it. Fertilize it. Watch it grow. Watch it change with the seasons. Build a treehouse in it for your kids. Watch your daughter get married in the shade of the tree. In other words, instead of dissecting something (which kills the thing itself) in order to categorically "understand" something propositionally, in the East, they focus on having a relationship with something in order to understand it. |
|
|
Intuitive is often faster to react and faster to get off the ground and producing results. So in a fight intuition is probably going to be better. That being said, supposedly the boxing fight that the movie 'cinderella man' was based off of involved Braddock analyzing Baer's fighting style and figuring out some foot work that kept him from getting pummeled. There's no reason that structural, intuitive, and social understanding can't all work together to get a result.