what is meant by this term intuition ? does it have a representative in the material world to attest its verasciousness and efficacy ? If not it will join the cascade of invalid terms without representatives and sometimes without meaning like ‘The collective’,’Ghosts’,’spirits’,’demons’,’vampires’,’unicorns’,’Ginis’ and so on.

Can a feeling be a means of percerption ? Can an indivdual who is robbed off  of all his  senses apprehend and appreciate Beethoven’s symphony or the super bowl’s festivity without a need for any of his senses just by a feeling ? How can he distinguish imagination/paranoia/delusion from reality in this condition ??? Isn’t intuition any of those terms without a representative in the objective world ? which does not put into consideration the design and nature of the human organism ??? wouldn’t terms like intuition go against our innately acquired objective nature ??? Because ALL true entities have representatives in the objective world. wouldn’t  it be sensible to label articles beyond our nature as non-existent subjective ideas ? Is it even in our nature to function irrationally and unempirically ??? How can we differentiate a paranoia and delusion from intutition ?

Can a ‘hunch’ be a legitimate replacement for empirical or rational data ??? Isn’t intutition just another term from a disoriented and befuddled mind ? Hence, a disorder ? The systematic ignorance of the natural world is the creator of the entire redzone where ‘intutition’ happens to be a part of  in the category of epistemology [see the diagram below] in opposition to Rationalism in the green zone.


If the green zone and the redzone had books dedicated to them the above table will represent them in a terse manner.Hence,inorder to understand  the philosophy of Amystology it will be necessary to comprehend the above table. where, the green zone is promoted and the redzone demoted.Intuition as part of the red zone is a concept without a substance according to amystology because it is impossible for man to acquire ANY knowledge beyond the five senses.

Therefore, the ‘sixth sense’ concept can only work and be applicable only in fictional novels  and thrillers.Spiritual idealists state that they can perceive revelations from an ideal candidate that other individuals with the same senses as themselves cannot perceive.They invoke intuition as their source of knowledge and communication with this creature.hence, we have the so called ‘holy’ litreatures imposed upon man throughout history.

Material idealists on the other hand state that their consciousness is the creator of the universe.They also proclaim to perceive via intuition.They try to ‘control’ and monitor their thoughts and feelings so that they can have a desired experience in life.

Which beg’s the question in both cases whether in spiritual idealism or material idealism where and what is intuition ???  what type of perceptual organ is it ??? Is it an invisible organ even to the intutionist himself  ??? Or are they forcing us to accept a concept they don’t even  understand themselves ??? How can you prove its existence without evidence ??? Is every whim and caprice an intuition ??? If this is so is being driven by instinct the highest virtue that there can ever be ??? Rather than being directed by reason ???

As i mentioned in the begining of this article How can one tell the difference between a delusion and an intuition ???

Hence,according to the foundation and pillar of amystology which is ebeism we will say as long as idealists can’t prove their claims of an organ called intuition as a ‘sixth perceptual organ’ we designate intuiton as an invalid term without a meaning.

Can a feeling be a means of perception ???  Is it possible to run the world just by intuition not by empirical data ??? Can we advice policy makers throughout the world to employ intutionism in their desicion making processes ???

I personally believe that it is childish to forward intuition as an epistemological theory. To act on intuitive ideas is to act on conjectures.So i  kindly reject the calls to follow my whim and caprice and redirect my attention to follow my reason as the only means of knowledge and certitude.Despite the imperfections of the human brain nothing can come closer or stand as an alternative to rationalism and empiricism.

Understanding the natural world can only be possible through reason as the higher function of the human organism.Empirical data streaming to our senses have no defects in themselves.There is NO defect in reality but in the perceiver which is not a fully developed higher being  which can be cozened by magic tricks and chemical imbalances in his brain leading to distorted concepts, delusions and paranoia.

The outside world beyond the imperfect perceiver is self-existent the imperfections of man cannot make reality imperfect and even worse the creation of the perceiver.We don’t understand reality in full completeness yet.We are discovering and understanding its parts bit by bit throughout time.Just because we don’t understand it totally we don’t have to delve into idealistic  floundering to destroy what we have already accomplished by inventing inane words like idealism and intuitionism.

Lets stick to rationalism and finish the work of understanding ALL natural causes by employing reason that has been started by Great schools of the past like The Charvakas and The Peripatetics by prominent naturalists like Brihasphati and Aristotle to usher in the bright era of masterdom.Where man stops staggering in ignorance-arrogance and fear.To perceive the world from a realistic-rational and objective vantage point.where he becomes inundated with technologies to make himself and his fellow humanbeings happier.

To abandon Reason is to commit an insidious sucide !