Updated: May 16
Reviewed by Mary Madeline
This article expands on The Faculty Of Intuition
They think rationality is the only way to find the truth because it is objective, whereas feelings and intuitions are subjective. Is there a hard line of separation between subjective and objective? I feel like taking a shit! Is it subjective? Is it merely my opinion or I should collect objective data before I go to the restroom? Are we too sure that our observations are objective? Are we too sure that our observations are objective? Doesn't the objective measure of length change with the object's velocity? Though we can mathematically correct for it, we may still be wrong if more physical aspects have kept the reality hidden like length contraction had before Einstein revealed it. Consider the possibility that you can feel the truth via the faculty of conscience. The outside and the inside are continuous, working together. High pressure makes me feel like taking a shit but it is higher relative to the pressure outside. If the outside wasn't coordinating, I mightn't be able to relieve myself. Since the self is a fallacy, the feeling of the outside received unintentionally or selflessly (intent is born within the self) might be something real.
The hypothetical boundary between the subjective and the objective seems to the self. To say that I fell asleep is objective because there is no doer doing the sleeping. "I" is the subject only syntactically, not semantically. "I" is the object to which sleep has happened. To say that I am going to bed is subjective. "I" here is the subject both syntactically and semantically. The subjective emerges from a subject (a doer). For there to be an opinion, an opinion holder must exist. The objective needs no doer. This is why, to say that I feel like taking a shit is an objective account. Thus, objective truth can be felt objectively. To feel something objectively means to let the feeling happen/occur than to do the feeling. The self or ego is noise in the process. The weaker your ego, the more you synchronize with the signal. You may have noted that women tend to believe in these sorts of things. It is only natural because they seem to have a weaker ego or a less defined sense of self, allowing them to feel without doing the feeling. Perhaps, they know something that men don't. Perhaps, they don't care about coming across as illogical and not objective.
Women seem to have a weaker ego or a relatively fragile sense of self, which may be related to their being less individualistic. Ever seen a woman cave? A woman recluse? A weaker ego means that it may be easier for them to drift over to the other side. Ever heard a woman say, "I don't know why I did X. Y made me do it." It is no surprise that women are more likely to suffer from depression which results from a broken or severely disorganized or an inconsistent ego.
A woman's ego is like a white picket fence-- inconsistent, with gaps in it. It is easier to glimpse the other side. This makes it harder to maintain a psychologically healthy ego because she doesn't exactly know the difference between she and not she. She may be unconsciously aware that there is no difference. It is no surprise that women are more likely to suffer from depression, which results from a broken or severely disorganized or inconsistent ego. Ever heard a woman say "I don't know why I did X. Y made me do it"? She is admitting the unity of the inside and the outside. This unconscious awareness may predispose women to see things holistically. Women don't fall for reductionistic sciences, such as classical physics and chemistry. They don't admire sciences as much as men do. They gravitate towards holistic subjects, such as psychology and literature. Women are far more likely to be religious than men even though they can't rationally explain themselves. Though great if they are seeking enlightenment, a poorly defined ego also predisposes them to depression. If you have ever seen a woman rationalize her inconsistencies, she is trying to restore her ego into one whole. When she can't make peace with both sides of the fence, she feels torn. A man's ego is like a wall. The only way he can see the other side is to have something break down the wall (psychedelics, meditation, illness, near-death experience) or he can logically conclude that the outside is the same as the inside. The boundary is his own creation, the prison of his ego. So long neither happens, men tend to have a strong and secure sense of self. There is no gap in the wall to suggest a world outside inextricably one with the one inside. This saves them from depression and predisposes them to think categorically and analytically. They lack the doubt that categories may not be categorical. Ever noticed that men like to break things into parts to analyze them because they believe there are parts? They like math. Women don't like math. Some women think that math is dumb. Perhaps, they are right. To prove to a man that the self is a fallacy, I have to break it down into pieces, to explain to him that there is no center (a controlling organ) in the brain. To some, I have to explain the functions of different parts of the brain and discuss case studies of people who had different kinds of brain injuries. Once I establish that there is no fixed center in the brain, I have to explain how the illusion of the self is produced, which is what people identify themselves with. Women, on the other hand, are notorious for being inconsistent. They say they want something, but they don't like it when they get it. And what they do like, they say they don't want. Women are aware of their inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory inclinations towards people and things. These are obvious signs of inconsistent ego. All I have to say to a woman is that she is whatever she feels like that day. Some women get it instantly. They have felt it all along. There is no need to establish a consistent ego. Her attempts to rationalize everything are depressing her. It is a trap. If she restored her ego (repaired the fence), she would lose the opportunity to liberate herself. She'd become a prisoner again. Thus, she should let it go. She should let the fence fall.
This is not to say that women can't be logical. They can if they develop their critical skills. But the truth can also be felt. Most women and only a few men agree with this. If you couldn't feel it, you wouldn't know intuitively if your cat would play with your finger or chop it off. People feel truth all the time but they reject their feelings. The [education] system has taught them to doubt their feelings. Your feeling can be wrong, but your ability to reason may also be compromised. What you considered reasonable could be utterly unreasonable. A perfectly reasonable enterprise like mathematics can produce wrong answers if there was a logical error, whose likelihood is directly correlated to the complexity of the problem. Almost all mathematicians and physicists have occasionally been irrational and wrong in their calculations. We mustn't be overly proud of rationality and consistency. This pride keeps men from breaking out of their prison cells. Instead of allowing themselves to be inconsistent, they rationalize everything to consistency. This indeed exemplifies a healthy ego. What can I say! This collective pride of reason makes women feel inadequate when there is something great they are predisposed to. They can see the blindspots of men. Perhaps, feelings/conscience and rationality go hand in hand, just like men and women. We must be open to possibilities.