When I mention intuition in the context of making business decisions, practical problem solving and idea generation in general, folks may often look at me funny, like I spent too much time at the hookah or ashram, but what I’m actually talking about is something different. I’m not even talking about the intuition one supposedly develops after years of martial arts training or Zen meditation, though I am sure those experiences are useful as well.
What I am talking about when I say intuition, at least for today, is a process of taking alternative perspectives on thinking and perceiving that can help work through difficult patches, when seeking alternatives to unusual, or even everyday challenges. The approaches we will be looking at derive from the ideas of Henri Bergson and Rudolf Steiner. It’s important to remember that a nebulous term like intuition is going to elicit different definitions, depending on whom you talk to. In some ways, there are sharp contrasts to the way the term is defined by Bergson and Steiner, but there is enough commonality between them to work with, and something exceedingly pragmatic one can gain from at least a partial understanding of their ideas on this topic. Another important point is that both Bergson’s and Steiner’s understandings of what intuition is and does are quite expansive and reach into some very complex territory. We will only touch on them with a degree of simplicity that will be useful to us in practical situations.
Both lived from about the mid to late 19th century into the early 20th century. Bergson was a French philosopher of considerable importance during his time, and who has reemerged in popularity among late twentieth century critical thinkers, especially because of his unique approach to the understanding of time. He was also a friend with and influence on William James, and so influenced some of James’ development of Pragmatism and his work in psychology, which was critical to the development of current cognitive theory and psychological methodologies.
Steiner, while dabbling in philosophy and metaphysics, is remembered more for developing the Waldorf Education system, biodynamic agriculture (which gave birth to organic farming), and for the way his intuitional model influenced developments in the fields of medicine, social justice, engineering and architecture, particularly in Europe.
I will discuss briefly some of the main components of their intuitional styles here, and develop practical applications in later posts. This initial post will focus on Bergson, and later posts will discuss Steiner as well as further developments, and combinations of approaches.
Bergson’s Intuition
Stating of the Problem
For Bergson, a solution to a problem most succinctly arrives when the problem is well-stated, primarily by eliminating all false problems that may arise due to distortions of language. An example of a false problem from a philosophical perspective would be to ask why things exist rather than nothing. To Bergson, the term nonbeing is merely a negation of something that has being, an imagined lack, and therefore is a false problem that only occurs because of the way language allows us to state things, rather than the way things occur in actuality. Such statements are fine to make during ordinary conversation, but can be a hindrance to really defining and stating a problem and solution. An example in the practical world is a reminder that something like software gaps are in themselves not real events, but imaginary contrasts to how the software actually behaves. That doesn’t mean the work does not need to be done to produce the desired results, but there is a difference in one’s approach between working with an absence, and creating something new. The latter definition tends to set a more open-ended frame with which to work, and so can be used when one is stuck in the absence, or lack, frame.
Differences in Quantity vs. Differences of Quality
At times I may look at things with differences of kind, and assume they are the same thing but in different measure. Various colored lights may seem to give off different levels of intensity, while it is actually the differences in color that make me perceive it so. When comparing apples and oranges we don’t say that an apple is more intensely apple, or that it has a greater appleness, than the orange does, unless perhaps we are writing poetry. We don’t even compare their component features, such as their degrees of citrus-ness or section-ality. We respect their differences of type and quality, and do not place them on a sliding scale.
This is especially important when evaluating the people one is working with, all of whom have various talents and tendencies. One skill-set or personality should not be undermined when an illegitimate comparison is made to another’s, as one person’s value is a complex network of connections that unfolds differently and uniquely.
The same can be said for software applications, of course. An accounting program should not be judged harshly because it doesn’t make a good trading system. It’s important when faced with difficult problems to be able to adopt this frame, not only so that one can understand proper use and context for something like an accounting program, but also so that you can understand better what would need to be done to transform it into a trading system if one needed to.
Duration
Most significant is Bergson’s approach to time. We have a habit, with the use of timelines, Gantt Charts, calendars in general, of spatializing time, and thinking our way through time visually. This is useful for planning and scheduling, something which we would not be able to live without, but there are times we get stuck in that mode and it makes it hard to understand a problem in greater clarity.
Bergson uses the idea of sugar dissolving in water as an example of how we can better understand how duration allows a better intuitive grasp of process. While we can imagine sugar in various fixed states, one understands the process of sugar dissolving from a more direct, or less abstract perspective, when one has to actually sit and wait and experience the duration it takes for it to happen. Because all things occur and exist in time, both the problem and solution do as well. To hold a problem in one’s mind as a fixed and timeless iconic object is a sure way to get stuck with it continuing to be a problem because one is extending the fixation through duration, i.e. the passage of time. A perspective from the point of view of duration understands it instead as a temporal event that one can disrupt and redirect as it occurs.