I have not yet read the full version of Joseph's book, but I can tell this ties directly into my own theoretical perspectives involving assessment, learning, behavior, and consciousness. To me, as laid out in my Education PhD dissertation at Colorado State University (2005), the core essence of being (reality) is individual and collective consciousness interacting and interconnecting with consciousness at every level of existence (seen and unseen) as an ongoing here and now creative process." Thus, primary learning is intuitive and secondary learning is rational-objective.

Rational objective, is by my definition, fixtional thinking that allows one to "fix" or position relations "as if" they were separate and disconnected in a cause and effect relationship and in which they must of necessity substantiate existence "as if" it were true. It entails a sort of machine mentality of parts, in which the parts equals the whole and the whole is what the parts can do by working together. While this has some value and allows for manipulation, it is also estranging of the relational.

Intuitive learning is experiential at the level of interacting with consciousness. This can be and is done at multiple levels (often simultaneously) and in every level of consciousness. The learning is sensory in as much as it is secured by means of multiple sensory probes and receptors of our consciousness. Interpretation of this sensory experience is also a function of consciousness.

Unfortunately, the current global society is dominated by the rational objective, which disqualifies and generally rejects the intuitive. It teaches that "information" of a substantive nature as what is valid. The relational perceptual lens is thus skewed and interacts "as if all were separate and disconnected in a cause and effect reality." 

What do you think?  An Essay on Ontology<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />