Hello all,
and a couple of suggestion from PhilMcS!
First, as someone suggested, we need to dig around in experience so as to get the shock of how swift insights occur, especially routine. Think of the return of a 100 m.p.h. tennis-serve ... the receiver goes speedily right through the levels be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be adventurous, be responsible. It is useful, moreover, to focus on "be adventurous" : have or get a plan. Previous normal responses are called in pretty spontaneously, but think of those responses that surprise us: the player turns to handle the serve in some weird and novel way. Also note how hard it is to understand that process of the leap to plan. Thomas has fifty pages on it: Ia IIae: qq. 6-17. It is interesting to note the way one shifts through Thomas' 12 steps between receiving a menu and handing it back with an entree plan enjoyably selected. Also i would note, in response to one query, that a plan may need to be thematized either pre- or post- the execution of it, and the same holds for the formulation of insight at any level.
Secondly, the question of objectivity. Good players are brilliantly objective in handling a play. An obvious exception is penalty-taking in soccer, the analysis of which is quite tricky. But the main point I would make is that understanding objectivity is the very tricky task of climbing through the book Insight to page 413, where Lonergan invites the reader to take a luminous stand for themselves. .