Intuition is defined by the dictionary as "direct, immediate knowledge of the truth, without recourse to reasoning or experience" and by the CNRTL's as "direct and immediate knowledge of a truth that presents itself to the mind with the clarity of evidence". Definitions that come close to the notion of revelation in the three monotheistic religions. An ethnographic fieldwork with professionals and entrepreneurs shows that intuition is often referred by interviewees to a "guidance", an "evidence", "self-evident truth" or even an "instinct". But while religious interviewees identify it as "divine guidance", atheists and agnostics prefer to associate it with feelings and a "6th sense". We might ask whether what some people call "intuition" is a faculty of the mind that perceives information and subtly acts on the decisions and orientations of those involved (perception), or a cognitive knowledge acquired during socialization and personal experiences, which is triggered by stimuli (memory)? Are ideas and professional opportunities unpredictable, or are they the fruit of a multifactorial conjuncture that has made them foreseeable and possible? Like Christian Morel's (2002) absurd decisions, is intuition ultimately a cognitive bricolage? Does it act, like a habitus, as a "structured structure predisposed to function as a structuring structure" (Bourdieu, 1980: 88) on individual behavior? In Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotic theory, the question of "habitude" plays a central role in all forms of knowledge, even the most immediate or direct (Pierce, 1978). He argues that all knowledge, including that which seems intuitive, is in fact the result of inferential processes, whether conscious or unconscious. In other words, Peirce did not believe that the human mind could have direct or immediate access to truths without reasoning (Pierce, 1978, Deledalle, 1979). So how does the notion of intuition differ from the notion of revelation?