Intelligence

[Guido Finucci]

... I think W would have been better as a fourth stooge than as president of the world.

Dubya? A fourth stooge? No way. He has absolutely no sense of comedic timing.

[LMNO]

Does intelligence get in the way of spiritual enlightenment?

Well, if we use my model of reality (that is, a modified RAWilson type of thing), we could say that for many people, "intelligence" could be said to be a thorough indexing and cataloging every thing inside one's own grid/filter/model, and "enlightenment" the concious radical changing of said model.

With that in mind, it would appear that an even-handed approach is needed; Too much focus on "intelligence", and a person might not be aware that they are only working within one of a myrid models, the result being a denial of other model's existence.  Too much focus on "enlightenment", and one experiences the new model as completely outside themselves, with no inner/outer exploration, no sense of depth.

I feel that the emphasis of esoteric spiritual traditions on the abandonment of "mind" or "intelligence" as Hoshiko observed can be traced to the widely practiced belief that there "is" only one model, and a particularly strong stress on "intelligence", with "enlightenment" barely touched upon, if at all.

Perhaps this is why Crowley instructed his students to fully analyize and deconstruct every ritual they performed when it was over, and to write down empiracly what occured.  In this way, he tried to bring "enlightenment" and "intelligence" together.

[Hoshiko]

Guido, I'm not so sure we're differing. I should have double-checked my wording, true, but let me go through this again.

Assuming for a second or two that you actually wanted serious responses, I'd say that you're playing fast and loose with your definition of knowledge.

At times you use it in a way that sounds (at least to my ear) like it's synonymous with some sort of gnostic enlightenment. Other times you're almost denegrating it and using it to mean something akin to hardcore, seeing-is-believing, empirical data-based inferences.

Isn't it capable of being both?  Knowledge = The sum of what has been learned, whether that be scientific or spiritual.

I'd guess that a question like this comes from a position that assumes that the something more exists and is better than intelligence.

Maybe not better, but perhaps not encompassed by intelligence. Intelligence as a way to gather knowledge, the capacity to learn, but not the goal itself. Knowledge of some sort would be the goal.

And I believe I see where you're going with this. Intelligence is not necessary for knowledge, although the two can be related, no?

the more I learn the more I begin to think that knowledge is not the goal but a means to the end

Change that to intelligence and I think we're getting somewhere. My bad for inter-changing the two.

****

Devin, W isn't dumb. He's smart, deep down he has nihilistic tendencies, and that's exactly why he's dangerous. It's his ever-adoring public who are burying their heads in the sand; he knows exactly what he's doing, and why would he worry about the consequences if he doesn't have to?

People in power... meh.

[Hoshiko]

Does intelligence get in the way of spiritual enlightenment?

Well, if we use my model of reality (that is, a modified RAWilson type of thing), we could say that for many people, "intelligence" could be said to be a thorough indexing and cataloging every thing inside one's own grid/filter/model, and "enlightenment" the concious radical changing of said model.

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The two constantly being a serious of weights, each detracting from the other in some way. "Tangible Reality" vs "Possibility"? Or am I over-simplifying it?

With that in mind, it would appear that an even-handed approach is needed; Too much focus on "intelligence", and a person might not be aware that they are only working within one of a myrid models, the result being a denial of other model's existence.  Too much focus on "enlightenment", and one experiences the new model as completely outside themselves, with no inner/outer exploration, no sense of depth.

I feel that the emphasis of esoteric spiritual traditions on the abandonment of "mind" or "intelligence" as Hoshiko observed can be traced to the widely practiced belief that there "is" only one model, and a particularly strong stress on "intelligence", with "enlightenment" barely touched upon, if at all.

And that is what bothered me, I think. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can both obviously exist, and both taken to one extreme seem to be just as detrimental as the other. Co-existing models is a much easier concept to swallow, and it has the added benefit of being possible, unlike (in my experience) the one model viewpoint.

Perhaps this is why Crowley instructed his students to fully analyize and deconstruct every ritual they performed when it was over, and to write down empiracly what occured.  In this way, he tried to bring "enlightenment" and "intelligence" together.

Smart thinking. I guess that's why, as hard as I tried, I always had an objection to the term "enlightenment". I just couldn't picture the aspect of my mind preoccupied with reality existing in a situation where perceived reality had no value, and most gurus/ spiritual leaders that I had studied or talked to definitely weren't willing to admit the possibility of "enlightenment" existing peacefully with empirical data.

This makes it much easier to understand. Feel free to tell me if I've missed or misinterpreted anything.

[LMNO]

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way, but it makes a certain amount of sense. The two constantly being a serious of weights, each detracting from the other in some way. "Tangible Reality" vs "Possibility"? Or am I over-simplifying it?

Well, considering I started with an over-simplification, I should probably be clear-er.  "Tangible Reality" seems to be more of a "filtered reality"--that is, there is far too much information coming in at any given instant than our brains can handle.  We have trained our minds to filter out what we have learned, been taught, and have culturally assimilated to call "useless information".  That appears to be our model.  Changing our model (fliter) changes the way we look at the world.  The realization one can, with much hard work, change the model at will could be called "enlightenment"; some may even change models, and not know what happened, and ascribe the process as "devine".  For a ham-fisted example, Cf: Paul on the Road to Damascus.  

That much said, there seems to be no "detraction" from purely the concepts of "intelligence" v "enlightenment" per se.  The detraction may come from the denial of either process.  That is, being intelligent doesn't detract from enlightenment, and being enlightened doesn't detract from intelligence.  It is when one is intelligent and forsakes enlightenment, or when one is enlightened and forsakes intelligence, that a problem seems to arise.

And that is what bothered me, I think. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can both obviously exist, and both taken to one extreme seem to be just as detrimental as the other. Co-existing models is a much easier concept to swallow, and it has the added benefit of being possible, unlike (in my experience) the one model viewpoint.

I sometimes think about old esoteric traditions this way: The best way to learn a foreign language is to be fully immersed in that culture.  You want to learn Japanese in a hurry?  Go live in a part of Japan where most people speak no english.  Your ingrained communication skills are useless, and you must adapt or die (well, not die).  In the same way, esoteric arts try to break the student of their ingrained habits of using their model as the sole interpretation of existence.  

Because "intelligence" tends to back up whatever model is currently used ("What the Thinker Thinks, the Prover Proves" - Wilson, "Enough research will tend to support your theory", Murphy), the esoteric teachers tend to force the students to abandon "intelligence", as it appears to be the largest stumbling block on the road to enlightenment.  What many teachers seem to forget, is to re-introduce intelligence back into the process (Sometimes intentionally - after all, once you add intelligence into enlightenment, you don't really need a teacher anymore).

Smart thinking. I guess that's why, as hard as I tried, I always had an objection to the term "enlightenment". I just couldn't picture the aspect of my mind preoccupied with reality existing in a situation where perceived reality had no value, and most gurus/ spiritual leaders that I had studied or talked to definitely weren't willing to admit the possibility of "enlightenment" existing peacefully with empirical data.

well, once the whole notion of "models" is understood, there is a definite tendency to doubt that what you are experiencing is indeed "real"; perhaps a better way to describe it is an "interpretation"; Von Neumann's theory of infinite regress is a great description of why Empirical data can't be trusted 100%.  Of course, one can't fall into solipsism, which is why the advent of probability theory seems to be so helpful.

[/o\]

If you view the ability to think as another way of observing,  like smell, view, sound, touch and taste than breaking free of dogmas sure brings a light to things.

[LMNO]

But certain approaches to intelligence can be considered Dogmatic, as well.

[DJRubberducky]

I've always perceived and used "dogmatic" in the sense of "being firmly rooted in one paradigm and vehemently dismissing anything which challenges it".  With that in mind, I'd actually claim that science is even more dogmatic than most religions.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but as far as my experience has shown, religion has fewer problems with science explaining things than science does with religion explaining things.  You can scientifically reduce a person down to DNA sequences and most Christians won't care, because that doesn't change their belief that they were created by a divine being.  (Hell, if anything, it'll reaffirm that belief because they can't imagine something that complicated could happen randomly.)  On the other hand, science absolutely will not stand for "Because God made it that way" as an explanation for why things can't travel faster than light, because there is no God in the scientific paradigm.

FWIW, it's also been my experience that very few if any people live completely in the scientific paradigm - it's just something they have to operate within while they're at work.  They believe in God on their own time, and just leave him at home.

[East Coast Hustle]

God is a fucking moron.

as much as a non-existent pseudo-entity can be a fucking moron, that is.

[LMNO]

You've obviously never met my father.  

Perhaps we're gonna start splitting hairs here, but the way I see it, science (when done right) is one of the least dogmatic things out there (of course, that's like saying christianity, when done right, is the most tolerant of religions*).

Science is designed based upon theories and models, and evidence.  The scientific method is the clearest view of this: Hypothesis (theory), experiment, observation, revised hypothesis [repeat].  it in a constant state of revision.  If enough evidence is presented that changes a theory, then the theory will change.  Never mind the scientists who resist.  the science itself will eventually change, or die.

Scientific paradigms are challenged daily. In a way, that's the whole point behind PhD theses.  At the same time, scientific challenges are dismissed every day, as well.  Usually, this is because of faulty experiements, or illogical proofs.  This is why science rejects proofs that end with "because God did it": there are no validating, repeatable experiments that can prove it.  It leaves science and becomes theology.

Many scientists rationalize their faith with science by saying God made the Universe; we want to know how the rules in the Universe He made works.  Or they are atheists.

Science deals with the possibility of the way things seem to work inside this Universe;  Religion deals with the certainty of the way things work outside the universe which affects the universe.

In short, religion bases its beliefs on books and ideas that are thousands of years old.  Science bases its beliefs on whatever replicable experiment was done last week, last night, this morning, now.

Which seems more dogmatic to you?






*no, i don't want to start talking about how Taoism (or whatever) is more tolerant.  It was just an example.

[chaosgraves:agentoferis]

You've obviously never met my father.  

Perhaps we're gonna start splitting hairs here, but the way I see it, science (when done right) is one of the least dogmatic things out there (of course, that's like saying christianity, when done right, is the most tolerant of religions*).

Science is designed based upon theories and models, and evidence.  The scientific method is the clearest view of this: Hypothesis (theory), experiment, observation, revised hypothesis [repeat].  it in a constant state of revision.  If enough evidence is presented that changes a theory, then the theory will change.  Never mind the scientists who resist.  the science itself will eventually change, or die.

Scientific paradigms are challenged daily. In a way, that's the whole point behind PhD theses.  At the same time, scientific challenges are dismissed every day, as well.  Usually, this is because of faulty experiements, or illogical proofs.  This is why science rejects proofs that end with "because God did it": there are no validating, repeatable experiments that can prove it.  It leaves science and becomes theology.

Many scientists rationalize their faith with science by saying God made the Universe; we want to know how the rules in the Universe He made works.  Or they are atheists.

Science deals with the possibility of the way things seem to work inside this Universe;  Religion deals with the certainty of the way things work outside the universe which affects the universe.

In short, religion bases its beliefs on books and ideas that are thousands of years old.  Science bases its beliefs on whatever replicable experiment was done last week, last night, this morning, now.

Which seems more dogmatic to you?






*no, i don't want to start talking about how Taoism (or whatever) is more tolerant.  It was just an example.

so If I take lsd today and experience god in the same way that I have in the past that validates god as an actual entity and not just a manifestation of my conscience and subconscience mind?!?!?

[LMNO]

no, but you can say that in X many instances when you have taken something you believe (or at least have been told) to be LSD you experienced certain things (subjectively, not objectively) that could be either random synaptic firing, lucid dreaming, sub-atomic neural conciousness, a psychological manifestiation of the conscious and/or subconscious, or direct communication with a supernatural being calling itself "god" (among other hypotheses).

Until you can rule out the former stuff, you can't conclude the latter.




My, this is horribly aneristic, isn't it?

[wandering gnome]

Devin, W isn't dumb. He's smart, deep down he has nihilistic tendencies, and that's exactly why he's dangerous. It's his ever-adoring public who are burying their heads in the sand; he knows exactly what he's doing, and why would he worry about the consequences if he doesn't have to?

People in power... meh.

W is not that smart. He is like a dog that has learned one trick. He knows
that if he gives his underlings anything they want, that he can have
anything he wants because they will give it to them. He wanted Iraq.
They went and got it for him. They want themselves appointed to
all the important government posts, he gave it to them. Same lesson
all tyrants eventually learn. Doesn't require any intelligence (hell, Idi
Amin did it) because it doesn't require analyzing choices and making
decisions. You just do what you want. Simple.

[East Coast Hustle]

"Do what thou will" shall be the whole of the law...

or something like that.

[LMNO]

You do, of course, realize that the "thou" is an implied collective, and that "Love is the Law: Love under Will".


Of course you did.  Silly me.