I would like for this thread to be a starting point in the understanding of the differences between intelligence and being but I would like also to address the hard problems of attention, free will, and the intricacies of the human machine in general. Intelligence is a difficult subject- everybody can recognize it but nobody knows what it is. I would like to suggest that intelligence, that is the vernacular definition of intelligence, refers to the ability of the formatory apparatus to organize and discriminate between the material (i.e. subjective knowledge) collected by the senses. Here is what the C's say on the subject of intelligence:
I'm done philosophizing for now. Comments are appreciated. A related question: identity diffusion is a term from psychology equivalent to 'little i' are there any equivalent psychological terms for self observation, self-remembering, being and other work terms.
While intelligence and being are not directly related they may be indirectly related.Cassiopaeans said:A: The only phenomenon that is present here that is in any way related to the situation you describe is what could be termed intellectual capacity, which is not related directly to
vibrational frequency. Think, if you will, in your lifetime have you ever met either a) an individual that you did not perceive to be particularly intellectually developed, who was,
nevertheless, of a very kind and loving and giving nature; or b) an individual whom you perceive to have great intellectual capacity who was, nevertheless, extremely selfish and
non-giving and not generous and not concerned about anyone's well being but their own?
The next remark by the C's is very interesting.Glossary said:FRV is not directly coupled to knowledge or intellectual capacity. Still, knowledge and intellectual capacity facilitate work on one's FRV. They allow one to discern between STS and STO and to make corresponding choices, thus heading towards one or the other end. FRV is essentially an indication of an emotional path.
To understand this statement, consider Isaac Newton. Ark identifies him as a probable OP and gives his reasons why-Cassiopaeans said:It is merely intellectual capacity that is inferior rather than the vibrational frequency level.
His impetus for work was not so much a search for truth, but petty rivalry [Hooke, Leibniz(not that something worthwhile didn't result from his work)]. Self-remembering is a way to fully observe a phenomenon- the system which includes both the subject and object. It gives a higher quality of information (literaly- colors and sounds are perceived as more intense and time "slows"). If one continues emergent properties appear such as free will, individuality, independence of external and internal forces, etc.Ark said:1) Newton was undoubtly a genious
2) He was probably an OP (he understood what is a "sin", but he did not understand what "love" is)
3) He was an egomaniac that was controlling his egomania. He was cutting his name with a knife all over the schools, and
he believed that he may be another "Son of God" - beyond Christ (he was born December 25!)
4) He preferred to serve the King making coins than to search for the Truth
5) He was stating autoritatively that something is impossible - when it was possible (example: achromatic lenses)
6) He did not like to quote others or even to thank others, from whom he was "borrowing" his ideas (the idea that
gravity is responsible for the shape of planetary orbits came from Hook - this wa the real "Newton's apple")
7) He hated his critics (He deliberately has published his "Optics" a year after Hook died, so that he would not
have to respond to the criticism of Hook)
I'm done philosophizing for now. Comments are appreciated. A related question: identity diffusion is a term from psychology equivalent to 'little i' are there any equivalent psychological terms for self observation, self-remembering, being and other work terms.