Intelligence vs. Being

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:
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?
While intelligence and being are not directly related they may be indirectly related.
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.
The next remark by the C's is very interesting.
Cassiopaeans said:
It is merely intellectual capacity that is inferior rather than the vibrational frequency level.
To understand this statement, consider Isaac Newton. Ark identifies him as a probable OP and gives his reasons why-
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)
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.
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.
 
There are many interesting questions referred to above.

I have pondered the relationship between intellectual capacity and polarity, and have not arrived at any definite idea about it. I've certainly had the experience of meeting an un-intellectual person that was kind and giving; or a "brilliant" person who was a total narcissist.

Your definition of intelligence seems like a good working definition. It allows for the probability that intelligence is not always recognized, as such, because we can never share the entirety of another person's subjective knowledge (what they have collected with their senses). So we don't know how intelligence will manifest in every possible system, it depends on so many internal and external factors.

(As an aside, I'm always haunted by the Star Trek episode where the ship of (it seems) morons leads the Enterprise to believe that they are helpless, but become dangerous when they "kidnap" the Engineer who voluntarily beams over to fix their engine.)

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.
I think the concept of the FRV itself is more difficult to describe. To liken it with an emotional path feels right. Perhaps the FRV has more to do with our "essence", whereas the mind/thinking center is more subject to the variability of content because of human culture and eduction. This is also why "intelligence" cannot be pigeon-holed.

Kesdjan said:
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.
This does point to a critical effect of "self-remembering" - which is that in observing the entire system of subject and object, one finds oneself subject to the gaze of the objective mind. To withstand that gaze is not always comfortable, but becoming accustomed to it is a critical step in liberating oneself from external influences.
 
Seems to me that intelligence the main tool for aquiring knowledge, the more intelligent, the more accessable knowledge is, from the standpoint of time it takes to assimilate the knowledge and also the type of knowledge that can be accessed without external help.

Its like its just a way of organising data, being efficient, like having a better database system - kind of like the "usability" of the mind, the interface. It doesn't mean that a person whos intelligent automatically loves knowledge or anything. It just means that they find it easier/faster to "get it".

To do anything you need knowledge, and so since intelligent people are better at assimilating it, in general they have more "oppertunity" for being. But its only oppertunity, it still has to be taken. Ie. if someone feels no need to use their intelligence, they might not use it much at all. And so two people who are the same age, one more intelligent than the other, can be in the situation where the lesser intelligence has more knowledge just because they used what they have.

I think there can be two kinds of intelligence. One could be exactly the experience level of assimilating knowledge, in other words, its a natural or mechanical way that the mind of the soul learns, that is the mind that is carried through from one life to another. Like the fundamental mind which is like the framework by which the rest of the mind operates, kind of like the software for the mind. Over the lifetimes it self improves automatically, basically by accident or trial and error. In the sense that something happens so many times that it becomes annoying enough for a fundamental change in how one acts takes place. Pressure from outside forces the change, it is not really a conscious change. The second kind of intelligence is the result of intentional and direct engineering of the fundamental mind on a constant basis. Usually this has to require some kind of goal, in that the current methods used to do many tasks just isn't good enough anymore. So instead of needing to get "annoyed" by being less intelligent in order to make changes to become more intelligent, there is a seeking of what "could" annoy, or hinder, etc, and is removed before it actually causes a problem.

So as an example you could have an extremely intelligent person who is a complete idiot when it comes to some things, because they didn't consciously aquire their intelligence. They didn't really ever choose it, it just happened, and for some reason they got really far with that method over a long period of time, without ever consciously deciding to become intelligent. It could be that its only a matter of time before this won't do, the automatic nature of it gets noticed, and its realised at a deep level to be a real problem with seeing through choices. Kind of like a hose which is spraying water - if every droplet is something which hinders you, instead of taking care of each droplet one by one, whilst others appear way too fast to do anything about them, and in a sense remaining static, you go further to the point where the water is part of a more unified stream and take care of less droplets before they disperse into many more.

I think FRV is involved in a few ways, at the moment I can think of three- one; it determines how intellect is used, two; it can determine the type of intellect, such as what knowledge assimilating abilities are taken to be more useful, and three; it is also the cause or catalyst for becoming more conscious. Whether you are STS or STO at some point you'll probably have a need to be more intelligent, and to want to make a conscious effort at it, just because you decide something and the current "operational status" just isn't good enough.

In a way I see intellect as a sort of processing unit, like a computer in your back pocket which can be upgraded. I don't really see it as "me" in any real sense. Its like an achievement maybe, or a symbol of something, a tool, but not "me".
 
Back
Top Bottom