|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Intelligence
RICHARD: (...) will/volition (with both ego and soul/spirit extinct) is nothing more complicated than intent/ determination. RESPONDENT: Who has this ‘intent/ volition’? (a sincere question). RICHARD: Ha ... have your other queries not been sincere, then? Put succinctly: it is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware that generates intent, and thus volition, or will ... here is how I have described it previously:
Also, and of related interest, there is this:
RESPONDENT: Not really. Call it apperceptive awareness, meditation, energy, intelligence – whatever we like. RICHARD: You may call it ‘whatever we like’ if you wish to continue to be vague ... but I prefer to be specific. I call it apperceptive awareness because it only occurs when there is no sense of identity whatsoever ... then the mind – this physical brain in action – can perceive itself. Not ‘I’ perceiving ‘me’ being aware, but awareness happening of its own accord ... unimpeded and uncensored by the affective faculties. Thus it is very clearly not ‘meditation’; it is not ‘energy’... and it is most certainly not ‘intelligence’ in the sense you use the word because they all are but products of the affective faculties. RESPONDENT: Now if the mind – that is the physical brain in action, as you say – is perceiving itself, that brain, as well as its perceptions IS intelligence. RICHARD: The human brain – unhindered by the presence of an identity – operating as required by the circumstances is a freed intelligence. All humans are intelligent to some degree, however. Intelligence is the faculty for understanding ... intellect, brain-power, mental capacity and aptitude, reason, comprehension, acumen, wit, cleverness, brightness, brilliance, sharpness, quickness of mind, alertness, discernment, perception, perspicacity, sagacity and nous. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is not some concept of some vague void or vacuum ‘somewhere’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is the operation of a particular physical brain in the particular physical skull. It was born when the particular body was born and will die when the particular body dies. If there were no human beings alive on this earth there would be no intelligence. RESPONDENT: It is the actual down-to-earth energy of life. RICHARD: It is certainly actual and it is certainly down-to-earth, yes ... but ‘energy of life’ is too general a term for intelligence. The word ‘life’ refers to all carbon-based life-forms – from single-celled amoebas to multi-celled animals – that are born, live for a period, and die. And all these creatures are energetic ... but only the human brain has the capacity to be intelligent. And even then this intelligence is crippled by an identity. RESPONDENT: When the brain is not using its energy in self-centred abstraction, the brain is of that intelligent energy just as all other life is. RICHARD: No, the brain is not ‘of that intelligent energy’ at all ... the unhindered human brain in action is intelligence being able to operate freely. Intelligence does not exist outside of the human skull ... you are straying into positing that intelligence is present in all life-forms from single-celled amoebas to multi-celled animals. Only the human animal can think and reflect upon its situation. RESPONDENT: There is no ‘personality’ acting which can direct the body to do all sorts of irrelevant and energy wasting action. The body is not continually and ‘artificially animated’ as is usually the case. RICHARD: Yes ... when the brain is apperceptively aware. 5.8 billion human beings have intelligence ... but they have a ‘personality’. * RESPONDENT: There may be those who imagine all this because there certainly have been enough books around for people to assimilate the idea of no-self and to project that idea as actuality, but barring that, this energy is not ‘god’ or any other projection of thought or feeling. That is why it is not affective. RICHARD: If it is not an affective or cerebral (a feeling and thought) projection then that only leaves the sensate faculty ... unless you want to substantiate the psychic faculty? RESPONDENT: Energy is energy. RICHARD: This is as useful a statement as that supposed profundity ‘a rose is a rose is a rose’. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is just another word for energy unencumbered by self-centredness. RICHARD: The energy of the particular human brain in action comes from the food the particular human
body eats. This brain in this body called Richard is unencumbered by self-centredness and he sees that this universe was already
here before this body was born and will still be here after this body dies. The intelligence of this brain – the food-energy
intelligence – most certainly is not the ‘foundation of all manifestation’. This food-energy intelligence is a
manifestation of this physical universe ... not the other way around. RICHARD: What I understand is that this Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for so as to transform ‘all of NATURE’, is not sensate, not affective and not cognitive ... which means that it is an immaterial, eternal (bodiless) Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, eh? A metaphysical Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, in other words ... and the nature, character, constitution or disposition of which either you are ignorant of or are being secretive about. Which is it? RESPONDENT: Well Richard it is given so far I am ‘ignorant of’ knowing what to say about Transformation, that I have not said and still you do not see that it cannot be understood, it can only be ‘seen’ for to understand means to fragment the context (or whole meaning). RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that you are ‘ignorant of knowing what to say’ because this that will ‘transform all of NATURE’ cannot be understood as it ‘can only be ‘seen’’ and to understand would ‘fragment the context (or whole meaning)’ ... which throws the word ‘intelligence’ (the ability to comprehend, understand and know) into meaning something similar to ignorance (non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing, eh? RESPONDENT: The ability to comprehend, understand and know are all of knowledge, not Intelligence. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point that I am making: the word ‘intelligence’ basically means ‘the ability to comprehend, understand and know’ ... whereas the word ‘ignorance’ basically means ‘non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing’. Therefore, why do you not say that ‘I am an open vessel for Ignorance’? RESPONDENT: Or is it the inevitable result of insight into what is, i.e.: intelligence? RICHARD: The only thing ‘what is’ is this physical universe ... the actual world of the senses. There is no ‘intelligence’ that is running this universe, that is to commit the all too common error of anthropomorphism. As a human being, the universe is able to be intelligent, but that is all. An insight into the infinite and eternal character of this universe and the implications of that in regards to one’s situation in the scheme of things can indeed set something profound in motion. Speaking personally, I have no boundaries. RESPONDENT: The intelligence that is the universe is not limited to memory stored in a particular brain. RICHARD: Just what ‘intelligence that is the universe’ is this that you are referring to? The only intelligence that the universe has is as a human being ... which means this brain. Surely you are not bringing the ‘intelligence’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti revered into this discussion ... that ‘intelligence’ is nothing but what is known in the West as the ‘Omniscience of God’. RESPONDENT: There seems to be intelligence that is not a product of brain activity that is creative and accounts for insight. RICHARD: Yes, it is the body’s native intelligence ... and it is the brain in action without any ‘thinker’ that produces insights. RESPONDENT: It is there when the conscious mind is quiet. RICHARD: Intelligence is here when the ‘thinker’ is not. It is great fun being conscious. RESPONDENT: Observe and it will be very clear that it is not a function of memory. RICHARD: This body’s native intelligence makes full use of memory ... it draws upon past experience and anticipates future possibilities. This is intelligence in action. Get rid of the ‘thinker’ and you will see that memory is an asset and not a liability. RESPONDENT: When the brain is operating from programming, is there any room for that energy and intelligence of the universe to contact the brain? RICHARD: You are talking about becoming one with god ... by whatever name. RICHARD: When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul psychologically and psychically self-immolate –
which is the end of ‘being’ itself – then the answer to the ‘Mystery Of Life’ becomes evident as an on-going existential
experiencing; I am this physical universe experiencing itself as a reflective, sensate human being; as me, the universe is
intelligent (there is no anthropomorphic RESPONDENT: Would you not say a tree or an animal or our solar system are put together remarkably and intelligently? RICHARD: Remarkably ... yes. Intelligently ... no. RESPONDENT: Everything seems to fit together perfectly, so complicated and yet so perfect that to me it does indeed seem almost as if a great intelligence, an intelligence greater than the one I use to solve math problems, put it together. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to reflect, plan and implement considered activity (which other animals cannot do) in the environment about for beneficial reasons. But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. Be that as it may, because of this evolved intelligence the human animal can ask: why are we here? Which means: Why am I [No. 38] here? RESPONDENT: Indeed, it seems my own intelligence can do practically nothing. How do I walk? RICHARD: Walking takes much more than intelligence ... just ask the AI people. RESPONDENT: I have no idea which particular muscles I use, at what times, at what strength. How do I think? RICHARD: Intelligence did not produce thinking ... intelligence is a property of thought RESPONDENT: I do not consciously create thoughts – they appear fully formed, I do not construct them that I know of (although it does seem I can attract certain kinds of thoughts by being open to them). Nor does my intellect operate my circulatory system, the construction of blood cells, my breathing, my limbic system, my nervous system, my organs & their reproduction and replenishment. RICHARD: There ... you have virtually said it yourself: ‘nor does my intellect operate ...’ .
The intellect (the cerebral faculty) is the source of intelligence. * RESPONDENT: I wonder what you mean by ‘intelligently.’ RICHARD: I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence. (Oxford Dictionary): ‘The faculty of understanding; intellect; quickness or superiority of understanding, sagacity; the action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something)’. Therefore, I cannot see how ‘a tree or an animal or our solar system’ are ‘put together’ by ‘something’ that only has the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) which has the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) and the capacity for the action or fact of understanding (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something). It takes something much, much more than intelligence ... intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity, just for starters. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said many a time that he could not comprehend infinity and eternity ... even though the ‘supreme intelligence’ was operating in him and would not be manifesting for ‘many hundred of years’! So whether it is the ‘supreme intelligence’ of metaphysical fancy or the genuine article – human intelligence – as neither can comprehend infinity and eternity, it takes something much, much more than intelligence to manifest in itself ‘a tree or an animal or our solar system’ or whatever this universe will be discovered to be manifesting in itself as more and more exploration occurs in the future. RESPONDENT: I call it intelligent when the things one needs are effectively created/discovered. For example, an intelligent design in my programs allows me to do things in the future with my architectures that no one has even thought of yet. Well, a tree very intelligently gathers the energy of sunlight, gathers water, etc. All the things it needs are either available in plentiful supply, or are intelligently gathered by the tree. Perhaps you have a special meaning for the word ‘intelligent’? Perhaps you mean only human-style intelligence. RICHARD: Are you saying that there is some other ‘style’ of intelligence than the only one discovered so far? Where is it? When was it discovered? Has it been verified as different from and superior to the only intelligence there has been so far? Or are you referring to that anthropocentric projection that is known on this Mailing List as ‘that supreme intelligence’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ or ‘that which is timeless, spaceless and formless’ and so on? If so, you are talking to deaf ears ... I have no religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever. I lived that hallucination as a reality for eleven years and found it wanting ... thus I am not open to even consider anything ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ or ‘divine’ and so on for even one second. RESPONDENT: Everything seems to fit together perfectly, so complicated and yet so perfect that to me it does indeed seem almost as if a great intelligence, an intelligence greater than the one I use to solve math problems, put it together. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to reflect, plan and implement considered activity (which other animals cannot do) in the environment about for beneficial reasons. RESPONDENT: I disagree with your assertion that other animals cannot plan and implement considered activity. Animals can solve problems and puzzles; animals can make and implement simple plans. Certainly there is an important difference, but it is one of scale, not of kind. If you need experimental evidence to support this claim, I am certain I can find some references for you. RICHARD: I most certainly would welcome any references of any experimental evidence ... apart from squirrels and similar animals that instinctively do what appears to be reflecting, planning and implementing considered activity, I have been unable to come across any validated experimental evidence that shows that animals have the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) which has the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) and the capacity for the action or fact of understanding (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something). RESPONDENT: Indeed, it seems my own intelligence can do practically nothing. How do I walk? RICHARD: Walking takes much more than intelligence ... just ask the AI people. RESPONDENT: A statement which leads me to believe you have a much more specific meaning for the word ‘intelligence’ than I. By intelligence, I simply mean the facility which allows one to efficiently use available resources to accomplish desired tasks. The greater the improvement over random action in terms of gaining a result, the greater the intelligence involved. RICHARD: That description (‘the facility which allows one to efficiently use available resources to accomplish desired tasks’) is more or less in accord with the way I put it (‘the ability to reflect, plan and implement considered activity’). Can you point out animals that display behaviour that conclusively demonstrates that they ‘efficiently use available resources to accomplish desired tasks’ on a regular and consistent basis? I have been unable to ... and I would be very pleased to learn of such creatures. RICHARD: Are you aware of the word ‘anthropomorphism’. This universe, being magnificent beyond imagining, believing or conceptualising in all its infinitude, can never be described a merely intelligent. RESPONDENT No. 25: Yes. RICHARD: Golly ... intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity. What hope would an intelligence have in running the universe? RESPONDENT: But that is anthropomorphism, conceiving of ‘Intelligence’ as involving self-conscious comprehension and motivation. RICHARD: Not so ... it is the dictionary definition of intelligence. (Oxford Dictionary): ‘The faculty of understanding; intellect; quickness or superiority of understanding, sagacity; the action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something)’. If you wish to make the word ‘intelligence’ mean something else you are free to do so. It will make communication somewhat more difficult, of course, so maybe it would be handy to call it ‘mystical intelligence’ so as to differentiate it from the genuine article ... as most peoples do not realise the metaphysical significance of your capitalisation of the word (‘Intelligence’ as above) and thus the delusion is wide-spread that god knows, understands and really cares. I do find it indicative, however, that you consider that your ‘Intelligence’ cannot comprehend and thus motivate itself. Maybe that is why all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides rage on forever and a day? Because you do seem to be saying that your ‘Intelligence’ cannot comprehend what human animosity and anguish feels like and is thus not motivated into action. Speaking personally, I am well pleased that the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body could self-consciously comprehend and be motivated into an action that was not of ‘his’ doing. Otherwise I would not be here ... writing these words now. RESPONDENT: To say: ‘Intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity’, implies belief that intelligence can be made into an object of observation. RICHARD: Why does it have to be a belief? Why do you say intelligence cannot be observed? Can you not observe, both in yourself and by verifying with others, that the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) which has the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) and the capacity for the action or fact of understanding (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) cannot comprehend infinity and eternity? RESPONDENT: When there seems to be an observer that is separate from what is observed that attention is the movement of thought. I here observe a quality there and interpreting it from my accumulated knowledge I act. RICHARD: So what? What has this to do with being able to observe that both one’s own and others’ intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity? The man you like to quote made it clear, that for him the observer was not separate from the observed, yet he said that he could not comprehend infinity and eternity either ... even though the ‘supreme intelligence’ was operating in him and would not be manifesting for ‘many hundred of years’! So whether it is your capitalised ‘Intelligence’ or the genuine article – human intelligence – neither can comprehend infinity and eternity. As I said at the beginning of this thread: what hope would an intelligence have in running the universe? RESPONDENT: But from another perspective the observer does not exist apart from the observed. The observer exists only in relationship. What is the nature of attention that sees the observer-observed phenomenon as a totality? That attention can not be made into an observed object. It operates when brain activity or thought is quiet. RICHARD: This ‘attention’ that you are talking of is otherwise known as ‘choiceless awareness’ ... and ‘choiceless awareness’ is not the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) which has the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) and the capacity for the action or fact of understanding (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) at all for it is a thoughtless state. What has this to do with being able to observe that both one’s own and others’ intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity? Why are you avoiding the question ... again? This universe is much, much more than merely intelligent. RESPONDENT: Finally, while agreeing that this ‘innate intelligence is always already functioning in each of us’ you seem to take exception in regards to the universe. You say ‘there is no intelligence that is running the universe, however. Only the human animal is intelligent’. I demur. First, let’s be clear, I did not say that there is an intelligence ‘running the universe’. Rather, I said there is an innate intelligence ‘functioning in ... the universe’. To clarify, an innate intelligence functioning in and as the universe. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... there is no ‘innate intelligence functioning in and as the universe’ . Only the human animal is innately intelligent ... and this universe is much, much more than merely intelligent. RESPONDENT: If you still want to maintain that only ‘the human animal is intelligent’ I would refer you to your own writings again. You say, ‘Life is intrinsically purposeful, the reason for existence lies openly all around. Being this very air I live in, I am constantly aware of it as I breathe it in and out; I see it, I hear it, I taste it, I smell it, I touch it, all of the time. It never goes away ... nor has it ever been away. ‘I’ was standing in the way of meaning’. RICHARD: Yes ... this ‘meaning to life’, this ‘purpose of living’, this ‘reason for existence’ is innate to carbon-based life-forms that have evolved intelligence (and ask why): as me the universe can experience it’s infinitude as a sensate and reflective human being. This is an infinite and eternal meaning to life; this is an infinite and eternal purpose of living; this is an infinite and eternal reason for existence. It don’t come bigger that that! RESPONDENT: You also say elsewhere how everything seems to share in this life. So, please consider this. For there to be purpose and meaning to Life there must be an intelligent function to Life. RICHARD: First, I notice you capitalising life – ‘Life’ – as if you are making it to be something more than carbon-based life-forms. Until space exploration is such that life is found elsewhere in this universe, then this verdant planet is the only known place where life is. Secondly, it has taken countless aeons for this carbon-based life-form to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to reflect, plan and implement considered activity (which other animals cannot do) in the environment about for beneficial reasons. But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. Be that as it may, because of this evolved intelligence the human animal can ask: why are we here? Which means: why am I (No. 13) here? RESPONDENT: Second, for all of the intelligence of our species, can we create anything that compares to the marvel of our own nature? Or are you going to tell me that ‘dumb’ luck brought this all together? RICHARD: There is no such thing as ‘luck’ (be it dumb or otherwise) outside of human imagination. This universe, being infinite and eternal has no opposite ... and is thus infinitely and eternally perfect. In such utter perfection, whatever happens, happens of its own perfect accord and thus needs nothing so prosaic as reflecting, planning and implementation. Ultimately, nothing is ‘going wrong’ because nothing can ‘go wrong’ in such absolute perfection. But we humans can ‘tidy up our act’ and create a human paradise. RESPONDENT: The same difficulty arise when looking at phrases such as ‘blind forces of nature’. How can nature be blind, yet we claim to see well enough to determine said blindness? RICHARD: Simply because human beings are intelligent and the ‘blind forces of nature’ are not. Only the human animal can think, reflect and plan. It is patently obvious that the ‘blind forces of nature’ (blind nature) cannot conceive in, or exercise the mind with, or form, or have in the mind, an hypothesis, a theory, a supposition, a plan, a design, a notion, an idea, or can conceive of mentally as in meditate on, turn over in the mind, ponder, contemplate, deliberate or reflect on and come to the understanding – in a positive active way and form connected objectives – or otherwise have the capacity to cogitate and conjecture and choose mentally (as in form a clear mental impression of something actual). It is human beings’ native intelligence that enables them to ‘see well enough to determine said
blindness’ ... contrary to popular belief there is no ‘Intelligence’ that runs the universe. The universe can only be
intelligent as a sensate reflective human being. RICHARD: There is no ‘Intelligence’ that is running the universe, however. Only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: If by ‘running’ the universe you mean existing in/as the uni-verse, let me get this straight ... for billions and billions of years, an unintelligent universe exists. Then just a geological instant ago, ‘presto!’ man, that wonderful primate, appears (much applause). Why would a non-intelligent universe grow intelligent life-forms? RICHARD: Are you aware of the word ‘anthropomorphism’. This universe, being magnificent beyond imagining, believing or conceptualising in all its infinitude, can never be described a merely intelligent. Golly ... intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity. What hope would an intelligence have in running the universe? RESPONDENT: Evidence of intelligence (to which humans may not be such a good example) abounds. RICHARD: Where? RESPONDENT: Throughout this universe. RICHARD: If you wish to substantiate your anthropomorphic RESPONDENT: Let us keep it simple so we do not mesmerize ourselves with our imaginative capacities or fall in love with the sound of our own voice/song. RICHARD: If I may point out? I have been keeping it simple all along. Everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Yes, Krishnamurti used this analogy when he was young. Maybe I am just not up to your verbal flare, but most of the time it seems you use pontificatory statements to complicate your message. The art of life is to see clearly. Clarity leads to simplicity. Communicating complexity simply is the fruit of wholistic intelligence. RICHARD: Yet I do not have an ‘wholistic intelligence’ ... therefore I present facts. The fact is that human suffering has at least a 3,000 to 5,000 year recorded history – and as peoples everywhere are relying upon an ‘Ancient Wisdom’ that is 3,000 to 5,000 years old – all it takes is a simple observation to see that everybody is going in the wrong direction. To wit: How come it has taken 3,000 to 5,000 years ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found? RESPONDENT: Because I have not the prerequisite Interest Quotient. RICHARD: Try watching/ reading the news bulletins with whatever media you have access to and use your highly valued affective feelings – emotions and passions and calenture – to really, deeply, primally feel all the anguish and animosity inherent in all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides that parades across billions of T. V. screens daily. And try watching/reading the ‘animals in the wild’ programs so as to see where the human animal shares this common ancestry of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Your I. Q. (Intelligence Quotient) will increase in direct proportion to your I. Q. (Interest Quotient) because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. But becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage, because until one becomes curious as to whether what is being written here can be applied to themselves, only then does the first step begin. Because it is only when one becomes curious about the workings of oneself – what makes one tick – is that person participating in their search for freedom for the first time in their life. This is because people mostly look to rearranging their beliefs and truths as being sufficient effort ... ‘I’ am willing to be free as long as ‘I’ can remain ‘me’. In other words: their notion of freedom is a ‘clip-on’. Then curiosity becomes fascination ... and then the fun begins to gain a momentum of its own. One is drawn inexorably further and further towards one’s destiny ... fascination leads to commitment and one can know when one’s commitment is approaching a 100% commitment because others around one will classify one as ‘obsessed’ (in spite of all their rhetoric a 100% commitment to evoking peace-on-earth is actively discouraged by one’s peers). Eventually one realises that one is on one’s own in this, the adventure of a life-time, and a peculiar tenacity that enables one to proceed against all odds ensues. Then one takes the penultimate step ... one abandons ‘humanity’. Freedom then unfolds its inevitable destiny. RESPONDENT No. 60: Taking a walk in the country the other day, I was mulling over a few aspects of actualism (...) RESPONDENT No. 49: (...) I too was having some thoughts on AF the other day. Specifically on how Richard refers to the rise of IQ in relation to AF. RESPONDENT No. 60: Is that so? RICHARD: No, it is not so ... I have never referred to anything of the sort. RESPONDENT No. 60: I haven’t noticed Richard saying anything about IQ. RICHARD: A computer search of all I have ever written returned the following two (2) hits: (...) RESPONDENT: Some computer searches can be very picky… so if you try typing
I. Q., or I (dot) (space) Q (dot), you would also find that you once wrote – [Richard]: ‘Your I. Q. (Intelligence Quotient)
will increase in direct proportion to your I. Q. (Interest Quotient) because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth
one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature’. RICHARD: Well, well, well ... I had forgotten I wrote that (I have written so much I have lost track of what I said and where I said it). RESPONDENT: It is obvious to me what you meant by this, that a body’s innate intelligence increases in direct proportion to its altruism and/or pure intent and/or actual caring, but it can be misunderstood by others. RICHARD: Yes, although in the context of the exchange the quote originates from what I also meant was rather more prosaic than that ... because this is what I was responding to:
Thus it is more a play on words than anything else ... this was my response:
Perhaps it is misleading to have it included in the selected correspondence section on intelligence because, although it might be arguable that IQ increases/decreases proportional to interest/disinterest, my response was somewhat opportunistic (taking the opportunity to make the point that unless one is vitally interested nothing of consequence is likely to occur). I see that a couple of months later I had already modified my (above) response when corresponding with another:
RESPONDENT: I suppose it was of your earlier writings ... RICHARD: Yes ... circa August 1999 (on a spiritual mailing list) and, as I recall, the subject of IQ testing and its limitations as a measure of intelligence was a hot topic at the time. RESPONDENT: ... from which I have additionally and indirectly learnt that (in contrast to your later writings) clarity in communication also increases in direct proportion to others clearly wanting to communicate. RICHARD: Indeed so. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. RESPONDENT: What is intelligence? RICHARD: When I use the word <intelligence> I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence: the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) which means the ability to rationally and thus sensibly reflect, plan and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons ... and to be able to convey information to other human beings so that knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations. No other animal can do this. Speaking personally, I find the whole furore about what ‘intelligence’ really is very amusing: there are people who talk sagely about ... um ... dolphins, for just one example, as being ‘intelligent’ and will argue their case vigorously and vociferously and scorn IQ tests as being a measure of intelligence. Yet when these self-same people turn their attention to ‘outer space’ or ‘deep space’ (as the SETI peoples do), they all of a sudden know precisely what intelligence actually is ... when they say that they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence they do not for one moment mean that they are looking for ‘intelligent’ creatures like ... um ... dolphins, for example. No way ... they are looking for what intelligence actually is as per the dictionary definition. RESPONDENT: Is it just outcome of a brain working? RICHARD: The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature (as is so far discovered) to evolve intelligence after a long evolutionary process that sets the human animal apart from the other animals. By saying ‘just’ are you saying that there is intelligence somewhere else than the human brain? If so, where? And when was it discovered? Has it been verified as the same as, or different from, and/or inferior and/or superior to, the only intelligence which has been discovered so far? RESPONDENT: Is intelligence individual? RICHARD: It is individual inasmuch as intimate access to each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet is in the private domain, as it were (as contrasted to the public domain) and in that the faculty for intelligence is born with each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet and faculty for intelligence will die with each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet. As I have already remarked: similarity does not constitute a ‘collective mind’. RESPONDENT: When something is focused there is a bit of silence-attention in brain-mind and from this silence insight arises, when brain is stillest and thought stopped insight comes. From where comes this insight? RICHARD: An insight is a function of the human brain in action in the human skull ... it is a rapid penetration into the character, nature, disposition or quality of a situation or circumstances; a sudden apprehension of the solution to a problem or difficulty; an immediate cerebral view or disclosure; it is when one mentally ‘gets’ something one has not properly understood before; it is a cognitive ‘seeing’ of something important to comprehension that comes with the understanding that the insight reveals what theoretical or abstract or conceptual thinking was unable to arrive at by the use of – sometimes laborious – sequential thought. An insight into the human condition is direct seeing, unmediated by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ ... and when the moment of insight is over, then the fun begins. Because one must start from where one is at and move towards what the insight disclosed. However, one has had the insight, and the insight galvanises one into matter-of-fact thought instead of merely conceptual thought. Thinking is still linear, of course, but one now has the advantage of being able to see the obvious. Seeing the obvious relieves one from believing, trusting, hoping and having faith. There is now a confidence, born out of the certainty of the insight, that enables one to actualise the insight in one’s daily life ... and this actualisation means that one’s life is changed, irrevocably (this is a potential sticking point, incidentally, for people want to be free without having to change ... but that is another topic). It is this confidence that effects actual change, for there is an impelling movement of actualisation – being pulled from ahead – which is what comes from the choiceless action that ensues with being activated from the insight. This is qualitatively different from a propelling movement – being pushed from behind – which is what comes from the disciplined action that eventuates with being motivated by the certitude of conceptual thought. There is always a smidgen or two of doubt in conceptual thought, you see. RESPONDENT: Is it individual? RICHARD: It is individual inasmuch as each insight is in the private domain, as it were (as contrasted to the public domain) yet the capacity exists in each and every person. However, I see that you are obviously of the view that both insight and intelligence are not individual, which view you wrote about a few weeks ago:
RESPONDENT: To limit intelligence to the supposed advent of thought is indeed limited. RICHARD: There is nothing ‘supposed’ about the ‘advent of thought’, nor is there anything ‘limited’ about applying a word to that which it properly applies to. When I use the word <intelligence> I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence: the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) which means the ability to rationally and thus sensibly notice, reflect, plan and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons and to be able to convey information to other human beings so that knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations ... no other animal can do this. If you wish to rewrite the dictionaries single-handedly, then go ahead ... until then I will stay with the generally accepted convention as it avoids confusion and aids clarity in communication. RESPONDENT: Isn’t the reproductive passage of genetic information intelligent? Other generations are informed by the adaptation of last year’s flower. Grunts are intelligent, are they not? We think we are intelligent and those or that one is not. The advent of self-reflection is quite a potential but also involved in the workings of the everyday neurosis so prevalent in modernity. It is like some are stuck in the intelligence of the mind or head and removed from other intelligence – that movement of celestial bodies and atomics and the genius of the snail and oak tree and human. Intelligence is life – the factor that assembles the human body and keeps it from being a corpse (for a limited time only, of course). RICHARD: If you wish to talk of the energetic process that is ‘the reproductive passage of genetic information’ and ‘grunts’ and ‘that movement of celestial bodies’ and ‘atomics’ and ‘the snail’ and ‘the oak tree’ and ‘life as the factor that assembles the human body’ then you are quite obviously not referring to the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) because in no way can intelligence generate these wondrous happenings. It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-form to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly but to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. Thus, you are belittling what this universe actually is by calling such marvellous processes ‘intelligence’. These amazing processes are much, much more than intelligence in operation. RESPONDENT: Perhaps I am using an extremely Christian science view of intelligence, but I thought that might interest you. RICHARD: All religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical ‘views of intelligence’ hold no interest for me whatsoever ... I find the whole furore about what ‘intelligence’ really is very amusing: there are people who talk sagely about ... um ... dolphins, for just one example, as being ‘intelligent’ and will argue their case vigorously and vociferously and scorn IQ tests as being a measure of intelligence. Yet when these self-same people turn their attention to ‘outer space’ or ‘deep space’ (as the SETI peoples do), they all of a sudden know precisely what intelligence actually is ... when they say that they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence they do not for one moment mean that they are looking for ‘intelligent’ creatures like ... um ... dolphins, for example. No way ... they are looking for what intelligence actually is as per the dictionary definition. RESPONDENT: One of the myths is that linearity is better than not. RICHARD: As I said in the previous post, ‘linearity’ is mostly a word spiritual people use when talking with me in response to my suggestion that they stay focussed, stick to the issue, be relevant ... and communicate meaningfully. RESPONDENT: I actually have a degree in computer science. Actually I graduated top of my class. I assure you I am capable of clear thinking. RICHARD: An on-going demonstration would be far more convincing than a B.Sc (Computer Science) accreditation after your name. Have a go at using your ‘clear thinking’ and accurately respond this time around in the following exchange (for an example):
RESPONDENT: Computers demand such. They ignore or react to any other sort of thinking on the part of us humans. I am sure you have begun to find that out. RICHARD: No ... a computer is a tool and a tool is incapable of the oh-so-common normal human characteristics such as ignoring or reacting to a human’s thinking. A computer, although electronic, operates mechanically via the GUI ... what you are describing is the consequences of clicking ‘X’ instead of ‘OK’, for a simple example. The deletion (‘X’) of your work, instead of continuing (‘OK’) with your work ensues as a result of misunderstanding the mechanics of cause and effect and instead imbuing a computer with human-like characteristics such as a demand on the part of a computer for clear thinking from its operator. The dumbest, most confused person in the ABC Of Computers classroom readily comprehends such basic cause and effect consequences as ‘if I click ‘X’ instead of ‘OK’ everything gets lost; if I click ‘OK’ instead of ‘X’ it moves on to the next thing’. The question is: do you want to ‘move on to the next thing’ or continue to get lost? RESPONDENT: I recommend a 3 year university level training as a computer scientist for you; if you are willing and interested in deepening your discernment; of being able to distinguish between facts and points-of-view. RICHARD: This would be the appropriate moment to inform you that other respondents have told me that, in order for me to communicate with them, I must do their version of what you are recommending – one such person insisted I do a five year university course in logic and analytic thinking for example – and if I did do all these studies, courses, groups, therapies, workshops and so on that these different peoples want me to do then ... then I will end up like them (they say). Is it not quaint that a mere boy from the farm, with no university degrees in logic or computer science or
analytic thinking, wound up being free from the human condition? RICHARD: An intelligent source would ‘create’ happy and harmless humans ... else make mockery of what the word intelligence means. RESPONDENT: Unless intelligence is a response to that mockery, the reading of that mockery, even the creation of a perception of mockery. RICHARD: Nevertheless, only an unintelligent source of life could bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings. RESPONDENT: My apologies for having fun with this. RICHARD: No problem ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and not mine. RESPONDENT: I guess this thread is winding down for me, getting into particulars where I can only speculate, which is fun for a while. RICHARD: But why would an intelligent source bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings? It is a genuine question. RESPONDENT: But a few further thoughts occur that I will put down here. (1) the question whether intelligence was there from the beginning ... RICHARD: And what ‘beginning’ would that be? RESPONDENT: ... and your assertion that malice and sorrow couldn’t exist in an intelligent universe. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon the universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Both malice and sorrow are rooted in the ‘self’ (which is born out of the instinctual passions) ... not in intelligence’ [endquote]. I don’t think the self is born out of instinctual passions. RICHARD: Why not? The chimpanzee, for example, displays behaviour which evidences that there is a rudimentary ‘self’ in situ. RESPONDENT: It seems to me it is born in images remaining stuck in consciousness and clogging awareness and perception. RICHARD: Are you trying to tell me that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are caused by something so superficial as ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’? RESPONDENT: This distortion of perception is a strike against intelligence. The afflicted brain is no longer able to process perceptions intelligently. But outside of that brain intelligence may operate. RICHARD: Are you referring to a disembodied ‘intelligence’? RESPONDENT: Animals have instinct, and yet behave intelligently, though their faculties are different, perhaps ‘limited’. RICHARD: There is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons ... when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die. Here is a dictionary definition:
Surely you are not suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: There seems to be considerable intelligence operating in a dog who saves a man’s life, or in any corner of the universe. RICHARD: Could you flesh out what you mean by ‘any corner of the universe’? RESPONDENT: If you agree that there may be intelligence in one brain and not in another, the source of intelligence doesn’t seems to be an issue worth investigating ... RICHARD: For as far as space exploration has thus far shown only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: ... but the reason for the malfunctioning of the human brain becomes all important. RICHARD: And it takes the intelligence which only humans have to suss out why ... I see no evidence that the dog, for just one example, is doing anything about ridding itself of its instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Why don’t we perceive our ignorance? RICHARD: Speaking personally, the identity who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did perceive ‘his’ ignorance ... and ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. !Voila! The already always existing peace-on-earth immediately became apparent. RESPONDENT: Why don’t I perceive my ignorance? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: consider looking deeper than ‘images remaining stuck in
consciousness’ for the cause of the ‘malfunctioning’. * RICHARD: ... why would an intelligent source bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings? It is a genuine question. RESPONDENT: There may be an aspect of intelligence that cannot avoid pain and sorrow, the ‘pain of the false’. Perhaps the false is always the door to the truth? RICHARD: Okay ... now that the discussion is getting back to the initial enquiry into the nature of the movement in ‘the absolute’ (an intelligent source otherwise known as truth or god) it is indeed apposite to ask why there would be an aspect of truth or god that cannot avoid malice and sorrow: you say it is because the false (otherwise known as evil) is always the door to the truth (otherwise known as god). Does your answer make sense to you when it is spelled out ... or is this an opportune moment to proceed with the enquiry? If so here is the way such an enquiry could be phrased:
Or:
* RESPONDENT: But a few further thoughts occur that I will put down here. (1) the question whether intelligence was there from the beginning ... RICHARD: And what ‘beginning’ would that be? RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can let it go as a metaphor? RICHARD: A ‘metaphor’ for what ... and, as it colours your statement with unstated implications, why would you want to ‘let it go’? * RESPONDENT: ... and your assertion that malice and sorrow couldn’t exist in an intelligent universe. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon the universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. RESPONDENT: Take my anthropomorphism with a grain of salt. RICHARD: No ... too many wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on have been caused by anthropocentricism for it to be glossed-over and/or dismissed so readily as you do here. RESPONDENT: I see no harm in considering that the universe may be an expression of intelligence. RICHARD: Try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone being tortured; try telling that to the person on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to the recipient of child abuse; try telling that to someone sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide. More specifically, try saying that to the Buddhist woman who is being raped by a Hindu soldier; try saying that to the Hindu mother whose son has been brutally tortured by Muslim terrorists; try saying that to a Jewish grandmother whose entire family has been wiped out by zealous Christians; try saying that to a Taoist girl whose life has been violated and ruined by Buddhist/ Shinto soldiers; try saying that a Zen monk whose whole city has been razed by an atomic explosion. If your wife and/or daughter and/or mother and/or grandmother and/or sister was being brutally raped, would you really stand by saying to her:
* RESPONDENT: Animals have instinct, and yet behave intelligently, though their faculties are different, perhaps ‘limited’. RICHARD: There is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons ... when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die. RESPONDENT: The difference with humans: we manage to accelerate all the destructive tendencies, because we’re blinded by the self. RICHARD: Even so, there is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons – when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die – therefore it behoves you to look again at your statement that animals ‘behave intelligently’, non? Plus, using the chimpanzee as an example once more, their ‘destructive tendencies’ are quite well documented and show a startling resemblance to humans’ destructiveness. Only recently a television programme was aired here about studies made of them over many, many years in their native habitat and I was able to see civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, grief, group ostracism ... and so on. It is easily discerned by those with the eyes to see that animals are not aware of their actions ... let alone the instinctual passions that drive them. Put simply: as animals cannot think they are not intelligent. * RESPONDENT: Animals have instinct, and yet behave intelligently, though their faculties are different, perhaps ‘limited’. RICHARD: There is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons ... when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die. RESPONDENT: The difference with humans: we manage to accelerate all the destructive tendencies, because we’re blinded by the self. RICHARD: Even so, there is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons – when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die – therefore it behoves you to look again at your statement that animals ‘behave intelligently’, non? RESPONDENT: I don’t see any difficulty. RICHARD: The ‘difficulty’ is that it makes a mockery of what the word ‘intelligence’ means (or points to). RESPONDENT: Intelligence can operate in all matter, but its expressions would obviously vary. RICHARD: It has to vary all the way into meaning ‘ignorance’ to have it cover the scenario you depict (‘animals behave intelligently’) ... animals are ignorant of obvious cause and effect (as is evidenced by their inability to plan accordingly and thus languish and die when drought or famine occurs). * RICHARD: Plus, using the chimpanzee as an example once more, their ‘destructive tendencies’ are quite well documented and show a startling resemblance to humans’ destructiveness. Only recently a television programme was aired here about studies made of them over many, many years in their native habitat and I was able to see civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, grief, group ostracism ... and so on. It is easily discerned by those with the eyes to see that animals are not aware of their actions ... let alone the instinctual passions that drive them. Put simply: as animals cannot think they are not intelligent. RESPONDENT: Their awareness may be different from ours, but our awareness is limited, too. RICHARD: Not as ‘limited’ as the animals’ awareness ... you are on a hiding to nowhere to keep on pursuing the line that animals ‘behave intelligently’. RESPONDENT: We have an additional limitation: the illusion of the self, which remains unaware of its limitations. RICHARD: Again ... animals have a rudimentary ‘self’ (which they are totally unaware of and not only ‘unaware of its limitations’). The day that animals start writing to each other, on computers they have invented, discussing matters such as you and I are exploring here is the day I will agree with you that animals ‘behave intelligently’. * RICHARD: Here is a dictionary definition: [quote]: ‘Intelligence: (1) The faculty of understanding; intellect. (2) Quickness or superiority of understanding; sagacity. (3) The action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something). Synonyms: intellect, mind, brain, brain-power, mental capacity/aptitude, reason, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, cleverness, brightness, brilliance, sharpness, quickness of mind, alertness, discernment, perception, perspicacity, penetration, sense, sagacity; brains; (inf.): grey matter, nous. (© 1998 Oxford Dictionary). Surely you are not suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: That question I’ll leave to science. RICHARD: As you have just recently stated what you think of science I do look askance at your avoiding-the-question response (‘a matter beyond the reach of science, I hope (...) science as knowledge seems static’) ... here is the question again: are you suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: To me it’s a question of semantics. RICHARD: Unless you can come up with a better description of what the word ‘intelligence’ points to then this response is a weak cop-out ... a wish-washy avoidance of the question. I cannot be any more straight-forward than this. * RESPONDENT: There seems to be considerable intelligence operating in a dog who saves a man’s life, or in any corner of the universe. RICHARD: Could you flesh out what you mean by ‘any corner of the universe’? RESPONDENT: I see the universe as pervaded by intelligence, even synonymous with it. RICHARD: Are you willing to examine your seeing for veracity? RESPONDENT: When we discuss non-matter, ‘veracity’ sounds wrong. RICHARD: As the ‘non-matter’ under discussion is what you call ‘the truth’ (in contrast to ‘the false’ ) then the usage of such a word is perfectly apt. Viz.:
Howsoever, I am only too happy to rephrase the question: are you willing to examine your seeing (of the universe being ‘pervaded by intelligence, even synonymous with it’) so as to ascertain whether your seeing is true or false? * RESPONDENT: If you agree that there may be intelligence in one brain and not in another, the source of intelligence doesn’t seems to be an issue worth investigating ... RICHARD: For as far as space exploration has thus far shown only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: ... but the reason for the malfunctioning of the human brain becomes all important. RICHARD: And it takes the intelligence which only humans have to suss out why ... I see no evidence that the dog, for just one example, is doing anything about ridding itself of its instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: The dog doesn’t need to. The problem is ours alone. RICHARD: The ‘problem’ is a human problem alone only because human being possess intelligence ... humans can see the results of their instinctual passions in action (if they care enough to actually look that is) whereas animals, including the dog, will carry on blindly being run by instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. I was born and raised on a farm and I have personally seen dogs, who are not kept in at night, form into a pack and go on a hunting spree, killing many more of some farmer’s sheep than they could possibly want to eat ... in fact they are all well-fed by their owners. This example of domesticated dogs is also well-documented ... and the frenzy of killing is called ‘blood-lust’. I could go on with other examples – cats in the wild driving species to extinction – but maybe this will suffice for now? RESPONDENT: In a human, call it bloodlust or frenzy. In an animal it’s an expression of the nature of that species, even intelligent. RICHARD: What is ‘intelligent’ about an ‘expression of nature’ that kills more than it can eat (when it already has a full belly) and/or drives species to extinction? These acts are what humans castigate each other for doing. RESPONDENT: If you go for a walk, from where is coming this desire to go for a walk? RICHARD: This is a loaded question and, as such, impossible to answer in its present form (there is life after desire). RESPONDENT: And if you are making sex where come these erections, out of the blue? RICHARD: No, engorgement of the genitals comes from tactile stimulation. RESPONDENT: I again ask you to excuse me for the questions, but I try to understand. RICHARD: Sure ... it would help your understanding considerably, however, if you were to take note of what I have to report (for example I notice that you have persisted in your ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’ borrowed wisdom in another e-mail recently whilst regurgitating what you told me about the tree’s leaves being green). There is no ‘observer’ to be the ‘observed’ here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: It seems to me more logical, that if something like freedom of the instincts ... RICHARD: If I may interject? An actual freedom from the human condition is a freedom from the instinctual passions – not the instincts per se – plus, of course, the feeling of ‘being’ (usually designated as a ‘state of being’) or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into. RESPONDENT: ... must happen to humankind, then nature knows when and something will take place. RICHARD: The identity who used to parasitically inhabit this flesh and blood body acted on the observation that an individual life was too short to hang about waiting for blind nature to get its act together (plus the human condition was already in place by being born replete with instinctual passions anyway). RESPONDENT: Why must depend on you to change your nature? RICHARD: Because at the current stage of evolution it is ‘you’ – and only ‘you’ – who can determine the fate of one flesh and blood body in particular and humankind in general. RESPONDENT: Why you call nature blind nature etc and then you speak about beautiful universe unimaginable etc? RICHARD: The term ‘blind nature’ is a well-known term which refers to the natural process of species propagation being survival of the species most fitted to the environment. In short: it is not an intelligent process (the cognitive ability to think, recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons, which other animals cannot do, is intelligence in operation). As I never speak about ‘beautiful universe’ your related query is a non-sequitur RESPONDENT: Do you think that the universe who created you or in your words the universe who is you experiencing its self, is less intelligent that you? RICHARD: This infinite, eternal, and perpetual universe is not intelligent (except, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, as a human being) ... it is far, far more than merely intelligent. Human beings value intelligence highly, of course, it being what has enabled the species to progress as far as it has thus far ... but to project this highly valued attribute onto the universe at large is anthropomorphism. RESPONDENT: Do you think that you could explain to Iraqis when bombs are falling about to be free from their being? RICHARD: Only if the person concerned spoke English (I have but the one language). RESPONDENT: I find it logical that a jump will take place when is needed. RICHARD: Nobody is twisting your arm to become free of the human condition ... all that blind nature is on about is survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned). Blind nature does not care two hoots about your condition ... the question is: do you? RESPONDENT: I do however not accept you as the only role-model for perfection (if perfection is defined here as someone who is free of the human condition). RICHARD: Okay ... let me know when you find some body else that is actually free from the human condition (I would like to compare notes, as it were). RESPONDENT: There have been people like Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh or Jiddu Krishnamurti or Da Free John who have made similar statements ... RICHARD: The three people you refer to made or make statements that are either religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical ... which is the only alternative to being ‘normal’ (‘human’) thus far in human history. RESPONDENT: ... and to tell you the truth I’m not sure if you are entitled to compare yourself and find yourself on a higher plane with regard to the quality of intelligence that these people were speaking from. RICHARD: I am not on a ‘higher plane’ whatsoever ... I am a fellow human being, sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, situated irrevocably here on this verdant earth as this flesh and blood body. As for ‘the quality of intelligence’ that they were ‘speaking from’ :
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON INTELLIGENCE (Part Two) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
