Can ‘intelligence’ have an impact?

From: phil henshaw Wednesday, September 23, 2006 8:09 PM
To: ‘overpopulation@googlegroups.com’
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation

Bob,

Perhaps if you thought of each kind of intelligence as a different language, only capable of receiving and interpreting certain kinds of nature’s phrases, you’d get the meaning of ‘cultural’ that I intended.  There’s women’s intelligence, for example, often quite different from men’s.  They may not be so hot on controlling things as men are, or even care about the kinds of devious schemes we dream up to bend the world to our will, but boy! wouldn’t we all live impoverished lives without their different way of seeing things, their fundamentally different intelligence?

When you look around you begin to realize that a lot of the big differences between people we see are from their having different kinds of intelligence for the world, seeing and responding to entirely different totally real things.  We can catch glimpses of that now and then, but mostly we are simply not aware of what we’re not aware of.  No crime in that inherently, of course, but if you’re confronting mysterious problems, looking in the big grab bag of what lies beyond the narrow window of our own intelligence is a pretty good place to start!  Yes, what we all think of as the whole world is a small window on a real one that seems to just get ever richer the more we discover about it.

Naturally a graphic model with a back-up of physics principles, my suggestion that the everything fits a ‘bump on a curve’, takes getting used to.  I see no indication that any of the numerous things that make humans a very different kind of species changes the basics of reality though.  We’re still unable to change instantaneously, reach infinite heights or keep things from beginning and ending.  If you accept those three principles, you accept my model.  What will make it meaningful or useful may be different, of course.

I’m not so sure we’ve recognized the processes that are threatening the earth.  I still don’t see anyone else trying to make sense out of the enormous harm most people do by trying to do good without looking at its whole effect.
Regards,

Phil Henshaw            ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Responding to:

From: bob.heinonen
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation
Phil
I guess I am thinking of a biological self awareness type of intelligence more than a cultural intelligence. Since no other system, that we are aware of, has had that critical ingredient, can we really assume that  œsymmetric evolutionary development processes  apply to humans. After all, we have 1) recognized and defined the processes and, 2) are trying ¦.right here ¦.to overcome them for humanity.
Bob Heinonen
——————————–
Responding to:

From: phil henshaw
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2006 11:37 PM
To: ‘overpopulation@googlegroups.com’
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation
Bob,
Well that’s the problem, it sure *seems* like intelligence is some definite benefit, but when you ponder the situation I find that what we take for intelligence applies only to a particular context. It’s different in every culture, and we don’t know who’s going to be able to pick up our form of intelligence, and many don’t seem able to.  People have different intelligence for different things, it’s culture based, like another level of language.  The Chinese, for example, just developed the knack for economic ‘intelligence’ very recently, despite evidently having considerable native intelligence all along, just like all the people in the currently failing societies do too.

One of the things I’ve had the most fun with in life is stretching my intellect to be able to understand quite a lot about how natural systems work, only to find that I had gone so far outside the common culture of ideas to do it, and that my knowledge is of almost no use in a land in desperate need of it.  It’s really strange, for example, that science has almost nothing whatever to say about what growth is or what it’s for.  Growth is primarily for giving birth to things, but it runs itself, and we just don’t study things that run themselves… science only studies how things are controlled.  Studying control it the key motive, power and great failing of our intellect.  Things of nature that are not controlled are virtually invisible to us.

That’s why I suggest people closely watch growth, because growth is a reliable tell-tale sign of an autonomous organism going through an unstable creative development process.  You watch that little up tick pulse of events to see what all is part of that flow.  It produces something like great stories at first, but then when you get comfortable with things all around you being half alive and acting as individuals, nature ends up looking much more natural than before, and you find more interesting things to do.

It’s true that what’s happening to mankind right now is unprecedented, and for that we get both a great show and a great responsibility.  Change is always unprecedented, of course, because nature is highly creative.  This is the only time, however, mankind has gone through the turning point of a growth process completely transforming our existence in only 600 years!  The turning point is where the organizational steps switch from ‘leaving home’ to ‘heading home’, from increasing to decreasing instability.  The solid global consensus professional plan is to prevent that at all costs.  If we fail to achieve that in a non-destructive way, my opinion is that we’re being born as a new species.  It seems so very unlikely, both because it’s such a strange idea, and because the financial growth imperative is extremely well defended and the most dangerous limit, multiplying confusion, seems to be developing quickly.

I’ve seen a transformative path to the insight that would allow us to ‘not blow it’ for some time, but it runs into huge natural defensive barriers for the old ways of thinking as well as the core problem, that we can’t even wonder about what we can’t see.  Every true leap in logic is all heart, of course.  Is it possible that people have good hearts?  There certainly are a lot of signs of a new enlightenment chasing after old fears. One I like to point out is that we still may complain about ‘the rich’ and be legitimately worried that they have no idea what their power is good for, but actually, they’re mostly nice people.  There used to be real cruel overlords on top of every pile of money, but we’ve largely evolved beyond that.  Now, if we only knew what to do!

Phil Henshaw            ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Responding to:
From: bob.heinonen
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:54 AM
To: ‘overpopulation@googlegroups.com’
Subject: RE: religion and overpopulation
Phil,
I hear what you are saying. But isn ™t there one ingredient that all those system don ™t have that we do have ¦intelligence. Doesn’t intelligence have an impact on the progression of growth, climax, disordering & decay? Maybe that is an unfair question since we know of no prior situation.

Can we make a leap in logic that says that intelligence can have an impact on the  œsymmetric evolutionary development processes ? And that we as a group may be at least a part of the intelligence that has that impact?

Bob Heinonen

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.