Right leaning non-thinking

People ask: How come life on Earth is in such a mess?

I think it has to do with minorities and majorities.

Rather obviously a small minority, an “evil” minority if you will, have the power to create great amounts of havoc, chaos, war and conflicts. They are driven by prestige, hate, egotism, aggressiveness, power hunger and a need to control and manipulate. Their answer to problems is “War on this and that (terror, capitalism, etc)”.

There is also a larger majority, a “good” majority, who wants no war or conflicts. Their answer is “let’s just love each other” (which the “bad” guys regard as incredibly naive).

Then there is a medium size group who actually actively work for harmony and peace.

I think there is a common problem with all of these groups, or let’s say with all of us. Poor questions.

Why seek good answers when we don’t even have good questions?

We are always looking if not staring at the right side of the equation, to the right of the question mark.

[LEFT] Does the question stink ???  Yes it does. [RIGHT]

To the left stands the question that leads to the answer.  As you question, so your answer will be.

If we were more question-conscious, looking at the left side, many things would improve in the world. A good question leads to a good answer, while a thoughtless question leads to a lame, impotent answer.

Sometimes when we have formulated a really great question, we have thereby already found the answer! Half the job is sometimes the whole job.

lean-right
Leaning to the right can be wrong.

In other words we need to get a bit more philosophical. A creature who has the nerve to call himself Homo sapiens (in spite all she does that couldn’t be called sapient (wise) with the best intentions) could actually use her own name as incentive to get her act (including her questions) together.

We need 24 carat questions, and the ability to recognize their value. As well as the ability to see cheap, tired questions for what they are.

ornament5b

Example of poor question: How can we create more jobs and end unemployment?

Why is this a poor question? Because it could well be answered by “Let’s start a war. Wars always create full employment”.

Example of a better question: How can we create more jobs that are meaningful for the humans doing them, as well as positive for the planet and the environment?

It is obvious that this question cannot be answered with “Start a war”. It has another direction, it leads elsewhere.

By thinking one step further we have added quality to the question (meaningfulness, positive for planet and environment). Not just, as in the first question, focusing on mere quantity (more jobs).

Flattr this!

A look at the dark side of intelligence

I am writing this as a bird, not an insect, using the telescope and not the microscope. So try not to find faults with my logic; the “holes” are there, but the substance also.

In a way the man in the street understand what intelligence is, at least until he has to define it. Definitions are not only hard, they are often more delimiting than really clarifying. They might clarify the borders of the playing field, but not the game itself. A definition can be as much disservice as service.

So what follows will be un-scientific, non-microscopic utterances.

Without making a definition I will still try to see which elements are more or less always present in intelligence.

As I see it, intelligence is generally

  • solitary (my intelligence against yours),
  • partisan (one aim against another),
  • and competitive

In intelligence there is usually a winner and one or more losers. “The winner takes all” is not only true of poker and win-lose can be a very intelligent (if not wise) thing.

All of these points actually say the same thing: that intelligence is not a WE. Or if it is, then it is a We-Them thing.

ornament5b

You might object that there are different kinds of intelligences. There is also emotional intelligence (EQ) and Gardners seven or eight intelligences. Some people speak of holistic intelligence, spiritual intelligence, etc.

We have a whole palette of intelligences in plural, no longer are we limited to the narrow kind of the old intelligence tests.

What I term INTERLIGENCE however I see as different from both EQ and Gardner’s different types.

Let us today try to understand it by seeing what it is NOT. Next time by what it IS. ornament5b

Intelligence, due to its closeness to competition, partisanship and win-lose models, is quite naturally employed in situations of exclusion and elimination. In more concrete terms, in situations of strife and war.

War can be bloody or stylized (like a game of chess or ice hockey). In the latter case we have the seed, in the former the full bloody flower. (And in football hooliganism both seed and flower.)

The point is that intelligence is bedfellow (perhaps strange, perhaps not) with conflict and strife.  To go further, it is no stranger to advertising, PR, manipulation, oppression and tyranny. It has been known to cohabitate with cruelty of the worst kind.

It is in other words no angel.

Well, nobody said it was, you reply.

But we still look up to intelligent people!? Even though, with a bit of reflection, we know that they can be competitive, bragging, oppressive, and lending their competence to very evil goals. We often admire their talents not just for being smart, but for being outsmart, for fooling others.

I can feel this impulse myself, of course. Watching a movie and see the hero outwit the bad guys, there is a certain enjoyment in this.

Also when we outsmart others. The competition impulse is human, we need not be ashamed of it. Neither need we feel proud of it. When we outsmart somebody we can shake paws with the fox; he does the same thing. Only he probably does it in self-defense, or to get food, while we humans do it for “fun”, sometimes torturous fun.

Sure, we can call ourselves “foxy” and joke about it. From another viewpoint acting like an animal is not very funny.

ornament5b

So, seen from the bird´s view intelligence is close to competition, and thereby to strife, battle, oppression, manipulation and war.

Is there a vaccine against its malignant facets, a way to remove or at least lessen its warlike, competitive, manipulative aspects?

That is what this whole project is about. Next time I will try to explain interligence in more positive terms. That will actually be a relief, like leaving a battle-field for a concert hall….

Intelligence is not enough
Intelligence is not enough

Flattr this!

Being part of the interligentisa

Being part of the intelligentsia used to be a hip thing.

You were seen (not least by yourself) as intellectual, maybe also intelligent. This gave you access to a rarefied sphere, a VIP-room in the crowded departure hall of dull, dense humanity.

So what´s it like to be part of the interligentsia? Like being a member of an exclusive non-exclusive club. And also hip, in the sense of being aware, in the know.

Aware of thinking, without trendiness and the competing (with others) aspects. Yes, that could be a positive think-thing.

Hip is also something very practical: the part of the human body where pelvis and thigh join. “Pelvis” and “thigh” could be you and me, joining our thinking in an interligent manner.

Take a look at this cartoon.

connected to nothing“Connected to nothing” is a good way to describe insular, solitary intelligence. Yes, yes, it can feel great to be the solitary genius. But even he needs to eventually present his ideas to the world, thus connecting in some way.

Flattr this!