Rick Stansberger (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:19:22 -0700
There! You've put your finger on the difference between us!
You see the brain as a passive computer waiting to be programmed. I see it as an
active organ like lung or kidney, which will do its function by the very nature of
its existence. I see the brain as self-programming through curiosity, and you
discount curiosity and focus on societal factors. This explains why I value
intellect as the highest of human functions (because it connects to reality and sees
through illusion) and you see it as the greatest evil (because it reflects the
programming put into it).
No doubt we are both right.
Now I will be able to understand you much better instead of saying to myself, "Where
the &^%$ is he coming from!?"
Thanks, Robert, for bearing with me in this discussion.
Robert Swanson wrote:
> on 11/15/00 7:10 PM, Rick Stansberger at email@example.com wrote:
> > If intellect is a programmed response, what would you call the brain's innate
> > ability to process information?
> > Rick
> At seven years old the brain is a vast computer (seven times the weight of
> connections as yours and mine) totally receptive to programming. Programmed
> from a heart-other-welfare basis society thrives. Programmed from a basis of
> competitive individual control society is endangered. We are either pro
> natural order (which is huge) or we are pro contrived order (as fleeting as
> the momentary glow of a firefly).
> > Robert Swanson wrote:
> >> Intellect is a training our minds received when they were open to absorbing
> >> and incorporating any possibility. We settled into intellect as the
> >> functioning status quo. It is how to communicate and get along in the world.
> >> It was modeled as life by adults, media and peers, and so it became our
> >> lives as well.
> >> Intellect is a way of functioning. It is functioning as a programmed
> >> response. This response was shaped into our behavior. It is a focus of
> >> thought energy on the ability to isolate and abstract incoming information
> >> and to play with that information as separate from its source. This allows
> >> separate centralized operation of self as individuated from environment.
> >> This egocentric self is an essential part of being human. It was not
> >> intended to be the focus of our energies because it decreases chances of
> >> survival. The development "intended" us is first an emotional focus of
> >> heart, followed by ego development relative to the environment, then these
> >> are made subconscious so that mental energy can focus on creativity.
> >> Intellect enables these other functions but is not to be a dominating focus
> >> to guide our lives by. That is dangerous, and incidentally, unhappy.
> >> Glad to reply,
> >> robert
> >> on 11/14/00 7:36 AM, Rick Stansberger at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >>> Robert, please tell me what you mean by Intellect. I think you and I might
> >>> have very different definitions of the term. And I'm sorry for being harsh
> >>> with you in other messages.
> >>> Rick
> >>> Robert Swanson wrote:
> >>>> All,
> >>>> What is it like to dispel the curse of intellect? I am inviting a dialogue
> >>>> with another (perhaps a student) willing to speak from the depths of
> >>>> heartfelt congruency. It is a magical experience. Just email me personally.
> >>>> We will publicize excerpts that get the point across.
> >>>> robert
> >>> --
> >>> "Weirdness abounds and shatters our illusion of order. Heh-heh. All the
> >>> dust is being blown out from under the carpet. Wonderful stuff!"
> >>> Wanda Hamilton-Quinn
> > --
> > "Weirdness abounds and shatters our illusion of order. Heh-heh. All the
> > dust is being blown out from under the carpet. Wonderful stuff!"
> > Wanda Hamilton-Quinn
-- "Weirdness abounds and shatters our illusion of order. Heh-heh. All the dust is being blown out from under the carpet. Wonderful stuff!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Nov 16 2000 - 16:22:04 EST