Godheval.com

Perhaps “intelligence” has nothing to do with the innate ability to understand, but with a subject’s willingness to suspend or let go of their “knowledge”, which may conflict with the material to be learned and thus make it “difficult to understand”. Knowledge is derived in large part from the influence of the environment on the subject, i.e. what they have learned and experienced, and is in a sense independent of any innate qualities. For example, the concept of fractional dimensions (1.5D, 2.5D, etc. as opposed to the standard 2D and 3D) made my head reel even before I read the explanation, because it is something that my experience has never had me consider. It is counter- intuitive, but obviously not due to some inherent understanding of Euclidean geometry. If anything, fractal geometry should resonate more with human perception of the world, since it describes shapes more reflective of nature.

Whenever a person “learns” something, they automatically pit it against what they already “know”. Their ability to understand the new concept may depend more on the disparity between it and that which they know, than any intrinsic ability to “understand” phenomena. This disparity can be narrowed by the subject’s willingness to abandon what they “know”. After all, at some point that which they know now was something they learned, and they had to overcome the disparity between that concept and what they “knew” before. This analysis can be carried all the way down to the person’s very first moment of experience or consciousness.

The point here is that intelligence may be as much a reflection of choice as predetermination; it begins at the moment a person is able to distinguish themselves from external phenomena. In short, perhaps intelligence itself can be “learned”, i.e. people taught in a sort of nihilistic context such that they hold nothing as truth. “Truth” is irrefutable, and if a new experience contradicts “truth”, then it must be wrong. This is where the disparity is created that determines a person’s ability to understand, or their “intelligence”. This idea of learned intelligence must be introduced early in a person’s life because the older they get, the more they “learn” and subsequently accept as “truth”. It is like a steadily accumulating clot which inhibits or blocks new knowledge. It is also important to note that this concept is entirely dependent upon a person’s ability to distinguish themselves from their environment, and to acknowledge the subjectivity of truth. Certain mental deficiencies or levels of retardation will most likely prevent the “learning of intelligence”.

Imagine the difference this could make in the world. If everyone were “taught” to be “intelligent”, then the whole of humanity would advance more rapidly. After all, it is the discrepancies between all the various bodies of knowledge that delay the collaborations between minds and fields that eventually lead to innovation. These discrepancies are created by people’s rigorous determination to hold on to what they “know”. A distinction must be made and continuously renewed between what is “known” – which may very well be nothing at all – and what has been “learned”.