homepageLet's speak of a great subject that's always of interest: Dumbness, or for those of you with more genteel sensibilities, the lack of intelligence or ignorance. (I may still call it "dumbness" to rub it in.) An unrecognized and curious fluke of nature is that dumbness is actually a 3-Dimensional time lag. Look at what I'm saying with your head cocked to one side, and you will see that dumbness can also be viewed as a time shift.
You've had times when you seemed to get back in sync with Life, and you utter such immortal words as, "Live and learn. Ah, now I see." If knowledge or perception was actually stuff, ignorance or dumbness would be a hole where some stuff belonged; some knowledge, perception, or understanding would be needed to fill this gap. This is not irony or satire, it's fact. You forget about some of the things you're ignorant of: your perception of the hole doesn't change, but you become oblivious to it. But if you get in sync with this hole of ignorance at another time, it may be filled up. At one time you say, "I don't understand how I could have done that." Then, a few seconds or weeks later you say, "Live and learn from your mistakes." Even without your individual effort, something has moved along and the hole is filled. No one notices that no effort is required to fill the hole -- only the apparent passing of time.
Peruse the history of your own nervous system, and you can see that you've undergone this apparent transformation continually. The continual "filling of holes of ignorance" seems to move you from one chapter of your life to another, in a way which doesn't make you feel like a full fledged, olympic-level taper head. "Oh, well. I guess I didn't handle that in the most efficient manner, but I was a child then..." or, "I wasn't feeling well...maybe the humidity was too high." There are tacit flows of information, and part of each tacit flow is you saying, "I am not in the same position that I was when I committed this faux pas" (meaning, "when I was dumb.") But what has actually happened? A 3-D passage of time occurred.
The time lag I'm discussing is more than just a picturization or verbal parable. A tacit flow of information continually runs through time. People don't finally rationalize something which they weren't proud of; knowledge is stuff which literally fills up a gap in your nervous system. Picture it this way:
Your interest in something is like a line of energy, and the knowledge of how to do or act on this something is also a line of energy. Your interest is running at one speed, and the perception of how to do it is moving in a line parallel to that. When the lines fall into sync with each other, time catches up to what you're doing. A speed of light shift occurs when time and your intelligence get in sync, and you say, "Oh, now I see."
Ignorance is simply a time lag, not a lack of information, education or data. A lack of information, education or data may be involved and it may appear to be the cause or culprit, but actually you're always dumber or faster than intelligence is running.
You might also picture this as being similar to your balance sheet at the bank. In the same way, numbers aren't actually your wealth. You may have a bank account balance sheet where the numbers don't balance. Your account sheet shows $35,700 in the hole in your money market account just after you've made a deposit, but you don't worry about it. The numbers aren't money: the numbers on paper aren't your real wealth.
This information I'm giving to you is at best a partial fraction, only three fourths of the reality of what is actually occurring. There's a part around the corner which you can't see: a part where you, individually, can change. If you stand around long enough, intelligence will catch up to you. To what avail? To what profit? Well, I don't want to give you the blues. You can say, "If I stand on this street corner long enough, the bus will come by and I'm safe." If the bus doesn't come by, what detriment has occurred? Have you really missed out on something? If you ever misspeak or act inappropriately, just stand there and it will eventually rectify itself.
You might say, "What if I want to change in a minute and it takes ten years?" All this works out "J.R." (just right), at just the right moment. If it needs to take a minute, it will. Notice how this works in your life. Say you speak at a conference to all the "big guys" upstairs about the progress of the company, and you read the wrong notes: you read a little poem you'd jotted down for your secretary, by mistake. You do something dumb, and it doesn't take ten years for you to become undumb. You notice your dumbness in an instant and can make the apparent change in seconds.
In the world of hard science, time is the most accurate measurement. Whenever possible, scientists transfer measurements into time measurements, because they are more accurate. They'll reduce or translate other measurements, such as grams and liters, into time measurements. Think on that a while. At the ordinary, Line level of consciousness, there's a scientific rule that applies to you: Time is the ultimate measurement in the 3-D world. This fact seems to be of little importance to human intelligence; it's beyond the ordinary needs of intelligence. But the measurement of time is the background upon which all other measurements are made.
Time is one of the reasons humans need memory. If humans had a true, fuller conception of time, they wouldn't need memory. Memory is like a flawed, secondhand brand of a correct, continuing perception of Time: the continuing awareness that all of Life is resting on the dimension of time. Life is not episodic or disjointed, things aren't moving in a linear manner. One thing is not causing another. One thing is causing everything, and everything is causing This Thing. But ordinarily human intelligence has no need or ability to deal with these ways of understanding time.
In City life, time is now regarded as the most accurate measurement, and has been for a few years. Whenever possible, all other measurements are translated into time measurements. Think about that. All of the measurements you make, and all of the human bodily functions are initially seen to be measurements of space. Remember that human emotion is a form of measurement. You're measuring Life, taking measurements FOR Life. Someone will say, "Let's talk about dogs (or politics). I like dogs, but I can't tolerate politics." That statement is a measurement. Measurements made in this way are the most unreliable measurements. It's often said that we should lead more with our heads than our hearts. This is true, but it is not true, and it's an absolutely moot statement. To be the most reliable in the 3-D world, the measurements of space, feeling or preference, must be interpreted into measurements of time.
In the 3-D world, time is the ultimate measurement. One thing does not control something else in a nonlinear world. But, in one way, you can see that time greatly influences all the other measurements. "I want to play soccer with the guys, but I guess I'm getting old. I'm still sore from two weeks ago." "I don't know what happened, she was a good woman when I married her, but I just don't feel the same somehow." In most intelligent fields, what was true yesterday is open to dispute tomorrow.
Humanity is like a three dimensional or three functional inchworm, measuring his three dimensional movement through space. Men continually make measurements in three ways and send them in to the home office. But the ultimate measurement is time. Time has a continuous, unrecognized, strong effect on everything else. (Of course that's not true because nothing is linear, but look where I'm pointing.) Time does not control everything else, but without its influence we'd have no episodic existence. The way you feel now would be the way you'd feel for the rest of your life. You couldn't learn anything, because what you knew last June would be the same as what you know now, which would be the same as what you've always known. There's a way in which you can see that time is the ultimate 3-D measurement: it's precise and everything can be translated into time. The way you move, think, feel...your intelligence can be translated into measurements of time.
There's a debate taking place in the business world concerning employment and the marketplace: What's more important, education or experience? Some of you are probably victims of this debate. Seminars are being given, books are being written on this topic. People have been saying for years that the educational system has nothing to do with the real world. "I want to be an armed robber or rock-and-roll musician. Why do I have to study sociology or history? What's that going to do for me in the real world?" Now the debates concern more serious areas. Those who have graduated are looking at what their education has done for them. People are dropping out of college because they feel they can jump right into a position which will offer them interesting and beneficial experience. "I want to get a job doing hands-on work in the space field. I have a brother who is making a lot of money doing just what I dream of and he never graduated from college."
Others say that it's dangerous to attempt to succeed without a degree from a university: that you must consider the competition in the marketplace. In the past, the royalty learned Latin, music theory...but they didn't have to work. They could sit back and be waited on. Their studies had nothing to do with the "real world." Now some people feel that our approach to education is a holdover from that period, and we must bring our educational system up to date. We must teach our children more practical knowledge: "Homer and The Iliad is a waste of time. Let's teach the kids how to mop floors and run computers."
You must realize that I'm bring this up for another reason. You should see how this information applies to your own brain.
What I'm trying to slip around and push you towards is this: You have people on a large scale trying to insulate themselves from the idea or possibility that intelligence may be of some actual significance. A running debate is taking place which is very serious in the City. People aren't talking about the fact that we're moving away from manual labor and into the service industries; that some of the jobs which were gold mines fifty years ago are no longer in existence today, since we aren't mining steel as much as we're running computers. People aren't necessarily simply discussing these trends. Now it's a matter of life and death whether you'll be able to compete in today's world. And you have to consider if you need job experience or education? Notice there's not one mention of intelligence. The question of intelligence doesn't arise. Look at that. You can apply for a job with a Master's Degree or an impressive resume of experience: you need one of the two. No one mentions intelligence.
There's a way in which you can see something in this. Let me remind you that Life is growing and the manner in which the human nervous system is transferring energy has changed. Energy transfer is now focused more towards the upper areas, namely the brain. Yet, at the same time, it's as though large numbers of intellectual men and women are trying to insulate themselves from the understanding that intelligence is necessary. Nothing is said that's anti-intellectual; the importance of intelligence just isn't noticed.
A debate is occurring and one side is winning. The majority opinion is that it's impossible to measure intelligence. That's supposedly the opinion of the true intellectuals of the City. But true intellectuals COULD measure intelligence. Over the weekend, while sipping martinis, they could devise a test to measure intelligence. The common wisdom is that you can't measure intelligence, but, as a good Baptist minister would say, "Friends, that ain't true." It may be true for those who say that intelligence can't be measured. You ask them to talk about dogs and they say, "Oh, I like dogs." They aren't truly intellectual.
The people speaking against the possibility of testing intelligence are not the ones who can accomplish the feat. They're falling into that age old refuge of saying it can't be done. If a person claims he's a true intellectual and he can't develop a test for intelligence, he isn't what he claims to be. The true intelligentsia could, in reality, devise such a test. There are forms of intelligence, and then there are forms of Real intelligence; and the latter isn't exactly a plague running rampant in the City. The Stanford Binet Intelligence Test is considered a relic, prejudicial, unfair, dumb, useless. But those in the system who are charged with leading the field of testing education and general intelligence are insulating themselves against the fact that intelligence can actually be measured.
Now it's being said by experts that if intelligence can't be measured, of what use is it? Some people feel that we need to redefine the aspect we've been calling "intelligence." This view helps people stall for time. What these experts are actually saying is, "I'm dumb about this. I have the credentials and have to speak at the convention. So, I say something like, 'We know that the previous tests were inaccurate and no indication of true intelligence. We have made some progress, though ("progress" meaning they've realized they're dumb about this subject). But we haven't come up with anything new yet.'"
In the 1950's, intelligence tests were taken at face value. If you failed, you were believed to be dumb. Your parents took up drinking..."My child has an I.Q. not much greater than my shoe size." Today's educators and testers know that those tests were inaccurate, and they're stalling for time by claiming ignorance. To admit that the tests didn't work is seen as progress: "We're now moving ahead because we can see that these tests aren't appropriate measures of intelligence. But we don't know how to correct all the errors and glaring omissions in the testing. Still, we're moving ahead of our dumbness because we say that we don't know."
(This isn't a commentary on contemporary times, by the way.) Hand in hand with this, notice that even in the Western World -- which is at the forefront of intellectual development on the planet -- the intellectual Garden of Eden or victory garden is now seen as becoming less literate. The culprits blamed are TV, movies, video games, etc. The children are seen as being less literate than their parents. People can now make it through high school and still be functionally illiterate; some significant percentage of high school graduates can't read. A high school graduate may not be able to read and write well enough to fill out a job application. This fact is shocking to Line-level consciousness. But what passes for being intelligence is changing. It isn't necessary for a teenager in today's world to read past elementary school level. Most information, education, intelligence is being picked up through other media. The transference of information is shifting from reading and writing to another area. People who aren't ready for this change see the shift as a decline in the intelligence of humanity in the Western World. Every part of the world has a life span of dominance, and the power may be shifting. But those countries which are in the process of becoming more dominant today display an even lower level of this so-called literary intelligence.
Those who are the apparent intelligentsia, who are supposedly encouraging the increase of intelligence in our society, are supporting the importance of education, and are thereby insulating themselves from the fact that intelligence may actually be of some pressing significance. Consider that for a while.
Let's apparently jump over to another small path in the woods. We are in the midst of election time in this part of the universe, so I'll point out something. In those political areas of Life's body, where large numbers of people vote to elect someone to lead them -- the political arena seems open and free wheeling, as if anyone can jump out and try be a leader -- the people never elect a really passionate person or a real intellectual. Comma, comma, comma...Simultaneously, in our part of the world the press, critics, observers and mouthpieces of the people, continue to make several observations: They bemoan the fact that the candidates don't address the issues. A man in an expensive coat and a D.C. haircut will appear on a network show and act as if he just stumbled upon Mount Sinai for the first time. But the press points out that candidates aren't elected by discussing the issues, they're elected through mud slinging and contests of personality. The network announcer will say, "Here's our leading expert on the election -- a graduate from Harvard with 32 years of experience. Tell us your perceptions on this political race." And the expert will say, "I'm glad you invited me. The people are sick of the fact that none of the candidates will discuss the meat of the issues."
Observers complain that the politicians don't display their real level of intelligence, they don't act in a manner befitting Yellow Circuit logic and reason; they don't let a thought reach its conclusion. "The people are sick of mudslinging. Why don't the candidates discuss the issues instead of dealing with each other on the level of personalities?" (They pause and look at each other knowingly.) "I'll tell you this Chet (Fred, Mary), the people have had it up to here." The people don't give a rat's ass. Have you ever read of any occasion in history when a mob of people gathered to protest the fact that the candidates didn't address the issues? More people show up at the polls when the personality issues and mud slinging is the greatest.
And note that the people won't elect a really passionate person. Even the demagogues, people who seem to be fanatics, passionate politicians who are actually elected, aren't really discussing the issues passionately. Huey Long, for example, could stir up a crowd. He hollered about conspiracies and the little folk against the big folk; that life was unfair and he could change things. He didn't really discuss issues. He was just yelling, "Life sucks, don't it?" And everyone went, "Yeah." (There are only two real political parties, by the way, two ideologies, two partisan groups: Those in power and those who want to get in power. That's it.) A guy who's passionate and stirs up the people, and who also gets elected, is an anomaly. At the same time true intellectuals aren't elected. What do you make of that?
At the same time, Life has reporters hollering that the people want to hear the issues, to see passion and intelligence. Part of Life is decrying that we don't need those silver tongued devils stirring up things; that Life shouldn't operate that way. Then other parts of Life's body are operating that way. Some people aren't operating that way, and say they're operating that way. Some of those who say they're operating that way, are operating that way. And some of those who say they're observing it, and know this from that, don't know this from that. And of course this from that doesn't know those observing them.
Something else; another unknown rule or law: There is no substitute for humans. Fifty years from now this will be a known fact, and you can say, "I was around when that was first said." But there won't be any other humans like you around to say, "Hey, that was something." Your granddaughter will say, "Chill out and turn on the 4-D TV. I don't have time to hear about that."
Can you see that remaining less intelligent is like an ultimate attempt to make a substitute for humans? To remain less intelligent than you could or might be is like a crass but workable aggression or denial of your importance. It's like the ultimate attempt to make a substitution for humans. You're substituting what you could or might be, for what you are. It's a form of supreme insulation: an unsurpassable buffer between you and the responsibility of becoming all that you can be; the supreme being which you can bring about through increased intelligence. This expansion of you can't come about through experience or education. Expansion is a matter of intelligence, of the nervous system in you going in a new, nonlinear, non-three or four dimensional direction. Expansion in This is expansion in a new direction. Somehow seeing that which is not present in the 3-D world is getting close to seeing the truth.
To take you as being you is the ultimate form of insulation against being as responsible and intelligent as you could or might be. I put in "might be" so that those who are wired up to be weasels, can't weasel out. You can always play that game of intelligence that says, "If you buy my premise, I'm going to win." Get all the internal voices to come into a room, and then you close the door on them. How do you think you got to be you? You stepped through a door and they said, "It's you!" And then Life closed the door and you're stuck there. You've stayed there in that room and the voice of Life keeps reverberating, "It's you!"