DEVELOPING NEW INTELLIGENCE
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
New Intelligence does not come about through more reading or more studying, but through more thinking -- all the time, and flexibly at that. If you were to try to explain this to someone at the ordinary level, in ordinary terms, it would sound ridiculous. If anyone listening at the ordinary level were to hear that there is something like New Intelligence, they would think that it came about through some sort of studying. Ordinary consciousness would ask how to get New Intelligence, and after hearing the explanation, would start to study it. In fact, a busy person might ask for something to read so that they could reference it later and then study it.
New Intelligence will not be developed by reading or studying of any sort. NO WAY! The approach is simply to THINK MORE. To this statement, good old ordinary intelligence would reply, "But I think all the time as it is!" We're not going to question ordinary 3-Dimensional judgements about measuring the quantity of time spent thinking, but it is important to remember that there is as much quantity as there is space. There are no empty places, no empty spaces. Everywhere that ordinary 3-D consciousness can look there is stuff filling up space.
Although it appears otherwise to 3-D consciousness, there is no sense saying, quantitatively speaking, that there are no empty spaces in one's thinking schedule. It simply is not the case that there are no empty thinking spaces. Even if that were true, you've got to think more -- you've got to think all the time. Every moment you have to think more. All right, you believe you're thinking all the time -- but you've got to think some more. Once you try to think more, you will find out that you can take whatever space seems to be filled up, and put in more.
It is part of the illusionary reality of the 3-D world that more can be put into whatever space appears to be already filled up. (Ordinary consciousness does not want to put in more, though, because that would mean "playing in the key of CHANGE," which everyone fears and dreads.) The forced new additional thinking has got to be done all the time, and it must be flexible. Then you are on the way to developing a new kind of intelligence.
Whatever is going on, you should be thinking, involved in a continual asking of yourself, "Why -- to what end from a 4-D level -- is such-and-such going on?" You must think with a sweeping, omnidirectional sort of consciousness. For instance, first thing in the morning as you are getting ready, think about everything you have to do that day (not in a worrisome manner), while simultaneously brushing your teeth, combing your hair, keeping your eye on the clock, listening to the radio to check their time against the clock time, listening to whether the coffee is perking yet, thinking of all that you might do today if you have time, and so on. Don't think of things linearly, in sequence, but in a nonordinary way; think of them all together, at the same time, continually, all the time.
There is a saying, "Anyone who has an agenda will never hear the doorbell ring." Anyone who has any sort of intellectual expectations will never learn something new. Ordinary 3-D intelligence cannot perceive that as true. You must be approaching the level of New Intelligence to see that if you hold any ordinary-level expectations, then you can't learn anything new. That is why the appearance of learning something new never satisfies. I specifically mean this beyond the basic physical level. For instance, if you're having trouble with your electric can opener, and you find a pamphlet on how the consumer can fix a electric can opener, you can fix it, say, "AHA," and be satisfied. Beyond that level, any higher-circuit information (philosophy, religion, metaphysics, etc.) cannot be truly satisfying. Anything you've ever learned cannot be truly satisfying except at the 3-D city level.
If you're interested in the nonordinary track, you soon realize that you can read, study, or learn about something, and it is never truly satisfying. One description of a reason for this is that if you have an agenda, you cannot learn anything new. At the 3-D level, though, you would not attempt to learn anything new unless you had an agenda. If you wanted to learn something, you might believe that if you could only get some more information, you would be satisfied. It would be no problem to find more information; you need only look around, check the Dewey decimal files, and you can find a book on the subject you're interested in. But once you read the book, or even memorize it, do you feel satisfied? If you had not had an agenda -- a set of expectations -- would you have even tried to find the book?
If you have an agenda, you are not thinking all the time. With an agenda, you only think so far down a particular track. You decide, "What I want to know is this." Apparently almost any snake oil salesman in the City can give you an answer. Suppose you want to know what the nature of Life is (or why small electrical appliances turn on you after a couple of years). You have an expectation of where you want to go. Suddenly someone will make the secret signal, tell you to come hear a lecture, and you go. Apparently the guy answers your particular question, but upon reexamination you think, "Naw, that didn't do it." You didn't get new info.
As long as you have an agenda, you will never hear the doorbell ring. It's ringing all the time -- but people wait for the doorbell at specific times, or they listen for a specific ring. People are wired up to believe that they need a particular type of information. They think that if they could only get some specific information, they would have what they wanted. Well, that's not true.
For a long time, I have periodically tried to convey to you that you're not using the brain in the way you could. Every time I try, you may take one step and then you trip. I ask what happened to your car, your foot, your mind, your memory, or whatever it turns out that you forgot, and you feel guilty. I try to tell you, for example, to drive your car and think of what you are going to do once you park the car. You could even be driving the car into a parking lot, looking for a parking space, making sure that you miss pedestrians and curbs, and if you are thinking more, looking around, you might see that a particular lot might not be the most propitious for your health, safety, or the condition of your car upon your return. If you were trying to think all the time, Life might just ring the doorbell and say to you, "Don't park here," or, "Don't go down this street." I have had very limited success with this with any of you. Very few of you have been kicked into the position of trying to think more.
If I say to you, "You stare more and think less," that becomes your new agenda. You don't do what I was saying, which was to think more. In the City that is known as fornica... no, concentration. In a sense, that is what people do.
Suppose you're upset about something. Say you're on the way to an interview and you're late, and you're thinking about not being late. You're not thinking all the time, and you run over the curb, or hit a pedestrian. If you get mad, and you keep thinking about it, and you think about it over and over again, you are actually thinking less and less. Anybody in the City can tell you that is not good for you. What is the difference between that and concentration? In the city, they say that concentration is good for you. In either case, though, you are thinking less and less. But people don't believe that these are the same thing.
That is a difference between This Activity and anything else in whatever guise. If you hand people a set of rules to study, they think less. It's like trying to teach someone to dance while continually knocking them off balance. If you say to someone, "Listen to what I tell you now. Don't keep thinking about what I say; don't get limited to that." Then you ask what they are thinking about, and they say, "I'm thinking about not thinking about what you just said."
New Intelligence is not just the reworking of the old molecules, nor a rewiring of the old system. It does not really address anyone's agenda; you just think that it does. I get letters thanking me for what I've said because it seemed to address what the person had been thinking about. Whatever I said seemed to help them, but the person had an agenda. If someone could reach inside your head and neutralize your problem, you could not get down the street to have a cup of coffee before you came up with three new problems. Whatever you want changed or neutralized cannot be changed and if it could, you would not be better off. Instead, you would have other problems.
Even if you could answer such questions as, "Why does so-and-so treat me this way?" or "Why is my life this way?" or "Where does light go when the light goes out?" you would not be better off. You would not be satisfied. You have not gone to any church, or read any book on philosophy or religion, and ever been satisfied. The author of a book may spend the first 200 pages describing the questions, sharing his life and his problems and his search running from pillar to post, and finally give an answer to the questions at the very end of the book. But whatever answer he gives is not the answer to him, nor to anybody else. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with his answer; remember, there is nothing wrong with Life. The answer the author gives is merely a period, an end for the questions, but it is not satisfying to the upper levels of the nervous system.
In the City, at the 3-D level, there are things that are satisfying. But if you think good food, good sex, or whatever is ultimately satisfying, you are still looking only at the 3-D level. For the upper end of the nervous system, those things are not satisfying. The upper level of the nervous system is what "stretches around the corner and touches linear tomorrow." The upper level of the nervous system cannot get all of its food at the 3-D level.
If there was anything approaching "sin" in a revolutionist's activity, it would have to be just one thing: "misoneism." Misoneism is hatred or distrust of the new or anything that seems to represent change. It is a perfectly good word, but I've never heard it used anywhere in the city. To what end??? Isn't it interesting that you've never heard that word? Think about it: hatred of the new -- that's right to the point. What I'm hinting at is that hatred of the new -- I mean the discussion of it -- never seems to come up in everyday life.
Let's examine several synecdoches from history. Some recent writings about the so-called Dark Ages pointed out that the dark ages served, from one view, a beneficial purpose. In the Western world there had been a breakdown of government. According to this historian, the dark ages which followed the fall of Rome provided a distinctly positive lesson to Western man: the social structures, commerce, religion, standards of conduct, and culture all survived an almost total breakdown of government. Thus Western man learned that his social institutions could survive without government. Could any of you see that in a sense a Real Revolutionist might possibly go through his own "dark ages" in the process of developing a new kind of intelligence? You might even have already experienced the breakdown of your own Roman Empire or central authority, and feel that all of the Huns and other barbarians have attacked you, and you have lost all control.
Some people might describe this sense of a lack of central stability as the feeling that they might lose their mind. What if all revolutionists have to go through a kind of dark ages? Don't fret; I'm not inferring that your dark ages have to last 1000 years! There is a sense, though, in which you have to go through a kind of dark ages to discover that New Intelligence can function without the stable, predictable, control generally exercised by institutions of government.
The "government" which some people give up for this New Intelligence is their abiding faith in religion. You may feel that you're a long way from Rome, but there is a Caesar and he is in control, even though he's mad and deranged. Look at people's idea of god: remember that it doesn't bother people in the City for their ruler to be insane. As you enter your dark ages, you may feel like you're about to go on a trip into the wilderness, but you can survive with you intact, just as the historian pointed out about Western man. Think about how beneficial this can be to you, an individual.
Another historian talked about an idea credited to the Nordic people when they were down in Europe and Russia which stated that the only real governments ever instituted must be imposed by a foreign source. That is, no people indigenous to any area ever spontaneously form a government. Of course, this might have been an after the fact justification for all the stoning, raping and pillaging done by the Nordic people. But this historian has adopted the idea that no government has sprung up from within its own people, but only from a foreign force which conquers the people. Does that sound like it might have any connection to a New Intelligence? There is no way that the locals, the indigenous people in you -- the intelligence, the molecular structures or neural patterns already in you -- will ever form a really new government.
Ordinary consciousness might say that if a person really wanted his own new government all he would have to do is study more, but I've already said that wouldn't work. The new government must be imposed from a foreign source. So the locals say, "OK, we'll go get a foreign book and study." This is one of the great blind spots of local consciousness. Speaking synecdochically, in the City people believe they can read about something and actually learn something. They'll read about things that do not exist yet in the City, and they'll believe they have actually been there. In a sense, they have; by thinking about things you can't do, you have in a really crude way almost been there. If you read something, your nervous system converts the energy from the words on the paper to your own neural firing patterns. But it's not simple to tell somebody who has read about what it's like to be more intelligent that they don't actually know from the information running through the nervous system and the brain itself what it's like to be more intelligent -- even though in a really crude way they do know.
You can read about Afghanistan, study the culture and the geography, but you haven't been there. Similarly, you can read about New Intelligence, but that doesn't give you New Intelligence, and it doesn't mean you really know what New Intelligence is. The Nordic idea has validity: what you know came from local city intelligence, and that is no new form of government, no new form of intelligence. The New Intelligence must come from a foreign intervention, from outside the ordinary structures of the nervous system.
The New Intelligence does not become part of your intelligence because you read about it. To develop New Intelligence, you must be able to think differently, think more, think better. You cannot establish a new government in you by having someone local attack you; the conquering force must be foreign -- from another city, almost another planet. Their language, their culture, must be different. The more foreign the force, the more efficient will be the takeover of the new government, and the easier it will be for them to demand tribute. How much more foreign could anything be than what I am presenting of this New Intelligence to ordinary sanity? One way to look at it on your own level is that this kind of internal conquest has to involve the threat, the potential, of being conquered by a foreign New Intelligence.
This particular kind of revolution, this kind of conquest, is singular and most unusual, because you end up with a new kind of government without destroying the old one! To do This, you must have a sort of inflexible, stable underpinning, physically and emotionally. In the stories of conversion that permeate spiritual literature throughout the world, some guy (generally the scourge of the earth) is walking down the road when the great cosmic forces strike him and he undergoes some kind of total conversion and becomes a new person. These stories have no real meaning in the City; they do not even remotely resemble what happens in ordinary 3-D life. But with the conquest of you internally (not a restructuring of what you already are), a kind of new intelligence takes over. The new intelligence does not destroy the old one, because if it did, you would either be nuts, or you would be a convert. (In this case, if it happened here, I guess you would be a follower of me. Then I would have to move. So don't become a convert!) If you're going to be conquered by a New Intelligence, you cannot destroy the old one or stop it from functioning. If the old does not remain intact, you have been converted; you haven't found New Intelligence, and nothing extraordinary has happened.
Can you glimpse the kind of revolution I am talking about? Can you see that the revolutionist can't simply turn his back on the old allegiances that he had? He cannot badmouth the old allegiances; they are still operating at their own level, and they are still part of him. He does not hate them. A Real Revolutionist does not have to become a complete turncoat against the alliances he has had with Life. Now certain philosophical or religious tomes say such things as "you cannot serve two masters," "you cannot swear allegiance to two flags." The singularity of the internal revolution is that you are not faced with that dilemma, once you escape 3-D gravity. None of This is an attack on what you were when you came here because you are not an apostate, and you do not have to be a traitor to your past. You merely have a new allegiance. Your allegiance is to Life, where it always was. You have not turned your back on Life; you have not become a traitor to your past. If you can see this, you'll understand that the past is not good or bad in anybody; the past is irrelevant. What can you do about the past? If you had anything resembling New Intelligence, what would you do about the past?
There is a poignant saying, "If you've got to discuss the price of something, then you either can't afford it or you don't really want it." Also, there is a question I've posed for you if you need any evidence of whether you belong here: "Would you do anything I told you to do?" Now look at those two together with this third item, a story: A person trudging through the desert for miles and miles is close to death when suddenly he goes over one sand dune and sees a guy at a stand with a sign that says, "water for sale," so he asks how much it is, and the guy says, "What difference does it make?"
Consider all three of those items together. Are you led in a direction away from the ordinary flows and confines of how you think -- how you think about you, how you think about what you imagine This Activity is or where you think it may lead? Does anybody get the drift? A Real Revolutionist would silently say, "You know, I get the drift."