In my last post I made a statement which I think might need a little working on:
". . . I'm trying to be who I am and not what I've been made."
It seems a pretty glib thing to say at first, but what does it actually mean? I know what I have been made because I am very much the sum of the last 40-odd years of experiences, learning and buggering things up. Everything I have done and everything I have had done to me has resulted so far in the person typing this.
Me
Physically I am the results of two sets of DNA, which has blessed me with wavy hair, bad eyesight and the family nose, and a lot of physical experiences which have had a variety of effects ranging from trained thigh muscles to permanent scars. In other words, I'm just like any other person on average. But this is just the physical side and - even though I believe that a person is not a body or a mind or a soul/spirit but an inter-related, ever-changing combination of all the above - I'm going to discount the body as not who I am.
What I'm getting at here is a question that has plagued religious and spiritual thinkers and philosophers since forever - If I am thinking, who is the I that is doing the thinking. If I am a combination of the primal me and everything else that has made me, who is that primal me and how do I find him? In fact is he a "he"? Maybe he's a "she", an "it" or even a "they"!
Paganism
As a good Pagan boy I try to live by a deceptively complicated guideline known as the Wiccan Rede. I'm not a Wiccan, but then again I'm not really an anything specific - pigeonholes are restrictive and get on my nerves - but the Wiccan Rede is useful. It goes:
"An it harm none, do what you will"
This is open to interpretation, as are all rules and guidelines. My own works something like this: using the proviso that as little unnecessary harm of any kind is caused to everyone and everything around you, including yourself, then do your own will
"Doing your will" is a very Thelemic bit of jargon and not one I like much because it conjures images of some complete and total deadlegs from whom I would prefer to be disassociated. The trouble is that I'm not sure I can think of a better one. As James Curcio has said, Will is synonymous with Identity, but Identity in action. To do your will is to be yourself just as hard as you can manage. This takes us full circle back to the original question: who is the me that I must be to be who I am?
Circles.
So far this article is going round in ever-decreasing circles and will soon disappear in a puff of smoke up it's own arsehole. Before it does, perhaps it's time to look in a different direction.
Pope Tim Leary and Saint RAW the Optimistic, both following others and being followed in their turn, have shown that we can change how we are made. Using various techniques we can alter our socializations, our behaviours, our attitudes and our habits - and we can do it ourselves. Brainwashing techniques have shown that even the most deeply entrenched beliefs can be reversed, and advertising and propaganda show us that new beliefs and attitudes can be injected into the human mind with very little difficulty. How many people with dogs even noticed the smell before the Shake & Vac lady danced backwards across her living room?
When one wants to alter oneself in the ways suggested by Wilson and Leary there is usually an aim in mind, even if it's only to become more open-minded. The aim of finding the True Will is in stripping away the layers of social conditioning and beliefs until all that's left is the pure primal self. This isn't really changing oneself, which is like changing one's mental "clothes" - it is more like stripping completely naked. (Good grief, I'm on nudity again! It's becoming an obsession.)
A Radical Thought
The concepts of primal Self or true Will imply a certain belief - that there is such a thing. It's the assumption that the human being has a single, eternal and unchanging central core which has become known as the Soul. What if this isn't true?
I'm not proposing that we are all soulless automata or that there is no spiritual dimension at all to the human being, only that it's not a separate and eternal thing. If the human soul is as capable of change, growth and deliberate alteration as the mind and body are then how much more wonderful it surely is. It means that I am not some abstract thing distant and separate from my mind and body, but a soul/mind/body gestalt where all the bits blend to become indistinguishable at the edges. It implies that when my body dies and changes its state by becoming part of the soil fertilizing a tree whose buds feed a bird, then so do my mind and soul in their own ways.
It also implies that all creatures must be like this and therefore, by a process of extension, so must groupings of creatures - like families, societies and forests. I am part of my family and a separate individual at the same time; my children are part me, part their mother and individuals in their own right at the same time. Could there be, therefore, a family soul which joins us and is within us in the same way that we form a gestalt as individuals all together under one group concept? If there is it is made of the combined souls and DNA of the parents within the children, but the parents' souls are made of their parent's souls ad infinitum. Extend this far enough and you end up with a universal physical/intelligence/spiritual gestalt which covers and includes everything that exists/does not exist, has/has not existed and will/will not exist - ever!
Big thought!
Have I answered my question, though? Probably not, except to say that I think I'm getting there. Not only can the true I be found, I can decide what I ought to be. I think!
Love,
Seán
SEARCH FROM HERE!
Custom Search
Showing posts with label R A Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R A Wilson. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Friday, 14 December 2007
Multiple IQ
I've recently learned something I didn't know about our standard IQ test. Let's qualify that statement: I've recently learned anything at all about the IQ test, since previously I didn't know a damn thing.
The IQ Test
According to Ben Mack in his novel "Poker Without Cards", the IQ test was created during WWI and used extensively during WWII to "ascertain proclivities towards success performing specific tasks. A tool invented by psychologists for a war effort. " It was developed from tests created by Alfred Binet to see if certain children would benefit from schooling. The problem with the IQ test is that it only measures one type of intelligence.
I'll come back to that statement soon, but to explain where I'm coming from let me state that I have a high IQ. I know this, even though it's never been measured, for two reasons. The first is that an ex-partner had a measured IQ of 162, and I could keep up with her in everything except pure mathematics.
The second reason is that I once took a test of visual logic. It was a simple thing which involved looking at an arrangement of 3 patterns forming a logical progression and you had to choose the 4th from a small selection. I got 59 right out of 60. The examiner was amazed at how high my score was, I was amazed that I got any wrong out of such simple nonsense.
I also know, because I work at a University and because I know a lot of Pagans, a great many people with very high IQ's. The problem is that they're not all terribly clever!
Multiple Intelligences
I was first introduced to the concept of multiple forms of intelligence by a friend who works as a schoolteacher. One might think that her job would be biased towards an academic view of intelligence, but she has had to find ways to relate to and teach an immense multitude of personalities and abilities. Thus, although the system doesn't work that way, she has a lot of time for multiple intelligences theory.
The theory was formulated by Howard Gardner, a Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He originally discovered or proposed seven different intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, kinesthetic and musical. Later he added an eighth, naturalistic.
He also considered spiritual and existential intelligences, but found them impossible to measure.
According to Wikipedia the various intelligences can be defined like this:
Interpersonal: The ability to relate well to, understand and deal with other people. I suppose we could call it a form of empathy.
Intrapersonal: The ability to understand oneself in terms of motivation, fears etc, and use that information to regulate our lives.
Linguistic: A sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to express oneself effectively.
Mathematical-Logical: The ability to recognize, analyze and deal with patterns and problems in a logical fashion.
Visual-Spatial: "the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas."
Kinesthetic: The ability to use ones mental faculties to create bodily patterns, such as using a physical skill.
Musical: Pretty much what it sounds like - musical ability. It appears to run in parallel with linguistic ability.
Naturalistic: The ability to "recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment."
According to a quick self-assessment test my own balance of intelligences is as follows (according to a system that awards points out of a potential 25):
Interpersonal - 13
Mathematical-Logical - 15
Intrapersonal - 17
Linguistic - 17
Visual-Spatial - 18
Kinesthetic - 19
Musical -20
Naturalistic - 22
This seems fairly well-balanced, although I'm apparently not as good at dealing with people as I could be.
Eight
One of the things that struck me is that the amount of measurable intelligences seems to have settled at eight.
There are a lot of eights in this world, especially in occult/religious matters, such as the Eight Sabbats, the Eightfold Buddhist path and most importantly for this piece: Wilson and Leary's eightfold model of human consciousness.
A full explanation of the eightfold model (even just for myself) would take far too long, and will have to be saved for another entry. What I want to consider here are the first four.
The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness.
This is a model formulated by Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary which basically states that the human mind has four circuits or imprinted behaviour patterns. These are part of the left-brain and rule our normal day-to-day affairs. There are also another four (which we're not really concerned with here) which reside in the right-brain and function as higher or more spiritual aspects of the first four. That was a totally inadequate explanation, but for the functions of this little essay, it'll do.
The four circuits are:
1. Bio-survival: Imprinted at birth or just after and concerned with bodily needs, functions and security.
2. Emotional-Territorial: Imprinted during the toddling stage and concerned with emotional dominance and submission, hierarchies and authority.
3. Semantic: Imprinted during early life and concerned with the ability to handle symbol systems such as language and logical thought.
4. Sociosexual: Imprinted during the first sexual experiences (although I'm not sure that's true) and concerned with social and sexual matters such as morality
Each individual tends to favour one of these four imprinted behavioural patterns or concerns above the others. It's fair to say that I'm rather strongly a 3rd circuit person. Having said that, under threat the most important circuit for anyone immediately becomes the first - biosurvival.
The important thing here is that these circuits are set in the brain, not in stone, and can therefore be changed. According to RAW, the learning of a martial art leads one to deal with biosurvival problems in a much more positive and less stressful way.
Connections
What I'd like to find out now is if these two theoretical patterns can be melded and integrated. I don't know because I'm making this up as I go along with minimal research, but I get a feeling that the eight intelligences could be directly related to the four circuits.
Just as a for-instance: Naturalistic intelligence directly relates to biosurvival because it's the basic intelligence needed by any hunter-gatherer. Linguistic intelligence directly relates to the semantic circuit, and interpersonal to the emotional. The intrapersonal seems to have a relationship with the sociosexual circuit.
That's only half of them, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or corrections of what is becoming a potential working model.
Hooray!
The really great thing about multiple intelligences, though is this. Even though what you are and how you see the world are partly genetic and partly imprinted from an early age, they don't have to remain the same. You can take control and change them.
I've proven this to myself very simply. Before the age of 30 I couldn't play a musical instrument - my musical intelligence was very low - now I play flute solo and in a band and (according to the funny little test) my musical intelligence is second only to my naturalistic intelligence.
We are what we choose to be!
Love,
Seán
The IQ Test
According to Ben Mack in his novel "Poker Without Cards", the IQ test was created during WWI and used extensively during WWII to "ascertain proclivities towards success performing specific tasks. A tool invented by psychologists for a war effort. " It was developed from tests created by Alfred Binet to see if certain children would benefit from schooling. The problem with the IQ test is that it only measures one type of intelligence.
I'll come back to that statement soon, but to explain where I'm coming from let me state that I have a high IQ. I know this, even though it's never been measured, for two reasons. The first is that an ex-partner had a measured IQ of 162, and I could keep up with her in everything except pure mathematics.
The second reason is that I once took a test of visual logic. It was a simple thing which involved looking at an arrangement of 3 patterns forming a logical progression and you had to choose the 4th from a small selection. I got 59 right out of 60. The examiner was amazed at how high my score was, I was amazed that I got any wrong out of such simple nonsense.
I also know, because I work at a University and because I know a lot of Pagans, a great many people with very high IQ's. The problem is that they're not all terribly clever!
Multiple Intelligences
I was first introduced to the concept of multiple forms of intelligence by a friend who works as a schoolteacher. One might think that her job would be biased towards an academic view of intelligence, but she has had to find ways to relate to and teach an immense multitude of personalities and abilities. Thus, although the system doesn't work that way, she has a lot of time for multiple intelligences theory.
The theory was formulated by Howard Gardner, a Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He originally discovered or proposed seven different intelligences: interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, kinesthetic and musical. Later he added an eighth, naturalistic.
He also considered spiritual and existential intelligences, but found them impossible to measure.
According to Wikipedia the various intelligences can be defined like this:
Interpersonal: The ability to relate well to, understand and deal with other people. I suppose we could call it a form of empathy.
Intrapersonal: The ability to understand oneself in terms of motivation, fears etc, and use that information to regulate our lives.
Linguistic: A sensitivity to spoken and written language and the ability to express oneself effectively.
Mathematical-Logical: The ability to recognize, analyze and deal with patterns and problems in a logical fashion.
Visual-Spatial: "the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas."
Kinesthetic: The ability to use ones mental faculties to create bodily patterns, such as using a physical skill.
Musical: Pretty much what it sounds like - musical ability. It appears to run in parallel with linguistic ability.
Naturalistic: The ability to "recognize, categorize and draw upon certain features of the environment."
According to a quick self-assessment test my own balance of intelligences is as follows (according to a system that awards points out of a potential 25):
Interpersonal - 13
Mathematical-Logical - 15
Intrapersonal - 17
Linguistic - 17
Visual-Spatial - 18
Kinesthetic - 19
Musical -20
Naturalistic - 22
This seems fairly well-balanced, although I'm apparently not as good at dealing with people as I could be.
Eight
One of the things that struck me is that the amount of measurable intelligences seems to have settled at eight.
There are a lot of eights in this world, especially in occult/religious matters, such as the Eight Sabbats, the Eightfold Buddhist path and most importantly for this piece: Wilson and Leary's eightfold model of human consciousness.
A full explanation of the eightfold model (even just for myself) would take far too long, and will have to be saved for another entry. What I want to consider here are the first four.
The Eightfold Model of Human Consciousness.
This is a model formulated by Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary which basically states that the human mind has four circuits or imprinted behaviour patterns. These are part of the left-brain and rule our normal day-to-day affairs. There are also another four (which we're not really concerned with here) which reside in the right-brain and function as higher or more spiritual aspects of the first four. That was a totally inadequate explanation, but for the functions of this little essay, it'll do.
The four circuits are:
1. Bio-survival: Imprinted at birth or just after and concerned with bodily needs, functions and security.
2. Emotional-Territorial: Imprinted during the toddling stage and concerned with emotional dominance and submission, hierarchies and authority.
3. Semantic: Imprinted during early life and concerned with the ability to handle symbol systems such as language and logical thought.
4. Sociosexual: Imprinted during the first sexual experiences (although I'm not sure that's true) and concerned with social and sexual matters such as morality
Each individual tends to favour one of these four imprinted behavioural patterns or concerns above the others. It's fair to say that I'm rather strongly a 3rd circuit person. Having said that, under threat the most important circuit for anyone immediately becomes the first - biosurvival.
The important thing here is that these circuits are set in the brain, not in stone, and can therefore be changed. According to RAW, the learning of a martial art leads one to deal with biosurvival problems in a much more positive and less stressful way.
Connections
What I'd like to find out now is if these two theoretical patterns can be melded and integrated. I don't know because I'm making this up as I go along with minimal research, but I get a feeling that the eight intelligences could be directly related to the four circuits.
Just as a for-instance: Naturalistic intelligence directly relates to biosurvival because it's the basic intelligence needed by any hunter-gatherer. Linguistic intelligence directly relates to the semantic circuit, and interpersonal to the emotional. The intrapersonal seems to have a relationship with the sociosexual circuit.
That's only half of them, and I'd appreciate any suggestions or corrections of what is becoming a potential working model.
Hooray!
The really great thing about multiple intelligences, though is this. Even though what you are and how you see the world are partly genetic and partly imprinted from an early age, they don't have to remain the same. You can take control and change them.
I've proven this to myself very simply. Before the age of 30 I couldn't play a musical instrument - my musical intelligence was very low - now I play flute solo and in a band and (according to the funny little test) my musical intelligence is second only to my naturalistic intelligence.
We are what we choose to be!
Love,
Seán
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
