“The developing
of one is to be considered a vegetative, instinctive and rational life, 3
successive degrees and should not be seen as differences of intensity or degree
~ Aristotle ~ but as 3 different directions ~ Bergson !”
“More precisely
intelligence is before anything else, the faculty of relating one point of
space to another, one material object to another; it applies to all things, but
remains outside them.”
“A language is required which makes it possible to be always passing
from what is known to what is yet to be known.”
Some psycho-sophers
that are gathered by me. What are the similarities of these famous 5 ?
When watching an
old debate about “Human Nature”
between Foucault and Chomsky ~ in 1971 ~ I recognized lots of analogy the way Steiner and
Jung discussed the way mankind and his or her way in developing consciousness.
(http://bit.ly/11C58Ma)
The content of
Chomsky reminded me to Bergson’s book “Creative
evolution” although he used other terms and words. At first it is
important to realize what Bergson meant with instinct, intelligence, intuition
and sympathy.
It appeared that it
would be easier to change 2 words into verbs in the use of processes, namely
intuition and sympathy into intuiting ~ introspective ~ and sympathizing ~ extraspective
characterized. Here the “normal”
words are instinct and intelligence. Since Bergson was a quite well educated
biologist, to him the great difference between flora and fauna was the word “mobility”. That’s also where we see the
difference between an animal and human; intelligence :”forms of (spatial) points that can be brought together”. In other
words : ”the degree of solving potential
that distinguishes mankind above the animal, the primate”. This word he
used as a starting point for explaining the differences between instinct and
intelligence. Instinct implies a static reservoir of values that can be
consulted in a reflective way; it has often to do with survival and avoiding
pain and (any) damage. It needs no intelligence in a “mobile or dynamic way” of thinking but only an immediate acting;
the process of in-tuiting or consulting basic values.
Sympathy implies an
extraspective process; more precisely. Intelligence is, before anything else,
the faculty of relating one point of space to another, one material object to
another. It applies to all things, but remains outside them. Here Bergson used
explicitly and often the word “faculty”
in his book where I use the word “intelligence”
in my former books with its meaning being “the
potential to be actualized”. Although
sympathy may also rely on instinctive values ~ in a more emotional dimension
like e.g. pain and joy. Besides of these small exceptions it seems that
intuition and sympathy have their processes in opposite directions.
Also another addition
may be that knowledge ~ properly so called and reserved to pure intelligence ~
intuition may enable us to grasp what it is that intelligence fails to give us
and indicate the means of supplementing it. That’s why I proposed to consider
the intelligence as a spectre, where the intuition is the integral energetic
intelligence of all kind of intelligences. Please recognize the possibility to
empower general intelligence by intuition.
Coming back to my introduction of the 4 plus one
psycho~sophers I refer to
Will McWhinney and also to Ken Wilber. Let me explain this to you. McWhinney we
know of his “4 World Views” in some
analogy with MBTI derived from Jung’s knowledge. Wilber we know about his 4
divisions as explained in my former books; we talked about plurality ~ “Community” ~ and singularity ~ “Individuality” ~ furthermore extended
into “We and Its” and “I and It”. Foucault and Jung both
approach mankind from this collectivum ~ you even may say “culture” ~ where Steiner and Chomsky approach mankind from this
individuation ~ you may say “individual
identity”.
There are more similarities to discover between these
5 individuals as being shown in the picture beneath. (available in the book)
At Bergson I show the openness of both instinct and
intelligence. In a way both are reachable in the relationship with the outer
world. Where instinct is mostly (bio-) “material”
orientated and shows a kind of solid and intelligence more “form” orientated is that is more
flexible and dynamic. It’s not specifically the form that determines the
creation, it is its limitations around, the surroundings that assure the
uniqueness of each creation of each unique individual.
The left side of the picture represents the
objectivity, while the right side the subjectivity. The tool that Foucault and
Chomsky use is called “language” and
Jung and Steiner use “imagination”.
However, if we take the opposite directions of the 4 factors “I”, “We”, “It” and “Its”, “I” gets exchanged
with “It” and “We” gets exchanged by “Its”.
In a way instinct has nothing to do with both
consciousness and creativity. As I see it they are synonyms of each other.
Where instinct requires immediate reflective actions intelligence has to deal
with gaps. Jung and Foucault claim that these gaps are the space between
several perhaps noo-spherial “networks”, which imply that the outer world is
responsible and accountable for one’s intelligence. Steiner and Chomsky claim
that our bio-mechanical structures and their restrictions in it initiate some
kind progress coming out of ourselves.
Steiner uses the process of imagination and Chomsky
uses the process of language. Anyway all talk about leaps to be made in their
own process of thinking. The bridge to other dimensions may explicate after
integrating ? new orders, where ~ according to David Bohm called them ~ the
restrictions of mankind guarantee certain creativity and-or consciousness ~ the
implicate orders.
As we put it in the political way we might admit that
we have no influence in our political landscape. We depend on the ones that we
have chosen. If that is so then what is our personal power ? Chomsky explains
it as follows. The Government confronts us with legality. If legality is our
human nature, then we don’t need our instinct including the ethical values.
Every civilian is allowed to obstruct legality if (s)he thinks it doesn't lead
to better justice; justice meaning a better social life for everyone. As
individual this is, it is applicable to the battle of the classes.
End of part 1
