by dada » Mon May 10, 2021 10:25 am
The difference between intelligence as the first production of the types of thought, and intelligence as information can also be seen in the religious belief of "intelligent design." The belief rests on the notion that god is "living information," and so creates an intelligible universe. For the living, the dead universe is not created by intelligent design, but by mass production, and all religions are some form of belief in "intelligent design" of the dead world. The living world is not created by "intelligent design," but created through "sign intelligence," or the art of spinning signs.
So for example, let's say people assert that mushrooms are a network intelligence. They're talking about the dead matter, and the intelligent mushroom network is a living dead network. For the living, the mushroom intelligence only lives with them in the living world of thought. The living mushroom network is a series of warp pipes, connecting all worlds to the mushroom kingdom. The mushrooms themselves are bipedal, all wear funny hats, and have personalities that bring cheer.
Much different than saying, "the mushroom spirit," in vague new-agey terminology. Like, the mushroom spirit will be whatever you want it to be. And so it goes with all the other inteligences encountered on a fairly often basis, from mailboxes to miracles.
So the difference between information and thought gets confused when the senses and feelings are thought to be information instead of thought. Information is taken to be "the heart" of emotions, feelings, moods, and maybe intuition, set over against thought in "the mind."
For the living, the senses and the moods are in thought, and the living heart/mind in the living world is set over against the dead mass of information. So this gives the "derangement of the senses" an entirely different meaning than it is usually taken to mean. "Derangement," here, is moving the range of the senses from dead mass to living thought.
There is no question of "heart" being the lower mind, and "mind" being the higher, though, because both are the lower mind. So arguing about higher and lower in the lower mind is inconsequential. In the higher mind, the hearts all wear bodies of knowledge, the feelings fitting like a second skin, and the minds are each the heaven they envision.
For those who don't like religious terminology, we say, "the vision they envision." Now, the idea that there is a highest mind, where all the minds are one mind and envision one god in one heaven, is the result of the social conceit. The minds that are each the heaven they envision, envision all the other minds, in their respective heavens. So the highest is already present in the higher mind.
The mistake of the social conceit, in fact, may be exactly where the idea of the "fall from heaven," comes from. Looking for the highest anywhere else but in the minds in their respective heavens, confusing the highest with information outside of intelligence.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.