What can be said is thought understanding its own limit, a deep visceral understanding of its fallibility – what it can and cannot do. Epistemological thinking is then rooted in an unquestionably real and undeniable metaphysics — as opposed to a concept (a fiction) merely created by the mind. This is the only form, or rather formlessness (when correctly imbibed), that meets statement 7 of the Tractatus. A genuine philosopher will remain silent on what intelligence is because (s)he knows that (s)he cannot speak.
At best, he may state what intelligence is not or describe some of the attributes of intelligence (the virtues) but he can never say what is love (that which has so many facets, which is not of time).
If one would like evidence of thought worshipping itself (which is not intelligence) one only has to look outside. The sense of the necessity of psychological progression (which by definition contains conflict), is the internal component.
The nomenclature here takes some getting used to; readers to agree on their shared definitions. A spirit of communication/communion is needed to set this off. Personal contact assists this enormously to avoid the pitfalls of dialectical discussion.
You are outlining a discourse on what can be said to be true, rather than a description of what intelligence is.
On ‘what can be said to be true’ tends to have culturally embedded limitations – your words reflect that awareness.
How do ‘hierarchies exploiting’ lack definition? How do they exploit a self- limiting definition?
So I would say you are closer to it when we say or make clear what is not intelligent behaviour – to me, bullying is clever but not intelligent. Building a rocket while children starve is clever, it is not intelligent.
We are not communicating already. Intelligence has already been lost.
Humility and compassion do not come into being through discourse. This is clear when the mind understands its own fallibility. The undeniable metaphysics I mention is not something the mind can generate. That kinaesthesia cannot be cultivated. Indeed it is culture that has convinced us that it can. That is the primary lie of religion, which we both agree is exploitative to its core. Genuine contact with another is genuine contact with oneself. It breaks self-limiting definitions. Compassion is not compassion if there is any motive. The hierarchies begin here.
The virtues are not imbibed as such, they are simply in action. There is perceptive clarity of what is needed at that moment. Undefined, not premeditated. Intelligent.
I want to separate this part – (ethics is rooted in correct metaphysics as opposed to pseudo-ethics rooted in pseudo-metaphysics).
Are you saying compassion cannot be abstract. It can only be materialised through action.
Are you saying compassionate action is intelligence in action?
Thank you for working with me to harmonise our nomenclature.
Yes. Compassion cannot be abstract. It is materialised through action, felt by both the recipient and the giver. But there cannot be a motive for the giver, for then it becomes a stimulation. Self-serving to a degree.
Ideation often causes harm because it becomes more important than action. The old adage, much harm is caused by people trying to do good. The journey is much more important than the destination, we often forget that.
Absolutely. Compassionate action is intelligence in action. Compassion is the umbrella of a number of virtues – empathy, kindness, listening, clarity, honesty, integrity, acknowledgement, support, and so on. Things we recognise to be aspects of love.
When compassion is authentic something extraordinary happens; not so much in the mind but moreover in the body which ties together the 3 branches of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. This is reconnection with nature and the universal order, which has been temporarily cut by civilisation consciousness. This cut has created the hideous inverted tree of problems which we see as history.
I put this part in brackets
<As a basic rule of thumb it happens in stages: from no religion, polytheism (Paganism), monotheism, atheism to the worshipping of technology – all parts except the first being Mysteriums (or mind possessions).
We could say it is the synthesis of the thesis of pre-conquest human connection with the anti-thesis of a post-conquest scission. However, such wording turns it into an essay and when we do this its beauty is lost. > Hence the brackets
I hope we are meeting each other with the words we are using. The communication aspect of this is smoother if the language is mutual, vulnerable, equally shared and recognised; two friends walking down a road together, exploring and having a chat without their backyards.
Compassion sees and feels the deep sorrow of humanity, works to minimise it in communities and is not diminished by it. This is the awakening of intelligence.