Intellect
By
James Harvey Stout (deceased). This material is now in the public
domain. The complete collection of Mr. Stout's writing is now at
http://stout.mybravenet.com/public_html/h/
>
Jump to the following topics:
- What is the intellect?
- The purpose of the
intellect.
- The limitations
of the intellect.
What is the intellect? It is
the part of the psyche which processes data with the tool of logic.
The purpose of the
intellect. (Many of the following points explain the intellect's
value as a supplement to the intuition.)
- The intellect gathers data. This data is obtained from
reading, empirical sensory input, conversations with
analysis-oriented people, etc.
- The intellect creates data. From its base of information, it
uses methods such as induction and deduction to generate new data.
- The intellect fills in some gaps in our data. Sometimes
intuition gives exact instructions; in other cases, we detect only
a vague feeling or a fragment of a message. In those instances, we
might turn to the intellect to provide supplementary data; for
example, if intuition presents only a general warning that we need
to be more careful with our finances, we turn to our intellect to
study matters such as specific investment options (but we can use
our intuition to help us to decide which option is most likely to
be fruitful).
- The intellect processes a particular type of data. This type
of data is that which is reducible to non-ambiguous, measurable
units. For example, the intellect is the appropriate mode when we
are balancing our checkbook.
- The intellect provides data for intuition's processing
of data. Sometimes intuition presents data spontaneously; we
simply know a new bit of data. However, usually, intuition
is built upon previously acquired data; first, we gather
information via the intellect, and then intuition gives us insight
into that information.
- The intellect verifies data. For example, if we receive a
message which we believe is from our intuition (or any other
source), and it tells us that the sun will not rise tomorrow, our
logic rightly disagrees. For our "reality check," we can refer to
experts, personal experience, rules of logic, statistics, history,
books, etc.
- The intellect formats data for presentation to
analysis-oriented people. Some people communicate primarily via
facts; other people communicate primarily via feelings and
emotions. We need to format the data into a logical presentation
so that it can be understood and accepted by people who primarily
value logic.
- The intellect conveys both analytical and, paradoxically,
non-analytical data. Sometimes words -- which constitute one of
the intellect's primary tools -- are an effective means by which
to relay something which is not expressible in words themselves.
For example, the lyrics of religious hymns might be more important
for the transmission of feelings and emotions and imagery that
they are for the transmission of the concepts that are expressed
in them.
- Intellect contributes a dimension to our understanding of
data. The mind does not know anything; it is like a computer which
can present the word, "cat," on its monitor, but it does not know
what a cat is. In contrast, soul possesses consciousness;
it uses the mind as an instrument for examining archetypal aspects
of itself as those aspects exist in the mental dimension; in that
sense, mind is like a microscope which allows us to see but which
itself does not see or know. Soul is the entity which knows,
through experience; the intellect examines those experiences, to
view them from its own mental perspective -- a perspective that
adds a valuable dimension and depth to soul's viewpoint and
understanding.
- The intellect provides data which constitutes the "thoughts"
in our archetypal fields. Every human situation is based on an
interaction between reciprocal archetypes; for example, we might
name an "Aggressor" archetype in the spirit-substance of one soul
interacting with a "Defender" archetype in the spirit-substance of
the other soul. As we interact, we generate thoughts, imagery,
energy tones (e.g., emotions and feelings), and actions. These
elements leave a record in the "archetypal field" which surrounds
each archetype. Then, in future encounters with that archetype,
when we are devising a response to that archetype, we tend to
automatically refer to those records to determine "how do I
usually respond to this situation?" Thus, the thoughts which the
intellect created during previous encounters help us to formulate
a response in this situation.
The limitations of
the intellect.
- The intellect operates only with consciously known data. This
data is acquired from external sources (e.g., reading, research,
empirical sensory input, etc.) and internal sources (e.g., the
products of logical deductions and inductions). Intellect is
useless in situations in which (1) facts are incomplete or wholly
unavailable, (2) the subject matter cannot be crystallized into
facts (e.g., human behavior, which can be reduced to statistics,
and projected into probabilities -- but neither of those entities
are "facts"). In contrast, intuition has access to all data
regarding any given situation -- even the data of which we are not
consciously aware.
- The intellect can process only a limited amount of data. We
are restricted by various factors, including the capacity of our
memory, and the time which is required for learning, and our
"intelligence" (i.e., our capability for processing data). In
contrast, intuition has perhaps an infinite capacity for
data-processing; even in complex circumstances, it can acquire and
consider all relevant data. When intuition is applied to
mystical experience, the wholistic overview suggests that
we are operating from a cumulative awareness of every bit of data
in the universe.
- The intellect uses a decision-making process. It analyzes
information, and then it considers the options, and the possible
outcomes of each of those options. In contrast, intuition does not
present alternatives; it gives one answer, and then our
only decision is to comply with that message or not to
comply.
- The intellect is slow. It relies on laborious fact-gathering
(i.e., research and study), and the time-consuming process of
logical analysis. In contrast, intuition can provide information
instantaneously; however, when intuition is used in
problem-solving, it generally provides its data only after we have
acquired facts through the research and study.
- The intellect relies on generalizations and templates. Because
the intellect does not have access to all data regarding each
situation, it can only create generalizations about the situation,
and then it formulates its understanding and response by viewing
analogies between this situation and similar archetypal
situations. However, each situation is unique; it contains
elements which are unlike those of other situations, and we might
discover that those singular elements render our analogies
inaccurate. In contrast, intuition offers observations and
suggestions that are based on an overview of all factors as they
exist in each unique moment.
- The intellect does not have a reliable self-correcting
mechanism. Despite the rules of logic, the intellect cannot
adequately judge its own conclusions. This is because the
analytical mind does not know anything; it merely
processes data in the manner of a computer which knows only
electrons, and it does not know the concepts which those electrons
are expressing on our computer monitor. For example, after we have
worked on an intellectual project, we might say, "I followed the
instructions, but the answer doesn't feel right"; that feeling is
our intuition. When pure logic arrives at a correct answer, we can
credit its success to mere luck (except perhaps in rare situations
which are purely analytical, such as simple mathematics, e.g.,
2+2=4).
- The intellect is incapable of understanding some modes of
being. Analysis cannot grasp notions such as love and beauty and
morality, as though those matters are in a different language, a
different format, a different dimension, which is unapproachable
from the intellect. We might identify this dichotomy in models
such as "right hemisphere and left hemisphere" or "heart and
mind." In an attempt to make sense of these intangibles (e.g.,
beauty), the mind creates measurable standards and statistics, but
those things are ultimately unrelated to the aesthetic qualities
themselves.
- It is incapable of understanding ambiguous statements. If a
statement can be interpreted logically in a number of ways, it is
our intuition that tells us which interpretation is most likely to
be true. For example, when we are told to "love your enemy," logic
alone cannot prevent grave errors in judgment; logic might
consider the religion's value on faith and brotherhood (and
self-sacrificial martyrdom) and thus it could lead us to reduce
our defenses (as we would do in the presence of a beloved friend),
and even assist someone who is intent on harming us (just
as we would assist a loved one with any task). In contrast,
intuition (and the valid objections from ego) would reject those
interpretations; instead, it would strive to define both "love"
and "enemy" such that we create a safe and productive relationship
with an adversary.
- The intellect works with dualities rather than wholes. It
perceives "facts" as absolutes rather than part of a wholistic
fabric (in which the facts' opposites tend to contain paradoxical
elements of truth.) Whichever philosophical position we take,
there is also some validity in the opposite position; for
example, our preacher might tell us to be open to strangers, while
the police tell us to be wary of strangers. Paradoxically, both
perspectives are true: kindness is good, and so is
self-protection. In contrast to the intellect, intuition fully
recognizes the legitimacy of all elements in a situation, and it
knows that they are all part of the synergistic dynamic.
- The intellect works within a closed system. Unless we make a
deliberate effort to "learn" (i.e., to gather additional
information), the intellect uses only its present base of data,
which it processes in a habitual routine. In contrast, it is our
intuition which gives us the feeling that "I need more information
on this subject." Because the intellect deals with a closed
system, it can imagine itself to be an expert or a scholar,
whereas an intuitive person always has a fresh approach, even when
considering familiar material. After the intuition discerns a need
for more data, it can suggest a source for that data.
- The intellect can be so over-valued that we minimize the
importance of intuition. Sometimes intuition's accurate message
contradicts experts' opinions, conventional knowledge, statistics,
and other forms of non-intuitive guidance. If we are uncertain of
the legitimacy of intuition as a means of guidance, we might
discard it altogether when its messages differ from those of
respected authorities. (Contrarily, intuition, too, can
be over-valued, such that we reject input from the intellect,
particularly in its function of reality-checking.)
- The intellect allows for the existence of meaningless
scholarship. Certainly, some fields of study require extensive
knowledge, but the accumulation of facts has value only to the
extent that the particular information is useful to our experience
of life; we do not need to know, for example, "how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin." Also, mere intellectual scholarship
is often confused with wisdom (which is a blend of intellectual
knowledge, personal experience, and an intuitive perception into
the meaning and application of the data). And intellectual
scholarship frequently generates vain pride, such that we are
unwilling to accept valid ideas which contradict the theories upon
which we have built our reputation; then we begin to rationalize
our faulty beliefs, and we terminate our process of learning. In
contrast, intuition imparts only the information which we need; it
does not burden us with irrelevant details which would distract us
from important matters. Many students of spirituality say that, as
they progress, they "know" less than they did before; because
their assumptions and models and plans have been shattered
repeatedly, they are left with a humble uncertainty regarding the
speculations of the intellect, and they rely instead on the
always-fresh perspectives of the intuition.
- The intellect's concepts can be solidified into dogma.
Regardless of who the teacher might be, the teachings are only
viewpoints, opinions, theories, and personal interpretations --
and sometimes they are intended only for a specific person, group,
culture, or time-period. Those teachings probably arose from one
person's intuition -- but the ideas can become institutionalized
as dogma such that we become unwilling or even afraid to seek our
own intuition at risk of persecution, inquisition, and threats of
eternal damnation. Some people worship the dogma itself and thus
they "look at the moon, not at the finger which points to the
moon."
- The intellect's words are a limited form of expression.
- Words have different meanings to different people. For
example, one mother might believe that "love" means that she
should discipline a child, while another parent believes that
it means that she should the child run free.
- Words' meanings change. As a society evolves, its words
acquire new meanings and connotations; for example, the word
"sex" has different connotations today than it did during the
sexually repressive Victorian era. Even for ourselves, words
have different meanings depending upon our mood or our stage of
life; for example, the concept of "freedom" is probably not the
same to a 50-year-old person as it was during that person's
adolescence.
- Words cannot express the inexpressible. Spirit, being the
ground of all things, cannot be fully explained verbally
because words imply opposites and contrasts and limited
contexts. Thus, any "spiritual law" is an ironic contradiction
of the very nature of spirit. "Religion" is generally a futile
attempt to crystallize the shifting patterns of spirit into
fixed principles.
- The intellect is incapable of consistently generating accurate
predictions. This fault occurs because the intellect works only on
the basis of linear projections from identifiable trends. In
contrast, intuition can perceive the nature and movement of
phenomena which are not known to the conscious mind; thus, for
example, it knows the thoughts and intentions of people who are
planning to confront us tomorrow.