¶ THE ON-GOING METHOD OF
INQUIRY
¶
NEGATIVE INTELLIGENCE EVALUATION THEORY
Click on “negative intelligence evaluation theory”
For further information
#1 “How can you be so
sure Richard III did not have the princes killed?”
Ask a NIET-trained
historian and he (or ‘she’) will tell you! Briefly, the mother of the princes,
Elizabeth Woodville, had been queen of England for nearly twenty years when her
husband suddenly died, 9 April 1483 (Edward IV). Three months later, her
brother-in-law, her husband’s younger brother, was crowned the new king on 6
July 1483 (Richard III). Three months later, her two sons disappear and are
never seen again. From that moment, Woodville said nothing and neither did any
member of her large and powerful family. Why not?
Here
was a mother with all the feelings of a mother who lived for another nine years
(died 1492) and at no time did she claim her sons were dead. Neither did she
claim they were missing. Why not?
In
fact, Elizabeth Woodville said nothing to parliament concerning the fate of her
two sons during the reign of the next king, Henry VII, who had married the
sister of the princes, Elizabeth of York. Why not?
We shall say there are perhaps many thousands of theories but only one best-fit theory, which fits the facts, all the facts, without exception, and this best-fit, that a major conspiracy was afoot, is corroborated in coded correspondence between Ferdinand of Spain and his ambassador in London, decoded by Bergenroth in the nineteenth century, who has never received proper acknowledgment of the debt he is owed by all historians of this period.
Henry
Tudor threatened to invade England from France, with French assistance, and
Richard hid the princes for their own safety. This was done with the knowledge
and consent of their mother, Woodville, who knew their whereabouts at all times
and, more importantly, that they were completely safe. If you want a reason
for silence during Richard’s lifetime, that will do!
If you want a reason for Woodville’s silence during the reign of her son-in-law, Henry Tudor, the best-fit points to a stand off put in place by a clever woman with all the feelings of a powerful mother. There was little risk if she agreed for the victor of Bosworth (Henry) to marry her daughter (Elizabeth of York) in return for a guarantee from her new son-in-law of safety for herself and her close and extended family. Henry explained and made clear to Woodville that he was willing to provide additionally for her sons but since he was now de facto king of England and since there cannot be two kings sitting on a throne, he further cleverly explained and made clear that her daughter should be Queen of England instead.
Woodville attended the marriage of her daughter to Henry VII, thus increasing the power and influence of the most powerful faction of the new nobility in England, the Woodville faction, after the demise of the former most powerful faction of the old nobility in England, the Neville faction, whose last direct descendant, Richard III, was dead.
Woodville accepted every one of Henry’s proposals except one: Woodville would not say that Richard had murdered her sons.
Woodville knew if she announced in public that her sons were dead, there was nothing to stop Henry from getting rid of them in private. Since Woodville only had to tell her pitiful story to parliament and disclose the whereabouts of her two sons to be believed, Henry knew his throne was at risk.
Since
Henry could not say officially that Richard had murdered the princes without
the supporting evidence of their mother, Henry ordered his department of dirty
tricks (DDT) to continue saying it unofficially, as the agent provocateurs had
been doing successfully in London during Richard’s lifetime, preparing the
ground for the invasion of England from France by Welshman Henry Tudor with
both hands deep in French pockets.
This black-op was repeated in the French parliament, with Henry’s full knowledge and consent, and still Woodville stayed silent, keeping the stand off in place long after the death of her brother-in-law, Richard. Her son-in-law, Henry, did not destabilize the position in parliament nor the protection the stand off gave Woodville and her family after he had gained the throne ‘by conquest’, as long as they stayed silent.
Woodville allowed herself to remain virtually incommunicado for the rest of her life in Bermondsey Abbey, less than a gunshot from the Tower of London, across the river Thames. Henry’s DDT pretended that Henry provided lavishly for Woodville. In fact, her Will shows she died penniless, leaving to her children ‘only her blessing’.
Woodville remained silent in order not to destabilize the stand off and bring down the supporters. If DNA tests prove positive it means she succeeded. Woodville’s sons continued to live under false names and identities after the deaths of their sister and brother-in-law, Elizabeth of York (d. 1503) and Henry VII (d. 1509). The eldest brother Edward V had been “housetrained” and remained a Woodville supporter. Richard remained a Neville supporter and exiled himself to Flanders, to his aunt, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy (née Margaret of York), his father’s eldest sister, and apart from a visit incognito to his sister Elizabeth shortly before she died, he did not return to England until 18 January 1510, to celebrate a ball at Greenwich with his brother, Edward, and his 19-year-old nephew, Henry VIII. The eighteenth day of January was the day of the marriage of Henry VIII’s parents in 1486. The rest, as they say, is history.
If you want to read the work of Germany’s best new feminist historian, Klaudia Spielmann, see her A1 thesis for the First State Examination, “Was Richard III Demonized? A new interpretation of the history and historiography” (1989), today in the Library of University Department 10 of Modern Philologies at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main. Klaudia has also made a German version. OK?
#27 "Have you found out something terrible in
your research?"
I have found
nothing to date so terrible that I cannot write about it. My greatest braggable
is to have identified an outdated method of education, described by some as
'terrible’, and at the kind invitation of professional educationalists, I have
explained and made clear a new method that has been tried and tested over a
substantial period of time by science: Negative Intelligence Evaluation
Theory (NIET). For instance, I observed in a sample of fifty thousand royal
births dating from the fifth century (that is a period of some sixteen hundred
years to date!), no twins are recorded. This is Negative evidence;
namely, what is not there and what, reasonably, one might expect to find there.
Positive evidence shows that the incidence of twins can be
predicted: at least one birth in a hundred. One in a hundred means ten in a
thousand, one hundred in ten thousand and five hundred in fifty thousand
births. Since we are not going to invent a new biology for royal families, what
ensued to five hundred, approximately, princes and princesses?
Finally, all this does not
imply that academia has failed in its duties. This is not the case. Those
duties have been carried out with great care and undoubted success over a
substantial period of time. My reservations are concerned with what appears to
be a system that had developed which did not match advances and procedures in
other scientific fields. There must be a proper and effective checking procedure
and the inquiry will want to know what was the system for checking: was it a
good one, and was it operating properly. I have argued that any method which
omits to state criteria or fails to follow systematic verification and
falsification of all known evidence, NIET positive and negative, without
offering a best-fit hypothesis based soundly upon a balance of probability, in
an on-going method of inquiry, is an inherently inadequate procedure.
#28 "You're on an ego-trip trying to make
yourself a millionaire."
If I wanted to
be a millionaire, there are easier ways to do it. Many years ago I was advised
to write the story pretending it was fiction and perhaps become a millionaire
overnight. The advice was well intended but did not interest me. I decided to
do it the hard way, from interest. It meant no hopes, no expectations and no
illusions. THAT interested me. My friends know it. My enemies know it.
And now you know it! At the same time, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to an American historian, Richard Marius, who wrote a book on
Thomas More, which is today regarded as a classic. I was sad to learn recently of the death of Richard
Marius. We never met but he flew in at short notice from New York to London
early in 1991 when invited to appear in a documentary programme made for TV
about my work, and since I was looking forward very much to meeting him in
London, and since I was in Antwerp on the day he arrived and he had to return
the same day and I could not be free until the next day, I was deeply touched
when the producer told me that Richard Marius had left a message for me on
film, an extraordinary and gracious offer from one of the great More scholars,
that he offered to take me to dinner at the Ritz in Paris if my theory that
More’s History of King Richard the Third was a blind was proved correct by DNA
testing. Shortly after his London visit he wrote to Hermann Boventer of
Cologne, on 31 May 1991 (reported in Thomas More Gazette No. 9): “Who knows?”…
“We may all sit down sometime with our saint and listen to him give us all a
lecture on how we got him wrong.” I hope that one day I may be invited to
attend the lecture. Amen.
#29 "Are you crazy? You're an amateur taking on
the pros!"
Get your facts
right! Fact 1: I was an amateur in the true sense of the word when I began and
I still am today, I love what I do. Fact 2: I was obliged to take on the
professionals, they insisted, and many are now my friends. Fact 3: For better
or worse, I'm THE expert, purely from interest, and don't you forget it!
#30 "Why haven't we heard about these
discoveries before?"
Let's approach
this problem obliquely. If I say one thing and you are an important professor
who says another, we cannot both be right. There are just two options. Either
we are both wrong or one of us is wrong. A third option, derived from options 1
& 2, suggests that one of us may be right, but which one? This hypothetical
professor does not lack imagination. There is no end to discovery, this is the
professor's Achilles heel and he knows it. He knows that his status, his
economic rewards and his peace of mind are at risk. Sometimes, it means the
roof over his head, and that is why he will often fight to the death insisting
he is right.
Understand the
underlying process and you are free of the confusion that comes from listening
to talking heads condemning others, justifying themselves, comparing this with
that and identifying themselves with some new or old belief. What can we do?
The answer is Nothing Violent and Think For Yourself!
HH Pope John
Paul II has most kindly offered on-going moral support to this new
investigation into the life of the English saint, Thomas More, since 1976. I
have to draw attention to a tradition in the Pontifical Academy of Science (I
am told!) that if their scholars cannot break a theory, it must stand. I have
further to draw attention that my theories have not been broken for nearly a
quarter of a century. Hallelujah!
No, I'm on the
Father's side.
#33 "Have you been tested by experts?"
I have been
tested by the best and will not forget it. Neither, I suspect, will the members
of the academic staff and other interested parties who attended my trial before
the Devil's Advocates (1984, The Catholic University of the West, Angers,
France), where I first defended my theses in public, each member of the
tribunal standing in turn before his desk to declare: 'I am the best qualified
to make this investigation', after which I was obliged to answer questions for
as long as the distinguished members of the tribunal decided. On the second
day, the president stood and announced in English: "We are unable to
sustain any further argument against the theory of the unconventional
symbols." The president gave my theory this name, hence the acronym TOTUS,
by which it is now known and I am very glad about that. The crowd applauded,
they stamped their feet and sang songs. Later that night, I was eating my
dinner in the dining room when the most respected Morean scholar got up from
his seat at the top table and came to the lowly place where I was sitting and
fed me from his plate. "You deserve TWO dinners," he said. The
much-revered Abbé, Germain Marc'hadour of Angers, emeritus professor and doctor
of divinity, will remain forever in my private Hall of Fame.
The Yorkists did
try to regain the throne, in the names of the princes, and failed each time.
For instance, when it was clear that Edward V, also known as Edward Guildford,
had become “housetrained” by the Tudors in England, the Yorkist “banker” in
Flanders, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy (née Margaret of York), sent
look-alike, Perkin Warbeck, the impersonator of Richard, Duke of York, to raise
forces in Ireland for an invasion of England. The objective was to try and draw
Henry VII's forces to the north, when the Yorkists were planning to invade from
the south. I have to draw attention that a similar tactic employed by the
Allies in the war of 1939-1945 was more successful when US General Eisenhower
sent General Patton to command the First United States Army Group (FUSAG), a
non-existent fictional army in the south-east of England, while the real concentration
of the Allied forces was in the south and south-west.
The result was
that the deception drew 15 Panzer divisions of the German army into the
Pas-de-Calais area of France, to repel the anticipated attack by the short
route across the Channel from the south-east of England, and kept them there
for three weeks while the Allies landed 200 miles away in a less well-defended
area of France, the Normandy beaches.
It is not
generally known, but is not unknown, that the British caught all the German
spies who had been landed in England with their radio equipment and turned them
around with the sole objective of putting in place a plan of deception that the
enemy would swallow hook, line and sinker on D-day, which they did.
If you want to know more of the national security agency aspects of my
work under the guidance of Sir John Masterman, vice-Chancellor of the
University of Oxford and self-confessed member of the wartime "XX
Committee" (also known as the "Double-Cross" Committee) which
had been virtually running the normally wide-awake German Abwehr (Military
Intelligence) for the last four and a half years of the war, read my volume on
the detective work, as already explained and made clear, needing an editor and
a printer.
#35 "How much is the painting worth?"
The question of financial value does not enter into the question today
since the value of something can only be known after it is sold, presumably,
and the likelihood of the descendants of Saint Thomas More selling Sir Thomas
More and his Family is very, very low. However, your interest reflects one of
the most frequently asked questions in my mailbox and if you want to make an
educated guess, please bear in mind the following matters of fact: (1) The painting
is a sacred religious symbol of the English Catholics and the wider world of
Catholicism. (2) The painting reveals the secret history of the Tudors, which
is relevant today, since no centre of learning can make progress without the
New History. (3) It is the largest and (arguably!) the finest oil-on-canvas
painting by More’s friend and master painter of Basel, Hans Holbein the
Younger, court artist to Henry VIII. (4) There is no more interesting painting
in England.
Finally, I have to draw attention that many visitors to Nostell have
checked this out for themselves, successfully, and having had a quick glance
inside Holbein’s head, find it difficult if not impossible to look at pictures
in quite the same way again! In itself, this is interesting. Most visitors no
longer stand in front of the painting trying to decide whether they like it or
not, as though it matters, they now look to see what the artist is trying to
communicate and that, as many discover for themselves, can be very interesting
indeed!
Last Revision: 090900
#56 What is NIET?
I am preparing a computer program “NIET” for
publication at this Web site, God Willing, later this year. [See below, 2002) For
the present, I want to tell you a story about a meeting that took place a long
time ago in London:
Lord St Oswald (speaking to friends in their
Lordships’ House): ‘Mr Leslau has a
rather interesting theory about the identity of “Deep Throat” in the Watergate
Affair. Would you care to hear what he has to say?’
Jack Leslau: ‘I have to draw attention, if I may, that the aim and objective is
to identify the informant codenamed “Deep Throat” by the Washington Post
reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, using Negative Intelligence Evaluation
Theory (NIET), which gives equal weight to positive and negative evidence.’
Question No. 1: ‘Was the informant a Republican or a Democrat?’
NIET Positive Evidence:
(a) There are two major political parties in America,
Democrats and Republicans.
(b) The entire Republican Administration, it is
reported, was removed from office with the resignation of Republican President
Nixon as a result of evidence given by “Deep Throat”, via the Washington Post
reporters, to the US Senate Investigation Committee.
(c) The official record shows that certain evidence
supplied by “Deep Throat” was only known at the highest level of the Republican
Party.
NIET Negative Evidence (based soundly on a
balance of probability):
Since the likelihood of a Democrat with access to
highly sensitive personal and political information, known only at the highest
levels of the Republican Party, is of very low probability – NIET argues “Deep
Throat” was Republican.
Question No. 2: ‘What was the true name and identity of “Deep Throat”?’
NIET Positive Evidence:
The entire Republican Administration, it is alleged
and widely reported, was removed from office after Watergate.
NIET Negative Evidence:
Since the entire Republican Administration is reported
to have been removed from office after Watergate, if just one top-level
Republican remained in office under President Ford who held a position at the
highest level under President Nixon – the NIET best-fit points to that person
as the informant.
Question No. 3: ‘Was there someone?’
NIET Positive Evidence:
There was one person at the highest level who
remained in office under President Ford who had been in office under President
Nixon – Henry Kissinger.
Question No. 4: ‘Who invented the name “Deep Throat?’
NIET Positive Evidence:
You may conceivably decide that Woodward and
Bernstein knew the voice of Henry Kissinger before they spoke to the informant
on the telephone. You may further decide that the Washington Post Editor, Ben
Bradley, recognized Kissinger’s voice (How can we recognize someone or
something unless we know it already?) Once satisfied it was not a hoax, it was
necessary to provide a codename for the Kiss-and-Tell informant. Since
Kissinger’s voice is highly distinctive, deep and accented with traces of
German still in his speech today (Kissinger’s first language), the codename
“Deep Throat” reflected the voice and title of a sexually explicit feature film
in USA at the time.
Lord Kagan: ‘Has Kissinger admitted he was “Deep Throat”?’
Jack Leslau: ‘No. Not as far as I know.’
Lord St Oswald: ‘Have Woodward and Bernstein?’
Jack Leslau: ‘No. However, as one of the henchmen said at the time: “When you‘ve
got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”’
Lord Watkinson (UK Cabinet Minister at the time of Watergate): ‘There is a rather
large hole in your theory, since there were TWO men who remained in office
after Watergate, Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig’.
Jack Leslau: Yes. That is correct. But I am following NIET criteria and not
looking for a loophole, get-out or ambiguity. Factually, the top man was Henry
Kissinger. Haig was Kissinger’s number two.”
--------------------
Last
Revision: 010101
§ NEGATIVE INTELLIGENCE EVALUATION THEORY
“What is NIET?”
NIET
is the highest form of intelligence. And since the central theme of NIET is
that Capacity is born of Interest and not the other way round – you may conceivably
decide the first and last test is NIET itself.
_____________
NEGATIVE
INTELLIGENCE EVALUATION THEORY
A
new method of problem solving
By
Jack
LESLAU
© J. LESLAU 1976
A: JACKNIET.01 1986
Amstrad
A: JACKNIET.02 1996
Microsoft Works 3.0
A: JACKNIET.03 2000
Microsoft Word 2000
System check OK.
COMPUTER INPUT
COMMANDS:
When ready
– Scroll down to hyperlinked SYSTEM/MENU
command –
below.
↓
ESCAPE OPTIONS:
Click è Forward or ç Back to return to next or last
screen.
Select Control and either Home
or End to go to first or last page.
Press: Page Up or Page Down to
advance forward or back one page at a time.
OK? Ready? To
continue, input
↑
Or, just read on. OK?
Help-answer:
Screen No. 1
Definitions:
(a) The criteria
pre-determine the hypothesis.
(b) The
hypothesis pre-determines the conclusion.
(c) It is most
unlikely a conclusion will be correct if based upon incorrect criteria.
(d) It is most unlikely
that a correct conclusion will be obtained from an incorrect hypothesis.
(e) The correct
hypothesis is the best-fit hypothesis based soundly on a balance of
probability.
(f) Any method to
determine the best-fit hypothesis that omits systematic verification and
falsification of all known positive and negative evidence, based upon tried and
tested criteria in an on-going method of inquiry, is provably flawed and may be
rejected outright.
(g) Positive evidence is
defined as what is there. Negative evidence is what is not there. We assume
that positive evidence can be fake -- negative evidence cannot -- and thus
investigate the more reliable evidence. The significant absence of information
is tested on the basis of negative evidence -- people, things and ideas --
which is not there and which we might reasonably expect to find there.
OK?
Help-answer:
Screen No. 2
Definitions:
BELIEF – KNOWLEDGE – EXPERIENCE
BELIEF:
Memory which the
Mind knows it believes.
KNOWLEDGE:
Memory which the Mind
believes it knows.
EXPERIENCE:
Memory of a known
past.
Belief
conditions Experience -- Experience reinforces Belief -- the outcome,
Knowledge, is recorded in a closed system of open and closed memory. The
thinker is trapped in a cage.
(Message
from the Computer):
Hi! The
observations recorded on the test-data 'The Cage Effect' is as follows:
The feeling of being
trapped in a cage has been widely experienced and recorded in literature. The
irrationality of the feeling has been discussed over a substantial period of
time. The term 'irrational' is interpreted here as 'not based on reason'. It
follows that a rational approach requires systematic investigation in the
search for a best-fit hypothesis. The point of departure is the cage itself and
common sense awareness of the simple fact that however much we may have praised
and decorated the cage in the past, it was always a cage. This merits further
investigation of what we really know, in substance and in fact, and what we may
think we know.
(End
of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)
Since
we may expect to find differences in individual Memory in accordance with
different individual Beliefs, Knowledge and Experience, we assume each memory
is unique in content at the same point in Time
-- and this is axiomatic.
Memory Input is determined by Belief, Knowledge and Experience, and
pre-determines Memory Output. We assume no random factors and therefore
include the recorded content of which the memory may be unaware at any point in
time.
Belief, Knowledge and
Experience is defined as the
memory of relationship to people, things and ideas -- the database of the Mind
--consisting of Open Memory (content remembered with ease) and Closed
Memory (content remembered with difficulty or not at all.)
Memory Input = Terming & Naming of post-sensory Taste, Touch, Sight,
Smell, Hearing, leading to è Recorded Memory.
Recorded Memory = Terming & Naming of post-sensory Taste, Touch, Sight,
Smell, Hearing, leading to è Memory Output.
In each case, Memory
Input and Memory Output, there is Stimulus and Response.
We will return to this later.
For
the present, we may therefore pre-suppose that the content of Memory is
different at any point in time and, in this connexion, we propose to reject the
translated Freudian descriptions 'conscious mind' and 'unconscious mind' on
scientific grounds; namely,
(a) There is no
clear dividing line between the postulates.
(b) Adjectival
descriptions are imprecise and emotive.
Instead, we assume
Awareness and non-Awareness -- profound and superficial.
Awareness of
content in open memory is related to a
cause/effect mind process – the process of gratification -- when something
pleases or gratifies.
Non-awareness of
content in closed memory is directly related
to a cause/effect mind process –
the process of
non-gratification -- when something displeases or does not gratify.
It
follows that external and internal stimulus input to the mind processes of
gratification and non-gratification determines the response output from the
open and closed memory at any point in time and, additionally:
(m) Qualitative
and quantitative content of the database.
(n) Qualitative
and quantitative recall from the database.
We
may expect, therefore, a stimulus/response process of the mind conditioned by
Belief, Knowledge, Experience and that the outcome is Thought and Emotion
leading to Activity.
(o) Emotion
is defined as Thought and its Sensation.
(p) Sensation
is either gratifying or non-gratifying.
(q) Activity is
defined as the negation of Action.
(r) Action
is where there is no Activity.
(s) Activity
leads to Conflict.
(t) Action
is where there is no conflict.
(u) Activity
is repetitive and destructive.
(v) Action is
creative and renewing.
Conclusions:
Activity is an exclusive mind process where there is Self
and an end in view. Action is where there is no mind process, no Self and no
end in view. Activity is socially acceptable to the majority. Action is not.
Activity is realistic and Action is idealistic. Activity is superficial and
repetitive non-awareness leading to conflict and war. Action is profound and
non-repetitive awareness where there is no conflict from moment to moment.
Activity is disintegrated thought.
Integrated thought is an idealistic theory presupposing human
bypass of the twin processes of gratification and non-gratification and where
an inclusive interest predetermines awareness and understanding which is not of
Time, not of Memory, not of the Mind, not a process, not of the known, unknown
in origin and probably unknowable. We assume that the opposite of activity is
not inactivity, which is merely a negative state of activity. The opposite of
activity is action and the outcome is freedom from conflict.
Life in relationship
Without relationship there cannot be Life. Life IS relationship. At another level,
where there is Life, there is Awareness. Where there is non-Awareness, there is
Activity. Where there is Activity there is Continuity. The death of Continuity
and Activity is being in Action. And where there is Action, there is Life and
renewal.
Help-answer:
Screen No. 3
Definitions;
CHRONOLOGICAL
TIME:
A conventionally agreed
system of points and intervals,
including a NOW.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
TIME:
A non-systematic
response of memory,
excluding a NOW.
Notwithstanding
the true Now is reality in chronological time, the mind processes the chronological
true Now a moment later in psychological time. The true Now is now a false Now
because the true Now has changed. The new Now is now the true point in time and
the false Now is now the true Past. This true Past, more simply 'The Past', is
in fact Memory. The Mind responds to a stimulus a moment later -- often an
infinitesimally small moment later -- by Terming & Naming in a memory
input/output process. The mind thus creates an illusion believing it sees what
is no longer there. Memory of the Past creates the Future in Psychological
Time. For most people, the Past is the Future. NIET suggests the electron may
occupy the whole track around the nucleus in a true NOW.
(To
return to SYSTEM/MENU Click ç “Back”)
Help-answer:
Screen No. 4
Definitions:
Interest pre-determines Understanding and this is axiomatic.
NIET
positive evidence:
(a)
Thoughts persist in crowding the mind when we are not deeply interested in something
being said, requiring studied and persistent effort to listen to the words of
the speaker. Is this not so?
(b)
On the other hand, what happens when we are interested in what is being said? A
deep interest stills the mind and no thoughts pervade spontaneous listening. Is
this not so?
(c)
If true, it means that studied interest requires effort and spontaneous
interest does not.
What
determines interest and how this pre-determines understanding is considered on
the next screen -- Code: UNDERSTANDING.
Help-answer:
Screen No. 5
Definitions:
‘Intelligo’ (Latin) = ‘I understand’
hence,
“Intelligence” = “Understanding”
(a) Understanding
is not a process of the mind.
(b) Understanding
is not the outcome of a process of the mind.
(c) Understanding
comes in the chronological Now when the mind processes are spontaneously still.
(d) Understanding
cannot come when the Mind is stilled by a process of mind control, either
internal or external. What happens then is Experience and one then sees only
what one wants to see.
(e) Understanding
comes via a gap in between two thoughts. No matter how fast we are thinking,
there is always this gap between each thought. This gap is infinitesimally
small. It is this gap that is interesting.
(Message
from the Computer):
The writer
records the results of his experiments and investigations as follows:
“The outcome of
systematic and repeated testing to-date (1959-1996) is positive. The
observations are proven true observations and the effects are fertile and
lasting, leading to greater inward clarity, renewal and creativity at all
levels which is then apparent outwardly, socially, nationally and
internationally. There is progressive dissolution of internal conflict and
confusion in external relationship with those people, things and ideas, which
principally concern me -- the most notable pre-requisite, Patience.”
(An
Addendum notes):
“Problem solving
became difficult with highly non-gratifying results unmistakably verified when one
or more criteria was wrongly applied or inadvertently omitted by the
experimenter over the long time period. The results were observed to be
self-correcting if the new method was applied correctly and systematically.”
(End
of message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)
Return to
System/Menu Click ç “Back”
From
other test-data in controlled experiments, we observe that Illusion takes the
appearance of Reality and the test of an illusion is Time. This is axiomatic.
(f) Illusion is
created and perpetuated by the Mind.
(g) The Mind
desires gratification derived from Sensation.
Notwithstanding
that Sensation is Disturbance and the Mind does not like to be disturbed:
(h) The disturbed
Mind desires and seeks avoidance of non-gratifying sensation.
Conclusion: The conflict in the mind between “what is” and “what should be”
and the disturbed mind's desire for sensation stimulates itself to desire
gratifying and yet more gratifying and stronger stimuli leading ultimately to
frustration and depressive illness.
Unhelpfully,
the outcome of desire of the mind for sensation is still part of sensation
desiring yet more and greater sensation, quantitative and qualitative, leading
to heightened internal conflict which is projected outwardly on to those
persons, things and ideas with whom and with which the person is in
relationship. The outcome of the disturbance, unawareness and imbalance in the
mind is chaos, sorrow and conflict -- and is demonstrable. The chaos, sorrow
and conflict indicate the disturbance, unawareness and imbalance, and the
outcome is negative.
Finally
and helpfully, a slightly modified realistic theory suggests that partial
understanding of the causal nature of conflict appears to be partially
sufficient -- the chaos diminishing in time -- seemingly by itself but at a
rate and to a degree varying with interest. However, an idealistic theory
assumes that freedom from internal and external conflict is attainable at any
moment in time with Understanding -- and the outcome is Peace.
In
this connexion, a truly balanced mind pre-supposes a spontaneous and
non-critical perception of observable phenomenon leading to awareness of the
human mind and its processes, leading to Understanding, which, if true,
provides cogent verification that Understanding is not a process of the mind,
nor the outcome of a process of the mind.
At
the social level -- the outcome of the progressive inward dissolution of
conflict in an individual offers the possibility of an outward dissolution of
conflict in society -- open to verification and falsification in time.
At
the theological level -- the successful dissolution of conflict in Man and
Society might be termed and named miraculous and from God -- whereas science
might prefer to remain less certain of the nature of the cause and with a lesser
degree of probability of the miraculous nature of the effect based upon stated
criteria and a defined Known from past experience. However, investigation shows
that Understanding comes from the Unknown (and probably Unknowable) through the
little gap in between two thoughts. If true, it means that understanding comes
from the unknowable God the Almighty -- it does not matter what we term and
name Him -- and is there for anyone to discover for himself or herself -- a
defined Known and Unknown with stated criteria -- and other things we can
discuss as we go along.
At
the linguistic level – The Latin verb 'intelligo' means 'I understand'
and is the root of the English word ‘Intelligence’. Similarly, 'scio'
means 'I know' and the root of ‘Science’. OK?
At
the philosophical level -- if Intelligence is synonymous with Understanding,
can we learn it, like Knowledge? On the basis of all known evidence to-date,
positive and negative, the best-fit hypothesis is that it is most unlikely we
can learn to be intelligent. What we have learned, on the basis of the evidence
of the past, and for most people, are stupidities. On the other hand, what
happens when we stop the stupidities? Is this not Intelligence?
(Message
from the Computer):
Hi! A gloss on
the page shows:
The reader is invited to
experiment and compare findings with what others may have said or written in
the past about Intelligence. Investigators should be encouraged to reconsider
and rewrite until the theory is correct for selected criteria. Additional criteria
may assist to deepen insight into this simple method of problem solving. There
is no end to discovery. Good Hunting and Good Luck!
(End
of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)
Return to System/Menu Click ç “Back”
Help-answer:
Screen No. 6
Definitions:
What is MIND? I want to approach MIND obliquely, by observing
correctly its processes.
The
evidence of the existence of certain mind processes and the identification of
the function of each process is based upon experimentally repeatable tests and
observations open to verification and falsification by systematic criteria. The
resultant best-fit hypothesis is soundly based upon understandable noumena and
phenomena. The NIET theory of negative intelligence evaluation can be taught
and learned and is understandable and understood or not understood. But these
are merely words. We have conditioned ourselves for thousands of years with
words. And words are merely symbols. Words are not the thing but a symbol of
the thing. We live in a world of symbols and sometimes forget the thing. In
this section we concentrate on the thing itself and the meaning of the words
MIND and SELF in an oblique approach. Are they synonyms? Are they the same?
Words sometimes become more important than things. The meaning of the words is
determined more or less in the balance of personal gratification and
non-gratification. It is easier to believe or disbelieve the words and the word
makers than to understand them and that is why we do it. But Belief is not
Truth. And neither are words, however much they may be repeated. And where they
are repeated, the outcome is conflict and the war of one realistic mind with
another. However, in an idealistic theory, truth comes when there are no words.
Truth comes without questions and answers. Truth is not an answer and is all
around us and therein is its beauty. We examine this new scientific approach to
Truth. We are going to strip away each one of the onion layers of appearance
and uncover the core that was there all the time. We will identify the best-fit
hypothesis with which to challenge the appearance of Truth. Predictably, if we
fail it means that we began with an incorrect hypothesis and/or insufficient
data and other essential information, or incorrect criteria, or we may have
omitted criteria. We test the old methods against new methods and the concept
of scientific method itself. We test the probability of error in a theory and
not merely the stripped result. We cannot know the result in advance. But
probability argues that if we have the correct hypothesis we may be able to
predict the correct solution and the solution will not be an answer. It just
is. It is a fact -- a fact without contradiction, without words. The words are
therefore of lesser importance. Instead, we examine directly the Me, the Self,
the Mind, the processes, the nameable and un-nameable activity, the motives,
the reactions, the hate, the love, the fear, the chaos and sorrow in the
activity of the maker of all mischief and the prime source of conflict -- The
Mind of Man (plus a few genetic factors).
Help-answer:
Screen No. 7
Definitions:
(a) The four
specific mind processes are the same in each person.
(b) The four
specific mind processes function in the same way.
(c) The four specific
mind processes process data in the same way.
(d) Processing of
data is almost instantaneous
(e) Disturbance
hinders processing.
Belief, Knowledge
and Experience are the outcome of the mind processes of gratification and
non-gratification and are prejudiced.
Belief, Knowledge and
Experience is conditioned by a set of four specific processes of the Mind in
self-deception:
Condemnation,
Justification, Comparison and Belief.
The Mind in
self-deception is capable of four processes and four categories of output,
only:
CONDEMNATION
JUSTIFICATION
COMPARISON
BELIEF
CONDEMNATION: It is so delightfully easy and gratifying to condemn someone --
but what is the outcome? Does the relationship progress or regress? Does the quality
of that relationship improve or not? Is the relationship creative or
non-creative? Is the outcome love or hate, joy or sorrow? I feel important and
do I give a damn? Let us be serious for just one moment. Instead of condemning
the person let us consider 'why'. Firstly, why we are condemning. Secondly, why
did the person do or say something (or nothing!) that makes us want to condemn
that person. In the mere putting of the question we will have the answer with
the speed of light, when we are in Action, and the outcome is freedom from
conflict.
JUSTIFICATION: Have you noticed how highly gratifying it is to justify yourself
to yourself or to another? When a desire for gratification controls behaviour
-- justification comes quickly. We like Sensation and desire to repeat it. But
sensation is not truth and neither is justification. Truth just is and therein
is its beauty.
COMPARISON: It is significantly easier to compare A with B than to
understand A and B. What is easy is gratifying and this is why we do it but the
outcome is conflict. The conflict becomes apparent in time and conflict can
only exist between what is and what should be. The mind desires gratification
and seeks to avoid the disturbance of non-gratification. It therefore creates a
bridge between what is and what should be -- and the lie slips out. The bridge
is the lie. This is not terrible, it is human, and with understanding of the
false process there is freedom from comparison and freedom from domination of
the mind and the outcome is peace and freedom from conflict.
BELIEF: Instead of a head-on collision resulting from a direct approach,
we take an oblique and indirect new path, treading cautiously and seriously, to
the most interesting of all the false processes -- Belief. Firstly, what is
Belief? Does acceptance of a belief and identification of the self with that
belief create a believer? If true, why does the believer believe? What makes
the believer want to believe? Is it perhaps relatively easy to believe or
disbelieve? If relatively easy we may be comparing something with something
else. OK, with what? If you have difficulty in replying you should expect this
and in the very difficulty there is the possibility of the solution discovering
you -- thinking for yourself. This depends on you and does not depend upon me,
nor on anyone else. Be patient and there is much to be seen and understood by
serious people whatever the background. It requires direct experiment neither
believing nor disbelieving what is said but remembering what is said.
Investigation shows we cannot go to truth and it can only come to us --
usually, when we are quiet and alone and serious. And it we are truly
interested to see and to understand something, thinking for ourselves, we must
temporarily put to one side all that we have read and believed in the past and
learn to discover thinking for ourselves with minds brilliantly and
spontaneously alert and without fear. Do not worry about what we put down, it
will not be lost and we can pick it up again later. If we experiment with this
we may become aware of the false processes, and the understanding that comes
from awareness of their existence, and the outcome is joy. This joy is not the
transient happiness of gratification that is a confusing and temporary thing,
which leaves us desiring yet more and more gratification. It is a serene joy
that is renewal from moment to moment. When we understand that we are in action
we may then experience and understand a true and profound humility. Humility is
not modesty or false modesty, two sides of the same base coin. Humility comes
when we are aware of the false processes from moment to moment. For thousands
of years we have conditioned ourselves from fear to believe or disbelieve. The
false processes were overlooked in the rush to identify our selves with an
illusion of security. Belief became popular. We did not really consider the
fundamental question: 'Does Belief unite or divide?' At every level we have
been in conflict with our beliefs, inward and outward, over the considerable
time-period. The history of mankind is a remarkable history of conflict with
our and other beliefs. We are now beginning the twenty-first century. Let us
re-examine the ways of the past -- condemnation, justification, comparison,
belief -- where there was constant and relentless activity and the outcome was
conflict and sorrow, inward and outer, individual and collective, noisy and
self-asserting. The best-fit hypothesis is that it is too late for us and may
be too late for our children but not too late, perhaps, for our grandchildren
and education holds the key. We start at the outer to penetrate to the inner.
We seek common sense understanding, which is intelligence, and the outcome of
an adequate course of action, always.
(Message
from the Computer):
Hi! There is an
Addendum:
We assume that
collective outputs (being of the mind and therefore conditioned and prejudiced)
cannot be Truth (which simply is and is not pre-conditioned). Truth is
independent of the mind and its outputs. The outputs are one thing and truth is
another. The one is a barrier to the other, the one has to cease for the other
to exist. The collective outputs are the verbalised outcome of the processes of
gratification and/or non-gratification of which the thinker may not be aware. Silent
and non-verbalised awareness of the processes as they constantly occur in daily
life is sufficient and we can be sufficient if we are aware from moment to
moment. We are then aware of our outputs and processes -- which we term
Activity -- and then become further aware that we are in Action. It is hard
work and extremely difficult to be aware from moment to moment of the four
processes that are present in each person's head. The mind is examining the
mind and what it sees at first is what it wants to see and not what is. ‘What
is’ is revealed when we are aware of the four processes and the constant
working of the mind. The processes start to cease by themselves as we become
aware of them. It is then possible to observe without the distraction of the noise
in our minds. We can then see the "new" and the understanding of the
new in the Now comes through that little gap in time.
(End
of message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)
Return to
System/Menu Click ç “Back”
Help-answer:
Screen No. 8
Definitions:
POSITIONS OF BENEFIT &
NON-BENEFIT
The positions of benefit and non-benefit are determined by the
Mind:
the outcome of Thought and
Sensation.
Thought
and Sensation is the product of two processes of the Mind – the processes of
Gratification and non-Gratification – and the outcome is the position of
benefit and non-benefit determined by the Mind, creating the Thinker.
When
a person is in a position of benefit relative to a problem it is most unlikely
that this person will have the same perception and understanding of the problem
as another person in a position of non-benefit relative to the problem. The
possibility of understanding is a scientific possibility but mathematical
probability is directly related to the position of benefit or non-benefit or the
thinker, tending to "one" in the latter and "zero" in the
former. The problem may be defined as social, economic, or psychological, real
or imaginary.
There
is a possibility of true perception and full understanding only where there is
awareness of each one of the false processes and a deep and spontaneous
interest in the problem. Ideally, a Mind which is truly interested in solving a
problem is aware that merely from interest and direct observation, without
recourse to impatient activity from the false processes and the old Past, there
comes the true understanding and an adequate course of action, always.
For
instance: technical problems have technical answers and problems commence for
most of us when we begin to make a psychological problem (a problem created by
the mind) out of what is, fundamentally, a technical problem.
When
Mind is in action there is the possibility of understanding without the
resistance of thought -- and thought is resistance in an idealistic theory.
Finally,
non-understanding means, fundamentally, non-awareness leading to conflict,
which we can see about us every day.
Help-answer:
Screen No. 9
Definitions:
Self-deception is deception of the Self by the Self, deception of
the Mind by the Mind,
deception of the Me by the Me.
When a person is in
self-deception there develops a strange vitality, a dynamic energy.
The greater the
deception, the greater the vitality. The vitality indicates the deception.
This remarkable
deception can proceed to a stage where there is no longer any conflict in the
mind, and this is madness, surely. There is no longer 'Can I, can't I'? 'Shall
I, shan't I'? 'Should I, shouldn't I'? The balance of the mind is disturbed and
the outcome is serious and often dangerous because it is infectious and can
infect another to a similar lack of conflict in the mind.
A salesman may deceive
himself that the product he is selling is uniquely best for a given purpose.
Probability argues that it is not and that the lack of conflict in the mind of
the salesman is deceiving him, perhaps, which may in turn infect an unaware
prospective customer to a similar lack of conflict in the mind. And where the
output is indeed infectious, the unwary buyer may re-examine his purchase some
time later and be disappointed: "What did I buy this for, why did I buy it
at all? I do not really want or need it. Why did I accept what he was saying. I
was a fool to listen to him. Look what it has cost me."
Similarly:
Imagine you are driving down a narrow country lane and approaching a humpback
bridge when a fast-driven car suddenly appears coming from the other direction
on the wrong side of the road and you are forced into the ditch. What do you
want to do? If you allow yourself to become “infected” by the other driver’s
lack of conflict in the mind you may want to turn around, furiously feeling for
the accelerator, "I'll show him." Fortunately, you are stuck in a
ditch.
Where
this process is not fully understood there is confusion and since the outcome
of confusion can only be yet more confusion, the process may be repeated with
different details, presumably, but always negative outcome. Predictably, the
Past becomes the Future.
Ideally,
caution born of intelligence is the only truly safe protective barrier against
the lack of conflict in the minds of others. My children termed and named
it "A lack of cornflakes!"
Help-answer:
Screen No. 10
Definitions:
There are two types of problem, and two only:
TECHNICAL
PROBLEMS & PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
We
describe and explain the different approaches to each type of problem on the
grounds that the approach to a problem is sometimes more important than the
problem itself. These are such cases.
In (a) -- technical
problem solving is based on Belief, Knowledge and Experience.
The outcome is
partial or total, positive or negative, in the Present and based on the Past.
In (b) --
psychological problem solving is based on awareness and understanding of the
mind processes and their function in creating the psychological problems in the
first place.
These
psychological problems are created by the mind from a known past remembered
with ease:
and an unknown
past, which may be remembered with difficulty or not at all.
The
analytical approach is the realistic sine qua non in type (a) with a
high degree of confidence in problem solving over a considerable period of
time. Problem solving can be taught and learned from a book in type (a).
In
type (b), it is most unlikely that problem solving can be taught and learned as
in type (a), the "new" approach being oblique, observational and
non-analytical.
The
problem-solving percentage of confidence over a considerable period of time is
estimated 'better than 95%’.
(Message
from the Computer)
Hi! Investigation
of the test-data PROBLEMS is recorded as
follows:
My computer crashed. The
repairman came. He tried the correct start-up and I lost a weeks work. He tried
again and the machine crashed once more. I lost two weeks work.
"Sorry," he said, "It must be the machine."
From time to time, we
are faced with situations where it is unhelpfully easy to create a
psychological problem out of what is, fundamentally, a technical problem. We
are all disturbed many times in our relationship with people, things and ideas
(which is Life!) and we have to learn not to mind being disturbed if we want to
stay sane, balanced and truly enjoy life. What had I lost? Surely not the work.
That was recorded in my memory and readily accessible. I had certainly lost the
time, but there is plenty of time and probably enough for most of us. And so,
what had I really lost? Very little indeed. Certainly, nothing to get upset
about. In fact, the repairman and I are better friends than before! On the one
hand, it is so delightfully easy and gratifying to explode out of tension and
possibly hurt someone's feelings in the process. On the other hand, if we
explode all over the place we may lose our self-respect. If we lose our
self-respect, we lose respect for others, and they lose respect for us. Did you
notice?
(End
of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)
Return to
System/Menu Click ç “Back”
Help-answer:
Screen No. 11
Definitions:
PROCESSES OF GRATIFICATION
& NON-GRATIFICATION
(a) Each process is a
Mind response to an internal or external stimulus.
(b) The stimuli and
responses create the database of Memory.
(c) The database of
Memory responds with Thought and Sensation, clothing the response with words,
which results in Activity.
(d) Thought, Sensation, Activity
are related to people, things and ideas and our daily activity consists, almost
entirely, of unconscious selection based on the processes of gratification and
non-gratification.
For
instance:
"I like you." (I keep you) -- "I don’t
like you." (I let you go)
"I like it." (I keep it) -- "I don’t like it." (I get
rid of it)
"I like the idea." (I accept it) --
"I don’t like the idea." (I reject it)
Relationship can only exist between people, things and ideas. It
means that as long as we are alive we are in relationship. It follows,
presumably, that the only time we are not in relationship is when we are dead.
Unhelpfully,
we may further observe that Thought, Sensation, Activity are pre-conditioned by
processing and may lead to conflict where one individual may attempt to bend
another individual to his will. There is a close relationship between Thought,
Sensation, Activity, Politics, Power and War.
The alternative to Activity is not Inactivity, which is merely the
negative state of activity -- but ACTION.
When
the mind is aware of the difference between Activity and Action, the mind is
already in action.
(Message
from the Computer)
Hi! A gloss on
the test-data GRAT reads:
"And what
our minds are, we are!"
(End
of Message. OK? Love, XXXXX.)
Return to
System/Menu Click ç “Back”
Help-answer:
Screen No. 12
Definitions:
(a) Envy
is wanting more or wanting less.
(b) Wanting
more or wanting less is Thought and its Sensation.
(c) Thought
and Sensation stimulate Activity.
(d) Activity
results in Conflict.
(e) Conflict
is internal and may be projected outwards.
The Mind appears to
divide itself into two, the Thinker and the thought, the higher and the lower,
the Experiencer and the experienced. The Thinker appears to operate on the thought,
the higher appears to comment on the lower, the Experiencer appears to react to
the experience. This separation is apparently real in disintegrated thought.
But it is not real, it is an illusion.
In integrated
thought, there is no distinction between the thinker and the thought,
the higher and the lower, the experiencer and
the experience.
The thinker IS
the thought, the higher, the lower and the experience.
For
instance:
"I am envious. I acknowledge this and do not like it and
neither do my family. I do not like what I feel and the conflict and distress
it causes me. I therefore desire to be non-envious, in a permanent state of
non-envy, but I do not know how and this worries me again."
In integrated thought,
there is spontaneous awareness that desire of the mind to be free of envy is
still part of envy. The mind is still envious and now wants something more. The
thinker still ‘wants’ but in a wider sense, trapped in a cage of his own
thought. The cage effect is well known over a substantial period of time.
However, if the thinker
is deeply and truly interested in the process at work in his mind (and not
merely how to escape from the problem) the thinker may become aware of the
false process and if he does not turn away or try to escape -- then, the
thinker may become further aware that he is not different from the thought, not
apart from the thought, but IS the thought. The experiencer is not separate
from the experience but is the experience. The higher is neither higher nor
lower than the lower but is, once more, the Mind in self-deception. In the
first moment, and it may be fleeting, there is awareness of the false process.
In that fleeting moment, thought is integrated. The thinker is integrated.
There is no division between the two parts. I am what I am and I am aware of
it. I AM ENVY. Envy is no longer an abstract concept but a reality. It is me. I
am now able to observe this reality without thought, without trying or wanting
to escape, with total interest. In this direct experience I am no longer
concerned with my past worries. There is no past, just observation in the
present of experiencing without the experiencer or the experienced and the
outcome is freedom from envy, conflict, confusion: and renewal.
(Message
from the Computer)
Hi! An addendum
notes:
Substitute the word
GREED for ENVY in the text and re-test. We have created a society where envy is
socially acceptable. The phenomenon is there with an added element of secrecy.
No-one really did it to us, no government, we did it to ourselves. We do not
talk about it, but it is there. Whether or not we are found out -- it is still
there. This truth exists independent of opinion. And if we are interested in
the truth of facts more than mere opinion about facts, then this open, honest and
factual approach may succeed. Anything else may fail, no matter how much
desired and cunningly contrived, and this risk is testable in relationship. We
should expect that truth is implicit in everything we say and do. It is
independent of mind and time and only approachable with simplicity and humility
of the heart. And then Love and Truth are one.
Alternatively, when
activity is envy (Envy also known as Greed) motivated by fear working through thought
(fear is thought) -- the outcome is noisy, disturbing, repetitive and
non-creative.
(End of Message. OK?
Love, XXXXX.)
Return
to System/Menu Click ç “Back”
Help-answer:
Screen No. 13
Definitions:
(a) Jealousy
is Fear: Fear of losing.
(b) Fear
of losing results in emotion.
(c) Emotion
is Thought and its sensation.
(d) Sensation
is the outcome of two cause and effect processes of MIND:
the processes of gratification and
non-gratification.
(e) Gratification
and non-Gratification is the true basis of Feelings:
the feelings of love (little “l”) and hate.
(f) ‘love’
(little “l”) and hate result in Activity.
(Message
from the Computer)
Hi! An Addendum
notes:
“Emotion
motivated by fear results in activity, conflict and sorrow.”
Where there is hate
there cannot be love. It means that love and hate cannot exist together at the
same moment in time. The one has to cease for the other to be. For most people,
love is a flame and jealousy the smoke. And where the smoke is thick, strong and
persistent -- the flame is obscured by the smoke and eventually dies. But this
is not Love (big “L”). The love that turns to hate is not Love. If we examine
our behaviour in relationship, meaning all that we say and do -- we may observe
that we are constantly seeking gratification at one level or another. We rarely
do something for its own sake. We do it in order to find gratification and to
be gratified. The simplest action of helping someone less fortunate than myself
-- a simple act of charity -- becomes a complex and selective means to gratify
myself. A truly charitable person is not selective, not at any level, not at
the level of the hand nor of the heart. And that person IS Charity.
When we are not
truly charitable, gratification plays an important part in our daily lives. Any
person or any odd thing, real or imaginary, that appears to threaten or
actually thwart our desire for gratification creates fear -- fear of losing --
and that is jealousy. The outcome is conflict and chaos both inner and outer.
We have all known conflict and I am not condemning love -- it has its place.
The problems start if we place love firmly at the center of life and not in its
real place on the periphery and some of us do this from time to time. The
problem of love is a problem for many of us but see the alternative just once
and for a fleeting moment and the conflict between what is and what should be
starts to dissolve. The moment is progressive and creative in relationship. It
is sadly true that few of us manage to survive the daily activity of
relationship without harm. But in being aware we can avoid some of the
deteriorating factors that cause the conflict. Most of us come to this
understanding as a conclusion based upon long experience but intelligence
understands from the outset, widely and deeply, wider and deeper still. We may
try and fail many times. No matter, this is perhaps because we are trying too
hard, we may have some end in view, possibly a desire to be gratified, and we
may have forgotten in our rush that we cannot go to intelligence -- it can only
come to us. Intelligence is a door that once open cannot be closed again, a
doorway through which we pass into the light. Some describe it as being in a
state of grace. It is a beautiful description. At the same time, it does not
really matter what you call it or how beautifully you may describe it -- the
word is not the thing. Just experiment patiently with this idealistic theory in
integrated thought and see for yourself.
(End of Message. OK?
Love, XXXXX.)
Return
to System/Menu Click ç “Back”
---------------
Jack LESLAU, Antwerp.
1. CRITERIA
2. BELIEF – KNOWLEDGE – EXPERIENCE
3. TIME
4. INTEREST
6. MIND
8. POSITIONS OF BENEFIT AND NON-BENEFIT
10. PROBLEMS
11. PROCESSES OF GRATIFICATION AND NON-GRATIFICATION
12. ENVY
13. JEALOUSY
Click ç “Back”