Spiritual Intelligence

[Saslou]

I am currently reading a book on this subject although it speaks of IQ, EQ and SQ and that if -

IQ as the intelligence that seeks to understand the 'What'.
EQ as the intelligence that seeks to understand the 'How'.
Then the SQ is the intelligence to understand the 'why' of things.

Now i am only a 1/4 of the way through the book but already it has brought up some interesting questions.

One of the questions it asks is - What do you understand is the truth of your own situation at this given time?

By truth it mean -
Not the voice in your head that plays the denial game.
Not the 'make do' with my lot in life.
Not the 'well i can justify why i am doing what is it i am doing at present'

I suppose it asks for you to take off the gloss or rose tinted glasses and just assess the situation in an objective manner.

Well i did this last night and scared myself .. I came to realise very quickly just how unauthentic i am being. How can i live the 'truth' when i am too busy justifying my false truths.

Is it even possible to be completely truthful with yourself?
Sometimes we have to do the mundane in order to reach the heights we are capable of reaching so in the process we are not being true but we are acquiring the truth in steps. Or what if we are yet to find out the truth, what if we don't know our purpose yet

They quoted Nietzsche and i have fallen in love with it ..
He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.

Any thoughts on the subject??

 

[ajblaise]

I am currently reading a book on this subject although it speaks of IQ, EQ and SQ and that if -

IQ as the intelligence that seeks to understand the 'What'.
EQ as the intelligence that seeks to understand the 'How'.
Then the SQ is the intelligence to understand the 'why' of things.

They shouldn't call it Spiritual Intelligence; they should just call it wisdom. Or WQ.

But that's just because I think secular methods answer 'why' better than religiosity. The Bible actually had some anti-wisdom and anti-philosophy passages, because it was seen as seeking objective truth outside the confines of their doctrine.

They quoted Nietzsche and i have fallen in love with it ..
He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.

Any thoughts on the subject??

That's a good one. Some Nietzsche quotes I really like, that are kinda related:


A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?

All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses. (pro-sensor quote )

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing.

 

[sculpting]

Saslou, I spend a lot of time questioning my own motives and rational for things. Days or even weeks later I will have a problem brewing, then come to a new realization-one that may put me in a very negative light, given my actions which seemed justified at the time. I then tend to judge myself quite harshly. I cant not ignore new information, however unwanted, as I am sort of obsessed with the truth. Often though its like knowingly sticking my hand in a running garbage disposal-it hurts, but I am compelled to.

I think it's that "why" question. Why did I respond that way? Why did I get so angry? Why did I feel so hurt? I use it on others too-why did that person respond that way? I just keep asking why about smaller and smaller chunks till I identify some core, some pattern. From the pattern I can rebuild anew and choose not to repeat the pattern again.

I love the jungian functions as they give me a toolkit to answer some of these why questions.

I notice the rose colored glasses much more strongly in Fe users than Te users both about themselves and their environment. I have started calling it "Fe-reality" which isnt the same as "Te-reality". The fact that you stop and question that your reality makes me admire you very much as most of my SFJ friends are very content not to look outside the shiny windows into reality.

I had one ISFJ friend. She lives on top of a hill in a wealthy neighborhood with her perfect dog, perfect entp husband, and perfect child. She couldnt live at the bottom of the hill as that is where the "bad" people live. Those homes only cost about 300K. She couldnt "see" her husband cheats on her, couldnt "see" how she was wrong about things around her. She excluded any evidence that went against her view of what the world should be. She wants to help people-but only people who live on top of the hill. Because the other people arent real??? It's very different.

 

[Tycho]

Is it even possible to be completely truthful with yourself?
Sometimes we have to do the mundane in order to reach the heights we are capable of reaching so in the process we are not being true but we are acquiring the truth in steps. Or what if we are yet to find out the truth, what if we don't know our purpose yet

Defining "the truth about us" in terms of a spiritual meaning or purpose seems like a bad idea. Some beliefs may appeal to us more than others, we may identify some concepts that we want to live by; but we can never reach a complete understanding of them. Whenever things "feel right", more often than not we are fooling ourselves.

From what little we really understand about ourselves, how can we expect a human being to be "authentic" at all times? What would be the merit in trying to look at yourself 'objectively'? Every attempt to translate our self-knowledge into a social identity will be counterfeit to some degree. We have to accept that.

Why should we blame our unhapiness to the fact that we are inauthentic? Do you think that your 'authentic self' is radient with happiness and fulfillment?

If we start analysing our 'authentic self' with a compromiseless thirst for truth, we may arrive at a point where nothing seems real anymore. That feeling of 'being inauthentic' or not true to yourself, may be a burden, a source of shame, rather than a catalyst of self-actualisation. It's an unrealistic expectation that makes you want to deny your opportunities to experience happiness here and now.

 

[Lux]

One of the questions it asks is - What do you understand is the truth of your own situation at this given time?

By truth it mean -
Not the voice in your head that plays the denial game.
Not the 'make do' with my lot in life.
Not the 'well i can justify why i am doing what is it i am doing at present'

This is interesting to me right now, and always really. The inner truth with oneself is something that has always been important to me. I have always tried to be as honest with myself as possible. I have always thought I was being as honest with myself as possible. I have noticed however, that as honest with myself as I feel I have been, I still have the tendency to justify and or ignore the bad in my life. Because I thought I could ignore it, for various reasons. Sometimes it can be good because a situation can be worked on if you can give it a chance.

I have always thought that honesty with oneself is one of the most important elements of true happiness. Without owning the truth one can be content in their lies but never truly happy in their lives. It depends on what is important to the individual, because everyone is different.

I think that is the difference between being mildly content and being happy. Some people think happiness is only a matter of perspective, that you can twist the truth in your head and make yourself happy with anything. I hope it works for them, but it does not work for me.

Is it even possible to be completely truthful with yourself?

Yes, it is. But it can be very uncomfortable. For me at least it involves accepting the disagreeable truths and not merely justifying the bad in life, but meeting it head on and accepting its challenge. Learning from it.

I cannot be truly happy if I am living in a false reality, I'll bet no one really can. Sometimes the supposed comfort of the lie is much worse than the discomfort of the truth.

They quoted Nietzsche and i have fallen in love with it ..
He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.

Thank you for that, I too love it.

Good luck, and I wish you well.

 

[Katsuni]

There are ways to be truthful to oneself, but yeu have to recognize yeur own inner feelings and whot they imply.

For a current example, I'm "considering" changing one of my characters to another friends' guild on wow. There's quite a few factors to think about on the change, despite that it seems like a small and minor thing, due to it being a rather complex social situation.

Fact is though, I can tell from my mindset already that I've probably already made up my mind on the matter and am probably going to do so regardless, and am just looking for excuses and justifications for the action at this point, and won't be comfortable making the change until I've psyched myself up mentally for it.

So yes, I am essentially lying to myself, but I also recognize that I'm doing it at the same time. It's kind of strange that yeu still have to go through the motions regardless though.


Regardless, the idea of IQ/EQ/SQ is kind of interesting I suppose, and am curious about getting a copy of that book. Yeu never said WHICH book though...

 

[Sniffles]

Im usually confused as to the exact difference between Spiritual intelligence and Existential Intelligence.

 

[disregard]

What is so authentic about looking for a more meaningful existence? What is so loathsome about conducting a down-to-earth existence, appreciating the here-and-now? Why be spiritual for the sake of being spiritual?

 

[Lark]

I'm familiar with some of this via logotherapy which is also associated with existentialism and N. and that quote in particular is somehing I associate with existentialism to be honest.

The idea of spiritual intelligence and what that might mean qua the others is interesting to me but I appreciate the difference or nuance between spirituality as some understand it and existentialism.

I'm not a fan of N. sure he has some good quotes like that one and I'm aware that some of his death of God and other things which put me off his work are more in the way of sociological observations than something he was advocating. Also some of his work I think he was mad already when he was writing it. To an extent I think he was both product and producer of a certain style of troubled narcissistic copeing style or strategy when confronted with imperfect reality and flawed, often really deeply flawed, alternatives, criticism etc. etc.

 

[Totenkindly]

....Every attempt to translate our self-knowledge into a social identity will be counterfeit to some degree. We have to accept that.

QFT.

We're all really sort of fumbling our way through the dark. It doesn't mean that we can't get a grasp of ourselves, but there will always be some ambiguity.

Why should we blame our unhapiness to the fact that we are inauthentic? Do you think that your 'authentic self' is radient with happiness and fulfillment?

I see it ideally more as a sense of wholeness and completion, all the pieces in alignment... but that doesn't necessarily mean "happy."

In my life, I've seen two big broad groups of "happy" -- one being feelings of overt happiness and pleasure, the other being a deep-seated satisfaction with the way things are, who I am, and feeling that "everything is aligned correctly" regardless of external circumstance.

If we start analysing our 'authentic self' with a compromiseless thirst for truth, we may arrive at a point where nothing seems real anymore. That feeling of 'being inauthentic' or not true to yourself, may be a burden, a source of shame, rather than a catalyst of self-actualisation. It's an unrealistic expectation that makes you want to deny your opportunities to experience happiness here and now.

It definitely can be and the danger you mention is real; but I quest for balance rather than extremity. We have to carefully navigate between the two poles.

Im usually confused as to the exact difference between Spiritual intelligence and Existential Intelligence.

I agree, since there are various types of spiritual experience, with not all having the same priorities/criteria. Existential to me seems to be more what happens when you leach all specific religious doctrine out of a viewpoint... at that point, you are just left with very broad principles on how to approach a quest for truth in a world without definitive meaning.

If you disagree with that last clause, then your spiritual principles and intelligence are going to differ. I can see different people defining "spiritual intelligence" differently.

I'm not a fan of N. sure he has some good quotes like that one and I'm aware that some of his death of God and other things which put me off his work are more in the way of sociological observations than something he was advocating. Also some of his work I think he was mad already when he was writing it. To an extent I think he was both product and producer of a certain style of troubled narcissistic copeing style or strategy when confronted with imperfect reality and flawed, often really deeply flawed, alternatives, criticism etc. etc.

I think he's worth reading because he so strenuously challenged mainstream religious/life thought of the day; working to grasp his points really helps jolt one out of one's assumed framework and sets one up in the future to think more freely.

But I do agree with a lot of your assessment here.

So yes, I am essentially lying to myself, but I also recognize that I'm doing it at the same time. It's kind of strange that yeu still have to go through the motions regardless though.

Lots of life seems to be like that -- you might be intellectually aware of what you're doing and thinking and why (to a large degree), but emotionally and realistically it takes time to accommodate and adjust to the change.

(This is in some ways similar to that quote from the Matrix -- "You've already made the choice, what you're trying to do now is understand it.")

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Cool topic. I think it is possible to be completely honest and distortion-free. I usually notice it come in waves, but it's something I'd like to cultivate.

 

[nolla]

One of the questions it asks is - What do you understand is the truth of your own situation at this given time?

By truth it mean -
Not the voice in your head that plays the denial game.
Not the 'make do' with my lot in life.
Not the 'well i can justify why i am doing what is it i am doing at present'

The main problem for me is to find a balance. I know it doesn't work to just "follow your heart" in all the situations, and I know it is equally bad to just let the external reality set my life for me. But, in some ways these don't seem to be on the same scale. It is as if I can at the same time be more truthful and let the reality guide me. I don't have a full grasp of this idea yet, but I am pretty sure it is possible to be truthful and yet lead a relatively normal life. I mean, I am quite confident that I need to live by a set of standards but there is no way I am going to be a hermit and sacrifice all the fun... I think that if your standards lead you to bitterness they can't be coming from your true self.

 

[Lark]

I think he's worth reading because he so strenuously challenged mainstream religious/life thought of the day; working to grasp his points really helps jolt one out of one's assumed framework and sets one up in the future to think more freely.

But I do agree with a lot of your assessment here.

Man what I wrote there was wordy.

I liked to read Nietzsche (I always mispell his name) when I first discovered him, initally reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra and liking that the use of aphorism and teaching tales to challenge received wisdom.

His observations that God is Dead etc. are just stating what should have been obvious, like Marx or Freud's observations in their respective fields, however I think his significance is over stated, especially now, often because people cite secondary sources from a different time with different prevailing social character.

For instance Rollo May and some of the existentialist analysts love to go on and on about how N. is a masterful psychologist, perhaps if you are in the grip of neurotic compulsions, stressors and guilt the component of relativism could be a real source of relief but that's not the problem of the age any longer. At least I dont think so. Instead N. provides the underpinning for extreme licentious behaviour which in the main translates into exploitation, predation or the like, maybe not at a structural level but definitely at a personal level or subcultural level.

There's a lot in common between N. lite and Ayn Rand's philosophy and I dont like either in the final analysis.

 

[INTP]

in my opinion spirituality and intelligence shouldnt be used in same sentence

 

[Venom]

There's a lot in common between N. lite and Ayn Rand's philosophy and I dont like either in the final analysis.

As someone who hates Ayn Rand and finds her to be a mental midget, I take offense to you even mentioning her name in the same sentence as N!

I think Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. I however think that his ideas should in todays light generally be read as "literary ideas" rather than actual "philosophies". For example, "Slave vs Master morality" is hardly something as systematic and "highly philosophical" as Kantian, Aristotelian or Spinozian. However, its an awesome little literary idea. For strict philosohy, I think there are definitely better ones. However, for pure enjoyment, expanding ones mind and sort of "putting the whole ordeal to rest", I think Nietzsche is one of the best.

---------------------------------------
To the OP, about "spiritual intelligence":

After studying Christianity, I realized that simply latching onto a world view in hope of purpose does not equal happiness.
After studying Kant, I realized that simply discovering epistemological truths does not equal happiness.
After studying Nietzsche, I realized that trying to philosophize the meaning of life was pointless and almost sophomoric.
After studying John Stuart Mill, I realized that passive pleasure is not equal with happiness. True happiness requires action and engagement in acts of intellectual complexity, aesthetic imagination and/or moral sentiment.

So what I can tell you is that at the end of the day, the world view is not really that important. What is important is that you are seeking intrinsic justification for living (active vs passive pleasure). If you can do this, then you are most likely not falling into the negative traps of philosophizing or latching onto unauthentic truths and world views.

 

[Saslou]

I think it's that "why" question. Why did I respond that way? Why did I get so angry? Why did I feel so hurt? I use it on others too-why did that person respond that way? I just keep asking why about smaller and smaller chunks till I identify some core, some pattern. From the pattern I can rebuild anew and choose not to repeat the pattern again.

Lol .. I used to be like that where i would over analyse my thoughts and it just got the the point where i would end up with more questions than answers. These days i just take a step back, free from emotions and objectively view the situation as i would do with a friend. Remove the gloss and to see it for exactly what it is, really does make a refreshing change

There are ways to be truthful to oneself, but yeu have to recognize yeur own inner feelings and whot they imply.

Regardless, the idea of IQ/EQ/SQ is kind of interesting I suppose, and am curious about getting a copy of that book. Yeu never said WHICH book though...

Ouch, i find i do better when i remove the feelings.

The book is called 'The 7 steps to spiritual intelligence' By Richard A. Bowell

Im usually confused as to the exact difference between Spiritual intelligence and Existential Intelligence.

Lol .. It does mention briefly existentialism.

What is so authentic about looking for a more meaningful existence? What is so loathsome about conducting a down-to-earth existence, appreciating the here-and-now? Why be spiritual for the sake of being spiritual?

Oh, don't get me wrong, i do appreciate the here and now .. I am a sensor afterall but why can there not be something more. To be in tune and on a frequency with something bigger, far bigger than we can imagine.
I like being open minded

Cool topic. I think it is possible to be completely honest and distortion-free. I usually notice it come in waves, but it's something I'd like to cultivate.

Excellent .. Well for me, especially being a reactionary person, i find this exercise useful .. Practice being aware of the space within which the self is present in every moment. This is done by becoming aware that you don't have to act, react, reply to someones acts or words or the flood of impressions. Just practice this until you become aware that there is an internal space. Don't engage in unnecessary things like other peoples arguments or yesterdays (or today's) papers unless you choose to.

And that is what i like about this .. I am making a conscious choice how to behave in a given situation. I am choosing to be angry, calm, sad, happy .. I am in control of my emotions/thoughts as opposed to the other way round.

I mean, I am quite confident that I need to live by a set of standards but there is no way I am going to be a hermit and sacrifice all the fun... I think that if your standards lead you to bitterness they can't be coming from your true self.

I like your thinking

 

[Totenkindly]

...There's a lot in common between N. lite and Ayn Rand's philosophy and I dont like either in the final analysis.

I have trouble faulting the original author for works that were applicable in the context in which they were created; I'm more inclined to blame un-nuanced application of their ideas within new contexts they might have never considered. All works, no matter how good or bad, eventually go out of vogue as context changes and need to be challenged/reworked.

(All that being said, I can't quite say even Rand lived according to her own ideals of total independence.)

 

[Mole]

The Profane and the Sacred

I am surprised to discover Sam Harris.

I am surprised because he understands that ideology informs all that we do. He understands that ideology has consequences. He understands that we take ideology for granted and that it is not only invisible but denied.

He probably understands that ideology is pre-digested thought, it serves interests and has a demonology.

He understands that each ideology has a human history and has a beginning, a middle and an end.

He understands that we are pattern seeking mammals and prefer any ideology than no ideology.

He also knows that ideology can be understood using evidence and reason.

He knows that we can stand outside of ideology using evidence and reason.

And by standing outside of ideology we can understand it.

And by standing outside of ideology we stand outside of the taken-for-granted and so enter the state of ecstasy.

Sam Harris is, par excellence, a man of the Enlightenment.

And he embodies the paradox that the Enlightenment lead to ecstasy.

All around me people are groping towards ecstasy so much so that they are just waiting to finish work and take a pill called ekstasi.

Unbeknownst they are reaching back to the deepest part of our culture to the Ancient Greeks who gave us the word ecstasy, meaning stepping outside the taken-for-granted.

Little do we know that we are reaching of the Enlightenment, that we are lying in the gutter looking at the stars.

Fortunately the Enlightenment is under attack by a violent ideology and in defending ourselves we have no alternative but to fall back on the Enlightenment and our heritage of ecstasy.

Ecstasy is whole, holy and wholesome while the pill, ekstasi, is merely the profane face of ecstasy.

And we only have to turn the profane over to discover the sacred underneath.

 

[Sniffles]

I am surprised to discover Sam Harris.

I am surprised because he understands that ideology informs all that we do. He understands that ideology has consequences. He understands that we take ideology for granted and that it is not only invisible but denied.

He probably understands that ideology is pre-digested thought, it serves interests and has a demonology.

He understands that each ideology has a human history and has a beginning, a middle and an end.

He understands that we are pattern seeking mammals and prefer any ideology than no ideology.

He also knows that ideology can be understood using evidence and reason.

He knows that we can stand outside of ideology using evidence and reason.

And by standing outside of ideology we can understand it.

And by standing outside of ideology we stand outside of the taken-for-granted and so enter the state of ecstasy.

Sam Harris is, par excellence, a man of the Enlightenment.

And he embodies the paradox that the Enlightenment lead to ecstasy.

All around me people are groping towards ecstasy so much so that they are just waiting to finish work and take a pill called ekstasi.

Unbeknownst they are reaching back to the deepest part of our culture to the Ancient Greeks who gave us the word ecstasy, meaning stepping outside the taken-for-granted.

Little do we know that we are reaching of the Enlightenment, that we are lying in the gutter looking at the stars.

Fortunately the Enlightenment is under attack by a violent ideology and in defending ourselves we have no alternative but to fall back on the Enlightenment and our heritage of ecstasy.

Ecstasy is whole, holy and wholesome while the pill, ekstasi, is merely the profane face of ecstasy.

And we only have to turn the profane over to discover the sacred underneath.

Enjoying yourself there Victor?