Submitted by Krios on
Image by Gerd Altmann from http://Pixabay.com
I would define it as the computational part of the soul-brain system capable of remembering, recalling, comparing, contrasting, and reasoning. It is a computer that takes given inputs and produces certain outputs according to rules and models developed since birth, which have been programmed in through environment and biology.
The important thing to remember about the intellect is that it has no “truth compass” on its own, no baseline, and its outputs are only as good as its inputs and models. If the model is skewed, the output is skewed. If the input is incomplete or wrong, so will be the output.
So for example, if a person is primarily driven by emotional biases in life, like let’s say this person was rejected badly as a young teen and developed a hatred toward the opposite sex, then his or her intellect will take that as the unquestioned input and shape the line of reasoning accordingly. That means this person might engage in remembering selectively, comparing and contrasting the wrong things, and reasoning in fallacious ways to rationalize the input. In other words, emotional irrational thinking.
The same happens in the temples of Academia and Religion when a person’s root assumptions about the laws of physics or the validity of the scripture is accepted so deeply, without question, that it then guides all subsequent computation, which can only lead to elaborate ways of defending those assumptions. When trying to debate such people, they do all kinds of intellectual acrobatics but never question or unseat their root assumptions, which are their sacred cows.
So it really takes self-honesty and self-awareness to spot what one’s intellect is doing when it uses cherry picking and logical fallacies to defend an emotional bias or wrong assumption, and it takes willpower and humility to let that go and engage in an act of self-correction. You have to be self-aware and capable of self-examination to pull this off. It’s frightening how few people have this ability. Further, the input has to be something tied to Truth, and that is none other than a keen and well-honed intuition that can spot when something is intrinsically off. That kind of intuition doesn’t come from the brain, but from the higher part of the soul (the subconscious being a gateway toward that part).
People who don’t have that connection are at the mercy of limited inputs as come from society/authority (peer pressure and group consensus), from their biological instincts (fear, lust, self-preservation, etc.), and direct programming through cultur, media, religion, education.
I should also point out that there are people who pride themselves on having a strong intellect, who set themselves apart from other people who are animalistic and unintelligent and emotional — however, these very same prideful people are often missing intuition, and therefore are nothing more than computers regurgitating their societal programming. Their baseline is set by fallible and sometimes malevolent authority. Many have PhDs and Nobel Prizes. Point being, even with their reputation, they are still blind and wrong on a lot of points because they don’t have an even higher faculty which is intuition, which becomes divine reason and gnosis when developed to its highest degree.
That’s why these floating intellects are like the three blind men; for being such experts, it’s funny how even the supposed greatest minds of our time all disagree with each other about something, proving some or all of them don’t really know what they’re talking about. I’m sure aliens would be laughing at all this if they were capable of humor, and if they weren’t suffering from the same problem in their own way.
Tom Montalk