Is Intellectual Capacity in Part Genetic?

Given that we live in times where the phenomenon of woke is amongst us, such a topic is perhaps potentially contentious. The Ethnic monitoring form previous is potentially sampling, in a very broad way, genetics. You can chase your ancestral make-up with a home DNA testing kit.

I have been reading a couple of very “toe in the water” articles in The Guardian suggesting that there is indeed a measure of causal linkage between a collection of certain gene markers and time spent in education. Boy, were they stepping gingerly in case they get accused of eugenics! My old university has renamed various buildings and theatres because they are loosely associated with eugenics.

What does common sense tell us?

Have we not heard things like, “she is brainy just like her mum and dad?”

So common sense suggests that intellectual prowess is related to genes, in some way. However, “brainy” parents are likely to torment their children, so there is a nurture thing too. If for example you want to tire out a five-year-old, get them to do Sudoku puzzles just before bedtime. Trust me, this works a treat.

This science only type argument only speaks of the physical form, not the indwelling being.

You might have the latest chip set from Intel, but what about a good operating system and who is writing the programmes?

The parents “provide” the nascent vehicle for the reincarnating Soul to inhabit. Each lifetime the Soul chooses an appropriate vehicle for its’ planned learning that lifetime. If this argument is valid then there is more to the manifestation of intellect than a set of base pairs.

The Soul therefore transcends any notion of ethnicity or race, or genetics.

The Soul needs a vehicle in which to learn.

It might choose a Peugeot, a Land Rover, a Toyota, or a Chevrolet. To fix your attention on the car is racist. To inquire only after the driver is inclusive and in no way separative.  The meat does not matter, the indwelling being is and does.

Given that many of us have had many incarnations, if you look down on say a Welsh person for being a Taff {and not English}, it is possible that you too have been one once and that you have forgotten how very fortunate you were to have been one of God’s people living in God’s country.

Do you get my drift?

In years to come there will be literally billions of Souls who have had either an Indian or Chinese incarnation.

Technically the Soul has its causal body and this, in the line of causality, precedes the DNA. The Soul causes the DNA which enables the construction of the nascent vehicle. The DNA is not a cause it is an effect.

Oh, by the way, do you ever judge a book by its’ cover?

Are you susceptible to advertising?

Are You Possessed By Your Possessions?

There are two additional questions:

Do your possessions have power over you?

What is the longest period of time that you can actually “own” anything from within the socio-political notions of ownership?

~ 120 years at a push…if you live that long.

The item which I am currently wearing on my left hand is likely to have the longest longevity of anything which I, according to human socio-political law, own. This is because it is a ring made from a non-reactive metal namely Welsh gold. My ring even has Celtic writing inside which says “cariad”. Unless it comes into contact with heat, pressure or mercury it will stay intact long after I have popped my clogs and done my bit to aid global warming with the fiery oxidation of all “my” molecules.

By flipping the question from do you possess your possessions to the title I have perhaps perceptually turned the world on its head. Many people are enslaved by their possessions. If there was a threat of loss many would be very unhappy and perhaps scared.

What would happen if you lost your house, your SUV or any other of “your” paraphernalia? Do you really own these items? Do you own “your” image and “your” kudos?

What exactly does “own” mean?

It is likely that your house will outlive you. So, when you die what happens to this notion of ownership?

People cling to their possessions and because of this, it is not unreasonable to say many are technically possessed by their imagined possessions. Whatever you cling to has power over you and something else, some other being, could use that clinging to leverage you. The metaphor of demonic possession by worldly goods is not so far from the truth for many.

This is why the “Precious” of Sméagol – Gollum is such a biting piece of satire on human obsession with power and material artefacts.

Power can possess one too. One can imagine that one is in control of one’s power. When in fact power itself has power over one. One starts to take on Gollum like thinking patterns.

“Nasty, sneaky hobitses…”

As a follow up question: which of your so-called belongings do you cling to the most?

What would happen if it/they were taken from you?

Possess Possession Possessed

These from Etymonline

possess (v.)

late 14c., possessen, “to hold, occupy, inhabit” (without regard to ownership), a back formation from possession and in part from Old French possesser “to have and hold, take, be in possession of” (mid-13c.), from Latin possessus, past participle of possidere “to have and hold, hold in one’s control, be master of, own,” probably a compound of potis “having power, powerful, able” (from PIE root *poti- “powerful; lord”) + sedere, from PIE root *sed- (1) “to sit.”

According to Buck, Latin possidere was a legal term first used in connection with real estate. The meaning “to hold as property” in English is recorded from c. 1500. That of “to seize, take possession of” is from 1520s; the demonic sense of “have complete power or mastery over, control” is recorded from 1530s (implied in possessed); the weakened sense of “fascinate, enthrall, affect or influence intensely” is by 1590s. Related: Possessed; possessing. The other usual Latin verb for “to possess,” tenere, originally was “to hold,” then “occupy, possess” (see tenet).

possession (n.)

mid-14c., possessioun, “act or fact of holding, occupying, or owning; a taking possession, occupation,” also “thing possessed, that which is possessed, material or landed property” (in plural, goods, lands, or rights owned), from Old French possession “fact of having and holding; what is possessed;” also “demonic possession,” and directly from Latin possessionem (nominative possessio) “a seizing, possession,” noun of action from past-participle stem of possidere “to possess” (see possess).

The legal property sense is earliest; the demonic sense in English, “state of being under the control of evil spirits or of madness,” first is recorded 1580s. Phrase possession is nine (or eleven) points of the law is out of a supposed 10 (or 12). With eleven from 1640s; with nine from 1690s.

St. Jerome in his ‘Life of St. Hilarion’ has given us a graphic account of the courage with which that saint confronted, and the success with which he relieved, a possessed camel. [Lecky, “History of European Morals”]

possessed (adj.)

“controlled by an indwelling demon or evil spirit,” 1530s, past-participle adjective from possess (v.). An Old English and Middle English phrase for it was devel seoc.

Are you possessed by your possessions?

Fighting the Wrong Battles and Pyrrhic Victories

I’ll start this off with a question.

Have you ever won a Pyrrhic Victory?

This topic is obviously stimulated by recent events. The whole war on terror was a thinly veiled act of revenge dealt out by a superpower to those who dared and had the temerity to transgress. It stemmed from the sixth ray personality ray of the USA. It was a so called “Christian” country which resorted to Abrahamic Old Testament vengeance albeit served with ultra-high technology.

I did not see one turning of the other cheek, did you?

There were a lot of more cost-effective ways of preventing a second mass terror event.

It is not uncommon for people to engage in petty acts of “warfare” where one tries to get one over on another. In my own experience I can recollect a half a dozen times, at least, when someone has engaged in a petty battle with me and had a victory, but that “victory” has cost them more than they had bargained for. The cost has not been immediately obvious and has taken a while to achieve fruition.

To give an illustrative example.

Once in a series C funding round for the company I was engaged in, one of the venture capitalists was arguing for a bigger slice of the cake. He even said that they deserved the lion’s share. I asked him if I had heard right that he felt they deserved the lion’s share. He said, yes.  In this company I was driving one part of the endeavour, the part which might have been the most profitable. As a direct result of his attitude, I gave back my shares and asked only for my initial £500 investment back.  Prior to the funding round these shares had a paper value of ~£800,000. In the terms of the round, they would have been diluted to £80,000. He got his lion’s share but of a cake which had way less potential. The endeavour I was engaged in fizzled out and died. In the end he lost the bulk of his investment a few years later.

The VCs and the CEO had alienated the founders.

He had fought entirely the wrong battle.

As a rule of thumb most people want to win a battle against some others. Few are wise enough to know that more often than not the imagined battle is with some aspect of themselves.

I’ll finish with a question.

Have you ever devoted vast amount of time and resources to fight entirely the wrong battle?

Sois certain d’avoir quelques fleurs dans tes cheveux

Si tu vas à San Francisco
Sois certain d’avoir quelques fleurs dans tes cheveux
Si tu vas à San Francisco
Tu y rencontreras des gens gentils

Pour ceux qui viennent à San Francisco
L’été y sera une saison d’amour
Dans les rues de San Francisco
(il y a) des gens gentils avec des fleurs dans les cheveux

À travers tout le pays, une si étrange vibration
(celle) d’un peuple en marche
Il y a une génération entière avec une nouvelle interprétation
Un peuple en marche, un peuple en marche

Pour ceux qui viennent à San Francisco
Soyez certains d’avoir quelques fleurs dans tes cheveux
Si vous venez à San Francisco

L’été y sera une saison d’amour

Si tu viens à San Francisco
L’été y sera une saison d’amour

Is Projecting Malevolence Causative of Karma?

Many people feel thoroughly justified in getting angry, utterly pissed off and as a consequence they can wish people ill.  If other people do not do what they think they should and they don’t get their own way they can want someone, the evil transgressor, dead or to suffer or to burn in hell.

If I understand it correctly this kind of thinking lies aback trolling, whatever that might be.

Someone can switch from friend to a sworn enemy in an instant. Many have very poor control over their tempers. This can go hand in hand with entitlement issues. If people do not get what they imagine they are thoroughly entitled to, they can throw their toys out of the cot, sulk and generally behave poorly. Not for one second do people in a tantrum imagine that there are consequences not only to their thoughts but to their vituperative bile. People used to getting their own way lash out emotionally when this does not occur.

They pollute the emotional or astral plane with their vehemence.

Those prone to profound loss of temper may not be aware that they are actually participating in a form of black magic. By projecting ill will at another being they are doing voodoo. Tell that to your average middle-class westerner having a meltdown because of the traffic, they won’t believe you. They may not be pointing a bone at someone, but they are directing ill-will.

This causes damage.

Because of the boomerang effect, what goes around comes around.

Malevolence is a close relative of hate, there is enough of that in the world already.

———–

Have you ever projected malevolence at another being?

Were you thoroughly justified and within your rights so to do?

Did that bastard utterly deserve your vehemence?

Do you imagine that there might be karmic consequences from such an episode?

Can One Be Devoted to Scientific Doctrine to the Point of Idealizing It?

I have joked that “science” is akin to a religion, indeed the politicians say “we are following the science” in a similar manner to how they might once have apportioned something to God’s will. I have also suggested that I am akin to an heretic and an apostate. But actually, I still have faith in scientific inquiry. I understand what “science” in terms of natural sciences is useful for and when it fails. You can’t measure a Soul not even with a state-of-the-art £250k femtosecond laser. I could joke that I have tried to do this using one of these. I know how to drive one, it is good for somethings but not for others.

A long time ago, as an experiment, I asked a version of the sixth ray questions {see previous post} to someone I knew was a sixth ray being.

I posed them in good nature Elephant to Wolf, as it were. Needless to say, I got a few snarls for my efforts. I predicted that this would happen. My prediction was borne out.

It is nigh on impossible to converse in a meaningful way with anyone fanatical in their devotion to something, some way of thinking, some way of living.

Fanatics are blind to their fanaticism and see it only as a virtue. Every other Mike Foxtrotter on the planet is wrong, by fanatical definition. It is the sixth ray that helps one don a suicide vest. It is the sixth ray that makes one go on an anti-vax protest. It is the sixth ray that sends thousands to death on crusade in the holy land. It is the sixth ray that sends helicopters and GIs to Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is the sixth ray that sends nuclear warheads to Cuba. It is the sixth ray that bombs the foxtrot out of Gaza. It is the sixth ray that drove the conflict in Northern Ireland. It is the sixth ray that sets the fans of Celtic and Rangers at each other’s throats.

In what ways might you be blinded by your own idealism?

Different Perspectives and Mental Blind spots.

I’ll make a general statement. Have a think about it and see if you agree with it or not.

By and large people are completely unaware as to the extent of their lack of self-awareness.

What do you reckon?

Things can be funny or not depending on where you view them from. What is deemed funny AND socially acceptable changes with time. Many of the TV programmes I grew up with are now laden with taboo materials. For example, you can’t say the N word, many of my erstwhile Rastafarian acquaintances break this rule on an hourly basis.  Does this trend mean than in time the name Nigel will be banned? Will the surname Blanco get outlawed? Soon it will only be the gingers we are allowed to mock.

What is funny can pivot depending upon whom the joke is. This is a variable beast.

People within cliques can develop their own sense of “humour” which does not transfer well out of the clique. Others can find this “humour” utterly abhorrent. People in laddish groups say some weird shit which they get upset about if you said it about their sister, wife, or mother. There is a mental blind spot as to who is “fair game” for humour.

I know for a fact that people have laughed about me behind my back. Not one of them has had the balls to do it to my face. If they did, “do you like hospital menus?”, I might inquire. Something might be funny in the safety of a gang or clique, but it loses its humour when face to face with a 95kg ex-martial artist. So, humour depends to an extent on personnel and location.

I’ll wager that if someone was laughing about something which I did not find funny, all I would have to do is give them a Paddington-stare. Laughter would turn nervous.

Smug elitist people find things amongst themselves pertaining to the plebs, amusing. I have heard it said that Boris is talking about “chain gangs” for the yobs. Foxtrot Foxtrot Sierra. Where does he find references like that? What century, which decade is he in? What is funny among the Bullingdon club, will not wash down the Miner’s Welfare Hall or at the Jamaican Pentecostalist Church.

People gob off and say all kinds of shit which they think funny, it might be entre-eux but it does not wash outside of clique-mind.

I’ll make a further general statement. What do you reckon?

Cliques prone to group mind are even less aware of the extent of their lack of self-awareness than the average individual.

That is because WE are always and irrevocably right whereas you and everybody else are wrong and patently so. After all we congregate on Olympus.

Groups which bio-accumulate people of similar personalities and ways of thinking never have anyone within the group question clique-think so they became every more convinced of their infallibility. It never occurs to them that the lack of diversity is a very real weakness. They can become myopic and proud of it.

I’ll end with a question.

Have you ever laughed at something in the safety of your like-minded chums that you would never do when surrounded by people you do not know well?

Do you believe that this is a good quality of yours?

Decisions and Paths

Look at every path closely and deliberately, then ask yourself this crucial question: Does this path have a heart? If it does, then the path is good. If it doesn’t, it is of no use.

Carlos Castaneda {don Juan}

Despite all my comments on this blog about being whacko, perhaps a star-child and an Aquarian being, my self-assessment is that I am way more decisive than most people. I can make a life changing decision in an instant. Not because of being hot headed, but because I have been accumulating data, mood and feeling in my decision-making funnel over a long period of time. When the time comes, I seldom hesitate or prevaricate further.

I have surprised many with decisions which to their perception are “out of the blue”. They are not, it is just that people can be very self-obsessed and as a consequence lacking in observation. If your head is up your arse it is difficult to perceive with any accuracy the world surrounding.

Something which may appear to be good and enjoyable, can lose its heart slowly and inexorably then I can have a “fuck this for a game of soldiers” moment and off I ride into the sunset. One has to be ready to let go of the old.

I going to make a hypothesis here and maybe develop it when I find the words.

Decision is a fundamental part of any true spiritual journey because evolution as a being requires that you make decisions.

Notions of Reality

What do you reckon are your notions of reality the same as mine?

If you look at the post previous, you will encounter what might be termed the foundation blocks of my notion of reality. I’ll wager that it differs from the vast majority of human beings on the {this} planet. This is simply because they believe in the collective view, the socially conditioned and therefore quasi-acceptable norm.

I have stopped the world, gotten off the merry-go-round so to speak. I am not so dizzy anymore.

To see me walking down the street I look like any other mid-fifties geezer, a bit beaten up like an old car and maybe more meaty than most. I can talk to you within the context of your collective view, about the weather, the rugby, coronavirus and the times. I could even do some physics or chemistry.

I can join you temporarily in the madness of the dream.

If you assumed that I thought like you, perceived the world as you do, you would be foisting your “world lens” in your mind onto my abilities to perceive and assimilate what is transpiring.

Fundamentally there would be {probably} a massive assumption gap, between what you assumed was going on and what was. You would not believe me even if I told you this.

We could debate who is the craziest, me or you. It would possibly be more important to you that you want to win this debate, I might even let you think that you have won. I could acquiesce to the infallibility of your Spock like logic.

Because I do not care if you deem me crazy or whacko.

If someone removed one of the foundation blocks of your notions of reality, it is possible that you would become anxious and bewildered. If they took away another, your whole house of reality could come tumbling down and you may metaphorically {or in reality} crap your pants. You might imagine you were having a bad trip.

I can, should I so deem, be ultra-sensible and act like a high technology entrepreneur, I might even shave and put on a suit.

What do you reckon are we on the same page, in the same book or even the same library?