How Intelligence Works

Is it just a work story, about comparing a country to a person? I believe it is in general parlance, the picture of a country with workers, like a individual body, the king as the brain, and the heart, whatever--religion.
The recent obit on a Mossad operative, David Kimche (http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=63678) reminded me of this metaphor, because in intelligence work you see---- a great picture of intelligence as in the human brain intelligence, and the endeavor to see what is really going on. (that's those of us who are interested in the work of Jan Cox.) There is a country/body and to survive, just like any person, a inquiry into one's circumstances has an evolutionary advantage. So how do you find out what is happening in your surroundings? The lack of such knowledge could shorten your life---perhaps the country around you has some lizards that could sting you. You need to know where you are. 
The intelligence of intelligence is silent.  That is how the work is done.  You work without speaking/that is, drawing attention to yourself, without drawing attention to your goal.  That is the only way to discover your situation.  Like a spy, like a stranger is a country where the wrong word could mean death, your only real goal is to survive (see what is really going on) and there are no rules here. Survival authenticates itself. Did what you break a law? The only answer is , I am still here,  If you speak you lie. Jan Cox, and a few intelligence operatives knew this. The difference between Jan and these agents, is he knew the more difficult side of that---the critical nature of internal quiet.
The intelligence of intelligence is silent.  Only now can the dead body of a Mossad agent tell us something. 

The Inside Dope

We have all seen anatomical illustrations, drawings of the internal parts of the body. The textbooks fall open to those glossy pages of bodies we presume are comparable to our own. Yet it requires a concerted effort to beieve that you yourself, inside, look like those standing stretched figures missing skin. Progress in understanding the human body is a beautiful example of the human mind solving problems. It has often seemed to me though that we underestimate the progress made in medical affairs two thousand years ago. Too often these early practitioners are considered quacks, and this I strongly doubt. When the penalty for a patient's death was that the attending doctor was himself killed, it is unlikely that the doctor did not give his best attention and knowledge to the pending case. The names of early modern doctors who studied the workings of the body are well known, like William Harvey, who studied blood circulation. One reason progress was made was that bodies could be dissected and this did not, to my knowledge, happen before the European renaissance. Again--the triumph of science, pulling apart (to mention the Indo-European root of the word science) to see how the external world works.It would be a foolish person who spoke of progress in mystical affairs. Progress in human self understanding is also a dubious phrase if applied to more than an individual. Yet the directive of know thyself applies to those of us interested in understanding our species and world. Just as we study the outside world, we study our interior world. Though the quacks of modern philosophy would say the interiror experience is too subjective to count as science, Jan Cox merely pointed to his head, and said, "the laboratory is right here." Another picture Jan Cox drew of one's progress was that you alternated investigating the external and the internal worlds. What if the revelations a concerted attempt, (as if your life depended upon your success) with the proper tools, (not discussed in the present format) would bring about one's inner self, were---just a startling as those anatomy illustrations of skinless people? There may yet be a venue in which the scalpel is discussed. Certainly the writings of Jan Cox discuss the tools.

Why is there no monsyllabic word for

incomplete,
that which is incomplete, incompleteness, the process of being
incomplete, and what is the verb for being partial,
(not as in prejudiced....), what is the verb for not whole (not as in
unwholesome...)
Everything in this category seems to be just a block-the whole, the
complete, with post it notes stuck on that say un, in....
and the less than complete, when specified, seems to have mainly
unsavory connotations.
Why is this?

If People Were Cells in an Larger Organism

If people were cells in an organism called----called what, I will say
Humanity, though really I am not sure if there even is a better
descriptive term. Jan Cox, the radical philosopher spoke in these
terms, and they will serve our purposes now. If People were cells in
an organism called Humanity, how would we know, how would we know we
were cells in part of something larger.
Well, for one thing we would apparently take seriously apologies on
the part of public figures, Apologies for being human, even though,
what could there be to apologize for?? People who operated on the
basis of their intellect, (as everyone says they do, but if they
really DID.) would find it confusing that someone would say I'm sorry
for being what they are, and what everyone else is, and for doing what
everyone else does. No, this phenomenon makes most sense if it is an
aspect of processing happening on a larger level, a processing that is
only called morality at the blind level of an single cell.

And what if someone hits you, what if someone knocks over your stack
of blocks, and you get so mad you pay a huge amount of money, and
blood to extract revenge, to destroy these other people who hurt you.
You want to destroy these people who attacked. Okay, this makes sense
at the level of hormones and self preservation. But---why then do you
not do the sensible next step to destroying them, which is try to
understand why this other tribe would attack you. Would not
espionage,successful surveillance, all depend on your understanding
your enemy, yes, destroy them, but----to do this----you have to
understand them first. Yet that is the one thing we do not do---we do
not make a concerted effort to understand the motivations of those who
consider themselves our enemy. Surely that is the rational approach.
But if we were part of a larger organism, the idea that intellect
guides our actions may be a useful ploy, a means of transferring
energy. We might guess something like this is going on when we
exhaust ourselves, kill our young, spend our treasure, and still do
not do the obvious first thing to defeating our enemies, which first
thing is----understanding their viewpoint. The logical first step,
using our vaunted intellect, is exactly what does NOT happen, and
which is now, years later, still not even an option which can be
discussed publicly. What could be going on here??

The crowdsourcing in your head

The quote below is from an article about what happened to a facebook group called Secret London:
(http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/startup-to-launch-after-secret-london-facebook-group-amasses-180000)

'The explosion in the SL group is reflective of the generation online now. As Philippou says "Everyone of my generation is on Facebook. I'm 21 and have completely grown up in the online evironment. Time Out doesn't really connect with me on the Net. Things like crowdsourced content do."'

What struck me was that ---mainly---I finally got what the word crowdsourcing means and then MAINLY--
I noticed a thing that makes it so difficult to talk about what Jan Cox called "This Kind of Thing," which is
crowdsourcing.  But not the kind in the article, the kind in your head, where every thought is a crowd, and what you have to do, like looking between the slats on a fence, is --- see between the words, between the voices.
So, interestingly enough, crowdsourcnig is not new---the reason words are the unfootable  terrain thy are to the seeker, is because all words are crowdsourced.  A word that was single sourced would communicate nothing to another. How could it, you just made it up.  Hence the popularity of This Kind of Thing.

Quoting from a quote

Connie Jones, the New Orleans cornetist working with Jack Teagarden at the time of the trombonist's death, was a pallbearer for the wake, held at a funeral parlor on leafy St. Charles Avenue: 'I remember seeing him there in a coffin, a travelling coffin. They were going to fly him to Los Angeles for burial right after that. The coffin was open and I remember thinking 'Boy he really looks uncomfortable in there'. "'Not that he was that tall. Maybe five foot ten or so, at most. But he was kinda wide across the shoulders - and most of all he just gave you the impression he was a big man, in every way. In that coffin, - well, I can't really explain it, but he seemed to be scrunched up into a space that was too small to contain him'

This quote of Connie Jones, about Jack Teagarden's body, not fitting into a coffin, made me think of words, and how they--words--can become a coffin. Do, for most folks. Words are coffins is kind of the default settings for humanity. It is hard to find the default settings, and once you do, and adjust the settings to "original thought," (your only chance) the developers do a mass reversal, and you have to start all over, finding the settings.....

and WHY was Prometheus a -- "thief"?

Why in the story of Prometheus stealing fire for mankind, stealing it from the gods, why was he labeled, a thief, why was the story structured so that the gift to humanity was something stolen? Perhaps you could say this was a reflection of what Jan Cox meant when he said when man developed an intellect, (got kicked out of the garden) he fell upstairs. Both stories involve crimes. Stil, what got me started on this was another aspect: because, Prometheus botched the job, had to of course---but he only got half the treasure, when you could say something else the gods had, was necessary for fire to be a gift, rather than fire being "hot" on multiple levels. In this reading Prometheus was a thief because he botched the job, he stole, not from the gods, but from Humanity.   And this would be, because, Prometheus only stole a tool that could be used EXTERNALLY, when as the gods knew well,  there was an internal world that need controlled ignition to be functioning at its highest level.
Crime, clumbsiness, makes me think of the big bang idea, that without some unimaginable small tremor in the explosion, the universe would be uniform, an identical soup in all directions, rather than diverse with planets and space, and different colors of matter.  Just a thought...