Imagine there are two soccer fans, one supports the blue and the other supports the red team. They sit and discuss about the game that just finished, without beating each other. They’re nice guys.
A third guy joins in, and compliments the blue team’s great play.
Is the notion that the third guy is a supporter of the blue team true or false?
I just made this up. But it could actually be a question in an IQ test. My answer is that the third guy’s compliment neither means he is with the blue, nor with the red, nor with any other team. He is just a guy who complimented the blue team, and that doesn’t mean anything else–it doesn’t equal to anything else.
It is useful to know that 10 1$ notes equal to a 10$ note, but if you try to apply that to people, and to the rest of your life, aside from numbers, you’ll fall on your face.
If one refers to some historical event of his country it doesn’t equal to him being a nationalist. If one says that corporations shouldn’t own 95% of all wealth, it doesn’t equal to him being a socialist. If 20 out of 20 men you’ve had an affair with have backstabed you, it doesn’t mean the 21st will backstab you too.
We could abstractly, say ‘there are 5 persons there…’, (and unfortunately, we often do) but it wouldn’t be true. There aren’t 5 persons there, for neither one of them equals to another person. Each one is different, unless they’re so brainwashed that they become to some degree similar–still not the same.
The less the intelligence, the more things resemble or even equal to other things, in one’s thinking. The more he groups things together, associates or even equates them with each other.
That’s what intelligence is about, and it is not one’s ability to remember the date that Napoleon won some battle against the Austrians. Ability to memorise is ability to memorise, and it isn’t anything else. Also, it doesn’t mean that what one memorises is necessarily true. To be intellectual, to have studied many things about various subjects, doesn’t necessarily mean to be clever, intelligent.
If one studies many things, it wont mean he’ll be closer to truth and reality than another. Even if the studied subject referes to some truths, if one can memorise and repeat it, it wont mean he understands it.
If one studies to become a plumber, the final test of how good a plumber he is, and how well he can do his job.
It the same with all life. Some knowledge can assist one in his life, while other can do the opposite, if believed.
To put all knowledge under a general headline ‘knowledge’, and say general things like ‘books are good’ is not true. It can be true to the degree that one is capable to determine relative truths and lies. I could write 30 books full of random nonsense. I don’t think anyone would gain anything by reading them, unless he wanted to amuse himself laughing at my nonsense or something.
The more intelligent one is, the more he sees things are they are, and the less he identifies (equates) them with other things.
And the same applies to time. Each moment is it’s own moment. It doesn’t have to be connected to (to be a continuation of, or to be the same as) a previous moment.
Thus, new things can come to existence, too. One can create new experiences to experience, completely independently from what happened two seconds ago.