We are not born with humility, because the innate intelligence of the body is selfish. The baby lets everyone know when he is hungry, when he needs his diaper changed. That is normal and natural. Unfortunately, we often educatedly learn what is innately understood and should be confined to innate function and then transfer it to educated function.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 10 comments

  1. Steve 02/13/2015, 4:14 pm:

    Hey Joe,
    You know “i” hate to disagree but it would seem to me, humility would be congruent with innate’s self concern. Wouldn’t ego be the learned behavior? The egotistical comparisons and value judgements of the external world and others are a function of the educated mind, are they not? To know thyself or to be aware of our own presence without aggrandizing ourselves seems “natural”.

    • Joe Strauss 02/14/2015, 5:48 pm:

      Steve, never worry about disagreeing with me, conflicts clarify. There is no demonstration of humility in an infant. They are totally self absorbed, relying upon their innate intelligence. Yet we still managed to love the little buggers. No one has to teach them to be self absorbed, focusing on themselves and only their needs. It comes naturally (innately). As far as the innate intelligence is concerned it’s all about number one. Small children don’t need to be taught the words me, myself and mine. They do need to be taught that the world does not revolve around them. As far as the law of life is concerned, the world does revolve around the organism in which it resides. Animals that live innately don’t worry about others, only themselves. The human body with its innate intelligence is not concerned about the E. Coli as long as its presence is beneficial to the body. When it ceases to be beneficial, the innate intelligence of the body will seek to destroy it. A child must be taught humility so that they can adapt, using their educated brain, to their environment including their relationship to other members of the human race. That’s why we are given parents and why we need to teach little Johnny to share.

  2. Straight DC 02/13/2015, 9:37 pm:

    Joe, could you give me an example of what you mean in your last sentence? “Unfortunately, we often……..”

    • Straight DC 02/17/2015, 10:32 pm:

      Joe, I hate to be so dense about this stuff, but I am still needing an example of what do you mean by “innately understood & confined to innate function & transferring to educated function???

      • Joe Strauss 02/19/2015, 2:14 pm:

        Straight, no problem, “innately understood” is language of accommodation meaning the innate intelligence of the body is aware of every innate need (also language of accommodation). The need for insulin after a meal is “known” by the innate intelligence of the body and its creation (innate function )is supplied by the innate intelligence of the body. The actual need for food is known by the innate intelligence of the body and our educated brain is made aware of that need by what we call “hunger pangs”. We must then make the decision whether to supply that need with an Apple or a Hershey bar or just ignore that symptom (yes yeah since my mom always told me it would “spoil” my dinner) year. I usually prefer the candy bar but I also know that decision is probably not a good use of my educated intelligence. Does that help?

        • Straight DC 02/20/2015, 9:20 pm:

          Joe, thanks for the explanation, but I still do not understand why you preface your sentence with”UNFORTUNATELY” in your original statement. Is it not good that we respond with our educated intelligence to innate’s promptings? That’s all we can do is it not? Innate is letting us know of a need or alerting us to a problem, and with our “educated” we respond to that. Am I interpreting this correctly?

          • Joe Strauss 02/21/2015, 11:20 am:

            That’s a fair enough question Straight DC. I said “unfortunately” for the following reason: the selfish innate intelligence of the infant’s body only shares the digestive track with an E. Coli because of what that microorganism can do for him. The innate intelligence of the body is normally and naturally selfish and that is good and necessary for survival. But when little Billy grabs a toy that Johnny is playing with because he wants it, he must be taught humility, that the world does not revolve around him and his wants. He needs to learn to share. That is an educated function for the purpose of adapting to our external environment, society. Perhaps that is why Homo sapiens’s stay with their parents much longer than other species of the animal kingdom.

  3. Bill 02/14/2015, 4:36 am:

    Hi joe,
    Stephenson and palmer frequently personified innate intelligence. reggie said innate had a last name which I interpreted to mean that we should use both innate and intelligence at the same time so as not to personify. Then you wrote that innate intelligence is a principle of organization in living, organic, things. My question is… can a principle be selfish? Is that personifying innate intelligence?

    • Joe Strauss 02/14/2015, 6:15 pm:

      Bill, I think there is a difference between personifying and personalizing. The innate intelligence of the body is a principle and as such should not be personified. But the innate intelligence of the body is personal, uniquely expressing itself through the matter in which it resides. My body’s innate intelligence has no concern for the blood pressure, heart rate or insulin level of your body. Yet it will do everything it can (within limitations of matter) to maintain the above, normal for my body.

  4. David Suskin 02/14/2015, 10:46 am:

    Hi Bill,
    Don’t mean to jump in. Just participating.
    A word like selfish has to me, a negative connotation, meaning more possessive vs giving of nature. It is a rather personified, harsh meaning word, but I think as with many words, the nature of these things called words, implicate human observation that many times relate back to the human who is observing. That’s personification.
    The ‘spirit’ of the law, is so important to capture the most (here I go personifying) accurate truth in the meaning of the word or the principle. The context is almost as important as the word(s) chosen to describe or define. That points more to the truth or the intent of what’s trying to be said.
    Unless it’s numeric data only, then it’s hard to eliminate personification completely, especially when it comes to discussing the Immaterial or the metaphysical. Like innate intelligence, or life, etc.
    Maybe we should qualify or quantify our understandings of these abstractions more with analogies and metaphors, to further understand what at times is beyond absolute understanding or comprehension. One always has to read between the lines, to extract the most exact and accurate meaning. Not easy (another personification ;))

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *