Monday, January 26, 2009

The two facets of human intelligence

There are two facets to human intelligence: the ability to create and the ability to nurture life. The former entails observation, understanding of underlying principles, hypothesis formation, technology, craft and skill. The latter form of human intelligence -- namely that of nurturing (not sustaining) life, entails development of a faculty of thought that is responsible for traits like empathy, understanding emotions, a sense of fairness etc. -- basically all that comes under the general umbrella of humanity.

Indian society clearly lags behind several others when it comes to the first. Somehow we have not encouraged the rigorous development of the ability to create. As a teacher it is frustrating to see from the students lopsided perspectives, lack of rigour and a subjugation of an understanding of underlying principles to social metrics like labels, prestige, etc. I too was like that when I was a student several years ago, and even now my ability to create (technological creation, not artistic ones) leaves much wanting.

However, when it comes to the second form of human intelligence -- that of nurturing life, from what I have seen, Indian society fares far far better than, I would contend, the rest of the world. Nurturing life is not about solving problems in a dispassionate manner. It is about supporting life in a compassionate fashion. Here, emotions are not seen as an impediment to our understanding of truth. Instead, emotions are seen as an essential element of what forms life.

Nurturing life is different from sustaining life. The latter is more about problem solving as in where to find food and how to prevent disease, etc. Sustaining life requires dispassionate science, while nurturing life requires compassionate relationships.

Is it any wonder that the notion of Ahimsa (non-violence) caught on so rapidly as a cornerstone of the country's freedom struggle? A large population will not simply follow an idea, unless the idea existed in the population in the first place. One can argue endlessly whether it was the non-violent struggle that brought the country independence or whether it was world war II. But such an argument is meaningless in this context. What is important is that the enormous support for a non-violent struggle shows how endemic the idea of Ahimsa was in the society.

Today I was in a concert where at the end of the concert the artists played the popular bhajan Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram.. The bhajan was so mesmerising and sublime that I could see a lot in the audience almost like in a trance. Just entertaining an idea that says: Ishwar Allah tero naam; sabko sanmati de bhagwan.. (Ishwar, Allah -- or Abraham for that matter -- is your name; bless us all oh Lord), puts our mind so much in peace.

Nurturing life is all about these -- mental peace, harmonious living, bonhomie, reflection, and so on. Nurturing life extends not just to other humans, but to all living beings. A deep understanding of these principles of nurturing life is as much a hallmark of intelligence as is a deep understanding of physics or mathematics or technology.

This is not to say that we do not need the former kind of intelligence. Indeed, because we are weak at dispassionate creation skills, it is all the more reason that we focus on developing them. It is just that in our zest to develop one form of intelligence, we should not lose sight of the other. Making the world a happier place is as much of a challenge as making the world disease-free or hunger-free. Eradication of disease and hunger are necessary, but not sufficient to ensure harmony, happiness and bonhomie.

3 comments:

kiran said...

I totally agree with your blog and especially with the statement

"Somehow we have not encouraged the rigorous development of the ability to create."

and also

"However, when it comes to the second form of human intelligence -- that of nurturing life, from what I have seen, Indian

society fares far far better than, I would contend, the rest of the world."

Interestingly this reminds me of one incident.In one of our discussions on Freedom Struggle,my friend (who was anti-Gandhi btw) countered my point on "non-violence" by saying this..
"People in those days believed in anything and they followed anyone blindly.Customs like "Sati" and "Untouchablity" were

practiced for centuries.Similarly they caught up with Gandhiji and followed his ways in the freedom struggle as well".

Your blog answers these two aspects very well.Practices like "Sati" were followed because of the missing facet of human

intelligence that you have mentioned .Where as Indians had supported "non-violence" in such huge numbers because we were

indeed a group of compassionate folks :).

The point here is that very often we generalize our behaviors and mentalities.So it is important to ponder upon things a

little more deeply.

kiran said...

There is this doubt that in some situations if both these facets clash or only one way has to be chosen.So one should choose to tolerate or rebel? :) ..
OR one should just toss a coin and leave to fate? :)..

sri said...

The benchmark I use is that the limits of tolerance is intolerance.

We may tolerate a lot of things in the name of diversity, but if we start tolerating intolerance in this process, then our tolerance commits suicide.