The Ivory Tower and the pursuit of knowledge

[Agua del Cielo]

Im not sure if its possible to find common ground here.
Or maybe were looking at wrong place...

Quite frankly, i believe once you experienced a state of non-intellectual awareness, as in silent meditation for example, there is no way you could possibly deny that intelligence or awareness is dependant on intellect. Quite contrary you would know that a higher intelligence arises when the intellect is being stilled ( without falling asleep!).

You could still prefer the intellectual road, for whatever reason, but any debate about that basic truth would be pointless!

When you, on the other hand and for whatever reason have not yet experienced this, you would surely be identified with the intellect so much that you would only know either intellectual activity or sleep, conscious awareness would be completely unimaginable without intellect then.
You would then automatically attritube intellect to any kind of intelligence.
In that case there would also be no point in discussing this, i guess.

If one consciously chooses that path, why not? If it fits your needs, thats perfectly fine, everybody is different.
An advantage is for example that you re always a little bit cut off from emotions. You wont get overwhelmed thateasy and a balanced state might be easierto accomplish.

I am pretty sure we can all agree so far on this!

I found two things especially difficult on the intellectual path:

One is, you always deal with an abstraction and its easy to forget this.
Reedfish gave a good example with the ocean!

Instead of swimming in the ocean, the intellect stays outside, thinks about it, imagines all kinds of things, compares the appeareance to otherthings he knows.
The intellect might perceive itself as an expert on swimming in the ocean after a while, but never actually did.
Thats the problem with intellectual understanding in my opinion.

Second problem is in exploring the self.

Almost all our blockages and issues develop extremely early.
In the firstdays and weeks, then thefirst year, then thefirst 2-3 years. After that its mostly a solidifying and reoccuring of what already happened.
In orderto really understand all these mechanisms, you have to getto the root of them.
Now the big problem is, a six week old baby does not yet have developed an intellect.
Its mind does not function by thought.
This means, the information is not stored in a way that the intellect could access or possibly understand.
A weak analogy would be, you speak chinese up to a certain age, then you start to speak english. All earlier information will be stored in chinese, but later you are an english speaking adult and dont understand chinese anymore.

You would then be left to interpretation or "inventing" explanations, but you will most likely be completely wrong.

edit:
i hope there is really a misunderstanding and not only a debate for the sake of debating!?