This Week's Questions
[posed by Gary S.]
Do you know?
[Question 1] As I understand it, children learn in Layer 7 by feeling "the need to know." If so, how can a teacher "guide" them into Layer 7, i.e., arouse in them their "need to know," in a classroom? Also, does this imply that the "need to know" is the same thing as "curiosity"? Finally, can children learn if they are not in Layer 7?
Where to begin? Let's start by answering your last question first. Can children learn if they are not in Layer 7? Yes. In fact, true learning is always holistic, meaning, to know something comprehensively, we need to have learned to sense it in all 10 layers.
At the same time, while holistic learning involves all ten layers, we can still learn things one layer at a time. In fact, everything we learn, we learn one layer at a time. Which is why some people who become school teachers can be so dreadfully boring. Why? Because whatever they teach is coming at you in only one Layer, often in only a Layer 2 sense of this teaching.
So do you learn anything when this happens? Yes, you do. Or I should say, yes, it is possible. However, while learning things in the Layer 2 sense of them is important, unless we also learn this stuff in an Inner Layer sense, while we may be able to parrot it perfectly, we may never really know what it means. In a "core personality" sense of knowing these things, that is. Which is why ten year olds can speak what appear to be very adult insights with very little actual insight. Which brings me to the focus of your questions; how children learn.
So what does learning look like when children do it, in each of the layers, that is?
To begin with, what this looks like depends on the child's age and specifically on whether this child can tell time yet or not. For instance, say we are talking about a six year old child. Let's further say we are talking about something a six year old would want to learn, for instance, to ride a bike. This desire often stems from a time wherein a younger child witnessed an older child having fun on a bike.
So what exactly happens when a six year old sees an eight year old having fun on a bike?
Think Layer 7. Especially if the child is below age seven. Why? Because before age seven, kids live, for the most part, almost entirely in the single moment they are currently witnessing. Which means, when they see something, they see it with their entire being.
This also means that when they learn something, they learn it with their entire energies. And to see what this means, think of what it would be like to feel "entirely focused" on something. Anything. Can you imagine what this is like?
Being so focused on whatever you see means that this thing literally becomes your whole world; your entire experience; your "everything." At least for this few moments anyway.
This, in fact, is what makes me say that children before age seven live in "Peter Pan" time.
It is also what makes people who fall in love feel and act so "childish." Falling in love occurs only in Peter Pan time.
Now consider which layers are involved here. To begin with, at birth, we have only four layers, Layer 7 through 10. We acquire the remaining 8 layers, then, only as we age. At least as far as acquiring them as fully formed layers.
Thus, when infants and young children learn, they learn entirely in layers 7 through 10. After all, this is all they have. And when adults learn something, they must learn it in all 10 layers. At least, if they want to really have learned it in the full sense of knowing it.
OK. For now, let's say we are talking about a four year old. Further, let's say this four year old sees an eight year old having fun riding a bike. What happens inside them?
When a four year old first sees an older child riding a bike, they often have an emergence. They literally fall in love with the image of this child riding a bike. In technical terms, this means the child has just learned about riding bikes in all four of their Inner Layers; in other words, in Layers 7 through 10.
How does this happen? First, they discover the spiritual beauty in riding bikes (Layer 10). Second, they learn they can feel connected to riders of bikes (Layer 9). Third, they learn that to be unable to ride a bike means they cannot connect to those who can ride a bike (Layer 8). And fourth, they learn they have a need to connect to those who do know how to ride a bike. As well as the need to experience the beauty in riding a bike (Layer 7).
Of course, children rarely have words for these kinds of intense inner experiences, let alone can recognize them when they feel them. Nonetheless, each time pre-age seven children learn, they do it in all four Inner Layers.
What about older children then? How do they learn as far as layers?
Most older children (post age seven kids) learn, first, by realizing something exists (Layer 2). Often then, in the next instant, they feel the Layer 7 need to know more about this something they just realized exists.
For instance, say an eight year old is watching a movie. Further, say that in this movie, she witnesses someone graduating from college. It is entirely possible for this eight year old to never have had a picture for graduating from college, even if she had previously heard the words. Thus, this might be the first time this eight year old is actually learning that graduating exists.
What layers does this kind of learning usually occur in? It usually occurs in layer 2, in the "I now know about it" layer. In additional, it is likely an eight year old would, in this very same moment, learn how it feels to "need" to graduate from college. At least in the childlike experience of, "I'm going to have to do that someday," or in the "I don't yet know how I'll ever learn this" sense of learning.
These kinds of learning occur mostly in Layer 7, as kinds of learned "neediness." Moreover, this kind of learned neediness often continues in us throughout our lives, even if we have no idea it exists.
Of course, when this kind of neediness comes up in eight year olds, they look to understand it, and often ask one of their parents questions about this need. For instance, an eight year old, on seeing a college graduation for the first time, may ask his mother, "Did you graduate from college?" And if the she did, his learning in and around this kind of life experience may extend beyond Layers 2 and 7.
For instance, if this child's parent looks fondly into the air and pictures the child graduating from college, the child may realize that graduating from college will someday create a personal connection between the two of them. They'll have this in common. Which means they have then learned about graduating from college in a Layer 9 sense (in a "connected to the parent" sense).
Even a Layer 10 sense of learning often occurs here. For instance, say this eight year old learns about graduating from college by attending the graduation of an older brother or sister. Witnessing the special magic of this kind of an event often teaches children things in a Layer 10 sense of the event, as in seeing a person they are connected to graduate from college can create a connection to the child's spiritual self as well.
Know that once we learn something in either a Layer 9 or a Layer 10 sense, we will also have a desire to learn it more fully. In other words, once the beauty in something emerges in us, this beauty creates a curiosity in us to know ,more about this something. Thus, to answer your next question; Is the "need to know" the same thing as "curiosity"?, the answer is, yes, but only if this something has been learned in either Layer 9 or Layer 10 or in both.
This means, once you learn about graduating from college in Layers 2, 7, 9, and 10, you will feel strong urges at times to know what this experience truly feels like. Meaning, the whole experience. The all ten layers experience. What would this be like?
In Layer 1, you'd simply not care. In Layer 3, you'd learn how college can't be done in a day; only a word at a time, paper at a time, a class at a time, a semester at a time and so on. In Layer 4, you'd learn to hate having to go to college. In Layer 5, you'd learn how it feels to be exhausted from the pressure of having to go to college.
As for the last two layers, Layers 6 and 8, most folks never do learn what things are like in these two layers. Why not? Because consciously learning in these two layers requires some pretty intense effort. What I'm saying is, this is not likely to happen by accident.
Thus, learning anything in a Layer 6 sense means you spend time exploring what you cannot picture about this particular thing. For instance, if we were taking once more about graduating from college, you might be unable to picture yourself graduating. However, even if you could recognize this inability in yourself, you'd still need to feel amazed by knowing it to actually be considered to have learned it in a Layer 6 sense.
As for Layer 8, learning anything in this way is the most difficult learning of all. Why? Because in Layer 8, nothing exists. Not even us as beings. In a sense then, learning in a Layer 8 sense means leaning that something have not value at all; none. Moreover, it requires we see the absolute absurdity in believing it ever did have a value. In the existential sense of the word "value," that is.
Even here though, learning in a Layer 8 sense is so difficult to describe that in truth, there are no words to describe what it is like. Why not? Because in Layer 8, there are no words. Nor anything else for that matter.
To be honest, the only way I know of to at all describe this experience is to say it is the experience of the Zen Master's moment of enlightenment. Not exactly something most of us even consciously experience.
Finally, to address your final question; How can a teacher "guide" them into Layer 7, i.e. arouse their "need to know" in a classroom? The answer is, by getting them to have either Layer 9 or Layer 10 learning experiences. Which is to say, by having them have emergences. These experiences then create the Layer 7 feeling of the "need to know" in them. As well, as creating the need to know in the other layers as well.
[Question 2] My son is 10 years old. He loves to play with his friends. In fact, his curiosity seems to always be flowing at those times. He's learning things and he feels happy.
He also loves to play music. Yet when I ask him to do homework or to practice his instrument, he's resistant. It feels like a chore to him. I don't think he learns very much, or is very happy, while studying or practicing music. How can I help him to delight in learning in that context, i.e. alone, without friends or classmates to interact with?
What makes it a bore though? Simple. We are not learning.. Thus, in a sense, these things are boring because when "practice" something, we are simply "parroting" something. Which means we are being forced to do some repetitive, Layer 2, inanely boring activity.
The trick then is to find new and better ways to precipitate learning during practice. In other words, ways in which your son has the strong possibility he may have something emerge in him. In this way, you would be changing the experience of practice into the possibility for discovery. Thus, the goal here would be to create situations in which he both plays music and learns to see the beauty in something he has yet to learn.
Said in other words, curiosity may have killed the cat, but it also kills boredom. Get your son to feel curious about something and you'll have him in position to learn to play music by his own choice and not by force.
[Question 3] I recently took an online IQ test. The results showed I had an IQ of 140. They state that their results are typically within 5% of "real" IQ tests. I don't know what my "real" IQ is, or what it even means, but whatever the measure of my intelligence, I feel somehow disconnected from this number, similar to how I feel disconnected from my musical talent. I don't have the curiosity or the drive to explore and express the depths of my gifts. I think I'm ashamed of my own delight. So here's the question: How do I find delight in being delighted?
What do I mean by having a Teacher's Emergence? What I mean is, we often have things emerge in us only in a single event sense of the word. In other words, we feel delight as we witness a single event for the first time.
Curious people then often feel drawn to look for similar events. They also often manage to link previous experiences to this newly emerged, single event.
The Teacher's Emergence then is having the ability emerge in you to see this newly emerged thread of similar experiences in other the lives of other people as well. As well as becoming able to non judgmentally witness the corresponding inability in people and at the same time, connecting their inability to your own former inability.
As for how you might do this in and around "delight," I'd say you need to work toward noticing when you cannot witness delight. This "hole in your conscious ability" holds the key to your seeing past it. As well as holding the key to becoming a teacher.
Finally, with regards to your IQ and what it means, you might take a look at the IQ Comparison Site. It states that IQs in the 90 - 110 range are the norm, with IQs of 140 and above being genius. In between, it calls people with IQs of 110 - 120, people of superior intelligence, and people with IQs of 120 - 140, people who have very superior intelligence.
The thing to know here would be what the the word IQ means. In the emergence sense of the word IQ, it is a measure of a person's general aptitude for recognizing patterns. And since recognizing visual patterns is the key to knowing what an emergence is, people who have a high aptitude for recognizing visual patterns can be said to have a high aptitude for making discoveries. Which, of course, is just another way to say, they are good at having emergences.
What is important to note here is how we can need to have these patterns emerge in every layer for us to truly be considered knowledgeable about something. Which then plays out in how experts tell us that having a high IQ does not necessary makes us highly creative. In other words, it is possible to have a high IQ and yet, be no more creative than a person on average intelligence. And to be a bit more specific, experts say that as peoples' IQ increases, their creative ability increases, but only up to about an IQ of 120. After this point, the relationship between IQ and creativity seems to drop off, as people who have an IQ of 200 appear to have no more chance to be creative than people who have an IQ of 120.
Said in simpler terms, IQ exists as a measure in all ten layers. It is simply a measure of peoples' ability to recognize patterns. Unfortunately, the creators of our present day IQ tests have not realized this and so, they have yet to divide their tests into measures of IQ per layer. This means that a person may have a high aptitude for seeing patterns in abstracts while at the same time, have a low aptitude for visually recognizing these patterns.
This in fact is why so few people actually understand fractals, even those considered expert in the complexity and chaos theory fields. You see, fractals, like classical geometry, are recognizable patterns. Which means you have to have a high aptitude for recognizing patterns in order to consciously see them. However, with shapes in classical geometry, you need to have a high aptitude for recognizing patterns which always repeat identically, while with fractal geometry, you need to have a high aptitude for recognizing patterns which always repeat differently.
Not such an easy thing to learn to do. Or teach. Which is what makes Emergence Personality Theory so hard to learn. Every concept in Emergence Personality Theory is based on a particular shape in fractal geometry. This shape, in fact, is what makes the concept knowable.
Unfortunately, since knowing fractal is such a difficult thing to learn to do, Emergence Personality Theory can be quite difficult to learn. Theoretically, that is. In practice, it is actually pretty easy to learn. As far as learning to do the basics anyway.
[Question 4] Space is infinitely more vast than the objects in space (galaxies, stars, etc.). Just as a hole is defined by the stuff around it, space (i.e. the Universe) is defined by the stuff within it. Is the Universe a "reverse hole"? Is the idea of the "Universe," a meta idea?
Where this is not true, of course, is in times wherein we try to look at the things we can see in our Universe, but at a scale which exceeds our capacity to see in the directly analog sense of see. This happens every time we try to look at things at either the quantum level (the "smaller than we can directly magnify up to our visual scale" level) and at the black hole level (at the "larger than we can shrink down to our visual level" scale level).
Either way, trying to se beyond our natural visual scale causes us to exceed the level at which we can directly picture what is in our world. Which makes these experiences the true "holes" into, and out of, our world.
Confused by what I just said? Don't fret. Physicists have yet to see what I've just said as true as well. And they are really trying. Which means, you're in pretty good company.