Our topic this evening: Wisdom and "Spiritual Intelligence".
The direction is set by the question, “Is ‘wisdom’, by its nature, ‘intelligence’?” To help us consider this question, Ian introduces us to Howard Gardner's concept of Multiple Intelligence (1999), different types of intelligence, going beyond that which is identified in standard IQ tests. These different kinds of intelligence are illustrated in the picture at the top of this entry and are (reading clockwise in the illustration):
- verbal-linguistic ("word smart") the capacity to use language to express what's on your mind and to understand other people
- logical-mathematical ("logic smart") the ability to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal system
- musical ("music smart") the capacity to think in music, to hear patterns, recognise them and perhaps manipulate them
- intra-personal (“self smart”) having an understanding of yourself, of knowing who you are, what you can do etc
- inter-personal (“people smart”) the ability to understand other people
- bodily-kinaesthetic (“body smart”) capacity to use your whole, or parts of your, body
- spatial (“picture smart”) the ability to present the spatial world internally in your mind
Other versions of this illustration contain "naturalistic" (nature smart) and "existentialist" intelligence. We didn't touch on these in this evening's session.
In discussing the meaning of "spirit" - in a way that avoids fuzzy religiosity or new-agey feelgood practices - we go to the Latin root of the word: spiritus - that which breathes life or vitality into a system.
This brings to mind one of my favourite quotes on spirit and spirituality, from Robert Wyatt: "A French journalist asked if my music was spiritual, and I said, 'Only in the original sense of spirit meaning breath'."
I also think of the example that has stood me in good stead over recent years, that of people being happy to describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" in a variety of settings (I usually draw on the example of Internet dating sites) without really saying just what that means – except that it’s a good thing.
Zohar and Marshall (2003) define "spiritual intelligence" as "the intelligence with which we can place our actions and lives in a wider, richer, meaning-giving context; the intelligence with which we can assess that one course of action or one life-path is more meaningful than another." In this sense, when we think of "spirit", it directs us to a deeper level of meaning, toward the import or implications of what is said, thought, written or read. We talk of the "spirit of the law" being something greater, more significant and more meaningful than the "letter of the law" – even if it escapes definition.
In terms of education, it’s current to consider the spiritual, moral, social, cultural implication for everything that pupils, students and learners may be studying (at the most recent meeting of Leicester SACRE, we had a presentation on how SMSC is making a comeback in the curriculum).
The table below helps us understand Zohar and Marshall's concept of "spiritual capital" - and where it fits with the nature and function of other kinds of capital.
INTELLIGENCE | FUNCTION | CAPITAL |
Rational | What I think | Material |
Emotional | What I feel | Social |
Spiritual | What I am | Spiritual |
We're set a small group exercise of coming up with three nuggets of wisdom that we'd give to the world, based on Zohar and Marshall's model. For my part, I'd say that the world currently revolves around "What I want", "What I own" and "What I need" - and would advocate replacing these functions with those identified in the table above.
For once, we're given a little homework. We're asked to reflect on our own fiath perspective (assuming we each have one) - historically, contemporary, potentially - and think of examples of spiritual intelligence (or of spiritual stupidity!).
No comments:
Post a Comment