Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org &
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / Survival / Intelligence /
Mission: to examine how kleptocracies cheat with their reasoning
At the binary level of understanding zero is zero: zero is also not one. “Things” are minimally duel. I recommend binary reflection for a number of things we think of as independent: freedom, intelligence …
Uh, duh … So what?
Try this: what meaning can an intelligence quotient have without reference to a stupidity quotient?
My reading of Denis Wood made me chuckle last night when dealing with the evolution of the human brain. Marvelous, complex … Sure, he agreed: but so is an acre of soil. Wood failed to see that the brain was any more marvelously evolved than the acre of soil. He wrote this within a page or two of referring to the evolution of human stupidity: in relation of course to the evolution of human intelligence.
I don’t doubt that Harvard’s institutional IQ is more than respectable compared to the institutional IQ of institutions B or C. But what’s Harvard’s stupidity quotient? What’s the stupidity quotient of institutions B and C?
First of all, I believe we should be very skeptical about measurements made by the measured. I wouldn’t trust an IQ measurement for humans made by Martians without knowing a fair amount about the Martian’s method of measurement, without refection of the Martians’ possible motives in biasing their results. Information is difference, macroinformation is (a constellation of) meta-difference. There’s rich information in any comparison between man’s measure of man and God’s measure of Man; between God’s measure of man and Lucifer’s measure of man; between Jews’ measure of God and Buddhists’ measure of God …
Forget about God’s (ahem) reality for the moment: grant certain concepts mythic utility: symbolic utility. Thus: you may understand my reference if I employ “Jesus” in an example without testing either of us on dogma. Now: in the God … Jesus story as told by more than one group, Jesus is a Messiah and the Jews killed him. There’s been no trial. There’s no universal agreement on fact. Under such circumstances can a Jew and a Christian possibly discuss who or what Jesus was rationally? Give both sides a generous stupidity estimate.
The United States (ahem) borrowed Iroquois democracy after writing many of its most liberal elements out of it: equality for women, for example. Can democracy be rationally discussed between a US citizen and an Iroquois? a Mohawk for example? Give the United States a huge stupidity estimate.
Out of the army, I began graduate school at NYU: full of piss and vinegar. This professor and that professor seemed to understand much of what I offered, but I had no sense that the Department had understood a thing. Five years later, the blank seemed permanent. So, following Ivan Illich’s design for learning webs, I offered NYC and the world a low-cost, low tech internet: bypass the universities, link people, reinvent the open market, obviate government … institute a digital democracy! I did this while matriculated at NYU. I did this while living at Columbia. Did either Columbia or NYU register my offer?
When the Church didn’t like what Galileo had discovered, the Church challenged him, threatened him, beat him back down. Columbia / NYU merely ignored me. Nothing I said registered. Columbia and NYU were networked in 1970. So was New York State and the USofA. If the public were networked, where would that leave the advantages of NYU, Columbia, USA, NYS? No, no. Give them a huge stupidity quotient. Attribute Homeostasis to them, but not sentience.
Intelligence? Sure. But compared to their stupidity, their intelligence isn’t worth much.
Note: these events cannot be rationally discussed between NYU and pk: or the world. There are no facts in common. No objectivity is possible: no more than if the priest and the rabbi discussed the Passion: or if a Houyhnhnm tried to discuss reason with Gulliver’s London judge.
I suspect that any culture may be defined by what it won’t see as much as by what it thinks it sees.
@ K. 2004 12 05
2012 06 24 The above was posted two years before my arrest. It was NYU that sicced the FBI on me, the FBI escorted by the sheriff. My sentencing judge forbade me ever to have any contact with NYU. (My public defender said to the judge you mean he can’t repay his student loan? The judge was furious with the lawyer: of course he can: the judge wholly incapable of understanding complexity, irony, contradiction … Bunch of Nazis.) I never got to explain to the judge (though the lawyer understood, unofficially, off the record) that I’d already accepted that it was, as it had long been, impossible to communicate with NYU! I wouldn’t have bothered to invent an internet if it had been possible!
My network would have sought the natural intelligence level of the society, instead of being artificially depressed by by coercions and licensings of fiat government.
And the judge probably believed that his Nazi tactics were defending civilization!
I of course believed that I was the only person in the room, in the courthoouse, in the county, in the state … who had striven to preserve civilization: after correcting some of its errors.
Sure I wanted the old evil civilization destroyed: in order to save our future.