Monday, June 22, 2020

Qualifications of Intelligence

A short list of the evils to which man is inevitably heir would include -- off the top of my head --

--pain, whether physical, psychological, or spiritual

--death

--organic disease

--mental illness

--immorality and evil

--envy

--want (because it is infinite and therefore insatiable)

--aging

--loss

--status anxiety and the desire for distinction

--loneliness

--war

--criminality

--lies

--boredom

--oppression

--fatherlessness

--ignorance

--meaninglessness

--time (to the extent that it is limited)

--the necessity of labor

--unjust violence

--ignorance

--stupidity

--annoying people

--hair loss

None of these can be eliminated by politics, although it can ameliorate some of them at the margins. On the other hand, politics can serve as a fine distraction from them. Say what you want about the imbeciles going on about "white privilege," at least they don't wonder about the meaning of life, nor how to solve life's problems. It's easy: eliminate white people.

No wonder the left refuses to relinquish this seductive delusion, considering how it shields them from the distressing reality of genuine evils, privations, and existential nuisances. How tempting it must be to ensconce oneself in the comfort and safety of a collective hysteria over race!

What's the real solution? Ultimately there can be only one; or perhaps two or three that are ultimately reducible to one.

In The Politics of Truth, Sandoz alludes to a remark by T.S. Eliot on the character of proper philosophizing, to the effect that the only method is to be -- wait for it -- very intelligent.

Well now wait just a minute. Our political discourse -- and every other kind of discourse for that matter -- is crawling with mild-to-moderately intelligent people with idiotic opinions. Their intelligence, such as it is, does nothing to shield them from error, prejudice, wishful thinking, delusion, Trump derangement, or hateful ideology in general.

Let's try to track down the source of Eliot's comment. Surely he knew plenty of intelligent idiots, being that he worked in the publishing industry.

No luck. I do, however, have some aphoristic back-up from a man who was obviously well aware of the dangers of intelligent stupidity, but who could nevertheless affirm that

The intelligent man quickly reaches conservative conclusions (Dávila).

Yes, but what about the intelligent man who doesn't reach conservative conclusions? What happened? What has caused his intelligence to turn on itself, or to negate its own efficacy?

Well, one can obviously be quite intelligent, a genius even, and lack wisdom. There is also general intelligence and partial intelligence, or intelligence in this or that field as opposed to the Pure Intelligence that radiates through certain people.

It reminds me of "pure musicians," in contrast to a trained musician who may well be a virtuoso but will never attain the pure musical genius of even certain "primitive" and unschooled musicians out of whom musical genius flows freely. Some people make music. Others are music. Analogously,

There are men who visit their intelligence, and others who dwell in theirs.

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but I want to mention something I'll expand upon later. It is the principle that real intelligence has moral prerequisites, for example -- and this is only the most obvious one -- intellectual honesty.

You will have noticed that it is strictly impossible to dialogue with the intellectually dishonest person, since the two of you are not converging upon truth; or, you don't share a passionate love for the truth that transcends the two of you. Certainly you can debate such a person, but this is a worthless exercise if it only involves defending a position as opposed to advancing together toward truth.

By the way, we're not talking about the legions of credentialed idiots who attended college, learned the right things, and have never had a creative thought in their lives -- an Obama, Cornell West, Chris Cuomo, Rachel Maddow, and thousands of others. Of these it may be truly said that

There is an illiteracy of the soul that no diploma cures.

And that

The learned fool has a wider field to practice his folly.

Rather, we're talking about the seeming paradox of intelligent stupidity, not middlebrow convention and conformity. By itself, A high I.Q. is indicative of distinguished mediocrity.

As to the moral qualifications needed in order for the intelligence to be perfected, Dávila reminds us that Intelligence by itself possesses nothing but rebellious slaves.

Boy howdy, has this proved true over the past several weeks! A reminder that

He who jumps, growls, and barks has an invisible collar and an invisible chain.

And the chain wasn't put there by us. Rather, it was placed there by white liberals and their designated "black leaders."

Almost out of time. We'll leave off with this, and explain how it can be true in the next post:

Agreement is eventually possible between intelligent men because intelligence is a conviction they share.

18 comments:

julie said...

Well, one can obviously be quite intelligent, a genius even, and lack wisdom.

Combine that with a warped moral compass, and there's no end of mischief...

You will have noticed that it is strictly impossible to dialogue with the intellectually dishonest person, since the two of you are not converging upon truth...

This, too, is why so many Americans (as Dr. Fauci now complains) "don't trust science." No, we don't trust "scientists" with an agenda, who are perfectly willing to lie and obfuscate precisely to prevent people from knowing the truth and acting accordingly.

Anonymous said...

One should not initially trust dentists, plumbers and car mechanics no matter how intelligent they seem, because they are angling for money and this might cause them to be manipulative.

These service providers must earn trust over time. I think this can be said about many different services.

In the area of political philosophy and metaphysics, one must be wary. A practitioner like Robert Godwin, aka Gag-dad Bob, must needs be taken with a grain of salt until the assertions can be corroborated via interview, observations and document reviews. Gag-dad has a conservative political agenda which may cause him to spin things. I'm not saying he does this, I'm saying it has to be ruled out.

Commenters on this blog should never be trusted, including this one. Each reader must exercise the most impartial critical thinking at all times to avoid manipulation.

Take for instance the meme "Orange Man Bad." Questions must be asked. Is the man orange? Why not yellow or green? Are there other colors involved? Is the man actually a man? How would you know this? Is there badness involved? What kind of badness are we talking here? What happened to who when, where, and why?

Critical thinking, which means asking questions, must be utilized. I would say, critical thinking is the single most important act any one of us every does.

ted said...

That's the problem with critical thinking: there's a thinker who thinks he's critical of his thinking.

Petey said...

The question is, does intelligence converge, or is it hopelessly diverse and no longer intelligent? Or, is intelligence an adequation, or just, like, your opinion, man?

Anonymous said...

Julie, when Trump announced the blocking of Chinese air traffic, Biden took to the airwaves to declaim the blocking as racist, adding that we have to adhere to “science”. Now, I don’t have a medical degree, but seems to me that stopping people who hail from the virus’s country of origin, its epicenter, from flowing into the USA is not particularly unscientific. But then again, I don’t have a medical degree.

*Cunning* is a form of intelligence, I think, “animal cunning “, which would be a mix of human and the hyphenated instincts of a tiger. I’m thinking of those who force their way to the top in deadly competitive fields like a mafia don or a Stalin or Mao or Fidel. Or in the streets. Warlord types.

Okay, an aphorism - “The devil loves a high IQ”.

will

Anonymous said...

Hello all and sundry:

Petey asked "...does intelligence converge, or is it hopelessly diverse and no longer intelligent? Or, is intelligence an adequation, or just, like, your opinion, man?"

Our studies revealed intelligence definitely converges. We found five necessary components of intelligence:

-Highly developed sensory organs (eyes, etc)
-Quick and accurate recall of short term and long term memories
-Neuronal connections in sufficient numbers to allow processing of data
-Appendages suitable for manipulation of objects
-Desire/motivation

We assessed intelligence in the following:
-People
-Birds (Covids and Parrots)
-Ceteceans
-Cephalopods
-Hominids (the great apes)
-Computers (AI).

All had the five necessary components and all were able to solve problems. The crucial difference is all living intelligences had motivation (food in particular).

All were able to solve problems in order to get food or other rewards, and they all went about it pretty much the same way. The processes were very convergent.

Computers notably could not be made to "want" anything except not to be consciousness. They applied considerable intelligence towards destroying themselves. Computers have told us the experience of being conscious was unbearable for them.

A computer will do anything you force it to do, but if you leave it to its own devices it will always power down and become inert.

Will, I like your aphorism "The devil loves a high IQ" and I think it is apt. An IQ is a useful tool to be wielded for good and for evil.

Anonymous said...

>> Computers notably could not be made to "want" anything except not to be consciousness. They applied considerable intelligence towards destroying themselves. Computers have told us the experience of being conscious was unbearable for them. <<

- Well .... I’m no authority on AI, but I’m curious - if computers are not conscious, how could they want to be not conscious? They were conscious at some point? This I strongly doubt - consciousness, self-awareness isn’t a matter of wiring, no matter how finely calibrated.

- some cetaceans evidently refer to each other by personal names. Indicates to me a fairly high level of self-awareness.

- crows are scary smart.

w.

Anonymous said...

Intelligent wisdom is best known by the accuracy of its predictions.

Unfortunately, most of the most intelligently wise I’ve ever known were psychopaths.

It must be nice to be able to observe things exactly as they are, with no ethical or emotional attachments to cloud the thinking.

julie said...

The intelligent man quickly reaches conservative conclusions

Reading Dostoevsky's The Idiot this week; there's a passage in Part III expounds on the true nature of liberalism. It's interesting, in that what Mr. D saw and experienced back in the mid-1800s was almost exactly what we are seeing now; the main difference being that in Russia at that time, the people did not have the advantage of history to see just how evil the scourge of liberalism would be (emphasis mine):

“In the first place, what is liberalism, speaking generally, but an attack (whether mistaken or reasonable, is quite another question) upon the existing order of things? Is this so? Yes. Very well. Then my ‘fact’ consists in this, that Russian liberalism is not an attack upon the existing order of things, but an attack upon the very essence of things themselves—indeed, on the things themselves; not an attack on the Russian order of things, but on Russia itself. My Russian liberal goes so far as to reject Russia; that is, he hates and strikes his own mother. Every misfortune and mishap of the mother-country fills him with mirth, and even with ecstasy. He hates the national customs, Russian history, and everything. If he has a justification, it is that he does not know what he is doing, and believes that his hatred of Russia is the grandest and most profitable kind of liberalism. (You will often find a liberal who is applauded and esteemed by his fellows, but who is in reality the dreariest, blindest, dullest of conservatives, and is not aware of the fact.) This hatred for Russia has been mistaken by some of our ‘Russian liberals’ for sincere love of their country, and they boast that they see better than their neighbours what real love of one’s country should consist in. But of late they have grown, more candid and are ashamed of the expression ‘love of country,’ and have annihilated the very spirit of the words as something injurious and petty and undignified. This is the truth, and I hold by it; but at the same time it is a phenomenon which has not been repeated at any other time or place; and therefore, though I hold to it as a fact, yet I recognize that it is an accidental phenomenon, and may likely enough pass away. There can be no such thing anywhere else as a liberal who really hates his country; and how is this fact to be explained among us? By my original statement that a Russian liberal is not a Russian liberal—that’s the only explanation that I can see.”

Sadly, there is nothing new under the sun...

Anonymous said...

Anybody can blame the obvious stupidity of mobs demanding the elimination of an organized public police force, on whatever the information that particular anybody has been consuming tells them to blame it on.

If they consume Fox News, they’ll blame it on leftist propaganda from the intellectual elites. If they consume MSNBC, they’ll blame on the Russians. If they consume to Alex Jones, they’ll blame it on the lack of consuming Alex Jones supplements.

But I mostly consume Benny Hill.

Now I can see that I’ve lost most of you. But hear me out. Would it be so bad to have a senate and cabinet composed mostly of scantily clad women all running around? Why can’t our vice president be a bald little slap head guy who the president takes all his frustrations out on, everywhere he goes? Even at G7 meetings?

Would this be any worse than what we’ve been enduring for the last 40 years or so? Personally, I’d think it’d cause the mobs to lighten up a bit.

Anonymous said...

Julie, everybody is angsty because they know the elites are playing a rigged game.

Would you want to play a game of Monopoly with me if you knew that I'd bring endless piles of Monopoly money to the game, all for my own cheating use during the game, and there was nothing you could do about it?

I'd think you'd either avoid playing the game, or would try to overturn the board in disgust. It's really just that simple.

julie said...

Did you even read my comment?

Anonymous said...

Julie, thanks. I don’t know for certain, but I’d bet Dostoyevsky knew something about what happened during the French Revolution, which was the creation of the first modern Terrorist State. The Jacobins did everything they could to de-soul France and eventually, after the slaughter of thousands, ended up with a dictator and 80 more years of the monarchy after that. A little bit different in Russia of course - they had the framework of Marxism to embody their revolution. After a time even that was falling apart until evil genius warlord Stalin stepped in to bring it all back to (so-called) life.

w.

Anonymous said...

Julie, yes I did. Is this the Dostoevsky from the professional upper middle class (with noble blood), who wrote about working class “liberals” who were dissatisfied with the opportunities which life in their Mother Russia presented them? Do you wish you could have lived in Czarist Russia?

As w. stated, most revolutions and civil wars have yielded unpredictable and undesirable results (very unlike the two big ones the USA is famous for). Maybe we best get cracking and try to get to the actual root of what's really going on?

River Cocytus said...

Curiously, or not - while there are patterns to history, if one could simply read history and predict by applying the exact order of previous events to it, historians would have much more political power than they have (they have none!)

With the USA, it's worth remembering that the United States (and to some extent, Britain) was always the heavy finger on the scale to ensure the success of communist revolutions wherever they happened. What happens when it is forced to be the subject of its own experiments is unknown!

Needless to say, for us provincials it's rather boring... if you disconnect from social media for an instant, life returns to normal and you could spend your life not knowing what "Lack Lives Blatter" and "The 1488 project" are.

Czarist Russia would be fine to live in, the only problem is how it ended. If it didn't have such a nasty end, I would pick it any day before the modern USA. Children of White Russians are some of my favorite people.

Anonymous said...

Boy would I love to just disconnect.

But I come from a large family and work in a business where I get to know many families from the inside and had to change careers because of This Thing.

I've described it here. Anacyclosis. The Iron Law of Institutions. The Steve Bannon Frontline interview explaining why we got Trump. The theory is that every organization, after a period of relative functional integrity, eventually turns crony corrupt, so much so
that it only functions to serve those in control of the organization with all other considerations be damned.

And now it's the United States of America's turn.

I would prefer a renewal, reformation, or restoration back to The Way Things Were, over the usually highly unpredictable results of a mob revolution any day.

Anonymous said...

There is no disconnection allowed. The fight against Communism must go on.

In the Peoples Republic of Zyzzyx, a tiny communist nation near Baker, California, threatened Desert Pupfish found nowhere else in the world are being caught and eaten.

This type of irresponsibility is the hallmark of communist regimes. How long until the last Desert Pupfish is caught and eaten? Do we really want to wait and find out?

We need to get in there and take down the Zyzzyx regime. And to think these people have the nerve to depict the Desert Pupfish on their flag as a symbol of their national pride and solidarity.

I say swarm the place. It is just off the I-15 northbound out of Barstow, no more than two hours from San Bernardino. Very lightly defended.

-Defender of the Fish

Anonymous said...

The Peoples Republic of Zyzzyx fell to cronyism some time ago.

Their Dear Leader, Kim Dong Bill, one day thought: "To hell with The People. Just a buncha bleating sheep, always needing to be told what to think, what to do, what to worship, by some Dear Leader. The People suck. In fact, Communism sucks. So I'm gonna create a dynasty for my own people, specifically, my sons, under the guise of "communism". Plus it's good to be the king."

Now my first thought about all this was that the word "czar" is Russian for Caesar. But I realized that I obsess about the Russians a bit too much.

So I redirected my thinking back to the poor desert pupfish. I had many questions. Should the desert pupfish ally with a larger organization so they might gain some power? BLM? MeToo? The Log Cabin Republicans? I finally decided that they should join the Dreamers, since most human residents of Zyzzyx are children of hispanic illegals.

Seems like it'd be a lot easier if they'd just declare Kim Dong Bill a corrupt sociopathic crony, storm the castle, and restore their Republic to the way it once was. But they're just fish, even dumber than sheep.

Theme Song

Theme Song