Aliens Looking for Real Fun (Spellling, Shampoo, Sheidlina and the Antisphere)

Spellling I find to be the contemporary Queen of Pop and the greatest Queen of Pop since Shampoo! Consequently, Shampoo are barely remembered and Spellling is barely known (currently she has 1.824 followers on FB). Shampoo were perfect individuals, and individualism is what (some) people try to achieve and some collective phantasma; in the final instance, nevertheless, the individual is an antithesis to any collective and therefore disembedded. The perfect individual will be truly monadic, and the highest degree of individuality gets achieved when someone erects his empire in the highest anarchy, as a loner and a hermit, says Nietzsche. Whereas Shampoo were a fusion of punk, kitsch, girlie pop, abrasiveness, cuteness, Sex Pistols, East 17 and Gary Numan; Spellling is commonly characterised as an amalgam of afropop, R & B, darkwave, vintage electronic, howling, whispering, presence and elusiveness, something that is child-like as well is it is uncanny and haunted. Yet, by all means, the music of Spellling is perfectly pure and in no way derivative. Bhagwan, the 20th century Zarathustra, says: One who wants to transcend this obnoxious humanity will need to be so extreme that humanity will deem him/her crazy! Spellling appears highly eccentric, also (occasionally) in the way she dresses (at most occasions she is just rather casually clothed though, like I am, since we are no pretenders), in reality she is just completely sane and is the magic source and the center from which all rationality and creativity pours out. There she stands, in stasis, where everything around her revolves! Nietzsche says, (when the highest level of consciousness is reached), there shall be „something inexpressible, to which joy and truth are only feeble after-images … earth is losing its gravity, the incidents and the powers of earth become dream-like, like on a summer evening a transfiguration and glorification comes into place….“ (Schopenhauer as Educator). Yes, indeed, strange celestial realms, which are beyond that what is commonly imagined as Heaven (since they also incorporate, as a necessary by-product of totality, Hell). It is the Antisphere! In Heaven you are in a permanent communion with Christ, the Grand Unifier. However, how should the wandering mind be in an everlasting communion with anything, including the Grand Unifier?! The Antisphere explodes with colours. It is the phase space of creativity. In the Antisphere you are in a negatively curved space, on a line of flight into infinity, as you are in permanent communion with your own transgression. In the Antisphere you do not want to confirm of affirm yourself. You want to get rid o fand away from yourself. All my life I just tried to get away from myself, said Marcel Duchamp, the Holy Ghost of 20th century art. That´s the spirit of art and of (any sort of) enlightenment! In the Antisphere you are in perfect harmony with yourself, since in the Antisphere you are the source. Janis said, of all the great artists he had personally met, only Duchamp and Mondrian had been truly harmonious and uncompetetive personalities. This is the Antisphere. Spellling says she loves the figures of wizards, tricksters and jesters. Yorick, the Fool. Spellling says the essence of Spellling is about capturing the essence, the magic of every moment. As concerns the heavens, Spellling says she does not know about the afterlife, but she is interested in parallel lives. Her dad has synaesthesia. In the video to Under the Sun (set up by congenial collaborator Catalina Xavlena and in which you see the Antisphere) she dances like the most intelligent person in the world. In general, in the Antisphere the dances between signifier and the signified are beyond common understanding and beyond the limits of (post) structuralism, they become a unified whole, reality and dream become one, the phantasma becomes transgressed; it is the mind of the Grand Unifier death to false metal.

Solange, the little eccentric sister of Beyoncè, I find also charming ->

Sheidlina is also from the Antisphere. She once said, after doing this stuff for years, she has come to recognise that coolness like that will only ever be something for a tiny minority to be grasped (haha, very cool!).

Leonardo da Vinci, Apex Predator

Today, 500 years ago, Leonardo da Vinci died. After a rather bumpy ride through the ages as concerns his fame and reputation, he is, in our age, considered as probably the highest ranking genius and uomo universale in the history of mankind, as concerns creativity, intelligence, versatility, authenticity and clairvoyance. Bumpy as is the ride of history, future generations may think otherwise (yet unlikely very much otherwise); at any rate Leonardo´s mind and personality and ouevre may serve as an illustration of what may be expected to happen at the most upper extreme, if not the definitive apex of human intelligence, creativity and spirituality, and also what may be the ultimate vantage point, and vanishing point, of art and what art could ever be. Beyond the scope of an era-defining genius (like Goethe or Voltaire), Leonardo is a superstar of humanity. Hardly matched in his artistic ingeniousity, he is probably unmatched in the scope of his interests, mastery over various domains and probably also as concerns the complexity an artistic vision and a worldview ever can reach – despite being, in their complexity, very harmoniously balanced and, to some considerable degree, at peace with itself (indicating what is commonly referred to as „transcendence“ and a Satori-like vision). Such appears not only his intellect, but also, even more miracously, the man.

Apart from his intellectual and artistic abilities and his miraculous craftsmanship, Leonardo was described as a very attractive and elegant man, jovial, cheerful and eloquent; his reputation as a „dandy“ obviously drew upon the fact that he liked to dress well and in an individual manner. An Adonis in his younger days, he „successfully“ embodied the bearded, long haired sage and druid in his later days (and that he seemed to have aged prematurely is also a good fit into the whole story). „All man and all nature“ was said to be attracted to Leonardo, not only due to his natural goodness, but also because of his distinctive entertaining qualities which ranged from telling instant jokes and spreading words of wisdom to staging extravagant theater-like performances with which he baffled his audiences not only with his intelligence and imagination but also his craftsmanship. He was also said to be an extraordinary musician and that he could sing in a beautiful voice. Neither ascetic nor an distinctive hedonist, and in contrast to Michelangelo´s rather neurotic endeavours in that respect, money and fame mattered to Leonardo just as much as it enabled him to maintain his rather modest and self-sufficient way of living. What mattered most to him, is that he was able and free to sustain his permanent investigations into nature, art and technology. His homosexuality (or homophiliac bisexuality) may have helped him to grasp feminity in the stunning way he did – the Renaissance was not an overly patriarchic age and Renaissance women were relatively free, respected and liberated; in many of his paintings, Leonardo gave women an accentuated physiognomy and portrayed them with great sensibility (though his ultimate quest was for expressing the universal; also you have some scepticism in those portrayals; like the relatively blank physiognomy of the, nevertheless distinctive and intense, Lady with an Ermine, Cecilia Gallerani, in contrast to the very carefully painted ermine). Despite him being the intellectual apex predator, Leonardo had become a vegetarian early in his life. Friendly and gentle, usually in good humor, Leonardo was decent and generous towards humans and he was a nature and animal lover; especially attracted he was to horses and to birds – it would happen that at a mart, he would purchase birds just to release them from their cages and let them fly away. Despite that, he prided himself with being able to construct war machines and war technology of great destructive capacity, and despite being a republican by heart, he became affiliated with various noblemen and „war lords“ of his time, including Cesare Borgia (who, as a somehow transcendent phenomenon, however attracted also the curiosity not only of Machiavelli and, later, Nietzsche but also of many others ever since). As a general feature, Leonardo remained aloof over politics and contemporary affairs; one might even perceive an „icy“ disinterest in politics and the political struggles of his time and age. What distinguishes him from the opportunist and nihilist (not to speak of the careerist) is that politics (i.e., at least at that time, the management of the fragmentary and temporary) truly was below him and the (fatalistic) insight that, due to the nature of man and the multitude of human temperaments, politics and political engagement remains a bit of a fruitless passion and a dismal science, at least for someone that is able to touch, instead, the eternal and the heavens. Political affiliations within shifting balances of power made not only Dante´s life miserable – and that of many others ever since – and despite his indifferent attitude towards the powerful may have hindered him to become a huge success during his lifetime, Leonardo obviously managed to sail and navigate relatively well over the turbulent political waters of his time. That he was also a child of his time can be seen that he believed in stuff like astrology, the medical theories of Galen or accepted Aristotle as highest-ranking authority like the medieval scholasts did, notions that soon thereafter became more outdated among the educated. Despite being very insightful about geometry, Leonardo did not manage to calculate properly, neither he learned (or was able to learn) Latin, the lingua franca of the educated and the humanists at that time, which probably has aggravated to hostility between Leonardo and the humanists. Leonardo was fond of silly jokes and anecdotes and of the grotesque, and some of his drawings of grotesque characters became inspirational for the initial drawings to Alice in Wonderland. That does come as a surprise as the genius usually is childish, funny, off-the-wall and drawn to paradoxes, and the grotesque are transgressive epiphanies of what lies beyond the frontiers of human imagination. Leonardo´s grotesque drawings are both funny and sad, harmless and brutal, etc. referring to cosmic indifference towards what we, in general, perceive as the wonders of creation. Leonardo was, more or less, fully realised human potential. Concerning gender, he had distinct masculine as well as feminine characteristics; concerning age, he combined the playfulness of a child with the wisdom of an old sage. He was determined and knew what he want (though apparently erratic in his endeavours), but he seemed to have a soft ego. He experienced melancholy and joy. He knew about the abyss as well as about the celestial spheres. He was more human than man. Very rarely it appears that a man achieves true harmony within himself (among the 20th century painters probably only Mondrian and Duchamp). Leonardo likely was of that kind.

The Renaissance was the dawn of a new era, and of a great transformation concerning the ways man saw himself and interacted with the world. In all preceding periods you have man embedded (and occassionally crushed) within a cosmic whole (and a relatively static social order). If it had not been explicitly conceptualised or reflected (or, apparently, conceptualised loosely and somehow ironically like in the case of ancient Greece), man had implicitely lived and behaved in such a fasion. The loss of such an (embracive, but also terrifying) totality has been mourned ever since, since man obviously is unhappy when he has to live under conditions of scepticism, relativity, multiple viewpoints and temporary truths, i.e. conditions that you have in modernity (and if you are unhappy about that as well, just think about whether you would prefer to go back to the middle ages). In the Renaissance, the foundations of man as a competent individual that is able to emerge from a background had been laid (though they would again become oppressed in the Counterreformation). The genius is the most pronounced form of man doing away with established modes of thinking, epistemologies and ideologies when he is thinking and when he does create (despite being very knowledgeable about them and therefore able to transcend them). The Renaissance, therefore, apparently, was an era of genius, and Leonardo the climax of his era. Leonardo did not make an ideology (because, likely, he was too intelligent for that), but the foundation of his whole attitude and approach towards the world was relying on primary observation and experience and rationalising it to deduce knowledge as well as to test established knowledge by the same means – and sorting out established knowledge if it fails short of such a test. His most beloved sensory organ was the eye as it was – so he thought at that time – the organ with which the world could be most primarily, innocently and correctly experienced. Likewise, painting was the highest-ranking art to him, as via painting you are able to catch, view and express the world most directly and immediately; as a philosopher-painter he would become immersed in questions about how perception actually works and how the world can be most properly portrayed. He expressed distrust not only in scholastic knowledge, but, more fundamentally, in language, which he deemed dubious, amiguous and obscure and, moreover, man-made and probably „culture dominating over nature“ and not vice versa as you supposedly have it in the sensory perception of vision. Correspondigly, literature and poetry was an art inferior to painting to him („coincidentally“, Leonardo himself was not a writer or a poet; while his writing style was clear and precise, it considerably lacked the imaginative depth that was so characteristic for him as a painter and in many other respects). Leonardo´s curiosity stemmed to a considerable degree from painting and from his interest to excel in painting, like his interest in anatomy, in nature, in proportions and in how perception works; yet of course he would have also many other interests as interests per se (eventually, everything would become an interest per se for Leonardo). His interest in flying may have gone hand in hand with his passion for birds and ornithology, his interest in medicine and how the body works from his interest in anatomy; at any rate, however, his interest in technology and many other things was a matter in itself and stemmed from a curiosity in itself and a passion for gaining intellectual insight and mastery over things in itself. Because of this, you may even have difficulties in thinking of Leonardo as a man – as he rather appears as a fog or the Blob, an entity with open contours, that feeds and grows – or withdraws when it loses interest.

At the beginning of the 21st century we like to think of our time as one of rapid acceleration. Consider however, that such was also the time of Leonardo: From 1450 to 1550, Europe underwent a rapid transformation of a backward continent that, by the end of that timespan, had laid the foundations upon which it would leave the rest of the world behind for the centuries to come. Leonardo was, somehow, moving with the same – maybe too pronounced – speed. Leonardo´s famous „inability“ to complete many things and projects he started appears as a manifestation of a mind wandering at ultra-high speed and versatility, but also seems to borderline to an attention deficit disorder. – I find it sad that he never did a final portrait of Isabella d´Este, a magnificent and highly interesting female regent of the Renaissance (though it is also somehow „funny“ that the strong-willed and, likely, autocratic Isabella did not come very far when it came to impose her will on the eccentric Leonardo), yet however Leonardo´s (obvious) drawing of her is probably more articulate and charismatic than anything else could had ever been. Sometimes sketches, drawings, experiments and etudes can be more articulate and telling and grasping more of a (turbulent) reality than something that is finalised and „classic“. Likewise, some things are more pronouced when they are finally left unsaid, and some things are better left unsaid anyway. Likely, Leonardo also knew that many of his technological constructions and scientific ruminations were preliminary and tentative and therefore he may have refrained from wasting his time by finally and systematically elaborating on them apart from the, at any rate often staunchly elaborate, sketches in his notebooks. That being said, Leonardo´s frequent failure to finalise things may not be failures at all, but due to a deeper insight into stuff and bravery and independence of mind. To the things that mattered to him and to projects he began to really find something out or to move to new territories in science or in the arts, Leonardo could be stubbornly devoted. That, not least, applies to the Mona Lisa on which he had obviously been working for years with the obvious determination to create out of it what it had finally become: a perfect human portrait (he finally had kept to himself) – that probably does not show Lisa del Giocondo, as is the dominant narrative, but – Isabella d`Este. Again in contrast, Leonardo´s most notorious failure – the feeble material construction of The Last Supper (that began to fade only decades after its creation and had to be restored multiple times ever since, with probably only 20 percent of the original artwork remaining nowadays) – may have been an indication that Leonardo actually and paradoxically lacked insight and care for the preservation of the things he had put so much obsession into to create them (though also likely the execution of The Last Supper was a – correct – compromise between means and ends; by using other means he may have not been able to execute the painting in the same way at all). Leonardo also seemed to have had reduced insight in circumstance that scientific discovery is a cumulative and collaborative process and has to rely on publication and discussion of findings and theories (which he did not really foster for himself), despite the, somehow legitimate but also distorted, perception that the „scientific community“ of his time would not be intelligent enough to understand him anyway. Among the „mysteries“ about Leonardo questions remain whether his apparent shortcomings derive from his „super sanity“ and from the plethora of his inner life, or also from actual deficits or „insanities“ and frenzies. Leonardo, likely, would have found such ruminations about him, that involve modern medicine and psychology, quite amusing – and, of course, highly interesting.

The lasting effect of the Renaissance was the discovery of individuality. Art is about examinating and illustrating the essence of things; and whereas in medieval art you had portrayals of man as a stereotypical member in a hierarchical, feudalistic collective, idealised via attribution of ephemeral aspects of beauty in the contemporary period, you have individualised portrayals of man (and of the entire creation, including the divine creator) in the Renaissance era. Leonardo pioneered and transgressed that motive and attitude into psychological and narrative portrayal of man and nature: The conquest for capturing the (indivdual) „soul“ of a person in and via the means of an artwork has a distinct predecessor in Leonardo. Leonardo, however, was not actually interested in capturing the individuality of a person and a thing, but to express universality – via the expression of idiosyncratic and expressive individuality (an understanding that brought him into some conflict with Michelangelo, who rather relied on expressing idealised beauty and muscular men as an epitome of that). The Renaissance era also paved the way for a modern and rational understanding of man and of nature, thus enabling man´s mastery over nature via technology. While Galileo Galilei is considered the founding father of modern science that relies on unideological observation, deduction and induction and on the scientific experiment, Leonardo had followed the same approach a century before – and many of his observations and conclusions as well as his constructions proved to be (at least in principle) correct only most recently. Despite that, Leonardo nevertheless lived in a pre-scientific age and was operating in a no man´s land. Not least likely due to envy and being confronted with something they likely sensed to be meaningful but which they could not properly master and understand, the educated elite and the humanists of his time were dismissive of Leonardo´s ideas and his entire attitude, respectively hostile towards them, relying instead on the academic scholarship of ancient stars like Aristotle as the ne plus ultra (therein forgetting that Aristotle did not rely on sterile scholarship himself, but accumulated his wisdom – naturally – by the same means like Leonardo). That Leonardo did not speak Latin and, due to his rather modest beginnings, was not prestiguously educated furthered the aliention between Leonardo and the humanists. As a true avant-gardist, Leonardo was, to a considerable degree, an alien within his time. From the later period in his life one would find a (stunning) portrait of a bearded old man in his sketchbooks, seemingly introspective but also apparently desillusioned and melancholic: obviously a self-portrait or self-caricature. A reccurent motive in his sketchbooks, maybe (also) of self-caricature, is a toothless old man that obviously gets harrassed by youth or by grotesque figures: Powerful and nearly divine in his abilities as he was, Leonardo was also relatively powerless. The shadow appearane of his high-ranking and clairvoyant intellect was that he could exercise relatively little influence and persuasion among his contemporaries because he was too distinguished from them. Throughout his lifetime, Leonardo would achieve fame and be considered a wizard and a sage as well as he fundamentally also always remained an outsider and a misfit, deemed an eccentric and heretic, if not some kind of divine fool (note that how much weight is put on portraying Leonardo as an insider or an outsider considerably lies in the eye of the beholder, respectively in how much the respective biographer seems to be an insider or an outsider within academia herself (Stendhal, who did not achieve much fame in his life, would remark that the true message of The Last Supper is the expression of resignation in the face of Christ, i.e. of the high-standing individual within a base and treacherous humanity and his death less of a sacrifice than a „suicide by cop“ to escape from earth as his mission is bound to failure anyway)).

The genius is obsessed with creating order as he has both a distinct and pronounced insight into both order and chaos, the Apollonian and the Dionysian, the abstract and the idiosyncracy etc. Leonardo´s most famous epitome of his quest for unveiling the glorious and harmonious laws and proportions of and within nature is the Vitruvian Man. Yet, he was also able to portray grotesque creatures with great dedication. In general, Leonardo was attracted to and could get immersed into forms and patterns and especially the transformation of forms and patterns; maybe (also) because of that, he had an affinity for water. I also have an affinity for water, though rather for its peaceful and tranquil and steady appearances; one of Leonardo´s last famous works, in contrast, were the deluge drawings, of raging waters, of a raging – and seemingly mindlessly raging – nature, driven by blind forces, within which – unique and singular – patterns and wave formations emerge, but, after two or three moments, dissolve in order to, in their specifity, never to appear again but to get, at best, transformed into other (pseudo) entities that are all to temporal as well. I reiterate once again (and it goes a bit on my nerves not to come up with greater news, but that is, I guess, the price to be paid when one has reached final conclusions and gained insight into final truths), that the final vision of art is the vision into the Chaosmos, i.e. the interplay between movement and order, static and dynamic, stability and chance (and recently it has been proven by mathematics, that all dynamic systems are actually and interplay between order and chaos); and in Leonardo´s deluge drawings you have carefully executed vortexes, apparently hellish, but then also peaceful and mantra- and mandala-like: metaphysical peace you will find in an hypnotic image and perception of the mindless circle of natural creation and destruction, and that is the final word that can rationally be said about it. As a high genius and creator and a great empath towards the entirety of existence, Leonardo understood the divine, but, unlike the Americans, he did not trust in it. He is not known for having been a devout Christ (like Michelangelo). In the Adoration of the Magi (an early painting left unfinished), you seem to have an unbridgeable gap between the divine and a rather creature-like humanity that seems to be in reverence as well as in anguish and, in some similarity to the isolated figure of Mary, rather occupied with itself and its passions; a humanity that, on the whole, rather behaves as if it were under an epileptic shock rather than in religious enchantment, giving an impression that both the earthly and the heavenly may be powerless to some degree and, next to that, have a fundamental problem of establishing mutual communication and exchange. The orginal of his painting of Leda and the Swan is lost (and probably has never truly existed, only via sketches), but it refers to an antique mythology as an illustration of life and existence as a circle of violence and conflict within, also, a conquest for morality, truth, righteousness, love and (more egoistic) desire, within which not only humanity is revolving, rather helplessly, but also the gods. In Leonardo´s „metaphysics“, the cycles of „difference and repetition“ within which nature reproduces itself are the supreme instance; sometimes nature may be protective and a legitimate instance for glorious appraisal, sometimes a destructive force and just the opposite, as, in itself, it is blind and amoral. Leonardo´s most fundamental „metaphysical“ insight seemed to have been that man, life, maybe also gods, are finite, relatively powerless and engaged in a merciless struggle for individual survival. Only nature is infite and infinitely powerful.  And only via a better understanding of nature via observation and science and mastery over nature via technology based on science and rationality, man is able to improve his living conditions (also in his sketches for technological innovations and his notorious weapons and gigantic war machines man, nevertheless, seems little, irrelevant and rather carrying a resemblance to ants).

Art is about portraying the complexity of the world, the totality of the world, and the standing of the subjective individual in its relation to an objective world (therein, art is „the true metaphysical activity“). In Leonardo you have the complexity of the world, but you do not seem to have fascinating and immersive depths that make the visions of other geniuses usually so sexy and attractive. His art is complex, but somehow „flat“. Despite, or because of, his extreme devotion to the examination of nature and existence, you do not really have some „cosmic religiousness“ as you have it with Einstein (i.e. a quasi-religious devotion and feeling struck by the great mysteries of nature as a superior instance). Likely to his supreme command over any human endeavour, Leonardo´s vision and attitude rather appears as one of a dry wit, and that the world has ever since attributed endless abysmalness, depth and fascination to  Leonardo over a banality (Mona Lisa´s smile) may have brought the same smile to his face (that, from another perspective, isn´t any) ever since (the mysterious smile, as a recurrent motive, seems to refer to what Kierkegaard calls the „humoristic self-content“ of the genius). In contrast to his reputation as a mysterious druid and a mystic (which he liked to initiate himself as a means of self-promotion), he was actually a very rational person, his endeavours entirely logical and his personality transparent. Despite being (obviously) used to portray Plato in the School of Athens by Raphael, Leonardo had been a disciple of the more sober Aristotle (with Plato, nevertheless, being the more primary and comprehensive thinker and therein the attribution by Raphael more correct). The final mystery of the world, however, is also not likely to be so mysterious but, rather, logical, and not of unfathomable depth but transparent.

*

In the Codex Madrid, manuscripts that have been recovered and published only half a century ago, Leonardo advises anyone who takes pleasure in reading him to study him carefully, „because in this world he will reincarnate only very rarely“. He is now regarded as a man that has foreseen the 21st century (probably also due to some narcissism and self-referentiality of the 21st century). What would ever happen if Leonardo reincarnated today? That is, of course, beyond imagination. It´s a transcendent phenomenon.

(Written April 22-28, 2019; unfortunately I mistook Leonardo´s death day for May 5, 1519, while it has been May 2, 1529. Obviously, I am not that kind of perfect expert.)

Wirklichkeitssinn und Möglichkeitssinn

Wirklichkeitssinn (gemeinhin auch genannt „Intelligenz“) bezeichnet die Fähigkeit, die Wirklichkeit, wie sie sich objektiv darstellt, zu erfassen. Es gibt bei Menschen erhebliche Unterschiede in der Ausprägung ihres Wirklichkeitssinnes. Auf dem höchsten Niveau realisiert sich der Wirklichkeitssinn, wenn auf dem Level von theoretischen bzw. theoriefähigen Abstraktionen gedacht wird bzw. die Wahrnehmung der Wirklichkeit auf diesem Level prozessiert wird – wobei „theoriefähig“ bedeutet, dass diese Abstraktionen auch konkret, intern differenziert und mannigfaltig und mobil sind, also eher dynamisch als statisch. Auf dem Level von Abstraktionen zu denken, ist nicht so herkömmlich unter Menschen; wenn es stattfindet, dann hat man meistens figurenhafte Abstraktionen wie „Kapitalismus“ oder „Patriarchat“ oder „Ausländer“ oder „Islam“, also Abstraktionen von Teileinsichten in die Wirklichkeit, die dann als Klammer verwendet werden um die Wirklichkeit vermeintlich als g/Ganzes zu begreifen. Aufgrund von Emotionen neigen Menschen dazu, bestimmten Weltanschauungen (bzw. Teileinsichten) anzuhängen, wobei einer bestimmten Weltanschauung anzuhängen bedeutet, den Wirklichkeitssinn einerseits zu verstärken, andererseits einzuschränken. Emotion und Reflexion stehen jedoch in einem Wechselverhältnis, und eine weiträumige und intelligente Weltsicht steht offensichtlich damit in Verbindung, dass einer weiträumige und intelligente Emotionen hat. Es ist vielleicht gar nicht möglich, die Wirklichkeit oder irgendwas zu fassen, ohne dass Emotionen involviert sind oder aber überhaupt die Grundlage dafür bilden. Das obstinate Beharren auf Heuristiken, die sich bereits als falsch oder inadäquat erwiesen haben, gehört zu den unheimlichsten Phänomenen, die in der menschlichen Wirklichkeit vorkommen. Das, was als „Ego“ bezeichnet wird, hat Schuld daran, allerdings auch die Grenzen des menschlichen Verstehens, innerhalb derer bestimmte, zur jeweiligen Weltanschauung inkongruente Wahrnehmungen sich nicht sinnvoll in die jeweilige Weltanschauung integrieren lassen, was die Grenzen der menschlichen Psychologie meistens sprengt und dem Menschen unverträglich erscheinen mag, oder aber einer Schwächung der eigenen, teilweise berechtigen Position im allgemeinen Machtspiel der Positionen gleichkäme, die man natürlich vermeiden will. Untersuchungen zufolge führt ein hoher IQ dazu, dass man mehr Aspekte einer Sache erfassen kann, man eine Sache auf einem höheren Niveau/Abstraktionslevel erfassen und man mehr Schlussfolgerungen aus einer Sache ziehen kann (was jedoch nicht gleichbedeutend mit dem Generieren von originären Ideen ist), jedoch nicht, dass man dialektisch denkt, also dass man eine Sache dahingehend hinterfragt, ob ihre Wahrheit möglicherweise außerhalb des Bereiches der vorgefassten Weltanschauung liegen könnte. Ja, man mag sogar feststellen, dass ein hoher IQ gar nicht dazu führen muss, dass einer reflektiertere Rechtfertigungen zur Stützung seiner vorgefassten Weltanschauung heranziehen mag, sondern ohne Weiteres dieselben wie primitive Proleten mit einem niedrigen IQ (insofern raffinierte Begründungen für so einiges an Weltanschauungen und Ansichten gar nicht vorhanden sein mögen). Wenn man sich den Wirklichkeitssinn vorstellt, mag man das innere Bild eines schönen und verzweigten (allerdings nicht unübersichtlich, sondern linear verzweigten) Schaltplanes hervorheben (zumindest, wenn man mit einem gewissen Möglichkeitssinn begabt ist). Das, Schwester, ist der Wirklichkeitssinn. Ein sehr stark ausgeprägter Wirklichkeitssinn begreift wohl die Wirklichkeit als möglichst dynamisch und fluid und nimmt psychologisch Abstand davon, sich zu sehr bestimmten Weltanschauungen zu verschreiben. Dafür ist jedoch offensichtlich auch ein stark ausgeprägter Möglichkeitssinn vonnöten.

Möglichkeitssinn (gemeinhin auch genannt „Kreativität“) bedeutet ein Gespür für die facettenhafte Wesenhaftigkeit und Tiefe eines Gegenstandes und seiner Eingelassenheit in seine Umgebung. Im Unterschied zum Wirklichkeitssinn, der mit logischen Schlussfolgerungen arbeitet, funktioniert der Möglichkeitssinn über das Herstellen von („außerlogischen“) Assoziationen. Wirklichkeitssinn und Möglichkeitssinn sind, gemeinhin betrachtet, unterschiedliche Vermögen; ein hoher Wirklichkeitssinn muss nicht mit einem hohen Möglichkeitssinn gemeinsam auftreten, genauso wenig wie umgekehrt. Auf Facebook gibt es zahlreiche Seiten und Gruppen, die sich dem Möglichkeitssinn widmen wie Relax, it`s only Art, Unexpected Journeys to the Mind, Grosa & Nebulosa, Another Cool Page oder I Love My Bitch. Sie sind in der Regel hintergründig (bzw. betreiben ein fortwährendes Spiel zwischen Vordergrund und Hintergrund), tongue-in-cheek und off-the-wall und evozieren unterschiedliche Sinnfelder, in denen ein Gegenstand erscheint (zumindest für den, der mit einem gewissen Möglichkeitssinn begabt ist). Sie stellen den Möglichkeitssinn an sich und in Reinform dar, sind Signifikanten für den Möglichkeitssinn und für die Imagination. Ein gewisser Teil der Leute auf Facebook kann damit nichts anfangen, eine Mehrheit mag das nicht so schlecht finden, eine sehr kleine Minderheit hat einen genuinen und intensiven Bezug dazu. Raja meint, das liege daran, dass meisten Leute keinen genuinen Möglichkeitssinn haben (und ich bin ihr für diese spontane Bezeichnung dankbar, ohne sie hätte es diese Betrachtung nicht gegeben, daher sei diese Betrachtung ihr gewidmet) und so wüssten sie nicht, was sie darin sehen sollten – der Trick liegt darin, dass es eben nichts spezifisches darin zu sehen gibt, als den Abgrund der Imagination selbst. Den Möglichkeitssinn kann man sich vorstellen (wenn man einen gewissen Wirklichkeitssinn hat) als eine Art Gewässer oder Brunnen oder Teich, in dem so einiges passieren und hervor- und heraustreten kann oder über das ein Wasserläufer hüpft und dadurch Schwingungen erzeugt. Der Möglichkeitssinn mag bei dem einen eher ästhetisch ausgeprägt sein, bei einem anderen eher intellektuell. Genau gesagt bedeutet er nicht Kreativität oder Imagination an sich, sondern dass man empfänglich für was ist und damit die Grundlage für Kreativität und Imagination. Möglichkeitssinn, als genuine Grundlage für Kreativität gefasst, ist eine genuine Grundlage für Kunst, zur Kunst ist jedoch notwendig, dass der Möglichkeitssinn sich selbst reflektieren kann und eine Abstraktion über sich selbst bilden kann. Ein hoher Wirklichkeitssinn ist dabei notwendig, um die Eingebungen des Möglichkeitssinnes angemessen zu systematisieren und auf ein hohes Niveau zu heben bzw. auf das Niveau von theoriefähigen Abstraktionen (also z.B. auf das Niveau eines objektiven künstlerischen Stils, der, jenseits eines bloßen Personalstils, objektive kunstgeschichtliche Relevanz gewinnt). Möglichkeitssinn bedeutet, dass man eine Vielzahl von Perspektiven auf eine Sache richten kann und man daher idealerweise weniger von einer bestimmten Perspektive abhängig ist, er erscheint also potenziell als anti-egozentrisch, pluralistisch und öffnend. Realiter ist die individuelle Vision des Möglichkeitssinnes jedoch meistens beschränkt, was zum Beispiel dann dazu führen mag, dass Künstler andere Künstler ablehnen mögen oder sich durch deren jeweilige Vision bedroht fühlen oder ihr mit einem genuinen Unverständnis begegnen. Die tendenziell progressive Haltung, die mit dem Möglichkeitssinn einherzugehen scheint, geht möglicherweise mit einem zu geringen Verständnis für konservative Haltungen einher und verringert dadurch den Wirklichkeitssinn. Das, Schwester, ist der Möglichkeitssinn.

Wirklichkeitssinn kann man mit dem konvergenten Denken assoziieren, Möglichkeitssinn dem divergenten Denken. Wenn beide zusammenspielen, hat man Macht über alle die vier Himmelsrichtungen.

Why Are Avant-Garde Philosophers So Difficult To Be Understood By Their Contemporaries?

Hervorgehoben

„Most philosophers are so politically incorrect—challenging the status quo, even challenging God. Nietzsche’s my favorite. He’s just insane. You have to have an IQ of at least 300 to truly understand him.“

 „Iron“ Mike Tyson

I have read somewhere that „Iron“ Mike Tyson has a below-average IQ, however what he says here is more accurate and pays more tribute to how things are in reality than that what many more sophisticated people (or analytic philosophers) say when they judge Nietzsche as a „weak“ thinker. It is amazing how today bachelor theses at the universities are written about Wittgenstein (or even at school: I once met a girl who told me her project for the great final exam at school was to write about the Tractatus) and everything seems to be full of Wittgenstein, of Nietzsche, of Goethe, of Schiller in this world, while during his lifetime Wittgenstein was not even understood by most of the finest minds in Cambridge or the Wiener Kreis. Reading Wittgenstein or Nietzsche is challenging for the first time, yes; but it is not actually that confusing. (Even more obscure it is in the case of artists: beautiful pieces of art are usually immediately recognised, nevertheless it may take a long time until the artist and his art become respected and established.) The question seems to refer to some kind of mystery: Why are avant-garde philosophers so difficult to be understood by their contemporaries?

I have read in a book about Whitehead (an underappreciated philospher) that someone said that „nothing is so difficult to understand as is a new philosophy“. I do not quite understand that, since I find philosophy relatively easy to understand. However, I do not understand other things, I am not good at maths for instance, so it is all a game and life passes out individual cards, I suppose. Apart from that, philosophy, like everything else, is not even for the master understander something that is immediately to be grasped: it needs to be learned, and its quasi-fractallike depth something forever to be explored. To try to make sense out of that, let us start with the rumination that: Like poets, but at a higher level of intellectual reflection (which adds to the confusion in others), avant-garde philosophers have thoughts and inner experiences no one else had before – and you actually can understand stuff only when you have experienced it yourself. Without experience, you may have intellectual knowledge of stuff (if the stuff even interests you, which is, unless there are personal experiences, not so frequent), but you do not actually, and deeply, grasp it. Without being member of a minority, or a woman, you do not really know what discrimination or phallocratic sexism is – if you are sympathetic, you will try to understand it, if you are not sympathetic, you will call them hysterical feminists or impertinent immigrants – likewise, the experience of discrimination can produce some hysterical feminists or blackies that are racist against whities – just like as the experience of a mankind indifferent to his teachings may produce an overly grouchy and pessimistic avant-garde philosopher: Let the avant-garde philosopher behold to fall into the trap of ressentiment (which is what Nietzsche said despite falling into that trap himself to some degree): And, truly: Who could ever understand Nietzsche´s overman when not being an extremely intelligent outsider (with a splendid psychology), who understands Kierkegaard´s theological stadium, Wittgenstein´s radical quest for truth via radical scepsis (that, in its inner dynamic and outer form, is without predecessor) or Otto Weininger´s quest for the ethical self (das sittliche Ich), when one is not some kind of very extreme person himself that effectively lives on the margins not only of society but of humanity and the human experience all alike? They are, more or less effectively, beyond the margins of current human thought. The avant-garde philosopher explores the margins and the outer limits of human tought and inner experience and effectively pushes them a bit further into the exosphere. Therein, the avant-garde philosopher is, most effectively, likely to be alone in his contemporary world (instead, has to try to establish connection to other avant-garde philosophers via the Continuum – the sphere where the great ideas dwell). People do not understand very well things that appear in a framework that is alien to them, or for which a true framework does not yet exist: And the avant-garde philosopher usually comes up with entire new frameworks people cannot really relate to. Within that, avant-garde philosophers are kind of confused themselves. They are so singular and work at such a high level of abstraction and insight that insight becomes confusing and they do not immediately have an instrument to adequately reflect themselves and their situation in the world. They see through other philosophy but in a kind of space that is largely uninhabitated. Their philosophy often is the instrument with which they try to understand themselves. Since avant-garde philosophers (and artists) are usually the ones most eccentric and working at the margins and exurbia, but also the most normal and working most at the center of humanity, the paradox may appear to them that they´re living in two worlds (and not actually living in any of them neither – respectively, the „paradox“ is that not only exurbia but also the center of the human experience are both sparsely populated places). Since the problems of the avant-garde philosopher (and artist) are too far away from people, people are not interested in them, although they are the most interesting of all, and the avant-garde philosopher has to deal with the paradox that, in the end, respectively also among his contemporaries, folks like Iron Mike will dig and – somehow – understand him, whereas, on the other hand, hardly anyone finally does. He has to deal with the paradox that his mind is the most powerful while also being quite powerless all alike (nevertheless, also big business tycoons or politicians have to confront themselves with the same kind of thing). If the avant-garde philosopher is desperate that people aren´t interested in his most interesting philosophy, he may find consolation that most people aren´t particularly interested in most other things neither. (And concerning Whitehead and his unpopularity someone else said that the reason for Whitehead´s underappreciatedness lies, particularly, in the greatness of his metaphysics.)

The intellect of the avant-garde philosopher operates at the highest level of abstraction and it works very quickly, hence stuff other people discuss will not deem him stupid but irrelevant and slow food. The inner life of the avant-garde philosopher will try to mirror the great whole (in his own idiosyncratic form and understanding), so what other people discuss will deem him fragments and he will prefer to be a silent listener and witness (although, due to his intense perception, a considerable amount of stuff he seems to be indifferent to will hit him with considerable impact – which is usually not the case among normal people). However, there are people that do not especially like that, they´re afraid that the avant-garde philosopher will look upon them as if they´re stupid, especially as the avant-garde philosopher´s behaviour will usually be a strange mix between fineness, empathy and sympathetic concern, and bluntness and harshness and apparent sarcasm towards others, as his inner drummer is different from his surroundings and it is quite difficult, sometimes impossible, for the avant-garde philosopher to synchronize himself to his surroundings. The avant-garde philosopher will, in turn, only be understood and perceived in fragments – and it occasionally turns up that people do not particularly like what they do not understand, even if they understand at least (important) fragments of it! For some biological reason, humans (and obviously also animals) like it when they master something: and it depresses them to find out that they do not, or cannot master a thing. So-called ego isn´t something that is necessarily there in the first place, but it may come into being when someone is deprived of his illusion that he masters something. Therefore, he may react with hostility and envy to that thing (i.e. to the avant-garde philosopher and his avant-garde philosophy). As the avant-garde philosopher is, in the words of Iron Mike, challenging, he may well be a nuisance, even a fucking nuisance to others. „Challenging God“ or „challenging the status quo“ might deem others (correctly) as a challenge to the established order and to those who profit from the established order, therefore those who profit from the established order aren´t likely to welcome the avant-garde philosopher so warmly…. In our times God may be dead and everything seems to be allowed, so the avant-garde philosopher or artist may appear to be accepted, however, mediocrity may also be an established order and the status quo, and someone who challenges mediocrity considered an enemy. Füssli/Fuseli says (in his Aphorisms about Art), that in a world where everyone strives for perfection, a genius need not expect to actually be welcomed or celebrated, but for him it may be true that he will be born posthumously. What is more, there are people that appreciate stuff, including the intellect of others, only when they can make a toy for themselves and for their ego out of it; due to his independence the avant-garde philosopher is not likely to become a toy of anyone, and so to some people only a dead avant-garde philosopher will be a good avant-garde philosopher. Schopenhauer says that while the genius is characterised by an innate ability to contemplate excessively and get immersed into the world (in an „otherworldly“ way) per se, most other people usually are only able or willing to grasp observations that stand in a more or less direct relationship to their subjective will; or, in the case of intellectuals, that somehow fit into their already existing concepts and can be subordinated to them. If they do not, they may be eager or even happy to neglect them. Consciously or not, academic circles may be particularly nasty and egocentric in this respect. Philosopher John Searle also notes the astonishingly high level of conformism in American academia (as an actually rather bizarre observation since academia would provide a niche for nonconformism, that is, apparently, rarely used, instead it permanently sinks down under its own conformist gravity). Given that, it is easy to imagine that nonconformism and originality is not welcomed in academic circles, as well as that cultural heroes, that make their own culture and are, in some respect, iconoclastic are seen as offensive in academic circles and within an academic culture that lives off the fat that cultural heroes of former epoches have created and that has later become canonised. John Hands shows in his very valuable book „Cosmosapiens“ how brutal academic circles still can be (in our enlightened and liberal age) to outsiders (so think how much worse it may get if you´re seen as a competitor). Conformism not necessarily creates brutal exclusionism, but an „innocent“ fear against things that run against current or do not fit into contemporary discourse provokes the same results. Another problem is that avant-garde philosophers usually neither come with the same subjects nor the same style that is present in contemporary philosophy. What may make things even worse is that at the highest level of intelligence – i.e. at the level of a highly ordered and transparent mind – things that are supposed to be complicated apparently become easy and simple, and the style not academic jargon but rather may become arty or child-like and simple and direct – „simplicity is the highest form of sophistication“ says Leonardo da Vinci – as well as the subjects the avant-garde philosopher touches upon are the most basic and universal – and that combined may be mistaken as banality or stupidity by academia.

Philosophers are appreciated, at least, by sapiosexual people. Sapiosexuality however in the usual case refers to what people can more or less truly understand, and that is stuff operating at maximal two intelligence levels ( = about 30 IQ points) above or below their own intelligence level. Maximum of persuasiveness of a leader (of any kind) can be expected to come into being when the leader´s intelligence is between 15 and 30 IQ points higher than that of the lead. Of course, people of much higher intelligence may be recognised and respected as such, but they are not likely to be accepted as leaders, buddies or lovers. They are foreigners and, maybe, outsiders. In the more depressing case, people´s sapiosexuality may beam when they see that they can mirror (or aggrandize) themselves in someone else´s intelligence, but implode when they find out that they cannot. In general, people like and accept people and stuff in which they can mirror themselves and may become hostile when they see they can´t, and when someone is vastly dissimilar from them. People also constantly and seemingly endlessly need something to talk about, as they are obsessed with talking and trying to make themselves important in relation to others. That seems to be a general human feature; the avant-garde philosopher may be in the splendid position that, with his stuff, he is elevated above the rat race and the sometimes brutal competition between those of roughly similar intelligence, but also excluded and ignored, as he does not deliver stuff people can talk about and make themselves important (therefore the avant-garde philosopher may mistake himself as a kind of egoless saint and „not affected by the trivialities of human struggle“ where in reality he is just a lucky bastard who is not challenged himself by it). – I am a very intelligent individual (and an avant-garde philosopher) and I could not say that I have met many sapiosexual people in my life. Actually I should attract sapiosexual people and people interested in intelligence like a magnet, but it rather seems I repel them like a magnet. At least, they´re not very interested in what I have to say, and they do not appreciate it so much. For instance, I can post very intelligent and beautiful (and funny!) stuff on social media and get, on average, 2 „Likes“ for it. I do not take that personally as I guess that Leonardo could come today and post his „Last Supper“ or Raffael could come today and post the Sistinian Madonna, to then get 2 „Likes“ as well – but that is even more depressing to see for the avant-garde philosopher: to see that there is something not exactly right with humanity. One would think that writers like Joyce, Beckett or Jandl, who had to suffer: that, with their art and effort, they opened up new spaces alongside new coordinate systems – but when the next Joyce appears, it may be revealed that they have opened nothing and that the new Joyce gets rejected like the old one had become for many years: So what is the purpose of art or the avant-garde and the suffering of avant-gardists, the avant-gardist may ask himself, as you frequently see that it is all for nothing and there is just eternal recurrence of the same? Of course, that isn´t the whole story, but a substantial amount of the story, and that is, for the avant-gardist, often quite difficult to bear.

In order to be an avant-gardist you have to stand at a higher level than the lead. – There may be narcissistic avant-gardists who find it funny to stand higher than the lead and to provoke envy in others, the true avant-garde philosopher will usually be above that level, and at least I could not say that I find it very pleasing to potentially subdue others – as I want everyone to be happy. Nevertheless, in order to be an avant-gardist you have to stand at a higher level than the lead. Avant-garde philosophers are usually so different from men that Nietzsche legitimately comes up with the question whether they´re human (all too human) at all. And actually: David Wechsler, a pioneer in the research of human intelligence, proposed that at an IQ level of 150+ actually a new species comes into being, different and distinguished from common man, the Homo sapiens sapiens. Let us say, they´re Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens. Their cognitive, mental (and psychological/interpersonal) processes are qualitatively different; tbere has been some stuff written about it; I say that with a highly gifted/IQ150+ person it is possible to develop thoughts in conversation at the level of theoretical abstractions, that can be scientifically and intellectually relevant. The great genius is a different species even from them (a Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens sapiens) as he can develop the most sophisticated theoretical thoughts that no one else can, also his psychology is likely to be different and distinguished and more refined than that of others. – Of course, making such distinctions and segregations is not likely to make you very popular, and I, as a good socialist and adherent of the notion of communion of creature, do not like it myself; however, it somehow resemblant to truth and I cannot help that either. People usually think they´re very smart, so when they see someone distinctly smarter coming around, they often are not very pleased, especially when they´re high IQ guys themselves who usually like to think they´re on top of the food chain. People appreciate the genius when they´re under the impression that the geniuses´ intelligence is one or two levels above theirs, which seems tolerable and reasonable to them; but when they see that the geniuses´ intelligence is ten levels above theirs and the genius, in general, is a quite different personality from them, they sometimes aren´t likely find that so funny anymore. – I think it was Enrico Fermi who once tried to measure the abilities of physicists, and he found out that while great geniuses of physics like Einstein and Newton would range at a maximum position of 100, most emiment physicists, like Fermi himself, would cluster at around 70 (note that I have to recall that from memory, it is likely not to be exact, nevertheless somehow similar to that Fermi (?) originally came up with). Maybe it can be said that the cognitive abilities of the great genius (i.e. in the case of the genius: cognitive as well as creative intelligence amplifying each other), his ability of intellectual penetration, resembles an IQ level of 200+, and is therefore out of ordinary human reach (therefore, Iron Mike was somehow correct with his estimate).

Again, I do not recall it at the moment whether it was Duchamp, Picabia, or a brother of Duchamp (or maybe still someone else) who said that expecting (immediate) success as an artist comes close to playing roulette. Apparently no laws can be extracted why something becomes a success and other stuff does not, or takes a long time to do so. Likewise, there are popular and unpopular geniuses, and for every Einstein or Picasso, who became successful and established relatively early in their lives, there is a Nietzsche or van Gogh who were born posthumously (or, in the more depressing case, an Ignaz Semmelweis or Giordiano Bruno, who were actively and purposefully punished for their contributions to mankind). Nietzsche said that nothing about Schopenhauer was more offensive to professors of philosophy as that he did not look similar to them. Amanshauser ruminated that fellows like Goethe or Thomas Mann would always be accepted without too much trouble during their lifetime, while freak geniuses like Nietzsche, Baudelaire or Edgar Allan Poe would always be met with resentment during their lifetime because they are too challenging for the bourgeois (an uncanny perspective for those who are, even they do not want it, trapped in such a life: that the only way to become accepted is actually death). Of course one could say that geniuses like Einstein and Picasso are, while fascinating, easy to understand, while Nietzsche or van Gogh are not; and of course, it is supposed to make a huge difference whether your medidations are timely or untimely –  but actually, for the moment, I feel the trajectory of thought about the subject „why are avant-garde philosophers so difficult to be understood by their contemporaries?“ somehow becoming useless; consider that most people do not even come to the idea to evaluate things under the consideration „is it right or wrong?“ but „is it left or right/Christian or Islam/etc?“, it is alien to them that truth could be found outside such frameworks at all. Alpha and Omega about the question „why are avant-garde philosophers so difficult to be understood by their contemporaries?“ is that one does a good thing to write a couple of pages about it, since some things can be said about the subject, but finally it cannot be explained thoroughly; that, in many cases, avant-garde philosophers are not understood well by their contemporaries simply is a recurrent phenomenon in the world, and an expression of this world. My propositions serve as eludications that anyone who understands them finally, understands them as nonsensical when he has used them as steps to climb up beyond them (he must, so to say, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up on it). He must transcent these propositions in order to see the world rightly. So we may conclude that to the question „why are avant-garde philosophers so difficult to be understood by their contemporaries?“ there might be no rational and sensible answer at all. Genius is mysterious. Life is a mystery as well.

„Do you know what this summer has been to me? An endless ecstasy over Schopenhauer and of mental experiences such as I had never experienced before … I don´t know if I shall ever change my opinion, but at present I am convinced that Schopenhauer is the greatest genius among men … Indeed, I cannot understand how his name can be unknown. The only explanation is the one that he so often repeats, that is, there is scarcely anyone but idiots in the world.“

 Leo Tolstoi

Rationality, Hyperrationality and Metarationality

Rationality means someone acts according to reason, i.e. thinks about cause and effect, adequacy of means and ends, intersubjectivity, a favorable outcome that is understandable for anyone not deluded (i.e. somehow according to the Kantian categorial imperative). It means you are not (immediately) slave to (blind) emotions. There are different and somehow distinguished types of reason (and e.g. postmodernism and critical theory, in their attempt to liberate us, probably have denounced natural forms of reason as alienations („instrumental reason“, „culture industry“ , etc) or inflated our notion about the heterogeneity of reason too much (but that is not as much a problem as anti-postmodernists are inclined to think)). Max Weber distinguishes between wertrational (value-rational) and zweckrational (goal/instrumental-rational), where zweckrational means orientation towards a rational outcome and wertrational means acting and reasoning in a rational way according to values (which, themselves, are not rationally investigated). Other types of action are, says Weber, emotional/affective action and traditional action (which are not rational). Rationality will be the dominant thinking mode of the somehow intelligent person. How much a person can distinguish himself from the downsides of Wertrationalität is a matter of psychology. Whereas strict Wertrationalität makes the stubborn fanatic, complete ideological/emotional unbiasedness is rarely ever there among humans, and, irrespective of what Western or Eastern enlightenment (KantHegelMarxetc vs. TaoZenShankaraetc) propose, there are probably no thoughts that are not based or come in with emotions at any rate.

Hyperrationality means permanently adjusting his worldview and actions to that what the sober rational insight demands. The hyperrational person will have insight and (at least a rational) access to that that is wertrational, zweckrational as well as affectual and traditional, and overview over the grand scheme and over the fabric of society which means that in his understanding of society (i.e. of the great heterogeneity) the hyperrational person will be flexible, fluid, experienced and quick. In order to execute hyperrational understanding over complex problems (i.e. problems to which there are, opposed to complicated problems, no definite solutions) a high crystallised intelligence is necessary (that will be accumulated via a vivid fluid intelligence). Hyperrationality means a higher level of awareness than mere rationality and, at least concerning the intellectual insight, less stubbornness, but does not rule out stubbornness due to emotional reasons. High intelligence means someone is likely to draw correct rational/logical conclusions from assumptions, however this does not mean the assumptions are correct, their selection can be heavily ideologically biased, and that high IQ persons have the same petty political opinions (or petty understandings in many other domains) and use the same weak rationalisations to justify their emotional or tradition-based choices as persons with a very low IQ is quite frequently the case. The probable downside of hyperrationality are detachedness from the living world and missed opportunities, but that need not be the case.

The genius is commonly perceived as an eminently or hyperrational person who seemingly also has access to the irrational (respectively to the abstractions of the irrational and to the aesthetic realm). They develop their rational concepts by asking themselves questions like how it would be if one travels along a ray of light, or they test their hypotheses by putting a blunt needle in their eye or endanger their eyes because of gazing into the sun. While such questions (and actions) are not actually irrational, they are not likely to come to the mind of a person who has a purely rational epistemology and way to look at things. It is difficult to sort out the true nature of that (and probably it is not one thing only), but the genius thinks eminently intuitively as well as counterintuitively and (apparently) paradoxical, and, in a way, ultradialectic, as he throws up many ideas and then tries to illuminate them from all different angles, with not much propensity to favour a specific angle over others (while on the other hand usually being extremely value-oriented concerning a universe that makes sense, which made Newton a theological alchemist and Einstein opposing quantum mechanics, i.e. somehow stubbornly irrational). It is as if the genius can see into an additional dimension that is invisible to others, obviously due to capability of making plethora of (counter/intuitive) associations to any given concept (which, in a genuine way, is no necessary quality of mere intelligence and convergent thinking, but of creativity and divergent thinking, respectively, as Cooijmans calls it, associative horizon). However, it usually turns out that the genius just sees what is so obvious and rational that other people, due to their indoctrinations, don´t see it, because he brings back a very basic rationality to the perspective (that gravity is a force and means curvature is, upon reflection, actually quite obvious). Let us say the basic/dominant way of thinking of the genius is metarationality.

The Opening of the Umbrella

The Opening of the Umbrella is an important kinetic concept within my intellectual/physical systems of reference. It symbolises the total realization of the world, and is accompanied by a sharply rising, swelling sound and a totality of light, somehow like the Big Bang. Perception, cognition and the creative process in my case is accompanied with such intellectual and bodily sensations (which are not always pleasant, since feeling like exploding at every moment, not only in the head but the entire body, most notably at the chest, can easily get painful and tormenting). Basically, I am an entity that feels like it is driven by its own inner urge to transform itself and to let the urge inside out, to process itself alongside its own permanent transformation into a negatively curved open universe. That is, then, hyper-spirituality, or so, and shit. It is NOT the case that my psychology is closely resemblant to that of man. In the Book of Strange and Unproductive Thinking I somehow explained the thing with the Opening of the Umbrella in more detail („Am Strand“; respectively, if I remember correctly, I shortly mentioned it to spin other thoughts related to that). I want to get introduced closer to Eliminative Materialism to figure out the more exact nature of such all-inclusive connections within the thinking process.

UPDATE 11072016: If I remember correct, the cosiness of the concept of the Opening of the Umbrella derives from involving the idea that under the umbrella there is light and enlightenment, the White Lodge, and shit… (i.e. total knowledge and flexibility of mind and personality which keeps you protected).
schirm
umbrella2 umbrella3

Muhammad Ali

Genius is not primarily a matter of IQ but of personality. Pop stars like John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Prince (maybe also Kayne West pseudolol) had such a personality and as well, as far as I can see, Muhammad Ali. With a higher IQ (or maybe just different mindset) they could have been major philosophers, „serious“ artists or great political activists (like Martin Luther King who was, so to say, an older brother of Muhammad Ali), within their domain they incorporated such qualities and were (mirror images of) universal man. It happens when a genuine talent (or intelligence) is amplified by an extreme, idiosyncratic, „schizotypal“ agility and versatility which made Ali able to knock out his opponents as well as pretentious interview partners with astonishing facility and unforseeable moves. He was idealistic but not fanatic, hard-nosed but amicable, autonomous, fearless, and spiritual. I remember someone said that anyone who had a conversation with Ali felt greatly touched and uplifted, and that is the surest of all the different signs of genius. Genius spiritualises everything, says Dali, and as Ali is now detached from body and sickness he has undergone the final transformation into a pure spirit, guarding and guiding us from above, from the elements, forever.

Philip Hautmann „This life is not real. I conquered the world and it did not bring me satisfaction. God gave me this illness to remind me that I’m not number one, He is.“ – Muhammad Ali r.a.

Meaning of IQ Test Scores

IQ 172 to 188

„Freakish. While still of primary school age, only around one in 1000 professors can look them in the eye intellectually. They tend to read competently before they are three years old. Keynes – who used to intimidate Russell – was probably in this category. Zietsman believes that FW Nietzsche, the German philosopher and poet, and Hugo de Groote, a jurist, were others. Michael Kerney, who holds the world record as the youngest university graduate ever at 10 years old, probably also has an adult IQ around 186 on this scale. Only one in a million people are this intelligent. They are seldom understood or appreciated. Most feel profoundly isolated from society – even when they are appreciated. A large proportion of this group opt out of society and never make revolutionary contributions in the standard academic fields or professions. It seems to be very difficult to motivate them to play the academic/scholarly/professional game because they regard even the most venerable of traditions and institutions as absurd or silly. Consider that even the mind of the average professor appears to them like the mind of the average bricklayer would appear to the professor.“

9108287077_595fee796c_b-1
Personality scores and observed bahaviour among top IQ scorers:
„Regarding observed behaviour, remarkable is the absence of negativity and rudeness, and the on the whole positive, polite, constructive attitude … In their communication with me all these people have been civilized and polite, without weirdness or negativity.“

Visions of Immortality

According to legend, having achieved Satori means that you are able to see the realm of existence as an infinite weave of jewels which illuminate and mirror each other. Each jewel, prescious as it is, is an aspect of existence, both distinct and unique as well as well as embedded in the whole, serving as a reflection of the whole. The whole, therefore, is an interrelated system of mirrors which reflect the highest light; and each movement within the structure alters the whole structure, so that in every moment a new world is born. Satori means you are able to see the world as being in constant motion, objects are moving, mirroring and relating to each other so that the subject-object dichotomy is transgressed into an all-seeing, yet unlocated, eye (respectively an all-seing eye which is located everywhere). The intellect is transgressed into pure perception and pacified: the whole universe bond together by sympathy and governed by mutual friendliness, there is no need for you being (as usual, once unenlightened) agitated.alice4 And do you remember Richard M. Bucke´s book about Cosmic Consciousness, originally published in 1901? Probably not, since it is not very well known. Bucke, a psychiatrist, achieved enlightenment and suggested that his „cosmic counsciousness“ is a state of mind prominent in all enlightened individuals across history, yet only expressed in somehow different state-dependent language (the language of their specific time and culture) i.e. that all revelations of enlightened consciousness in art, philosophy, spirituality, religion, relate to the same basic experience – in which the enlightened individual experiences herself as a living, spiritual part of an entirely living, spiritual cosmos in which the individual, itself, is an illusion and mortality is an illusion. Everything is governed by the supreme, perceptive intellect who is familiar with the whole and with every aspect of the whole, and the enlightened individual is the bearer of that intellect. Bucke surmised that, apart from usual suspects like Gotama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Laoze or Plato also fellows like Shakespeare, Pascal, Balzac or Walt Whitman were among those who have achieved cosmic consciousness. Mediatate about that!

In the Book of Strange and Unproductive Thinking I have ruminated whether Satori is the common state of mind of the genius. At least there are some resemblances. The genius, at least, has the second sight! With the second sight the genius is able to see through things, to see their true essence, and even beyond that: It is not raw intelligence (in its many facettes) but introspection and the capacity for deep intellectual penetration which makes the genius. The root ability for that is a quality Cooijmans calls associative horizon: that is the ability to see many associations to a given concept, to see (seemingly paradoxical or counterintuitive) associations between remote concepts and the ability to switch from motif to background. Associative horizon is a quality in its own right, relatively independent from g-related intelligence (expressed in IQ). At a basic level associative horizon manifests in (off-the-wall) humour and/or some kind of „deeper“ perception. I see people who have the second sight on Facebook, they´re posting paradoxical memes respectively images which are ambigous and connotative, not definitely to catch intellectually but eternally open, referring again to an innocence of perception yet in a dialectical way. People who have such a perception are very rare. High IQ intellectuals on Facebook are also very rare. That these qualities merge in one person is the rarest. Associative horizon is the basis basis for creative intelligence. IQ-related intelligence enables the bearer of associative horizon to operate at a high level of intelligence and to have a broad intellectual circuit in which his associative horizon can operate and make novel, original and meaningful combinations (as somehow distinguished from conclusions which you derive from g-related intelligence). With intelligence you see many things and the way they function, with associative horizon you see the Matrix. You´re intuitive. If associative horizon and intelligence amplify each other and both get amplified by conscientousness, i.e. intellectual discipline, the possibility of the productive genius arises, and when conscientousness also carries ethical conscientousness the possibility of completeness comes up (see Paul Cooijmans of genius on his website). – So the genius lives in a state of interconnectedness plus the ability to see through and beyond the connections and establish new ones which last forever. He is glued to everything because he is sympathetic. He (intellectually) mimics everything because he is empathic. Before his inner eye he sees into the universe. He gets sucked into the universe, sometimes feel painfully sticked to the universe, like hanging in outer space, being enchained to outer space and hardly able to move (which is one of the more unpleasant experiences, referring, in ordinary language, to inability to live an ordinary life). At one time he feels sucked into space, at one other struck down by the intensity of his perceptions, which constantly form impressions in correspondance with an intense (sometimes painfully intense) inner life.

colourgirl Otto Weininger has noticed that the genius always stands under impressions. In here, the genius is both perceptive and reflective, mature and innocent, intellectual and anti-intellectual, both open and longing for closure and, then, openness again. In doing so and being that way, he creates his world constantly anew and each act is of significance; and of deviance: High intelligence means that one is able to come to sophisticated and comprehensive conclusions, to make abstractions and generalisations. Yet, as Lichtenberg notices, the higher the genius, the more one is able and prone to see only the individual, respectively individual aspects. This might confuse the genius, at least at a young age, make him think he has not a razor-sharp wit as others, a more nebulous and diffuse way of thinking and of perception, therefore to operate at a lower level of consciousness while in reality he is operating at a higher level of consciousness (since of course the genius is able to see the abstractions as well, and very well; what seems to be an unfocused view is an actually more focused one). A bit resemblant to that Pessoa has noticed: the higher the consciousness, the lower the consciousness; which only means that the genius does not relate to ordinary things the way ordinary man does because they are not as closely located to him – in reality the genius is closer also to ordinary things and, if it gets serious, is likely to handle them in a more competent way than ordinary man – I only say that to encourage the genius because due to his highly critical way of thinking the genius is prone to underestimate himself, sees himself to critical, is afraid of inadequancy, and usually gets depressed when he senses inadequancy within himself (yet is also the one who is able to transform his feelings of inadequancy and inferiority into something truly productive, whereas ordinary guy does not sense much inadequancy about himself, with, however, the unarticulated inferiority complex lurking in the back of his mind (and becoming acute when the genius enters)). Because of his ability to see only individuals the genius is able to „think outside the box“, transgress categories and finally establish new ones. Therefore the usual internal state of the genius is some seemingly unproductive brooding which might come along with, again, feelings of inadequancy, lack of identity and unhappiness. With time he will unlearn those connotations, yet remember them, that is to say, the will remain but become less frightening. Finally, when the genius in all aspects only sees individuals (and is able to categorise them), his mind has become the mind of God (as also Lichtenberg has noticed). That is the imperative. – Genius is an eminently rational man and longs to establish rational concepts with a determinedness no one else carries. Yet in contrast to the purely rational man the genius has an access to the seemingly irrational, respectively the a-rational. Usually being synaesthetic, the genius often strives to develop eminently rational concepts in tandem with a-rational or synaesthetic visions or along unusual questions (e.g. questioning what would happen if he moves along a light ray, a question which would not make immediate sense to the purely rational physicist); he throws, for instance, some thought into a vision of black with red dots and the red dots with white dots in them, sees how it amalgamates, transforms or contrasts, then lets it reflect in mirror 127 in his internal system to see what´s happening, etc. Therefore, darkness and light aspects before his inner eye, or in his mind, shimmer through each other, or, for instance: there is some bright oval light in the center of the vision and then the vision falls down, becomes seam-like, fuzzy, falls into the abyss, becomes irrecognizable; but that is when another circle – of perception and of reflection – begins… That is to say, genius is neither purely rational or irrational, he operates at the meta level of rationality. – Genius is immortal and not afraid of death because genius is largely spirit, not person or individual, and his spirit will last forever as well as it has always been. Since he has seen through life in his only life, life extension or reincarnation is not necessary for the genius. #nirvana

In the Book of Strange and Unproductive Thinking I have also ruminated about the hyper-genius, the transcendent genius, and the Omega Man. These venn quite similar with each other. A hyper-genius is more comprehensive than a genius, or operates at a higher level, at least in his specific domain (at 5 sigma level compared to 4 sigma level of the genius; Einstein was, as a physicist, a hyper-genius, although in other respects, and as a person, a genius; Wittgenstein, as the other emblematic genius of the last century, was a hyper-genius in general, respectively not only as a philosopher but also as a person). A transcendent genius has the most radical thoughts and is transcendent in his personality, a both extremely eccentric as well as extremely in the center of humanity located man (Goethe was a hyper-genius, yet not necessarily a transcendent genius, he was a homo universalis (although he did not understand lowlife very well and was not very very concerned or sympathetic about it) but not transcendent man, yet of course operated close to that level; Büchner, an intellect probably superior to that of Goethe (one cannot definitely tell since he died at age 23), understood lowlife, was deeply sympathetic, a fearless revolutionary who might have died in jail like some of his comrades; his language was transcendent and of absolute agility, later in life he might not have cumulated his efforts in a grandiose yet mislead endeavour like the theory of colours but may have become one of the major existential philosophers, etc.). Omega Men are (spiritual) frontier workers of humanity. Resemblant to that Bhagwan says that beyond/above the „universal intellect“, the fourth level a human being can attain, there is a final, fifth level, at which the distinction between the individual and the universal, the larger context, vanishes and is transgressed. That is when the ego is abolished and the intellect of Christ or of the Buddha emerges. At this stage man has ceased to constantly BECOME something, he has begun to finally BE something, his journey (respectively, as Bhagwan says, his „nightmare“) has come to an end. Thou shalt not settle for something less than to attain that fifth stage, says Bhagwan. And indeed, genius is still full of imperfection and should be superseded. Genius does not necessarily work at the last layer of all things. Genius may be, and usually is, a distinct and marked person, but: a person, likely with an ego, maybe a strong or even narcissistic, therefore annoying ego. Geniuses often do not relate well to other geniuses which is the saddest thing among all. That should be overcome. Man should become devoid of ego and become open space – that is the plan, that is the end of the road. The ego (respectively what is commonly taken as the ego) is disturbing, it distracts, impurifies the thinking process and the emotional economy, and it should not be. When you look at the transcendent genius (like Beckett) he does not resemble very much an ordinary person, or, despite his most distinct individuality, a person at all – rather a fluid, an aura, an atmosphere, he is ghost-like because he contains all qualities at once and they do NOT contradict or stand in the way of each other while probably also not being there in harmony, like the universe or the earth is not harmony, simply all exists at once; the great man is the living microcosm, the all, as Otto Weininger put it. Where the genius maybe tries to and puts his energy into becoming a marked person, the transcendent genius will do everything to evade it. He is impersonal, transindividual, and objective. He only seems to be a marked personality because he is „the center of infinite space“ (Weininger). The hyper-genius has ceased to be a person, let alone ego, and has become a spirit, a soul, a guiding light; even his intellect has transformed along those lines. Ahhh … the transcendent beauty of having gotten rid of human/personal qualities… do you see the luminosity in that?

transzendenz – The Omega Man can be envisioned as reaching up into the spheres and down into the dark fond, the primal ground, where his interior is the endless hall of mirrors. Genius is kind of universal man, he encircles mankind, but the omega genius encircles all the other geniuses as well and has become universal spirit. The intelligence of the transcendent genius and the Omega Man is the highest and the most alien, yet at the same time the most elementary, the most basic, the most authentic; being eternally eccentric he and his solutions directly adress the core, the heart of it all and are the most profound. – Whereas the genius relates to the world, the hyper-genius relates to the universe (the infinitely larger, boundless context). The genius will strive to create a work of importance, of significance; the transcendent genius, will, more abstractly and more purely, strive to create values. Likewise, the genius may seek a concrete immortality, becoming inscribed in the book/s of mankind, whereas the transcendent genius will rather seek an abstract immortality, he does not thow himself into mankind but into the universe, longs to become one with the ontological texture of the universe. When you look at the genius you may see a spherical space with positive curvature; the genius tries to establish harmony and give words and objects a definitive meaning. When you look at the transcendent genius you see a line of negative curvature, an open universe in which everything flies into the infinite along an eccentric pathway, also in order to establish harmony, but not in the visible spacetime but in a sort of hyperspacetime; in the visible spacetime the transcendent genius seemingly ever creates disruption and dislocation of identity (think, most prominently, of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or van Gogh). When the genius is constantly convulsing, the hyper-genius seems like constantly exploding, yet both do so in stasis. Look at the ramblings for instance of the transcendent hyper-geniuses of literature like Kafka, Beckett, Shakespeare, Rimbaud or E. Dickinson and you see that behind their words, their language, some deeper structure constantly seeks to emerge and overpower it, that is the dark world, the fond, as well as the heaven that tries to break through, it is the constant shifting of meaning, it is the second world which shimmers through the first, the immediately presented one, the psychosis of the genius language; the works of the (hyper-) genius are characterised when you see behind the first, the immediately presented world a second world emerging. – This nebulaic, yet anti-entropic entity, the purely subjectified and purely objectified trans-person able to navigate freely through inner and through outer space with both the most solid, yet unlocated inner core, is, then, the overman. The overman encircles the earth and is the meaning of the earth. He can communicate with the earth and with any alien civilisation from the depths of outer space since he understands all of those. Potentially, along the above mentioned lines, every man is an overman. The hyper-genius/Omega Man is the most easily understood and embraced by every man, and by the child, and is the trajectory of human endeavour. That includes all and is the bond which connects all. Ahh, the hall of mirrors, what beauty lies in this system… <3

 

OH YES be taught, my friends: Thou shalt not hold artificial ideas about man! Don´t take man as being overly good or overly evil. Ordinary man, per definition, cannot reach the level of the great man, yet he can reflect him, as a mirror. What concerns me, is that I am 10.000 times more stupid and evil even than ordinary man, yet also me – a worm, not a Cherubim – longs for ascension, just like everyone else. Be taught, my friends.

Micheal Chappelle

Micheal Chappelle This is the best description of me and my life that I’ve ever read.

Micheal Chappelle

Micheal Chappelle You know me like the back of your hand.