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

„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.

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; 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).
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.“

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.