WEDNESDAY, FEB 10, 2016
Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS
TOPICS: ALTERNATIVE TO JOINING, FROM THE WIRES, INDEPENDENT, FREE THOUGHT
TUCSON (A-P) — What I have called techno-scholars or Fed-scholars, who saved civilization in the 23rd century, may exist in some embryonic way now and may have a place in any future I can envision that merits living in. I may be one of them. Maybe you are too. If ISIS or ilk prevail, techno-scholars may be our only hope. Actually our only hope is to be clear about what our only hope may be and be that hope, that force of nature. Only individuals can be clear, can think well and live accordingly. There is a group known as Anonymous. This site, obviously yet another Illuminati site brought to you by your reptoid overlords, is in no way connected with Anonymous other than, perhaps, memetically. You can't join Anonymous, but you can be Anonymous.
Step one is to see clearly that starting or joining yet another "movement" is not what is needed. We've been there, done that ad nauseam, and we should consider surmounting the learning curve. Another faction fighting for power or to curry favor from special interests is not intelligent. Groups, including Anonymous, are not intelligent. Individuals who can be persuaded by short-term contingencies of self-interest to join a group are not intelligent, cease to be individuals, and even if a group is lead by someone who is a free thinking individual (e.g. Assange), that state of things is at best transient and any beneficial influence temporary (e.g. Thomas Jefferson). Only intelligent individuals qua individuals are capable of thinking well and doing what is right even though doing so is not calculated to be in their self-interest (e.g. Snowden, Ayaan Hirsi Ali).
Alternative to movements is a collective of free thinking individuals who live accordingly. They are not led; they cannot be herded. First they liberate their own minds from authority, all authority, including their own egoic demands. Their free thoughts are determined by evidence and reason, free so far as possible from any compulsion with respect to supporting any conclusion. Without conclusions, their thoughts are free to follow the breadcrumbs of what-is, wherever they may lead. They are thus a threat to all that is false. They seek no egoic credit and so:
We are techno-scholars willing to remain anonymous. We are not legion. We do not know all. We do not ignore. We will endeavor to think well and remain a danger to all that is false. We help one another to understand. To understand something is to be delivered from it.
As we are not subsumed by any conclusion, our minds are in a state of inquiry, free from certitudes—we are abelievers. If one's conclusions determine what your reasoning shall be, that reasoning is sham [idea: Charles Sanders Peirce]. It may feel good, but we do not indulge in sham, in pretending to know things we do not know.
Our sort of mind is not consilient will all minds: specifically not with those of all solemn pretenders to learning, with all ideologues, whether political or religious. Accordingly we are not aligned with any organized political movement nor organized religion. There are political issues and religious interests, but we deal with them as individuals having no name, no identity, no membership in the elect. While we may be called techno-scholars (among other things) we call ourselves nothing. Those who are on a quest to inquire into political or religious issues are not, cannot be, ideologues and are thus brothers and sisters all. Claim that you have the truth, the light, the way,... thereby feeling compelled to impose it universally upon all, and you will be opposed, you will be taken down. We will not forgive.
To the religious believers among us, those who have been subsumed by an organized religion, you may live as one with us if you accept separation of church/mosque/temple from our secular, diverse, global and open society we know as the Federation. If you cannot, your fatal logic compels you to dominate. We support religious inquiry and freedom from religion for all. Telling your children what to think, impeding them in learning how to think, is child abuse. We will not ignore.
To the political ideologues among us, all who have been seduced by identity politics, know that we support freedom of speech and the freedom to subject all claims to the flames of our all consuming doubt. We marginalize factions. We support only citizens who volunteer to serve as independents running for term-limited office on their own merit, on their record of public and planetary service without expectation of self-gain, who do not exist to serve any party, special interest, or faction. Those who seek to serve party interests, elite interests, self-interests should expect us (to reveal all). Death to the fascist ideologues who prey upon the minds of the people.
We vote on issues we have studied according to our best guess provided that we merit our best guess. We will assess our merit by test prior to voting and weigh our vote according to our ability to understand the issue. If we score less than 70% our vote will be discounted because it should be. If we score 85%, then we are half way to understanding the issues and so our vote will count 0.5 vote. If you know your stuff and get 100%, that indicates you are making progress and may know enough to merit a 1.0 vote. A voter's voting history would also be factored in based on outcome, so someone who was consistently on the 'right' side for no apparent reason as evidenced by outcome should have their vote count a bit more, as in a neural network. Both knowledge and ability to think well will be assessed by pre-vote testing. We seek a consensus of best guess within a democratic meritocracy. All votes are best guesses, some are better than others, but all are subject to reconsideration. New evidence will merit reconsideration. We believe only in the ignorance of experts [idea: Richard Feynman].
“In England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong,” says President Trump. “Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.” The idea that someone should get sued if “someone says something wrong” is the non sequitur. Too many lawyers already, don't need another growth industry. It might help, but only the rich could afford the protection. I'm thinking an Academe of Scholarship and Reason (start with Wikipedia content) to vet claims. A statement (paragraph or book length) that was parsed into ten claims or a thousand, would have each checked. 10/10 = 1 or maybe 100% right, while 2/10 would be 0.2 or maybe 20% right. AI will be able to parse all writing into claims and speech into text into claims. All information offerings, from Scientific American on down, would be rated. Trump would get maybe be a 0.26 since everyone says something right sometimes. Scholars with a below 0.9 record would look for a new line of work. Everyone could join in, but those who "inform" the public would be automatically vetted based on their public offerings, including Facebook posts and YouTube videos. Their life's utterances, skewed towards the recent, and typing (separately assessed), would be ranked per legislation as part of the Consumer Protection Act. Everyone would be ranked, and the AI would always be open to being corrected (a reason and evidence thing). Those scoring under 0.7 would be able to vote on any issue, but would be discounted on all, their vote would count as zero unless the vote was on a matter of taste (Hottest XX human? Vote: Britney Spears or Ayaan Hirsi Ali?). Those with a 0.85 rank would have their vote count 50%, and so on. This might make "democracy" work.
What might voting be like? Let's say there are 100 policy issues to vote on. For each proposal you have three options: Yea, Nay, and IDKE (short for: I don't know enough to have an opinion which is the default vote). Look around, be honest, think about it: On 99% of issues 99% of humans don't know enough to have an opinion. Those who think they do need to be vetted. Those (>0.7) voting for a proposition that is assessed, perhaps years later, to have worked as expected, will have their credibility quotient raised slightly, while those who thought they knew that Nay was the right vote would be ranked slightly lower on future judgment calls. The reputation of those abstaining would be preserved.
We who go by no name do not know all, but we seek to know and understand what we can. We serve by making known what the corrupt would keep secret. We have no political power and seek none. We are not elites, nor do we serve them. Our power is to discredit those creatures of the night who have reason to fear us. Those who merit their public appreciation have nothing to fear. Those Earth Agents who serve the planetary commons for the benefit of all life will be noted and, as we have the power to point to merit, may their social status be noted by others. May humans who merit their status live long and prosper, and may those who pursue self-interest or serve special interests be marginalized.
To Americans, we would point out that for the first time you had a choice of President that was not between Tweedledum or Tweedledee who agreed to have a battle over who broke whose rattle to see who would serve the same master (the SYSTEM). For once you had a choice. Your political system allows for the possibility of an independent, not owned by the overloads that be, to be elected. If you elect those who support political revolution, revolution by destruction could be avoided, but expect the system will likely be "fixed" so that never again will you have a real choice. When things become intolerable to enough citizens, as it already is to us, only revolution by destruction will be possible, and as usual there will be no winners, just survivors (maybe) to inherit the rubble. A mere President may not be able to turn things around. We prefer information packages to be valued before or after the rubble. As James Baldwin noted: “To be black and conscious in America is to be in a constant state of rage." You don't have to be black, just intelligent and aware, and rage can take the form of moral outrage independent of ideology. The 'outrage' must be on behalf of all organisms, especially those whose extinction we have and are presiding over. "Know Thyself, and Thy place in the Natural World." Know that we are the environment. If we don't live right and well, we may be part of the geological record. Neither politics nor religion will save the day. Whatever the outcome: you can't join the Federation, but you can be Federation. You can't join the techno-scholars, so to thy own self be true. Serve your integrity, not your Reptoid-amygdala Overlords. Be a Force of Nature.
The work of the techno-scholar: