ORGANELLE

“Imagine if… upon the rising of awareness that it is diseased, the agents of authenticity and immunity in the body… simply left for other climates. Facebook is a disease, but we must do something far more meaningful than merely departing it. We must understand its origins and functions… so that we might, together, with and for each other, invert those that are toxic and lethal.

I was aware it was a disease when I chose to participate; in fact, that was the very purpose of my participation. Only the tiniest fraction of this disease has been revealed, one might even call it trivial, but this fraction leads to its origins, and, indeed, the cure. And if we will not instantiate this cure, then it will breed deadly children, whose virulence and penetrations will make the present nightmare seem like a play-date in comparison.”

— an intelligence agent

“If you’re outraged … you’re probably acting out a passive-useless mode of reactively intentional failure.

If you organize effective tactical response with peers and colleagues… you’re on your game, and have a shot at actually effecting a transformation of the field of play.”

— infraheard – beyond the meme

“If you’re a guy, and you’re not listening to and interacting with intelligent »women frequently… it’s like you’re getting the monomer of oxygen while pretending you’re still breathing or something.

Wait, is there even a monomer of oxygen?

(calls actually intelligent female friend).”

— infraheard

“If you want to actually surivive, nevermind prosper, you might want to stop thinking about which party you belong to and start acting like mature, intelligent, effective small groups. I.e: mini-societies.

We can form and dissolve them at will, and they can take advantage of the unique skills and intelligence (and creativity) of each member to produce a ‘shared superposition’ from which otherwise impossible tasks become accessible or even simple to accomplish.

Because if you think your political system is capable of ‘protecting’ you, those you love, or the planet… you’re completely out of your mind and would be better off watching cartoons.”

— infraheard

“If you think you know what a season is, you will not recognize those you cannot name. If you think you know what a dog is, you will not recognize when one becomes a pair of wings. If you think you know what knowledge is, you are surely mistaken, for you have ignored the ledge, off which wonder must lead you, into flights of learning that proceed, rather than freeze and defend their landmarks.”

— an intelligence agent

“If you think an opinionated, disorganized, confused, internally conflicted population of individuals has anything resembling ‘rights’ you’ve probably confused an abstraction with the results of unified, mutually concerned people who »protect each other’s rights, together… rather than declaring their own.

When the opposite of communal concern and unity is going on? The opposite of rights — abstractions and declarations — invade the void between us and begin to act like demons.”

— infraheard

“If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel of sewage, you have sewage.

If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel of wine, you have sewage…”

— Arthur Schopenhauer

The same is true of knowledge, opinion, and intelligence…

tiny features matter. Start from the wrong position? Garbage results. Emphasize the wrong perspective? Same problem. The tightrope of intelligence is not impossible to traverse, but it requires awareness of the challenges, their complexity, and how to relate with them in an ongoing way that produces reliably valid results.

“If you look closely, you may observe a crisis anchored in two domains that are both extremely fundamental to human mental orientation, as well as comprising the precursors to anything resembling an opinion or belief:

Authority and schemas of authorization.

These general terms refer to aspects of the otherwise invisible foundations to how and what people think. Nearly all people. We depend upon these things to make decisions and initiate action.

If this wasn’t previously obvious, we live now in a situation in which it’s explicit. People cite some source of authorization or they depict themselves as disciples of one authority or another. Many of these are actually little more than media objects.

Some few people are creative enough to originate perspectives, but even these are the result of complex authority/authorization games that remain, in most cases, entirely unconscious. The rest are simply … consumers. Of prepackaged ‘what’s going on here.’

Of course, decision-making is strenuous; and actually useful original perspectives are both difficult to produce and invoke unforeseen consequences. Their value usually depends on their capacity to effect their own obsolescence. These must self-exceed.

And so everyone is experiencing a strange social game, where a perspective they chose to promote is ‘pretend-authorized’ by media or … simply the fact that it exists in some form that can be referenced.

But what if some of them became aware of this, and began to examine both their relationships to actual authorities… (and internal hypostases of these)… to authorization itself… that their usual orientations were invisibly founded upon?

What if they could begin to see and escape their long unconscious relationships with figments and figures, and establish something capable of producing… freedom, intelligence… community… or »reliable authority?”

— …

“If you have any idea how strange everything really is, you will realize that it is not possible to model it in the languages we possess and the ways we use them. You then realize that all previous attempts at this were catastrophic failures precisely because the difference between describing and participating is the difference between hubris and intimacy. Everything is really so vastly weirder than all of our suppositions, that intimacy is the only move that actually gets anywhere. Intimacy participates. Description simulates. Relation set opposite to abstraction.”

— an anonymous informant

“If you count either the mind of the one who is counting or the dimension that results from this intention (and precedes the act of counting), then, in these specific cases, 1 = 2. And I suspect it is possible to compose a proof that 1 is equal to any other number, as well.”

— an intelligence agent