Advice and Aphorisms

A reader Asks the Sigma about the point of advising others.

"Never expect anyone to show any more interest in you, your interests, or your opinions than you have in theirs."

This is now at least the second time recently that you've posted gold in a single line. The other time I'm thinking of is where you said, "In order to make good connections, you have to be a good connection."

On brief reflection, I do have a question. How do you square this with being VHIQ?

The objective fact is that most people should be more interested in your opinions than you are in theirs. You can give total strangers better advice than they could give themselves, whereas very few people can give you better advice than you can give yourself.

First, a minor correction. As I think most of my high IQ and VHIQ acquaintances will readily confirm, I am not VHIQ, but UHIQ. The difference is qualitative rather than quantitative, but it is significant and directly relevant to the existence of this blog. TL;DR: VHIQ thinks normally but faster and more clearly, UHIQ usually thinks well outside the box.

And in what will probably be a vain attempt to dissuade the resident Gammas and midwits from excitedly announcing that they, too, are The Latest Thing, I will repeat the admonishment from 2016 when I first defined the terms.

If you’re reading this and think something might apply to you, please understand that is not a signal to decide that you are an unconventional thinker or exceptionally intelligent and share that fascinating observation with everyone. That very reaction is a pretty reliable indicator that you’re not. If you can’t fathom that, go ask a very tall person how excited he was this morning about discovering that he was tall.

Now to the question, which I presume is how I square the two aphorisms with being UHIQ. And frankly, I fail to see any need to square anything, as presumably, being an intelligent but unorthodox thinker should permit me to occasionally make accurate observations that will be useful to myself and others. Indeed, the very name of this site is a direct result of my observing, identifying, and articulating an organizational taxonomy that has existed for centuries, but no one else ever bothered to describe in any useful detail.

Now, it’s obvious that the IQ communications gap combined with the systematic oppression of all counter-narrative thought by the corpocracy tends to significantly reduce the number of people who are aware of and consciously interested in my opinions. The size of the multiplier that separates the literal millions of people who utilize the terminology and concepts I have introduced from the few thousand who seek out this site and regularly read it is sufficient to illustrate that.

But that’s of no concern to me, because this site would be of great value even if it only ever had a single reader, because as a crazy young woman once correctly told a mutual friend, the unarticulated thought does not exist.

All those great thoughts that you think you have floating around inside your head, all those amazing ideas you can’t seem to quite put together in a coherent manner, don’t exist at all. They are nothing more than feelings, impressions, at most the first flickerings of an actual concept. And while some can articulate a thought mentally, or vocally, I find the exercise of writing them out necessary if they are to be properly defined and refined.

Remember, the difference between the unarticulated proto-thought and the articulated thought as written is even greater than the difference between the Foucault’s Pendulum of Umberto Eco and The Da Vinci Code of Dan Brown.

That being said, it would be really nice if everyone would stop assuming that any disagreement with their self-deceptive sophistry is somehow based on a failure to comprehend their erroneous assumptions and rationalized pseudo syllogisms. It can be extremely difficult to bite one’s tongue and remain silent whenever one is informed that one has somehow failed to understand something so simple that a brain-damaged chimpanzee would grasp it without difficulty.

In a perfect world, the following exchange would be considered a perfectly reasonable appeal to the observable facts rather than an offensive condemnation.

“You just don’t understand!”

“You know where we stand relative to each other. So what are the chances of that?”

And while the constant swimming through a relentless sea of retardery can be oppressive at times, I have come to enjoy the challenge of attempting to compress a philosophical idea into a useful aphorism. Just as there is pleasure in achieving a moment of flawless lyrical flow, there is satisfaction in, as the reader puts it, posting gold in a single line.

NEPTUNE

Shattered bodies of broken mermaids

Wash up along the ocean shore.

The lucent tears of grieving sailors

Won't bring them to where they were before.

The sacrifice of youthful beauty

To the monsters of yesteryore

Won't resolve the questions or

Give answer to the issues heretofore.

Capability, culpability

See how we all mourn the pretty ones

The hatred of the undeniable

A curse I'm still condemned to bear

Under water but still inflammable

Is a fate for which even gods despair

Fallibility, pure hostility

I won’t deny that I’m the guilty one.