constant escape
winter withered, warm
I have been ruminating on the concepts of classes determined by intelligence, indiscriminate of many other factors such as race and gender, and what kinds of problems would emerge from such a structure.
Then I thought about it not in terms of class (although that is still a contending factor), but in terms of a bottom-up hierarchy. That is, what a democracy is in principle. Top-down hierarchy is despotism, bottom-up hierarchy is democracy, from what I gather.
What would accountability look like here? How would democratic policies/components sit into a "noocracy" (government by intelligence)? Could civil servitude realistically become vocational for intellectuals, with politicians (?) perhaps being some kind of mediating/representative stratum?
One is inclined to think that this is already how it works, only not as an accountable and transparent bottom-up hierarchy, but an unaccountable and opaque top-down hierarchy. What would it look like if it were inverted, and the intelligent were to constitute a vanguard?
One of the primary axioms here, as it relates to intelligence distributions and how such distributes map on to other demographic distributions: I genuinely believe that, while statistics and data may indicate otherwise, that no race/gender/demographic of human is essentially more intelligent, and that any such intellect-difference is incidental, determined largely by socio-economic conditions (a materialist perspective?). If anyone here sees ethical issues that they think I overlook/diminish, please point them out. This seems to synthesize the genetic biodiversity debate, but again, maybe I'm overlooking some crucial element.
That said, in the intelligence distribution would need to be more evenly spread across demographics before such a "noocracy" could be implemented, and even then we can't be sure that certain inter-distributional biases won't spill in.
The point here is just to ruminate and consider the pitfalls of such a structure. Perhaps the most glaring: how can the intellectual civil servants be held accountable by the masses, who are, according to this framework, not as intelligent? How could such a civil servant stratum be prevented from coalescing into an unaccountable elite? Perhaps this can be aided by (as frightful as this may seem) a supreme database that rigorously quantifies all individuals (Deleuze, "individual" becoming "dividual"), in which case we can account for those who "rank" highest in terms of intelligence. How would we then account for the accuracy of the database, and make sure that certain intellectual elites don't manage to evade its index?
Another idea to tie into this, albeit a largely unformed/illinformed one. I like the idea of a legislative body that might register to our standards as hypersectarian. The body would be an ecosystem of ideologies, consisting of groups of manageable size, each representing some ideological vector. There would be a structural policy that incentivizes a medium group size, in the interest of precluding a monopolistic/hegemonic reign by one group. What would this incentivization consist of? Not quite sure. Perhaps it could be modeled after blockchain, something else I direly need to understand. Perhaps the admittance of a new group would consist of a petition that gets passed around the others, all of which would impact the terms of admittance of the new group.
How would this inherit the capitalist baton from any current model of government? Again, I'm far from being sure. I do think that the capitalist impetus can be abstracted and reconfigured in such a way that may render such a bottom-up hypersectarian/noocractic/blockchain government. How? Not sure. Perhaps there is much to gain from a deeper familiarity with blockchain theory and technology. Some kind of peer-to-peer checks and balances? Although that seems like a theory that has probably been laid out before, and arguably even attempted. Not sure. But given the novelty of blockchain, in the scope of human economic/political development, I'm sure there is still a lot of ground yet to be broken, in terms of modeling.
To be sure, I think I'm pushing for a new arena for our ideologies to contend within, rather than pushing for new ideologies - although I'm sure I can't get off that easily. As has been pointed out, there is an odor of despotism afoot - although maybe I'm paranoid.
How can something like this appeal to capitalists, even if we are able to abstract the core of capitalism (growth of the rate of growth; acceleration) and give it new form, perhaps even a non-monetary form? Surely, the capitalists are less concerned with any non-monetary essence of capitalism, assuming such an essence even exists.
Also, my understanding of "noos" as intelligence is not limited to human characteristic of smartness. While noos does express itself through human smartness, it seems to be a cosmically broader phenomenon.
Also, a semantic point: Need the most intelligent be intellectuals? Insofar as "intellectual" connotes academic and scholarship, I don't think it is necessary, insofar as academia/scholarship bring with them their ideological/bureaucratic baggage. But this is a real point of contention, from what I gather, seeing as "intellectualism" seems to enable/occasion/justify obfuscation in a way that "high intelligence" does not (?)
Final disclaimer: I readily admit that I may have a looming elitism underpinning this, and I would appreciate help in sniffing it out and uprooting it. Don't want it to subsist in any substantial way.
Then I thought about it not in terms of class (although that is still a contending factor), but in terms of a bottom-up hierarchy. That is, what a democracy is in principle. Top-down hierarchy is despotism, bottom-up hierarchy is democracy, from what I gather.
What would accountability look like here? How would democratic policies/components sit into a "noocracy" (government by intelligence)? Could civil servitude realistically become vocational for intellectuals, with politicians (?) perhaps being some kind of mediating/representative stratum?
One is inclined to think that this is already how it works, only not as an accountable and transparent bottom-up hierarchy, but an unaccountable and opaque top-down hierarchy. What would it look like if it were inverted, and the intelligent were to constitute a vanguard?
One of the primary axioms here, as it relates to intelligence distributions and how such distributes map on to other demographic distributions: I genuinely believe that, while statistics and data may indicate otherwise, that no race/gender/demographic of human is essentially more intelligent, and that any such intellect-difference is incidental, determined largely by socio-economic conditions (a materialist perspective?). If anyone here sees ethical issues that they think I overlook/diminish, please point them out. This seems to synthesize the genetic biodiversity debate, but again, maybe I'm overlooking some crucial element.
That said, in the intelligence distribution would need to be more evenly spread across demographics before such a "noocracy" could be implemented, and even then we can't be sure that certain inter-distributional biases won't spill in.
The point here is just to ruminate and consider the pitfalls of such a structure. Perhaps the most glaring: how can the intellectual civil servants be held accountable by the masses, who are, according to this framework, not as intelligent? How could such a civil servant stratum be prevented from coalescing into an unaccountable elite? Perhaps this can be aided by (as frightful as this may seem) a supreme database that rigorously quantifies all individuals (Deleuze, "individual" becoming "dividual"), in which case we can account for those who "rank" highest in terms of intelligence. How would we then account for the accuracy of the database, and make sure that certain intellectual elites don't manage to evade its index?
Another idea to tie into this, albeit a largely unformed/illinformed one. I like the idea of a legislative body that might register to our standards as hypersectarian. The body would be an ecosystem of ideologies, consisting of groups of manageable size, each representing some ideological vector. There would be a structural policy that incentivizes a medium group size, in the interest of precluding a monopolistic/hegemonic reign by one group. What would this incentivization consist of? Not quite sure. Perhaps it could be modeled after blockchain, something else I direly need to understand. Perhaps the admittance of a new group would consist of a petition that gets passed around the others, all of which would impact the terms of admittance of the new group.
How would this inherit the capitalist baton from any current model of government? Again, I'm far from being sure. I do think that the capitalist impetus can be abstracted and reconfigured in such a way that may render such a bottom-up hypersectarian/noocractic/blockchain government. How? Not sure. Perhaps there is much to gain from a deeper familiarity with blockchain theory and technology. Some kind of peer-to-peer checks and balances? Although that seems like a theory that has probably been laid out before, and arguably even attempted. Not sure. But given the novelty of blockchain, in the scope of human economic/political development, I'm sure there is still a lot of ground yet to be broken, in terms of modeling.
To be sure, I think I'm pushing for a new arena for our ideologies to contend within, rather than pushing for new ideologies - although I'm sure I can't get off that easily. As has been pointed out, there is an odor of despotism afoot - although maybe I'm paranoid.
How can something like this appeal to capitalists, even if we are able to abstract the core of capitalism (growth of the rate of growth; acceleration) and give it new form, perhaps even a non-monetary form? Surely, the capitalists are less concerned with any non-monetary essence of capitalism, assuming such an essence even exists.
Also, my understanding of "noos" as intelligence is not limited to human characteristic of smartness. While noos does express itself through human smartness, it seems to be a cosmically broader phenomenon.
Also, a semantic point: Need the most intelligent be intellectuals? Insofar as "intellectual" connotes academic and scholarship, I don't think it is necessary, insofar as academia/scholarship bring with them their ideological/bureaucratic baggage. But this is a real point of contention, from what I gather, seeing as "intellectualism" seems to enable/occasion/justify obfuscation in a way that "high intelligence" does not (?)
Final disclaimer: I readily admit that I may have a looming elitism underpinning this, and I would appreciate help in sniffing it out and uprooting it. Don't want it to subsist in any substantial way.