The Wit and Wisdom of Chris Langan (Part 1)

Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 01:44:29 -0800
To: fire@PrometheusSociety.org
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: fire The Wit and Wisdom of Chris Langan (Part 1)


The material below is quoted from *Noesis* and Chris Langan's so-
called "Noesis East." All of this material precedes my assumption
of the Editorship of *Noesis*. My first issue (except #125,
November 1996, which I guest edited), was #135, November 1997.
This is the raw text; my commentary is not included in this message.

>From *Noesis* #108, August 1995, "A Notice to the Mega Society
and the Staff of Noesis," pp. 1-3:

In a recent conversation with member Kevin Langdon, we
established certain points of agreement regarding *Noesis*. At
his suggestion, I'm submitting this brief report of our discussion.
First, Kevin--like me and many others--is concerned for the
survival of the Mega Society, particularly *vis-a-vis* the well-
known tendency for high-IQ clubs to fall apart in orgies of
bickering. These arguments are usually both personal and
political in nature, and every such group--including ours--seems
bedeviled by them. It therefore behooves us to exercise caution
in this regard.
Next, I agreed with Kevin's observation that it will take a
considerable amount of time to undo the damage that has
already been done to *Noesis* by way of vulgar and inane
content, some by members and some by nonmembers. Anyone
who once respected the journal is quite unlikely to respect it
now and earning back this respect is likely to be a long and
arduous process.
[Seven paragraphs on the failings of former *Noesis* Editor
Rick Rosner omitted.]
Accordingly, Kevin and I--and probably the rest of us--
agree that the editorship of *Noesis* is properly subject to
democratic review. What that means is this: the next time Rick
Rosner fouls up egregiously in the editorial department, an
election will follow *immediately*. I stress the word
"immediately" because, when a journal is published only at
intervals convenient to its editor, the democratic process can
get smeared out over very dilated time periods. In short, Rick
will not have the option of timing his own "election campaign".
This election will include policy guidelines and will occur even
if I have to run it myself. If it goes against him, Rick will be
required to step aside . . . again, *immediately*. And that
naturally goes for his *other* electable office, "Treasurer".
On the other hand, if it goes *for* him despite his objective
failings--e.g., taking three months to publish a monthly journal
--then we're back to square one. Square one is described in
*Noesis* 106, page 9. That's where I introduce the alternative
Mega Society journal *Noesis-A*. This new journal would
come into existence *immediately* because I, for one, cannot
afford to have years of effort buried under large, stinking piles
of what *Noesis* has tended to be full of lately. That's my
inalienable right, and that of any other member who wants a
legitimate chance to be heard.

>From *Noesis* #108, [to Kevin Langdon], pp. 7-8:

Regarding other points, I just want to make sure we're on
the same wavelength. For example, on p. 6, *Noesis* #104, you
write: "The need for `a real genius' to administer a test is a bug,
not a feature." Maybe so. But let's state the obvious: any high-
ceiling test whose problems have not been rigorously solved
with respect to a closed, meticulously defined set of conditions
must allow for the chance that an extremely intelligent test
subject may give an answer superior to the one considered
correct. If the tester is not himself a genius, he will fail to
recognize this and mismark the test. You seem to imply that
this obvious objection does not apply to your tests. For the
sake of argument, let's say you're right.
However, you elsewhere concede that "IQ," which you
associate with the intellectual adaptivity requried to solve a
number of independent problems, is not the only component
of intelligence. There is also a major component of intelligence
which is responsible for scheduling and orchestrating large
numbers of *dependent* subroutines within larger routines
designed to solve larger and more important problems whose
complexity far exceeds any random relationship of IQ test
items. Whereas IQ tests merely require solution of a number
of dependent but unspecified components in the proper
arrangement and order. This is where the *real* ceiling of
intelligence resides, and it occurs far above the level of any
problem on the Mega Test. So we needed a new kind of test
to measure this factor, call it *h*.
Not to bore you with more logic, but in order to definitively
assign truthvalues to a subject's answer sheet on this kind of
test, you require a cognitive language of higher order than
that of your subject with respect to the entries on the test. If
you propose to measure his level of "genius", you must be
one yourself. It's just as clear that this "symphonic, architectual"
kind of intelligence h involves "fluid" intelligence g as a co- or
sub-factor, and that only the one with the highest (g and/or) h
is able to definitively measure *everyone* else's intelligence
(up to his own peak level).
It's not hard to see that h "regresses" to the general problem
of which specific problems are the most important. The true
genius is distinguished precisely by his ability to choose or
invent the "best problems" on which to target his intellect . . .
to apply his mental energies in the most efficacious and
economical way. Unfortunately, one cannot do this by letting
others choose his problems for him. Just as clearly, it is
impossible to compare performance on any "test" in which
every subject is allowed to choose his own problems. This is
presumably why you describe as "ridiculous" the idea that I
should be the one to choose the problem to be used as a
measure of my "intellectual prowess."
Accordingly, I let the problem "choose itself" in a natural
way. Since the measurement of intelligence, and comparisons
among the means thereof, requires first a knowledge of what
intelligence *is*, the "most imporant problem" is how to
characterize intelligence. Looking at it another way: since
intelligence is a facet or reality as apprehended by intelligence,
the problem is to give a joint characterization of reality and
human intelligence . . . the obvious first step in the *intelligent*
solution of a maximum number of important *real* problems.
Since no known formalism has sufficed to solve this problem,
no formal background is needed for the search.
A bit more on "background". If somebody identifies the
"best problems" on which to focus his mind, his obvious first
step is to supply himself with the proper background to solve
them. If, when he finally presents a unified solution, he then
encounters others who have been working on the same
problems--e.g., cognitive aspects of reality like the nature of
intelligence and the "metaphysics" of free will--are they
allowed to blame *him* for not having themselves acquired
the necessary background? Can they refuse to accept his
having solved the problem *first* as proof of his intellectual
superiority, particularly when the "missing background" is
nothing but an essential ingredient of verbal reasoning like
elementary logic? You tell me; maybe my thinking on this is
off.

>From *Noesis* #108, pp. 12-13:

I shamefully admit my tendency to "argue from within castle
walls" using "undigested neologism", but this *does* have
its reasons. One thing I learned long ago is that you can't
always wrap your mind around complex concepts like a big
amoeba and digest them from the outside in; you sometimes
have to wriggle inside them and digest them from the inside
out. In fact, sometimes you have to do both at once. Please
believe me when I tell you that I put *all kinds* of broad
hints and deep tunnels into my contributions to make this
possible for the motivated reader. Now if, despite a professed
interest in metaphysics and reality theory, a given reader isn't
motivated enough even to notice these access points which
have occasionally taken the form of neologisms designed to
suggestively and enticingly compress a lot of useful
information in a very tiny space--then I have to start
wondering how smart he really is, and how long one should
whip what looks like a stone dead mule. That only makes
things worse; he whose previous efforts at clarity have
seemed futile probably won't try as hard next time around,
and his implied "arrogance" may discourage further attention
by others.

>From *Noesis* #112, November 1995, [to Richard May], p. 15:

As any long-time reader of *Noesis* is in a position to know,
I was aware of these questions years ago, before most of the
authors you mention had managed to formulate them. Because
they can be expressed in the language of logic, I realized that
they all had a convergent model-theoretic (logicomathematical)
solution, and that if I could discover what that solution was,
then I'd be responsible for devloping its religious implications.
I've been taking this responsibility seriously for quite a while
now, and have not been entirely without success in meeting it.
Dawkins, Barrow, Tipler, Rucker, and Penrose may be
celebrated in other fields, but that doesn't mean they can offer
you a state-of-the-art platform from which to launch theological
investigations. Only one person can do that, and you're reading
his letter. If you choose not to beleive me, then do as you please.
But there is just one coherent logical framework that will support
answers for all of these questions simultaneously, and it is *not*
easy to formulate. If you try to rediscover it on your own, you
stand a good chance of coming up dry and fooling yourself wet.

>From *Noesis* #112, [to Robert Low], pp. 16-17:

When I wrote the abovementioned paper ["The Resolution of
Newcomb's Paradox," *Noesis* #44, December 1989], *Noesis*
was exclusively the journal of the Noetic Society, a sister
organization to this one. Because the job was considered a
burden, the editorship was being passed around on a rotating
basis; even so, there was grave doubt as to whether the journal
would continue to exist. To ensure its continuation, I accepted
editorial responsibilities not only for #44, but for the next five
issues as well. Due to the fact that contributions had long been
at a low ebb, I was *forced* to write them all in their entireties.
Otherwise, there would have been nothing, and I mean nothing,
behind the title page of any of them.
To increase the likelihood that these issues would be
interesting to the members, I decided to address topics that they
had presented. These had to do with such matters as Newcomb's
paradox, quantum theory, and the theory of probability. I did this
in what I believed to be an educational and readable way, given
the supposed interests and IQ's of my readers. Try, then, to
imagine my chagrin when I was informed by Ronald Hoeflin,
after producing and paying for six issues from cover to cover,
that a certain influential member--Chris Cole--had taken offense
at the way I was "monopolizing" the journal, and had undertaken
a telphone campaign to get me removed! I was sufficiently
disgusted and disappointed by this to move aside and let Ron
personally resume the editorship.
Not too long afterwards, and perhaps not too surprisingly, the
editorship was bestowed by Ron upon his favorite rising star,
Rick Rosner, who just happened to live not too far from Cole. In
fact, Cole had kindly agreed to serve with Rick as publisher, and
would even provide Rick with a computer to expedite his new
duties. With Ron and Chris behind him, Rick lost no time in
announcing that he would be a "strong" editor: there would be
no more unreadable monopollization of *Noesis* as long as he
was in charge! The two sister Societies merged, and Rick and
Chris rode high in the catbird seat.

>From *Noesis* #112, p. 20:

That's all beside the point, *except* for one fact: I don't need
to waste any more time trying to communicate with people who
dummy up every time I look at them. On the basis of past
experience, I know that some readers of this journal--even some
actual members of the Mega Society--are going to claim that
*this very letter*, having been written by Chris Langan, is
"unreadable". They'll claim that terms like "metalanguage syntax"
and "nonmonetary utility" are neologistic and incomprehensible.
They may even drool a little for theatrical effect. I have only one
request: if you're one of them, tell me now so that I can avoid
further discourse with you. Agreed?

>From *Noesis* #118, May 1996, "Chris Langan Responds to Kevin
Langdon," p. 3 (quoted passage from p. 4):

I understand that you're not convinced of the importance of
the CTMU. However, this information alone is insufficient for
purposes of dialogue. You see, after all these years, I'm no
longer sure that *anything* of a philosophical nature is capable
of impressing *any* Mega member at this point in his or her
life. Those who exhaustively tour the history of science and
philosophy tend to become jaded by its seemingly endless
string of ideological wreckages and forsaken paradigms. Even
as they come to believe that their eyes have been opened,
their hopes sour and their minds quietly close. Petitioning such
people for the kind of attention I need is an exercise in self-
flagellation. My back is already raw, so unless somebody on
the receiving end wants to establish some credibility of his own
--e.g., by demonstrating that he or she actually understands
something out of the hundreds of pages of material I've already
provided--I'm currently inclined to pass.

>From *Noesis* #121, July 1996, Chris Langan writes to Ronald
Hoeflin, p. 2 (quoted passage from p. 6):

Through advanced CTMU logic--that is, logic fortified with a
deep understanding of information and cognition--we can open
new highways to mental improvement and personal happiness,
social equilibrium and economic wellbeing, and the intelligent
"machinery" necessary to make this world what it was always
meant to be: a relative paradise in which the universe, through
the mind of man, can awaken to its own nature and thereby
realize its being.

>From *Noesis* #130, April 1997, "Some Q & A on `The Resolution
of Newcomb's Paradox'," p. 5 [but the pages of that issue are
unnumbered] (quoted passages are from pp. 11-13):

The analogy between metalanguages and NST "stratified
virtual reality" implies that for logical purposes, any TOE
(Theory of Everything), considered as a language, is required
(a) to to be its own regressive metalanguage, i.e., to explain
how and why its own axioms and theorems apply to reality,
how and why the explanation applies to reality, and so on
*ad infinitum*; and
(b) in placing reality within the framework of logic for analytical
purposes, to explicitly incorporate the entire metalinguistic
component of logic and a mapping of reality thereto. In other
words, no NST, no TOE. Just as in Aristotle's day, cosmology
is a branch of metaphysics and requires a logical framework of
metaphysical scope. That framework begins with the NST and
"ends" with the CTMU, which terminates the most general
metaphysical stage of theorization and functions as a new
beginning with respect to science.
. . .
QUESTION: This whole matter seems to verge on the topic of
religion. Can we draw any clear parallels between the two?
ANSWER: Yes. Western religion in particular has tended to
separate God from the physical universe in a way requiring the
full stratified NST scenario. And oriental religions, by regarding
physical reality as an "illusion" concealing a deeper level of
being, tacitly embrace the potential for multiple levels of
ontological simulation. Once two distinct NST strata are
posited, the rest follow by induction. Any attempt to unify
science and religion, or the physical and spiritual universe,
must therefore construct a mapping between the NST and
scientific theory. Given the pressing social, political, and
psychological need for such a unification, the importance and
conceptual utility of the NST--and its full logical development,
the CTMU--are undeniable. That's why the CTMU doubles as
a "logical religion" of its own.

>From *Noesis* #131, May 1997, [to Kevin Langdon], p. 9
[unnumbered]:

You see, the CTMU has the potential to make people happy
by changing the nature of human interaction. But that potential
is still unrealized. With as many problems as I've solved for
members of the Mega Society, I should by now be interacting
with all kinds of friendly, helpful people. Instead, I'm still
"interacting" with zombies on *siesta*. And no, I'm not too
happy about it. Jojo's Uncle Albert published the three papers
that launched his career circa 1905. How happy would he
have been in the year 1912 if no one had yet admitted that
he'd solved a problem of any kind? You tell me.

>From *Noesis* #131, p. 10:

Okay, here is a touchy one. We're talking about an
earthshaking mathematical proof that I provided to our most
illustrious (but pseudonymous) member *after he had agreed
in writing to evaluate it*. Want to read the letter? Once you
understand that, none of your other points are relevant. The
fact is that if he hadn't made this agreement with me, I never
would have proven theose theorems for him. Since he's very
smart, and I made the proofs simple, I had every right to
expect an evaluation (pro or con) within a reasonable period
of time. I didn't get it, and naturally wondered why.
So I called him. It turned out that he'd had a string of
personal and domestic tragedies. I commiserated with him--
he seems to be a likable guy--and left him alone for a while.
Then I got back in touch. His life was still in a semi-disordered
state. So I asked him for an alternate contact. He gave me
Professor Frank Cannonito, a retired logician from UC Irvine,
and assured me that Frank--whose reputation was already
established and secure--would agree to write me a letter
promising confidentiality. No big deal, right? This is how
academic networking is supposed to be done.
So I called Cannonito. The conversation began cordially
enough. Then I politely mentioned that our mutual
acquaintance had told me that I could expect a letter of
confidentiality. At this point, Professor Cannonito abruptly
underwent a meltdown. *"Now just a minute here!"*, he
shouted, *"YOU"RE THE ONE ASKING _ME_ FOR A
FAVOR!"* In a calm tone of voice, I agreed with him and
told him how appreciative I was. Nevertheless, I explained,
since I had invested a year of my time in this proof and was
not in a position to recover from its loss or plagiarism, I
couldn't risk becoming the victim of an accident or a
misunderstanding. Unfortunately, the Professor only became
more adamant, going so far as to accuse me of setting him
up for a lawsuit. Eventually, I had no choice but to excuse
myself and break off the conversation . . . but not before he
had provided me with the name of another logic professor.
This new professor, one Professor Mendelson, politely
informed me that he was too busy on another project to
help me. I thianked him and got off the phone. Then I cold-
called the math department at SUNY Stonybrook. The
responses ranged from polite dismissal to virtual screaming
frenzies in defense of a "system" that would collapse if
anyone in it ever promised confidentiality to an outsider. By
the time I was done, I'd realized that I was dealing with an
hysterical self-rationalizing automaton which regards its own
structure as a necessary and sufficient reason to operate
exclusively for its own advantage . . . a Catch-22 grinding
machine that could take a poor little guy like me, pulp him,
press him into paper, and print his own ideas on his own
dead hide under any name(s) at all provided they ended
with the trademark letters "Ph.D." In short, I realized that I
was dealing with a sanctimonious and well-organized scam.

>From *Noesis* #131, page 14:

The CTMU not only relates to classical philosophy by
embedding every valid philosophical system ever devised
(including yours [Ron Hoeflin's]), but it has dynamic
applications in mathematics and virtually every empirical
science. Furthermore, it is every bit as "purpose-intensive"
as your own theory. Again, if you want a complete,
simplified description, just convince me that I won't get
abused for my kindness by publicly acknowledging the
problems I've already solved, and by promising in writing
to stand behind me in case of a priority dispute. On these
points there can be no compromise.

>From "Noesis East" #134, August 1997, "The Current State
of the Mega Society," p. 4:

6. After the secret resignation of its former editor, the
former publisher of *Noesis*--the same former publisher
who is almost singlehandedly responsible for conditions
1-5--has now forged a cadre including himself, long-ago
Admissions Officer Jeff Ward, and unknown others for
the purpose of declaring an illegal "self-election" which
they expect to win on a knee-jerk basis. Incredibly, the
terms of this election directly violate the Mega Society
Constitution whose ratification has been put up for a
vote in the very same election. In order to avoid further
illegality, *that election is hereby suspended*.

>From "Noesis East" #134, p. 16, "Letter from Langan to [Jeff]
Ward":

As a contributor to *Noesis*--let alone the premier
member-contributor I've become over the years--I have
certain inalienable rights not subject to the fickle democratic
process. For example, I have the right to see my articles
published on time. For another, I have the right to
communicate directly with the journal's staff, particularly
regarding delays. In addition, I have the right to submit my
contributions to someone intellectually and emotionally
capable of treating them objectively. And I also have the
right--as does every Mega Society member--to see the
journal handled in a way most conducive to the welfare of
the Mega Society, and where possible, of me as a member.

>From "Noesis East" #134, p. 17:

With all due respect, my intellectual investment in the
Mega Society vastly outweighs Chris Cole's, and for that
matter your own [Jeff Ward's]. A strong case can be made
that without me and my knack for solving certain kinds of
problems, the Mega Society would be merely ludicrous.
That may be fine by you and Cole, and it may even be fine
by a majority of members. I can't answer for the assortment
of inferiority complexes and other psychopathies known to
afflict the frequenters of high-IQ clubs. But it isn't fine by
me, and it's my own investment of time and energy that I'm
determined to protect.

>From "Noesis East" #135, September 1997, "Announcing a
Mega Society Election," p. 2:

Absent any other explanation for its actions, we may
safely infer that the West Coast Faction intends to redefine
the terms "legality" and "illegality" to its own liking. The
Mega Society cannot, of course, endorse this kind of
nonsense as long-term policy. But in the interests of balance,
harmony and teaching certain sharp dealers a much-needed
lesson in tit-for-tat, we will temporarily adopt the WCF's
conventions.
*Accordingly, by the precedent established in the previous
"election"*, the Mega Society is hereby notified of another
election from which those who staged the former election
are expressly excluded (just as they excluded Paul Maxim).
As in the former election, approximately three (3) weeks will
be allowed for voting. Please send your votes to:
Chris Langan, P.O. Box 131, Speonk, NY 11972
on or before *November 7, 1997*.
Each eligible member may vote by submitting a numbered
ballot matching the sample ballot on page 24. (If you voted
in the previous election--and I have a pretty good idea who
did--or if I can identify you as a Cole-Ward-Langdon
partisan, then don't bother. They fixed one election, and I
figure one was enough. You must either be on my roster of
members, which is probably not the same as Cole/Ward/
Langdon's secret list, or you must submit proof of
qualification with your ballot).
Just as in the U.S. Congress, balloting is open; your name
will be expressly attached to your vote. But don't worry--if
you vote for the candidates in *this* election, you won't
have to worry about getting arrested or sued. So let's all do
our duty as members and *vote!*

>From "Noesis East" #135, pp. 16-18:

On the counterfeiting of Journals
Weeks after Noesis 134 was already in circulation,
former publisher Chris Cole mailed out something
purporting to be "Noesis 134." Obviously, it was not.
What it was, apparently, was a private newsletter
published by someone proposing to conduct Mega
Society business in *direct violation of California Law*.
For their own legal protectioin, members should disregard
it. Under no circumstances should you go on record as
aiding and abetting the violations it proposes by sending
the publisher any kind of monetary contribution. Not
only would such a contribution jeopardize your status
as a law-abiding citizen, but it will *not* be credited
towards your Mega Society membership dues or your
subscription to the real *Noesis*, in the event that the
law-abiding East Coast faction decides to levy taxes
like their West Coast rivals.
So much for the official part of the matter. Lest any
of our members get the mistaken impression that the
abovementioned counterfeit contains anything of
merit, I'll go over a couple of the misconceptions
being propagated by those responsible.
First, regarding the supposed "election" mentioned
therein, *no election was either declared by an
elected official of the Mega Society or sanctioned by
the old Mega Society Bylaws*. Thus, what this word
presumably refers to is yet another illegal plot hatched
by our Machiavellian former publisher and his cohorts.
One also notes that between five and seven voters were
claimed as participants. This number closely matches
the size of the tiny clique of former bigshots and
honorary members that just ran *Noesis* into the
ground, implicated the Mega Society in dangerous
illegal activities, and demonstrated beyond any shadow
of doubt that when it comes to math, philosophy and
psychometrics, they can neither reason their way out
of a wet paper bag nor agree with anybody who
*can*. Furthermore, the election was as phony as a
three dollar bill, necessitating the counterelection
announced in this issue. This was all expected, more
or less. Same old dogs, same old fleas. But just to be
sure, let's have a closer look.
East Beats West
Former Publisher Chris Cole asserts that only his
content-free edition of "Noesis" is official, and that
this edition is an unofficial newsletter being circulated
by a rank-and-file member. But Chris Cole is
displaying a very basic misconception here. While the
Mega Society indeed remains one single organization,
it is no longer a *politically unified* organization in
which a single self-elected group wields dictatorial
powers.
Now, due to certain irrational and illegal decisions
made by Chris Cole and his cronies, and due to the
indisputable fact that they just got caught trying to
stage a transparently fake election, the Mega Society
consists of *two distinct factions* which have parted
ways over several irreconcilable differences. The key
issues, and the positions taken on them by the West
Coast and East Coast Factions, are as follows:
1) Whether or not the Mega Society should obey
certain statutes of state criminal law.
A) *West Coast Faction*: No. The Mega Society
should *deliberately violate* state laws.
B) *East Coast Faction*: Yes. The Mega Society
should *obey* state laws.
2) How the Mega Society should define itself and its
qualification exams in light of these statutes.
A) WCF: The Mega Society should continue to define
itself in terms of IQ despite accepting only "adult
IQ", as measured by the LAIT and Mega Tests, and
rejecting "childhood IQ," as measured by timed and
supervised tests, as admission criteria. It should
continue to facilitate the marketing of uncertified
"IQ tests" in sates with laws that require, at the very
least, that untimed and and unsupervised Mega-
style tests be relabeled (e.g., as *IEQ* tests). If it
gets sued or criminally prosecuted, it should trust
Chris Cole's lawyer to get it off the hook.
B) ECF: The Mega Society should redesignate its
Mega-style adult IQ tests as *IEQ tests* to avoid
legal difficulties, accepting scores from both IQ
and IEQ tests for purposes of qualification.
(Otherwise, it would have to re-norm its adult tests
using only other adult tests, thus creating a sharper
adult IQ-child IQ distinction and making the two
essentially incomparable . . . not to mention
lowering the IQs of most of its members in the
process. In that case, it could not use the general
term "IQ" to define itself.)
3) Whether the concept of IQ, as defined in the
conventional time-independent way, allows a
logically consistent distinction between adult IQ
and childhood IQ on the basis of tests which differ
mainly on the computational complexity of their
problems, *despite the use of common child-
oriented IQ tests to norm adult IQ tests*.
A) WCF: Yes. We can define ourselves on IQ for
publicity purposes, we can privately distinguish
between adult and child IQ despite using child
tests to norm adult tests, and then we can pull a
fast switcheroo and define ourselves on "adult IQ"
for purposes of qualification. If we're arrested or
sued, that's the chance "we" took.
B) ECF: No. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
There may be a real difference between adult and
child IQ, but we're not yet in a position to spell it
out completely. In order to call a high-ceiling adult
test an "IQ test" at all, ordinary IQ tests--the vast
majority of which have low ceilings relative to
exceptional adults--must be used to norm it. The
norming process thus compromises the proposed
distinction. Until we can overcome this difficulty,
we have to do what's right.
4) Whether the Mega Society is (a) a group of high-
ceiling IQ test guinea pigs for two honorary
members who design high-ceiling IQ tests, or
(b) a legitimate reasearch organization whose
purpose and only hope for establishing credibility
is to make scientific and artistic contributions of a
kind consistent with its supposed intellectual
standards and the wishes of those who founded
the worldwide High-IQ community.
A) WCF: The answer is (a). Ron Hoeflin, the founder
of the Mega Society, appointed Chris Cole. So by
the eternal law of patronage, Chris Cole gets to call
all the shots. His opinions and personal interests
are in every way superior to those of the group as
a whole. Kevin Langdon designs amateur IQ tests,
so his opinions predominate as well. Chris and
Kevin, along with Jeff Ward and a tiny handful of
accomplices, can form a self-electing cabal to
enforce their dicta, staging fake elections where
necessary. Furthermore, they can irrationally
ignore and oppose members who solve important
problems on personal and political grounds,
thereby stunting the Society's growth and impairing
its credibility.
B) ECF: The answer is (b). You can't declare yourself
a "supergenius" without doing something to prove
it. If you do nothing, you only make yourself look
boastful and ridiculous. If Mega members are as
intelligent as they claim to be, then they should
solve important problems that others are not
intelligent enough to solve (as opposed to problems
which cannot be solved due to a shortage of
nonintellectual resources).
5) Whether any self-elected group can jam *ex post
facto* legislation down the Society's throat,
especially regarding admissions, and in particular
the admission of member Paul Maxim.
A) WCF: Yes. We rejected Paul Mxim, then we fake-
elected ourselves, and now we are attempting an
*ex post facto* legitimization of our behavior in
the Maxim case
B) ECF: No. *Ex post facto* policy-making is unfair.
Nobody is going to deny that these are very
important differences. Since they turn on basic points
of logic and legality, these differences cannot really
be resolved by voting. Even if Chris Cole and Jeff
Ward go out into the streets of LA to freely distribute
Mega Tests and crib sheets, drug and recruit the
recipients as voting members of the West Coast
Faction, and stage another "election" which they win
by 50,000 votes, it means nothing. The only
important fact is that the West Coast Faction
categorically refuses to partake in rational discussion
regarding these issues. So the East Coast Faction is
forced, by the laws of logic and the criminal code, to
take official exception.
Obviously, with logic, honesty, and Johnny Law
squarely on its side, the East Coast Faction has at
least as much right to declare itself the *real* Mega
Society as its West Coast counterpart. In fact, it has
much *more*. It also has greater powers of survival.
For instance, if some disgruntled applicant decides
to get on the phone and contact the State Medical
Boards of the other 49 states which have not yet
come down on us, it will make no difference; our
policies are designed to weather that contingency
(which some would say is inevitable, especially as
things stand). End of discussion . . . for now.

>From "Noesis East" #135, "Sample Ballot," p. 24:

*Sample Ballot* (Use a copy, *not* the original.)
Abstentions are not permitted. If you want to
vote, you must vote on everything.
Member's name and address:
"I did not vote in the last election, and I endorse
neither it nor the illegal activities of those who
staged it."
Signature (required): ____________________
[*Warning:* The above statement is designed to
counteract the illegal exclusion of certain members
from the last election. Lying on this ballot could get
you expelled!]
1. Re item 1 on page 17, the Mega Society should
adopt position: A B (circle one)
2. Re item 2, the Mega Society should adopt
position: A B
3. Re item 3, the Mega Society should adopt
position: A B
4. Re item 4, the Mega Society should adopt
position: A B
5. Re item 5, the Mega Society should adopt
position: A B
6. On a recent call for nominations to edit *Noesis*,
only one fully-qualified member of the Mega
Society volunteered: *Chris Langan*. Should
Chris Langan edit *Noesis* (East Coast Edition)?
Yes No (circle one)
If "No", then list alternate candidate (nominee's
acceptance required).
Government by secrecy is not good government,
particularly in cases where it has led to rigged
elections and other abuses. When the results of this
election are published *your name will be published
with your vote*. So vote your conscience.
Remember, if a Mega member wants to cheat on
his taxes, fine. That's between him and the IRS. If
he gets nailed, the Mega Society keeps on ticking.
But in this case, the violators would take the Society
down with them. Meanwhile, they offer us nothing
in return for sharing their risk. No compromise, no
rational discussion, no nothing . . . just another
frozen crate of mindless self-interest, dropped on
our heads from a lofty height. If they asked us to
vote on whether the Mega Society should rob banks
so that they could take all the money, would we vote
"yes"? Of course not. So don't get caught doing the
equivalent here. Show them that you have a mind of
your own!


Compiled by Kevin Langdon

---
This is the Prometheus mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a message to
majordomo@PrometheusSociety.org with a body of:
unsubscribe fire