Chris Langan: Extraordinary Man Living Life On His Own Terms

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
I'd settle for him actually figuring out who is responsible for political correctness and the destruction of the west and what their true objectives are - something more coherent and fleshed out than (((globalism))) or global governance or a one world government. Maybe working on a physics theory of everything is less threatening to the powers at be but this would be more useful for humankind. Reality sometimes seems so bizarre that maybe it takes a 200 IQ to really pull back the covers and really understand what the truth is. He is obviously red pill so he must have inklings of why the elite are pushing an agenda that is clearly destructive to civilization.
 

Vaun

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I have to agree with Fortis; wasted, selfish potential. Thats fine I guess, darwinian self selection. The MGTOW dream, mayor of MGTOWN.
 
sterling_archer said:

I enjoyed video OP posted and here is another related one. Interestingly, his ideas about universe are related with Eastern philosophies.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. Like I said, (I'm still digging into this) there's a lot of freakishly insightful stuff in Hindu cosmology. For example:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...hysics-lab-has-a-statue-of-lord-shiva-2186655

Popular scientist Carl Sagan was the one who introduced this idea in the West through his show Cosmos. He had said: "Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, no doubt, by accident, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half of the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still."

Yeah sure, it's by 'accident' their time scales match up with what we knew. They just randomly picked billions of years for the age of the universe...I think modern man, especially Western modern man, has a very hard time imaging that people several thousand years ago were just as smart (or even smarter) than him. Part of it is possibly the teleological view of history many people have - i.e. that we're progressing from being dumb ignorant people to a more intelligent species. When in reality, history is predominantly a rhythm, with civilizations going through stages, and each major civilization having absolute geniuses such as Chris Langan and other high IQ people.

Western cosmology and physics are moving closer towards insights that are very similar to what you see in the East. Erwin Schrodinger apparently got his inspiration for his famous equation from reading Hindu scriptures. He talks quite a bit about it in his book 'What is Life'.

Tesla, Bohr, Einstein, Oppenheimer - all these dudes were reading Hindu literature:
https://www.newsgram.com/how-scient...n-found-the-true-meaning-of-physics-in-vedas/

Oppenheimer famously quoted Krishna when they tested the A-bomb: 'I am become death, the destroyer of world' (in sanskrit time and death are the same word...).

I'm not too surprised Chris Langan has views that are similar to Eastern philosophies. I briefly skimmed over his intro paper to his CTMU theory.
1) it focuses, heavily on Western thought, starting with Descartes (Enlightenment)
2) heavy emphasis on modern day science, especially quantum mechanics

Langan seems to be moving in the same direction as the physicists I referenced above - although from his paper I don't see any Eastern influence. He seems intently focused on proving things scientifically, with the languages and jargon of the West - he states the universe is a self-directing program (using computer science terminology). If you know a bit about Hindu cosmology, that's basically Brahman. I wonder how much, if any, interaction Langan has had with Eastern philosophy. But all in all, I'd be really surprised if he doesn't eventually come up with stuff that's basically Hindu philosophy. When it comes to humanity, and even reality - I don't believe there's anything new to discover. Sure, there's the scientific/technological stuff - but ultimately people are reinventing the wheel when it comes to philosophy.

Rene Guenon, one of the founders of the traditionalist school, had this to say:
We do not mean to refer only to the priceless personal gain that would accrue to those who were thus led to study the Eastern doctrines, wherein, if they were endowed with the smallest aptitude of the necessary kind, they would discover knowledge, the like of which exists nowhere in the West, and compared to which philosophies that there are looked upon as the sublime creations of genius are but as child's play...

Hypno said:
Genghis Khan said:
Tangentially, what if ultimate theories of reality already exist. I've been digging deep into Hindu philosophy - there's a lot there that's been dumbed down tremendously, but it has a very rich and complex cosmology behind it. As there have been approximately 100 billion people in existence, it's not inconceivable to me that either in ancient India (which had a strong philosophical tradition) or somewhere else, another man with an IQ of 200 realized an ultimate theory. Ha, perhaps a lot of religions are simply the dumbing down of the thoughts of people beyond our intellect.

Interesting post. Curiously, a lot of the UFO folks, especially those who believe in remove viewing, reach a similar conclusion. Not saying I endorse their view, but they reach the same point, basically all there is love. Sound familiar?

No doubt. I think incredible wise and intelligent men from all ages and civilizations eventually come to very, very similar thought processes. The UFO people - I can see why. If you falsely assume people 5,000 years ago were dumber than us (a pretty low bar considering the average person today), the only alternative would be highly intelligent non-humans.
 
Arado said:
I'd settle for him actually figuring out who is responsible for political correctness and the destruction of the west and what their true objectives are - something more coherent and fleshed out than (((globalism))) or global governance or a one world government. Maybe working on a physics theory of everything is less threatening to the powers at be but this would be more useful for humankind. Reality sometimes seems so bizarre that maybe it takes a 200 IQ to really pull back the covers and really understand what the truth is. He is obviously red pill so he must have inklings of why the elite are pushing an agenda that is clearly destructive to civilization.

Read world history.
Oswald Spengler - The Decline of the West
Edward Gibbon - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Arnold Toynbee - A Study of History

In a nutshell: every major civilization goes through this. This type of decline, with invading barbarians, more freedom for women, excess wealth, homosexuality are all inevitable signs of a civilization entering its twilight years. And if it wasn't (((globalists))) enabling it, it would've been someone else.
 

Mage

 
Genghis Khan said:
In a nutshell: every major civilization goes through this. This type of decline, with invading barbarians, more freedom for women, excess wealth, homosexuality are all inevitable signs of a civilization entering its twilight years. And if it wasn't (((globalists))) enabling it, it would've been someone else.

On the other hand the (((globalists))) were around Rome too. They were around Assyria and Persia too and pretty much any civilization recent and western enough for us to have enough information about, to use as an example of decline. Not claiming there is a definite causation here, just pointing it out.

On the counter point - while I am not a big expert on Chinese history and I am sure they also had their share of turbulence, it seems China on overall has only gotten more unified and stronger trough multiple millennia while conserving their Confucian and Buddhist culture for a long time and allowing both of them to coexist peacefully. The only major turnaround for them I know, was the Marxist revolution and that is something arguably also (((globalist))) inspired to thwart that multiple millennia old conservatism found in Confucianism and Buddhism analogous to Roman Pagan conservatism thwarted by relatively more liberal Christianity and then Christianity thwarted by atheism, Marxism, feminism, LGBT and so on.
 
Rush87 said:
A big thing I've noticed about highly intelligent people, is that the higher up the scale they tend to run, apathy seems to increase towards a range of endeavours with which others would deem 'great accomplishments'.

Essentially, they start to see things for what they really are, often times understanding that most accomplishments in life are largely inconsequential. You can surely argue against that [As I would] otherwise I'd be promoting an existence of futility, but I can see why outside of this burning question, nothing else may interest him.
I don't think that's the case, there seem to be highly intelligent people on both sides of the fence, or really everywhere on the spectrum. It's just a question of competing concepts of "the meaning of life" and what does one do when confronted with the notion that we all turn to dust. Illustrated perfectly by the story of Alexander the Great and Diogenes the Cynic.

Some highly intelligent people like Napoleon or Alexander or Louis XIV or Caesar think, as fleeting as life is, glory is the only way to have any meaning and to "cheat death" somehow by being remembered by posterity.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the likes of Buddha and the other spiritual masters and philosophers who figure, "we're all going to die very soon no matter what we do, so all that empire business isn't worth a bowl of shit, especially given the suffering it causes". So they just figure, live a virtuous life and do what makes you happy.

You could call it "doing" vs "not doing", or "soft" vs "strong" or "dynamism" vs "stasis" or whatever. Just another duality that seems to be woven in the fabric of the universe, like the Yin/Yang model illustrates.

"Doing" seems to be the engine that drives all we call progress, but the downside is a lot of suffering and death are used as fuel. On the other hand no harm ever came from a man quietly doing his gardening and going to bed early, but nothing good came from it either.

The thing is, these are not conscious choices, but merely rationalizing your own nature and calling it "virtue". Alexander couldn't have sat quietly in a monastery any more than Aristotle could have raised an army and started raiding.

As to what makes people what they are, that's the ultimate question, isn't it? One guess is as good as another. Personally I'm found of Timothy Leary's theory.

But really these are all the Big Questions that have existed since time immemorial. What makes people what they are? Do we have free will? Can we change? etc.

We won't ever get any answers because there probably are none. Just choices and perspectives.
 

Gmac

Peacock
Gold Member
Seems like a fascinating guy to me. I'd love an opportunity sit down with him for an afternoon and talk about life and the world. Thanks for sharing QC.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
The PerSev said:
Rush87 said:
A big thing I've noticed about highly intelligent people, is that the higher up the scale they tend to run, apathy seems to increase towards a range of endeavours with which others would deem 'great accomplishments'.

Essentially, they start to see things for what they really are, often times understanding that most accomplishments in life are largely inconsequential. You can surely argue against that [As I would] otherwise I'd be promoting an existence of futility, but I can see why outside of this burning question, nothing else may interest him.
I don't think that's the case, there seem to be highly intelligent people on both sides of the fence, or really everywhere on the spectrum. It's just a question of competing concepts of "the meaning of life" and what does one do when confronted with the notion that we all turn to dust. Illustrated perfectly by the story of Alexander the Great and Diogenes the Cynic.

Some highly intelligent people like Napoleon or Alexander or Louis XIV or Caesar think, as fleeting as life is, glory is the only way to have any meaning and to "cheat death" somehow by being remembered by posterity.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the likes of Buddha and the other spiritual masters and philosophers who figure, "we're all going to die very soon no matter what we do, so all that empire business isn't worth a bowl of shit, especially given the suffering it causes". So they just figure, live a virtuous life and do what makes you happy.

I would propose that everyone mentioned would be more or less apathetic to what the majority would have considered great achievements. They were apex or bust [Which I forgot to add in my initial quote].

From my experience, I've yet to hear of a case where someone with a genius level IQ realised that they'll have no impact on their field of interest, and then been content to work their ass off to reach the apex of a relatively far more trivial endeavour. I imagine it could have happened, but it would be rare.

On a side note - Do anyone know if there's any links where he expands on his assertion that there is a creator?
 
Mage said:
Genghis Khan said:
In a nutshell: every major civilization goes through this. This type of decline, with invading barbarians, more freedom for women, excess wealth, homosexuality are all inevitable signs of a civilization entering its twilight years. And if it wasn't (((globalists))) enabling it, it would've been someone else.

On the other hand the (((globalists))) were around Rome too. They were around Assyria and Persia too and pretty much any civilization recent and western enough for us to have enough information about, to use as an example of decline. Not claiming there is a definite causation here, just pointing it out.

On the counter point - while I am not a big expert on Chinese history and I am sure they also had their share of turbulence, it seems China on overall has only gotten more unified and stronger trough multiple millennia while conserving their Confucian and Buddhist culture for a long time and allowing both of them to coexist peacefully. The only major turnaround for them I know, was the Marxist revolution and that is something arguably also (((globalist))) inspired to thwart that multiple millennia old conservatism found in Confucianism and Buddhism analogous to Roman Pagan conservatism thwarted by relatively more liberal Christianity and then Christianity thwarted by atheism, Marxism, feminism, LGBT and so on.

There's a lot of literature and historical data from Ancient India. It definitely followed a very similar trajectory as the classical world (Greece/Rome). Since this is a game forum: if you've ever read through the Kama Sutra, you'll notice it's not actually a sex position book as the notion is popularized in the West, but a game manual in the same vein as Roosh's Bang. :lol: Guess ancient India Roosh made some good money selling game guides to ancient India hapless betas. The Kama Sutra even mentions other game guides (lost through the ages), so there was definitely a market for it :lol:.

I find it hard to believe that there were Jews in India about 2000 years ago. That said, they probably did have their own version of (((globalists))).

From a game theory point of view, it almost seems inevitable. Take a large, homogeneous and economically dominant civilization. Then take a tight-knit merchant tribe, with a slightly higher than average IQ. Tribe is attracted to the civilization for its economic opportunities. Initially no big deal, they're just a small group of people, minding their own business. Plus the upper class people like them a lot for the economic wealth they bring. Slowly, but surely though the tribe people eventually dominate academia, white-collar professions, and the entertainment business. And boom, you got your (((globalists))).

I wouldn't be surprised if Rome, Persia, Babylon, India, China and so forth also had their own version of (((nationalists))), maybe even had a civil war going on as per AB's theory, with the (((nationalists))) of the day realizing a strong civilization is good for the tribe, but still ultimately losing out to the massive inertia the decadence brought.

I know it's fun to blame the Jews, but there's something to be said about the West having done so well that people got cocky and started taking out the foundations of their own civilization. It's not too hard to see what the Enlightement and its elevation of man and reason above God and nature brought about, with the death of God and an abandonment of tradition. Unless I'm mistaken, a lot of the Enlightenment luminaries weren't Jews? It does put a different light on the Catholic Church persecution of Galileo. Perhaps deep down they knew what the long-term consequences would be. Similar to how Athens made Socrates drink hemlock for questioning so much of Greek tradition.

An example of merchant tribes: India has its version of Jews. They're called Jains - a group of about 10 million people (out of an Indian population of 1.2bn), highly educated, highly successful and predominantly merchants. Maybe Jains were the Jews of ancient India. I doubt it, although Jainism was similar to Buddhism - both were reactions to the orthodox Hindu religion and were actually undermining Hinduism in that regard.

Regardless, the fact I know of at least one other group like the Jews means the Jews aren't a one-off anomaly, but rather a successful game theory strategy in real life. Merchant tribes are a bitch though, by definition their main purpose in life is to make money. And money means you can disproportionally dominate the society you live in.

This isn't to say (((globalists))) have no blame. But the question is what if you didn't have Jews in the West. Would it have been another group perpetuating the same shitty ideas, and for me, the answer is yes. Even in the US, I can easily imagine Indian-Americans pulling the same stunt. They're a relatively small and tight-knit group, they're pretty successful in white-collar professions (actually pull the highest average salary out of any group) and have recently made some major gains in entertainment with the likes of Kal Penn, Aziz Ansari, Hasan Minhaj, Mindy Kaling and a bunch of billionaires. One of the biggest donors to Trump was a Hindu. Not to mention Nikky Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Dinesh D'Souza. I've also seen quite a few of my Indian-American friends (both men and women) marry with native whites, especially in the Ivy League/Tech/Finance circles. Their influence is only going to increase in the upcoming decades, and unfortunately, I don't think it'll be for the better on the whole.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Quintus Curtius said:
Fortis:

Good point.

When you have that much ability, it almost carries with it a certain duty to perfect that ability, and to produce something of value for your peers and for posterity.

I agree with this.

It doesn't look like he's lived up to his potential.

But we should remember that this view is not shared by everyone. One could make a very convincing argument that his only responsibility is to himself: that he owes no one anything, and he is simply living his life as he sees fit.

It's not an easy question to answer. You get into philosophic questions about individual imperatives vs. duties to society.

At least it's something to think about.

And:

Fortis said:
I do agree that he doesn't have to do anything, but as a man, I tend to look at people in the scope of their accomplishments, especially exceptional men like this one.

What has he done aside from being born with a high IQ and putzing around?

I do think he will look back on his life in 20 years when he is in his 70s and go "wow, I really did waste this opportunity I was granted on this earth."

It makes me think of this scene from "Good Will Hunting" :


If this guy was your friend wouldn't you feel slightly resentful that he has something you'll never have but instead of scoring a great victory with it, he's just content to sit on a farm and piss away his time and energy.
Fuck, he doesn't even appear to have kids, so this great intellectual lineage is actually threatened by time itself. Imagine how you'll feel when you hear about this guy's death in 20 years and the only thing he's left behind is some horses and a widow.

No great ideas, no strong, masculine, intelligent sons, just a cool story about being a drifter with an exceptionally high IQ who parlayed it into a farm with some horses and some quirky theory that no one knows about.

Seems to be a waste to me.

I read a stat somewhere that the IQ cutoff for PhDs is 135 - not the lower cutoff, the upper cutoff. The feeling you're describing is universal - it's not just 80 IQ labourers who would resent a genius's intelligence, the 120/130s are also going to resent him as well, and throw up political obstacles to his advancement.

There's also the issue of boredom. Think of the sort of people who master a mundane skill: let's say changing the oil in one's car. I know how to change my oil, and I'm aware that I could become a 'savant' at changing the oil - pouring precisely the right amount in, calibrating for whether or not the filter has been replaced, without checking the dipstick - but why bother? At the end of the day it's just an oil change.

For something to be worthy of mastery it needs to be interesting - and if you can figure out 90% of the game within the first five minutes, why bother dedicating years of your life to it? Geniuses don't become world class Checkers champions because it's not worth your time. The sort of monkey politics that most people get up to is equally banal to such people. Should I dedicate tons of mental energy to navigating the emotional blockades of "garbage trap" minds? Or should I set up a farm with my sexy, intelligent wife, tell the world to fuck off, and focus on stuff that interests me?

Ironically, lower-class work is well suited to high IQ people. Nobody gets resentful on a jobsite about your intelligence if you do your job - if anything, the fact that you pick up skills and ideas quickly is appreciated. It's the upper echelons of society who really get upset with intelligence.
 

Quintus Curtius

Crow
Gold Member
@Boschulus:

I agree with everything you said, chief. Everyone has to find the life that is best suited for them, and I'm not condemning anyone. It's just that for me, knowing my own personality, I need to be in the brick-fight. I am not suited to a life of Thoreau-like contemplation in the woods. I want to produce, to generate, to create. It's just a personality-driven thing.

And I really appreciate the great comments that guys have written here. I've learned a lot from them.

I guess what's really eating away at me are these difficult questions. I'm having a hard time answering them:

1. Can we call Langan a Wise Man? Is he living the life that is best suited for him--based on his personality, background, and emotional makeup--or is he simply squandering his unique gifts?

2. What really is "achievement"? Is it having an extensive resume, a large bank account, or bedding a lot of women? Or is it being a Good Man, or a Wise Man?

I think how we go about answering these questions tells us a lot about ourselves.

The best conclusion I can come up with is that it all comes down to personal choice. Some personalities, like Langan's, need to be in quiet, calming settings. They don't want to deal with the insanity of the world. Other personalities like the fight, the strife, the conflict, and the brick-fights.

It all comes down to personal choice.

But think about this: even if Langan's great ability does not "produce" anything, perhaps that very lack of production is a thing of beauty in itself.

Maybe it's like Rutger Hauer's final soliloquy in the original "Blade Runner." Langan has seen and imagined things that the rest of us will never comprehend.

And when he dies, all that knowledge will be lost...like tears in the rain.


.
 

RexImperator

Crow
Gold Member
AB said:
I find great peace in stillness, more peace and satisfaction than in any of my life's 'superficial' achievements that might impress others, none of which were really that hard beyond putting in regular work. The quieter I am, the more distractions are lessened, and the less I need to prove myself to the world, so the closer I feel to God.

Eckhart von Hochheim (1260-1328) said:
"Be sure of this: absolute stillness for as long as possible is best of all for you."

"Since it is God's nature not to be like anyone, we have to come to the state of being nothing in order to enter into the same nature that He is."

"Above thought is the intellect, which still seeks: it goes about looking, spies out here and there, picks up and drops. But above the intellect that seeks is another intellect which does not seek but stays in its pure, simple being, which is embraced in that light."
 

DeusLuxMeaEst

Pelican
Gold Member
He seems like an interesting man. I hope that the theory that he is working on comes to fruition and helps humanity in some way.

After a certain age you quickly realize that superficial or material achievements do not lead to happiness.

That's why if you study the lives of very wealthy and successful men they tend to focus on philanthropy and altruism later in life. They may have been cutthroat to accumulate their wealth, but eventually it goes back to where it came from. Is this some type of universal law? I'm not sure.
I'm of the belief that we really never own anything anyway. We're just leasing everything we have, and eventually it goes back to nature where it came from.

We're on a travel and game forum, but if I'm honest with myself has bedding women brought me profound peace and satisfaction? I must say it has not. But you know a few recent things that have brought me happiness and contentment?

Giving to the victims of the LV shooting.

Standing next to an elderly woman in the line of the supermarket who just wanted a listening ear. Out of the blue she told me she had recently come up with some good jokes and asked if I was interested in hearing some of them. Of course I was. They weren't bad (I'm a harsh critic) so I told her about a local place that has open mic night and that she should sign up. She smiled and was thrilled, and said that her own kids and grandchildren haven't given her a word of encouragement in several years.

All this isn't to say one should be passive. There are many things in this world to fight for. I'm still motivated to achieve goals and complete projects, but the focus has shifted from external to internal. In the past I tended to do things because I wanted external admiration, now it's mainly to develop internal qualities.

And if you really look deeply aren't the internal conditions much stronger?

When I look at it in that sense, attempting to develop a theory that unites the mind, the universe, and may give us a glimpse of God seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

I think what's telling is the fact that his life is so confusing to so many people. It shows how deeply entrenched we are in the material and superficial paradigm, and how much spirituality has been lost.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Quintus Curtius said:
Fortis:

Good point.

When you have that much ability, it almost carries with it a certain duty to perfect that ability, and to produce something of value for your peers and for posterity.

I agree with this.

It doesn't look like he's lived up to his potential.

But we should remember that this view is not shared by everyone. One could make a very convincing argument that his only responsibility is to himself: that he owes no one anything, and he is simply living his life as he sees fit.

It's not an easy question to answer. You get into philosophic questions about individual imperatives vs. duties to society.

At least it's something to think about.


There is at least some true to the idea that to whom much is given, much is expected. However, there are limits.

What about a man who decides the current system is fucked and therefore they will enjoy the decline? Are they shirking their moral obligation to make as much money as possible and thereby pay as much in taxes as possible? Obviously not.

This guy was in the rat race and had his fill, so he got out. I think that's his right. Also, if he is trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe, and comes up with some ideas of value, then shares them, he's providing value in that way. Even if he doesn't, and he just lives a quiet life that he prefers, his is fully justified morally.
 

king bast

Kingfisher
With the draw of physical and non-intellectual pursuits, the shunning of traditional measures of success and the commonalities with spirituality, especially eastern spirituality, I recognise so many parallels between this man and myself, even though my IQ is probably only 2/3 of his.

I skipped a year of school, I probably could have skipped a few more and the work still wouldn't have been any tougher. The expectation others had for me was that since I found book-learnin' so easily, I'd just move onto ultra-high-level book learnin. But what happened in reality was that I wanted to fit in with my (older) classmates and not seem like a "square", so just skated over whatever learning was necessary to get a ~60% grade with 0% effort, and got back to my musings. While the "smart kids" were cramming for exams, I was getting wasted and staying out all night - 2 very different approaches, but the results were the same in the end.

Contrast this with the effort I poured into physical pursuits - from kickboxing and weightlifting at 13 through til today, these are pursuits that you can't take a shortcut on. You put 0% effort into these, and you get found out real quick. I think the reasons for getting immersed in what normies think of as "meathead"pursuits are 2 fold - 1) to ensure I wasn't fucked with by my older and bigger classmates and 2) Because they were the only things that were challenging. In the same way a hot chick longs to be known for her brains not just her body, I wanted to be known for my body, not just my brains. But to be honest these are just rationalisations many years after the fact - at the time, the reason I got into them was just because I wanted to, it just appealed to me. I noted that Langan got heavily into the weights too, I wonder if it was for similar reasons.

5 or 6 years ago I left a good paying job in a "smart" industry to retrain at a trade level. Society would consider this a regressive step, but I've never been happier. I too have an overarching affinity with nature and desire for self-sufficiency rather than the rat race. Although I haven't moved out to a farm (yet) , my suburban block is about as close as I can get to it right now. While my neighbours are paving everything in sight or putting down shitty artificial grass because it's "less maintenance", my block is as practical as I can get. (Real) Grass for the chickens to scratch on, Almost every plant/tree is edible or has some practical use - nature gives back the effort I put into tending it. Far from being the chore my neighbours see it as, I like the maintenance a garden requires. It's early springtime now - I love just meandering around, seeing the new growth grow from day-to-day. This seems like it could well be the same feeling that drove Langan to forego the trappings of wealth and move to the farm.

The other parallel is the formulation of a personal theory of everything. I started writing little snippets and observations that fit together in my early teens, and for the last god-knows-how-long I've been "meaning to" collate them into something more coherent. The problem is that while they all make perfect sense to me, understanding it would require all the unspoken pre-requisite knowledge that I have. Where do you start explaining the sum-total of your lifes experience? Couple the grand scale of the subject matter with the atrophied communication skills of someone with half a lifetime spent thinking "ahh fuck it, you wouldn't understand anyway, so I won't bother explaining" and it's very likely my own theory of everything is never going to see the light of day, but hopefully that of Langan, or another like him, does. On the other hand, he is twenty-odd years older than me, so there is still plenty of time.

Such a theory wouldn't be for everyone though, the reader would need to have some degree of "wokeness" to start with, otherwise their shallow, superficial understanding will just insulate them from the deeper truths contained within. You gotta go in with an open mind, maaaan, and if you've ever tried to "red-pill"someone, you'll know that an open mind isn't all that common a thing. If he ever does get his theory squared away in a palatable format, don't expect it to see mass-circulation. That's one work you'd need to actively seek out.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Let's not forget that when you have an IQ that's capable of changing the world you have to make a serious decision about whether you're willing to piss off the very powerful people who don't want the world changed.

The shadowy powerbrokers of the world take high intelligence very seriously, and I'm sure they keep tabs on guys like this. In a world of algorithm based stock trading and world-wide-web destroying viruses, men like this fellow are literally capable of bringing the world to its knees if properly motivated.
 

Comte De St. Germain

Crow
Gold Member
Quintus Curtius said:
an the absence of stress--i.e., the absence of pain--really be called happiness? Can this man be called a Wise Man?

These are the questions that interest me.

Depends what you consider painful. For me it's painful to sit indoors for too long and not venture out into the world. I get physically restless and feel absolute misery being cooped up. A book, a video game, or some physical exercise at home give me only an hour or two of relief(unless I've exhausted myself the previous day and I have to stay in to recover).

What is painful for one is not painful for the other. Discipline in the traditional sense never worked for me. I only got it after being unable to tolerate sloth.

I choose trying to achieve greatness because I am mentally and physically unable to be complacent. Hell I know I'll die on my feet in some far off land chasing a 1 in a million chance at great success.

It's only a matter of when.

Edit: And I honestly don't know what greatness is. My theory is that if I keep interacting with the world physically and experience new things about humans constantly I'll figure out what it'll be. Perhaps it'll be one great moment or it could be some long drawn out project. I figure I'll only figure it out if I just keep moving. The only thing I'm certain of is that I still have something waiting for me where I am right now. Even when I travel I always feel like going back where I am currently.
 

Comte De St. Germain

Crow
Gold Member
AnonymousBosch said:
Work steadily towards a desired goal based upon your own Free Will and you'll eventually get exactly what you thought you always wanted. That's when you'll discover it's never what you actually need.

This brought a tear to my eye. Thank you for that.
 

Samseau

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
This is a great thread, my take is that Chris's high IQ made him an outcast everywhere he went except ironically at the lower ends of the IQ spectrum. He is a man of God and found the humbleness of the ordinary worker to be far preferable to sinful arrogance of the so called elites.

Langan's expulsion from the university world, a world that should have accepted him with open arms, was just a precursor of the political correctness to come. At first they could not accept a 200 IQ individual, then as diversity politics and affirmative action sunk in the threshold for untolerable IQ became lower and lower. Nowadays any White man with an IQ over 120 will be killed in any department outside of STEM, and even that is being destroyed as I type.

The natural outcome, of course, for the intelligent to be excluded from the university doesn't mean that intelligent men disappear. It means they go elsewhere, and begin their own studies and theories, which is of course how we got men like Socrates, Augustine, Descarte, and so many others. Our civilization was literally created by genius outcasts who devoted their time and efforts towards solving the most complex problems they could approach, and Chris is carrying on this wonderful and holy tradition.

His life quite reminds me of Kant. Kant did not start his best work until the last 20 years of his life. Chris is in his peak of his philosophical years, as I once outlined here:

http://www.returnofkings.com/2859/when-are-a-mans-best-years

This is a good case of "wait and see." Chris's theory sounds a lot like Kant's, trying to explain the relationship of the mind to the world, and Kant's achievement was so profound virtually 200 years of science following the Critique of Pure Reason were developed on his philosophical insights. Including men like Einstein, Faraday, and Bertrand Russell.

And even if he fails, he is still a noble man for undertaking such a task in the first place. Failure is not the embarrassment, inaction is, and this man is putting his mind to work despite having no obligation to a society that ostracized him.
 
Top