I've cleared space for my business stories by relocating present and future pk stories to April 2009.
Jail stories I'm locating temporally beginning at 2009 November 15. Church stories I'll locate "here": 2010 November.
Note the common theme of these stories: they all reflect the non-convivial non-Christian nature of our society.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Prisoners of Election Time
Resurrecting Knatz.com / Personal / Writing / Satire
My first political letter was sent to the Kennedy White House protesting US support of the south Vietnamese government which I understood to be corralling Buddhists into concentration camps. It was a letter about freedom of religion (and international responsibilty). I got back a pound or two of anti-Communitst propaganda. The White House made no attempt to smudge the irrelevance of its response.
Well, I already knew that my reps didn't know how to think, that bureaucrats (including university personell) didn't know how to read ... and that was the last political letter I wrote that said what I meant at all literally. I continued to write — for my and God's (and Satan's) amusement — ironies only. The White House, the UN, Mao's China continued to ignore my messages: until this one! which got back a gold embossed reply! The White House misread my insults as favorable!
This letter is from 1 Feb 1972. I choose it to lead the reposting of my joke letters because of the White House's gold-embossed reply under the Presidential Seal. I'm as proud of that as I would have been of a six- or seven-figure check.
Critical Timing:
I hope you notice that Nixon's new promise wasn't moving the date closer, but was in fact postponing it. My satiric tempo of indefinite postponements followed his lead.
Malfunctioning Joke:
I'm not sure my last joke of the letter, the one about "karma balance," worked: then or now. Jokes shouldn't have to be explained, even if no one in the (human) audience gets it. (If God doesn't get it either, than an author is really in trouble!) I say a further word here now anyway if only as an indictment pk's perfection as an artist. Some cosmologies imagine the universe as finite, some as infinite. Jesus saying that his father's house had many mansions refers literally to a finite heaven but symbolically with suggestions of endlessness: infinity. Contemporary cosmology is largely unexamined infinity in assumption: there's no limit to growth, to population, to resources. I was playing the idea of finite souls against the idea of infinite souls. In other words, in order to make room for new souls, we have to kill a few old bodies. Don't plant new cabbages in an uncleared cabbage field. In other words: the Vietnamese had no right to object to our killing them by the million! We were clearing the register for them. (Of course our logic would have changed had they been clearing our register.)
Censoring pk:
I "explained" the circumstances and the comedy of my letter more extensively than-ever-previously at my AgainstHierarchy.org [2006 10 11]. The fed arrested me [2006 10 13] and censored that domain [2007 Feb], cascading all my domains, including my business, into Limbo in a domino effect. I'll try to restore those files online, but recreating Knatz.com has been my first priority.
Classification, Background:
Knatz.com organized my "creative" writing as fiction, journal, satire, or letters. The above was a letter as well as a satire: Knatz.com classed it as satire. The White House classed it as "In Favor." That's as priceless a joke as any of mine in the letter!
I repeat Knatz.com's introduction:
My first political letter had been to Kennedy's White House with a similar letter sent to Ambassador Stevenson at the UN. Both bureaucracies ignored the content of my letter and merely mailed back a half-pound of anti-Communist propaganda. By the time I was writing to Lyndon Johnson I realized that I might as well be talking to Santa. Then I heard of his once picking a letter from the pile that was printed in pencil on composition book paper. President Johnson recognized the stamp of the people and replied personally to that little girl.
I decided that from then on my letters would be illiterate. Pat Paulson regularly mispronounced the President's name; I routinely misspelled it. But my principle inspiration was Mark Twain (Swift already present in that American's efforts).
In Sum:
I proposed that Nixon disregard his oath of allegiance to the Constitution and commit an(other) act of tyranny. I proposed that he commit treason. He thanked me on the finest stationary for my "confidence, understanding, and support."
The New Yorker wrote me, Alas, we cannot print your correspondence with the White House, but we sure enjoyed passing it around the office.
There's nothing like a free press.
Dean Memminger, by the way was a long-legged rookie for the New York Knicks that year. I trusted at the time that even the White House might be stimulated by my confusions to think of persons such as Henry Steele Commager or Barry Comminer. I no longer recall which of those two penned the idea of a six year term. A perusal of the New York Times from around 1971 should find it.
pk's Nixon Election Time:
Like Minds Choose Treason
Like Minds Choose Treason
My first political letter was sent to the Kennedy White House protesting US support of the south Vietnamese government which I understood to be corralling Buddhists into concentration camps. It was a letter about freedom of religion (and international responsibilty). I got back a pound or two of anti-Communitst propaganda. The White House made no attempt to smudge the irrelevance of its response.
Well, I already knew that my reps didn't know how to think, that bureaucrats (including university personell) didn't know how to read ... and that was the last political letter I wrote that said what I meant at all literally. I continued to write — for my and God's (and Satan's) amusement — ironies only. The White House, the UN, Mao's China continued to ignore my messages: until this one! which got back a gold embossed reply! The White House misread my insults as favorable!
| Dear President Nixon: I guess it was about last May that there was talk in the senate about having our troops out of Vietnam by December 1971 if our prisoners of war were released. And now you're saying that there's a possibility of having our troops out by election time if our prisoners of war are released. I think that's a great idea: it's important to set a date, especially if you want a chance of being reelected. Well, the other day, the New York Times had an editorial by the famous what's his name, you know, the historian, Dean Memminger, or Henry Comminer? No doubt your state department people have already thought of this for you, but just in case, I thought I'd write and suggest it. He said that maybe the four year term of office is too short for a president to do anything really good and important, like raise the oil depletion allowances, or increase federal aid to ailing industries. And that politicking for another term is all you really have time for in four years, and that that's got to tie your hands from doing anything you really believe in. He said that the presidency should be limited to one term, but that the one term should be lengthened to six years. I think it's a terrific idea and I think you should do it. Surely some way could be found around those who would object. (I myself remember what it was like to wait out Johnston's term.) Anyway, the way it is, you've got a chance for another four years, and you've got a chance for nothing, nada, the goose egg, to miss out altogether. The possibilities are four and zero, and that averages out to two more years, or the six that you'd get with Memminger's way. So why not take the sure thing? Then, without taking a risk, and without suffering the embarrassment that Johnston had to put up with, you could still set the date for withdrawal if your prisoners of war are released, still keep it for election year if your prisoners of war are released, but it would be 1974 instead of 1972. You could keep the war going another two years, really whoop it on the gooks, and still keep your promise. The idea should save you millions of dollars of electioneering money. On the chance that Kissingger hasn't already thought of it, I do think it would be only fair if you'd share some of the savings with me. If it's my idea, that is. Forever yours, Paul Knatz P.S. One thing that's always struck me as curious about the problem over our prisoners of war is why we don't release them whenever we want to. After all, they're our prisoners. We got the key. As for their prisoners of war, on the chance it's their prisoners people are talking about, I don't think you should release them until ours are. Unless it would save money. P.P.S. In the last case I mean, of course, release in the Tibetan Buddhist sense. As for those who have already been released in this holy way, I think you could remind them that it's a good thing for their karma balance. How many human souls are there to be reborn, anyway? |
This letter is from 1 Feb 1972. I choose it to lead the reposting of my joke letters because of the White House's gold-embossed reply under the Presidential Seal. I'm as proud of that as I would have been of a six- or seven-figure check.
Critical Timing:
I hope you notice that Nixon's new promise wasn't moving the date closer, but was in fact postponing it. My satiric tempo of indefinite postponements followed his lead.
Malfunctioning Joke:
I'm not sure my last joke of the letter, the one about "karma balance," worked: then or now. Jokes shouldn't have to be explained, even if no one in the (human) audience gets it. (If God doesn't get it either, than an author is really in trouble!) I say a further word here now anyway if only as an indictment pk's perfection as an artist. Some cosmologies imagine the universe as finite, some as infinite. Jesus saying that his father's house had many mansions refers literally to a finite heaven but symbolically with suggestions of endlessness: infinity. Contemporary cosmology is largely unexamined infinity in assumption: there's no limit to growth, to population, to resources. I was playing the idea of finite souls against the idea of infinite souls. In other words, in order to make room for new souls, we have to kill a few old bodies. Don't plant new cabbages in an uncleared cabbage field. In other words: the Vietnamese had no right to object to our killing them by the million! We were clearing the register for them. (Of course our logic would have changed had they been clearing our register.)
Censoring pk:
I "explained" the circumstances and the comedy of my letter more extensively than-ever-previously at my AgainstHierarchy.org [2006 10 11]. The fed arrested me [2006 10 13] and censored that domain [2007 Feb], cascading all my domains, including my business, into Limbo in a domino effect. I'll try to restore those files online, but recreating Knatz.com has been my first priority.
Classification, Background:
Knatz.com organized my "creative" writing as fiction, journal, satire, or letters. The above was a letter as well as a satire: Knatz.com classed it as satire. The White House classed it as "In Favor." That's as priceless a joke as any of mine in the letter!
I repeat Knatz.com's introduction:
I decided that from then on my letters would be illiterate. Pat Paulson regularly mispronounced the President's name; I routinely misspelled it. But my principle inspiration was Mark Twain (Swift already present in that American's efforts).
In Sum:
I proposed that Nixon disregard his oath of allegiance to the Constitution and commit an(other) act of tyranny. I proposed that he commit treason. He thanked me on the finest stationary for my "confidence, understanding, and support."
The New Yorker wrote me, Alas, we cannot print your correspondence with the White House, but we sure enjoyed passing it around the office.
There's nothing like a free press.
Dean Memminger, by the way was a long-legged rookie for the New York Knicks that year. I trusted at the time that even the White House might be stimulated by my confusions to think of persons such as Henry Steele Commager or Barry Comminer. I no longer recall which of those two penned the idea of a six year term. A perusal of the New York Times from around 1971 should find it.
Monday, October 4, 2010
British Civil Wars
Today's email (to my son and his family):
You mentioned Power of Art, I tried it after a few difficulties with BlockBuster, I loved it, rewatched it: loved it a great deal less. Watched it again with Jan, liked it still less. (Had very nice associations about Columbia's history proffesor James Shenton, who polished his lectures, delivered some in costume: wore a raccoon coat for the 20s.)
Now I'm watching Hist of Britain, more annoyed than ever. (Disk 1 hasn't been available, so I started with 2, 3 ... I'm amidst 3.) But last night I started his British civil wars stuff. Now I'm very glad to be putting up with the over-minute rhetorical style. 17th C. literature was supposed to be my thing, though I never did get too far with the "history" part of it. Now it's crystal to me: it's MY history, its Ivan Illich's history, it's OUR history ... it's US history!!!! And sOOO essential for King George / Pres George, Tea Party, Whiskey, Shay's ... taxation, representation ... stuff. And I see it crystal clear, the reason no one will address what I've saying, especially since 1970: I deny that the government governs me With My Consent!!!! The media, the institutions, can't allow it heard that anyone denies their epistemological crutch.
The Nazis don't like to be seen as Nazis, especially when the shoe fits.
Americans have to pretend that they choose the mold they're forced into.
A duck can't represent a goose, and no Lilliputian can rightly supervise how Gulliver tells Lilliput about London.
PS: Simon also helped me settle a fact I'd slipped on: Liz was Boleyn's daughter! Now I see the resemblance through and through.
And I'd slipped a link: Liz would have gotten syphilis at birth, but not from Katherine, from Anne who got it from Henry who got it from Katherine.
references:
Simon Schama, History of Britain
Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels
civil wars, wars of taxation, of legitimacy ... since the Seventeenth Century
Simon Schama, History of Britain
Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels
civil wars, wars of taxation, of legitimacy ... since the Seventeenth Century
You mentioned Power of Art, I tried it after a few difficulties with BlockBuster, I loved it, rewatched it: loved it a great deal less. Watched it again with Jan, liked it still less. (Had very nice associations about Columbia's history proffesor James Shenton, who polished his lectures, delivered some in costume: wore a raccoon coat for the 20s.)
Now I'm watching Hist of Britain, more annoyed than ever. (Disk 1 hasn't been available, so I started with 2, 3 ... I'm amidst 3.) But last night I started his British civil wars stuff. Now I'm very glad to be putting up with the over-minute rhetorical style. 17th C. literature was supposed to be my thing, though I never did get too far with the "history" part of it. Now it's crystal to me: it's MY history, its Ivan Illich's history, it's OUR history ... it's US history!!!! And sOOO essential for King George / Pres George, Tea Party, Whiskey, Shay's ... taxation, representation ... stuff. And I see it crystal clear, the reason no one will address what I've saying, especially since 1970: I deny that the government governs me With My Consent!!!! The media, the institutions, can't allow it heard that anyone denies their epistemological crutch.
The Nazis don't like to be seen as Nazis, especially when the shoe fits.
Americans have to pretend that they choose the mold they're forced into.
A duck can't represent a goose, and no Lilliputian can rightly supervise how Gulliver tells Lilliput about London.
PS: Simon also helped me settle a fact I'd slipped on: Liz was Boleyn's daughter! Now I see the resemblance through and through.
And I'd slipped a link: Liz would have gotten syphilis at birth, but not from Katherine, from Anne who got it from Henry who got it from Katherine.
Friday, October 1, 2010
GRE's Top 1%
I've taken the GRE a few times at least. I've never not scored in the top 1%. So tell me (as the old American Express commercial asked boob-land): Do you know me? (The GRE stands for the Graduate Record Exam: an advanced version of the SATs ,which is in a sense an advanced version of the IQ test.)
My church told me as a child that humans exhibited something called Original Sin; but my school told me that intelligence was rewarded, that the educated got a more generous share of the society's resources, and that good work got the most. So tell me: would those latter suppositions stand up to scientific falsification?
Well, the scientists wouldn't have to go any further than me to find counter-examples: evidence that disproves the contention.
I'll develop all that further in a moment, but first: know the target point: Not only has top-1%er pk not shared the society's resources, I accuse my society of making a pattern of excluding the top percent — of anything — from the banquet. Note further that I don't blame the society in particular, we're no worse than others: and we're exhibiting a behavior "explained" by the scientists' principle of homeostasis: as I've been arguing for half a century (no one hearing the argument! least of all my universities! not so far as I can tell.) (See my Knatz.com/Society module on the subject.)
Let's review vocabulary:
GRE is a conventional acronym for the Graduate Record Examination, administered by ETS (Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ).
SAT is another ETS product and a better known one. IQ tests are still better known. (SAT is the acronym for Scholastic Aptitude Test. IQ abbreviates Intelligence Quotient.
IQ tests have been given to an awful lot of grammar school children over the decades. Only the supposedly college-bound take the SATs. The GRE is the "SAT" for graduate students: that is, for pre-professionals: law students, medical students, PhD candidates in whatever: science, arts ...
Know that pk has little respect for the IQ test, less for its administrators, none at all for those who impose it, and absolutely none for those who kiss and tell: school boards, universities, corporations ... How is it the state's business to look into your personal laundry and pipe the details to IBM? pk does however believe that SATs are a better measure of intelligence than the old standard IQ test, and that the English SAT is a better measure of intelligence than the math part, and that the GRE is better yet. (The best measure will be 1) how we survive as a culture, as a civilization, as a species; and 2) how we fare at Judgment (where survival may get trumped).
In other words: Look up my IQ, look up my SATs, look up my GREs ... and know that I trust the GRE results far more than I trust the other two. (Know also that in no way do I think that "top 1%" does adequate justice to my uniqueness: I bet I'm in the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1%: not so easily proved, or disproved,) (though to try to prove it, rationally, someone (actually, more than one) would have to understand what I've been writing and saying: It does no good to dismiss the writing on the wall without knowing what the writing says.)
pk suggests a little research: You may be able to look up pk's GRE claims: at ETS, at NYU ... You may be able to look up pk's SAT scores. If not, be satisfied that they got me into Columbia, and NYU. You may be able to look up pk's IQ scores: maybe even scores since taken by this or that supposedly independent psychologist. Now: how many devisers of the IQ test scored in the top 1% of the GRE? how many devisers of the SAT test scored in the top 1% of the GRE? How many devisers of the GRE scored in the top 1% of the GRE?
Now I ask a different question: how many top 1%ers in the GRE fared well at their universities? How many are with me on the welfare roles?
How many have pursued careers unmolested by bureaucrats no where near the top !%: of anything!?
How many of my professors at NYU who graded my papers without understanding them, or who interrupted me when I tried to introduce my thesis topic, were in the top 1%? The top half: I bet half of them were. The top 10%: I bet one or two were. But the top 1%?
Show me.
I'll post lots more on the subject at IonaArc (a less personal blog) scrapbook style, getting points made first, worrying about efficiency second. Eventually edited results may work themselves back here. Understand all along how my points all fit into my workings of the theory of homeostasis: any system, certainly any living system, structures itself to preserve what's preserved, and to make slick paths of change. Averages claim to value excellence but what they really value are averages. Thus an individual of "IQ" 200 will barely be able to communicate with an individual of IQ 180, while neither will be understood by the staff at the NYT, The Smithsonian, Harvard ... Though in time, without credit, filter inward to the mean.
God didn't tell me to get credit for offering a cheap internet in 1970, he just told me to offer it: the way he told Jesus to offer salvation. Only enough of what Jesus said penetrated to assure damnation; only enough of my cybernetic public records keeping penetrated to shore up kleptocracy. Still: it's all only temporary.
My church told me as a child that humans exhibited something called Original Sin; but my school told me that intelligence was rewarded, that the educated got a more generous share of the society's resources, and that good work got the most. So tell me: would those latter suppositions stand up to scientific falsification?
Well, the scientists wouldn't have to go any further than me to find counter-examples: evidence that disproves the contention.
I'll develop all that further in a moment, but first: know the target point: Not only has top-1%er pk not shared the society's resources, I accuse my society of making a pattern of excluding the top percent — of anything — from the banquet. Note further that I don't blame the society in particular, we're no worse than others: and we're exhibiting a behavior "explained" by the scientists' principle of homeostasis: as I've been arguing for half a century (no one hearing the argument! least of all my universities! not so far as I can tell.) (See my Knatz.com/Society module on the subject.)
Let's review vocabulary:
GRE is a conventional acronym for the Graduate Record Examination, administered by ETS (Educational Testing Service, Princeton NJ).
SAT is another ETS product and a better known one. IQ tests are still better known. (SAT is the acronym for Scholastic Aptitude Test. IQ abbreviates Intelligence Quotient.
IQ tests have been given to an awful lot of grammar school children over the decades. Only the supposedly college-bound take the SATs. The GRE is the "SAT" for graduate students: that is, for pre-professionals: law students, medical students, PhD candidates in whatever: science, arts ...
Know that pk has little respect for the IQ test, less for its administrators, none at all for those who impose it, and absolutely none for those who kiss and tell: school boards, universities, corporations ... How is it the state's business to look into your personal laundry and pipe the details to IBM? pk does however believe that SATs are a better measure of intelligence than the old standard IQ test, and that the English SAT is a better measure of intelligence than the math part, and that the GRE is better yet. (The best measure will be 1) how we survive as a culture, as a civilization, as a species; and 2) how we fare at Judgment (where survival may get trumped).
In other words: Look up my IQ, look up my SATs, look up my GREs ... and know that I trust the GRE results far more than I trust the other two. (Know also that in no way do I think that "top 1%" does adequate justice to my uniqueness: I bet I'm in the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1%: not so easily proved, or disproved,) (though to try to prove it, rationally, someone (actually, more than one) would have to understand what I've been writing and saying: It does no good to dismiss the writing on the wall without knowing what the writing says.)
pk suggests a little research: You may be able to look up pk's GRE claims: at ETS, at NYU ... You may be able to look up pk's SAT scores. If not, be satisfied that they got me into Columbia, and NYU. You may be able to look up pk's IQ scores: maybe even scores since taken by this or that supposedly independent psychologist. Now: how many devisers of the IQ test scored in the top 1% of the GRE? how many devisers of the SAT test scored in the top 1% of the GRE? How many devisers of the GRE scored in the top 1% of the GRE?
Now I ask a different question: how many top 1%ers in the GRE fared well at their universities? How many are with me on the welfare roles?
How many have pursued careers unmolested by bureaucrats no where near the top !%: of anything!?
How many of my professors at NYU who graded my papers without understanding them, or who interrupted me when I tried to introduce my thesis topic, were in the top 1%? The top half: I bet half of them were. The top 10%: I bet one or two were. But the top 1%?
Show me.
I'll post lots more on the subject at IonaArc (a less personal blog) scrapbook style, getting points made first, worrying about efficiency second. Eventually edited results may work themselves back here. Understand all along how my points all fit into my workings of the theory of homeostasis: any system, certainly any living system, structures itself to preserve what's preserved, and to make slick paths of change. Averages claim to value excellence but what they really value are averages. Thus an individual of "IQ" 200 will barely be able to communicate with an individual of IQ 180, while neither will be understood by the staff at the NYT, The Smithsonian, Harvard ... Though in time, without credit, filter inward to the mean.
God didn't tell me to get credit for offering a cheap internet in 1970, he just told me to offer it: the way he told Jesus to offer salvation. Only enough of what Jesus said penetrated to assure damnation; only enough of my cybernetic public records keeping penetrated to shore up kleptocracy. Still: it's all only temporary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)