The actual verse (1 Corinthians 1:19) reads “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
What does that mean exactly?
Destroying the wisdom of the wise simply means “I will invalidate conventional-institutional wisdom and belief systems, in addition to the presumed authority of those who consider themselves masters of and over them.”
How do you destroy the wisdom of the wise?
By simply expanding the scope of consideration for all things.
You dilute the potency of human knowledge systems by introducing conventional wisdom to larger and more complete systems of organization.
Just think of humans like a tank full of goldfish that are totally feeling themselves, claiming they’re “masters of the water” because they got the temperature in their tank to 77º. Destroying the wisdom of the wise would be like dropping that tank into the middle of the ocean and letting it sink.
It’s real easy to convince yourself that you’re big fish in a tiny tank. But status beliefs mean nothing if you can’t swim in real waters with real marine life, and for that fact, even survive and thrive outside of specialized and controlled environments.
If human wisdom is a product of reverse engineering, theorizing about and transmuting effects in reality by proxy of this planet and the surrounding areas — effectively making learning for this species a bottom up process, then all you have to do to invalidate conventional wisdom is work top down. In other words, all you have to do is make meta-level connections between systems and effects that bottom up reasoning simply can’t achieve at and/or from the experiential level.
It’s not that hard to do really, that is, if your thinking isn’t bound to idealism; which is literally what all knowledge systems are products of and/or represent.
Being a “master of knowledge” at this scale of plane means nothing to someone who can conceptualize and perform 50 scales of plane above it. It doesn’t matter if you’re the biggest baddest guppy in your fish tank, if the entire tank you’re in could be swallowed whole by a sperm whale, without the whale even realizing you were in it. What value do human knowledge systems hold to a system of organization that can swallow them whole? What happens when the very best of your discovery barely even registers as a blip in the grand scheme of reality?
Reality was here long before you, this species and even corruption (the source of all viral-parasitic life forms) itself. The systems of organization reality’s achieved, which allow for balance and interdependence between living systems (organisms: life forms) are incomparably more advanced and stable than the systems of meanings, transmutation processes and agreements that humans and other corrupt (viral-parasitic) life forms are capable of achieving.
‘Destroying the wisdom of the wise’ isn’t just a flex. It’s not just a comparison of potency and accuracy between systems and modes. Destroying the wisdom of the wise ultimately means to shine a light on all the things humans fail to realize and consider when placing their full faith and confidence in conventional-institutional wisdom.
There are other points to it too though…
1. Reality is about adaptation, not control. Conversely, authority is about control, not adaptation. Trying to protect, preserve and promote the value and sanctity of knowledge systems towards preserving whatever power you presume to wield through them necessarily equates to denying truth and reality in efforts to protect ideas. It’s entering into a voluntary state of psychosis out of ignorance and pride.
2. Status beliefs are pointless, and only serve to impede growth, development, and realizing and tapping into true potential.
3. Knowledge systems are most certainly useful, and can serve to help people better understand reality, however they should never be revered or worshipped as truth and reality in their own right.
4. People who try to assert authority with knowledge are attempting to use knowledge as a weapon, and in the grand scheme of reality weapons simply don’t serve or advance anything useful.
And there are several other points to consider, but those are the main ones that come to mind for now.
Now this raises the question: “Would having such an ability automatically imbue someone with awareness for all knowledge systems?”
Absolutely not. Knowledge systems are products of, and thus limited by and to idealism. Any person who’s capable of destroying the wisdom of the wise would have to perform independent of idealism entirely, which would essentially make knowledge systems foreign to them.
In fact, in order to assimilate into any knowledge system, such an individual would have to compress their innate reasoning ability down into something that was small enough to fit into and navigate through modal pathways — constructs that are much smaller, and more intricate, specialized, and less logical (intuitive) than the mental space they’re used to performing within.
However, once they’re able to successfully compartmentalize their thinking (and trust me, compartmentalizing intelligence is a physically painstaking process) they can expand the purview and scope of consideration from within the field and thus give themselves some breathing room — effectively allowing them to learn and progress at an exponential rate. Just think of it like this… If most people learn sequentially, as in 1, 2, 3, 4, such a person would learn like 1, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2, 0.9, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc (give or take some 1s on the front end).
That said, whatever they spoke to, which ultimately served to “destroy the wisdom of the wise” would necessarily encompass the very best that human knowledge systems could produce. That means the purest data from all knowledge systems and institutions would ultimately fit into whatever they said (shared; explained), with ample room to spare…
This means the very best of all religions would point in the direction of whatever they said.
The very best of the sciences would ultimately point in the direction of whatever they said.
Economic and geopolitical systems and principles would ultimately point in the direction of whatever they said.
Why? Because they’d be connecting dots from a higher scale of plane. Human knowledge systems would ultimately be building up to where that individual already was — irrespective of how many times humans deviated and course-corrected, or whether or not they did at all. And in order for that person’s proffering to be useful, even to them, they’d have to be very accurate and truthful in what they described, meaning what they said would have to be consistent with and actual within reality.
If you’re connecting dots from a higher scale of plane and attempting to build a structure with them, then everything must fit together with precision, otherwise the structure collapses on itself — which ironically is something you only understand if you’re able to work at that level of conceptualization (though I suppose the same principle could apply to building conceptual models on this scale of plane too).
Ideas (beliefs — opinions, speculations, intentions, preferences, agreements, meanings, and ideations of authority and identity, etc) are like variables. Principles (or “dots” per the above example) work more like pieces of scaffolding that fit together to create a frame. It’s the difference between air pockets or bubbles (beliefs) and pieces of steel (principles). Beliefs are pliable and interchangeable, whereas principles are not. You can build superficial structures with pliable pieces, or even with gaps in between pieces, but not frames.
If, as suggested, such a person wasn’t working through idealism, they’d basically be unfalsifiable through the pure application of social principles and logic. In reality, bottom up processes cannot edit or critique top down processes. Organisms that emerge from the bodies of planets cannot edit or critique the formation of planets, just like a chess master (in the middle of a match) cannot edit or critique the rules of, or logic behind the game of chess. A moving essay written in Microsoft Word will not change how the program functions anymore than voting or rallies can truly effect the governance and systemic exploitation of a people. All of those would be examples of entities working bottom up within the systems they perform within, not working top down.
If such a person could bypass idealism entirely, which means they’d necessarily be synched up with reality (and in all things reality is a top down phenomenon, meaning nothing can exist above, beyond or in spite of it, yet reality exists above, beyond and in spite of all things) nothing achieved at the human level of reasoning and conceptualization could invalidate or undermine that person’s general view and perspective of reality.
This means that individual would be able to falsify knowledge systems (conventional-institutional wisdom), but no knowledge system or wielder of it could ever falsify that person or their proffering. Such a person would be able to scale their thinking down to make it fit into and work within knowledge systems, but no knowledge system or wielder of knowledge systems could ever scale up to where they were actually able to perform (which is just one of the reasons for why it’s abundantly clear whenever anyone tries to pirate information and pass it off as their own proffering).
Just think about it like playing a video game, right…
You can scale your awareness down to the level of the character you’re playing as (your “avatar”), and thus immerse yourself within that gaming experience, however no character from the game you’re playing could ever scale their thinking or capacity for awareness up to your real world experience.
For instance, no character in The Legend of Zelda could ever know what it’s like to watch Zelda on a computer screen, or witness its own propensities and limitations from a removed vantage point. It couldn’t know that it only moved left, right, up and down — in fact, moving in that way would likely cause it to believe that all things must move left, right, up and down. It simply couldn’t have a concept of what life was like for you on this plane of existence. It couldn’t know what it’s like to stand up or sit down, or rest, eat, get sick or die, or trade units of its existence away for representations of authority that translate into resources for it to survive on. But it’d sure do its damndest to defeat you (playing as Link), because that’s what it’s programmed to do…
Now imagine trying to explain to that video game character what video games are as a concept, in addition to gaming systems, platforms, accessories, and even things like computers, technology as a concept, electricity, and everything that went into making their world possible. It’d seem like a nearly impossible feat — especially to characters who only thought at the level of the game, and focused almost solely on their role and desires to survive and advance within the game.
You’d be able to make meta-level connections between features in the game that characters limited to the game simply couldn’t.
You: “Man, level 8 is exactly like level 2! The only thing that’s changed is the speed, the shape of the characters, and a handful of structures.”
Character in the game: “Bullshit! We’re all different and we matter! You’re an elitist asshole! You’re a function of this system just like the rest of us! You need to learn your place and just play your role in the game! (They’d necessarily fight to limit all things to the scope and authority of the system that they could not think above, beyond or in spite of)”
You: “No, Link is the avatar I’m using to play this game with. I’m not Link, I’m a real person playing AS Link. Link is a function of this program — a program that you’re just a bit character in. In the real world, I can shut this game off whenever I choose to and just burn it.”
Character in the game: “You’re just talking crazy now! Nothing exists outside of this game, and you’re ridiculous to claim that you’re not exactly what we perceive you as, and limited by and to our experience of you!”
But back to my earlier point…
You invalidate convention by making meta-level connections between things that can’t be achieved from the experiential level. You make connections that science can’t make, and in so, collapse fields of discovery and contemplation into one another. You explain the mechanism behind social institutions in ways that theory and analysis simply can’t. You explain effects, systems and functions of nature in ways that can’t be perceived and/or which do not rely on the systems of meanings that humans manufacture and project onto them.
When making meta-level connections it doesn’t matter who agrees or disagrees with you in the moment, because everyone will inevitably arrive at the conclusions you suggest as they continue to progress in learning; and that’s whether they want to or not. Ultimately “the wise” have no choice but to agree with what you say or resign to insanity in defiance of you, towards protecting core systems of agreements they’ve made with themselves and each other that no longer fit with where logic is leading them in reality.
When you make meta-level connections, everything points in the direction of what you’re saying anyway — which again means the very best conventional wisdom can only support what you report (especially if you’re describing what you see, and not just what you think, feel or believe).
Everything y’all say, do and conceive of can handily fit into a small section of what I’m explaining, but what you’re saying, regardless of how many words you use or eloquently you state it, can never scale up to or encompass what I’m saying. Simply put, you’re in a situation where the very best discovery your species has to offer can only verify my claims, but I can falsify your discovery at will. This is a one-sided power dynamic — it’s top down reasoning vs bottom up reasoning; and you are most certainly not on the winning end of that enormous power disparity. And see, irrespective of how that statement makes you feel, you need to get comfortable with it, because it’s true…
To put it into better context for you, imagine a corrupt (diseased) cell on your arm was trying to tell you about your body, and what your respective body systems were like based on what they perceived and how they experienced you from that microcosm and local position on your arm.
Imagine a dumb ass diseased cell on your arm barking at you, saying “You don’t know anything about this body! I know more than you! I’ve been studying it my entire life cycle, and building onto the authority of what past generations of diseased cells have said, so you need to shut up and respect my authority!”
Imagine you were the consciousness that managed your autonomic nervous system, and agents of a ridiculous disease tried to “correct you” with what they think they know about you, based on what they’ve learned through their still developing knowledge systems. Imagine that happening while your own thinking and awareness could scale all the way up to the plane you’re reading this post on right now, and then down to and throughout every level of structural building block, leading back to where the discussion was taking place.
That’s literally what it’s like.
All of the diseased cells’ knowledge systems would ultimately represent them trying to learn, mimic, dominate (“fill and subdue”) your body as a system — which in this scenario, your awareness would function at the level of.
There’s simply no basis for comparison between the respective levels of awareness and understanding for those two positions within the body system. A disease doesn’t even know what it is. It can’t fundamentally distinguish itself from the body its infecting and trying to live and benefit at the expense of.
The awareness of the host’s body however could distinguish the disease from it’s own building blocks — and beyond that, understand what the disease is, why the disease is, and ultimately, what its intentions are; whereas the disease isn’t just ignorant of itself, it’s ignorant of the host it’s destroying in the process of trying to preserve and benefit itself.
No knowledge system can scale to truth or reality. That’s because idealism itself cannot scale to truth and reality. This means you simply destroy the wisdom of the wise by speaking truth: describing WHAT IS — what’s consistent with and actual within reality, as divorced from idealism.
Imagine a dumb assed, diseased cell telling you to “respect its authority.”
No. You need to be purged from this body (reality) with extreme prejudice, along with everything that processes information and reality in the way you do.
Trying to pit knowledge systems against reality itself could be likened to trying to compare a candle’s brightness to the sun. To fibers on a candle’s wick (which I’m likening diseased cells to), the candle’s flame might seem like the brightest light in all of existence. For anything that’s experienced life and light beyond that scale of plane though, the candle more than likely wouldn’t seem bright at all. Though a candle might seem like a bright and useful source of light in a small dark room, it’s certainly nothing compared to the sun. There’s simply be no basis for comparison between the respective levels of capability and experience.
Many people might hate the person who destroys the wisdom of the wise, and conspire against them, or wish ill upon them, attack them, threaten or even kill them. But prove them wrong? It’s not very likely. In fact, the only time such an individual could be off is when or if they decided to limit their thinking to idealism, and that’d be with respect to social affairs or predictions for society.
The wisdom of the wise, the wisdom of the wise…
You know the weirdest thing about that idiom, phrase, statement or whatever you call it? I mean, I get that it’s supposed to be sarcastic, ironic and what not, but truly wise people know to prioritize learning over defending their pride and status beliefs. It’s impossible to offend someone who practices wisdom by simply saying things that disagree with them and/or which don’t edify their identities and status beliefs.
Truly wise people strive to observe things objectively. They try to understand things properly instead of rushing to correct things that don’t reflect their inner story, values and beliefs, or the meanings they’ve internalized back to them. They tend to make weighted responses, as opposed to experiencing violent reactions to reality not verifying the stories they tell themselves about the world around them and their place and value within it.
Wisdom is a state of being you achieve through the practice of reasoning, honesty and the allowance for intuitive guidance. It’s when your mind processes information and reality cleanly and efficiently. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you believe or the knowledge you’ve acquired. That means the statement is ironic in that you cannot destroy the wisdom of the wise — only the status beliefs of those who pretend and presume themselves to be.