On Being Smarter Than Everyone Else . . .

I am the second smartest person living in the United States. This may sound cocky, but true humility is being honest in one's own capabilities. I scored about a 2300 on the GRE Practice Exam back in 1999 if anybody wants "statistical proof." (2400 is a perfect score).

Why am I the second smartest person living in the United States then you might ask?

Well, in addition to "secular" rationality (i.e. GRE scores, full academic scholarships to places like Davidson College, Duke University Divinity School, University of Notre Dame), I am also a product of a rigorous theological education. From Ancient Writers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Thomas Aquinas, et al to contemporary theologians such as Karl Barth, Stanely Hauerwas and Geoffrey Wainright (the smartest man in America, but he's British!), my mind has been indelibly shaped by the Divine LOGOS, that is the WORD of God Who Is Jesus Christ.

St. Thomas Aquinas, medieval Catholic systematic theologian, one time made the connection between Divine Rationality and human rationality stating that the latter is nothing other than an instantiation of the former. In lay men's terms, we are only smart to the extent that our minds are conformed to Jesus Christ, the Divine Rationality (i.e. the "LOGOS") which is stated in Philippians 2:5 that says, "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus." To be truly rational is to have our minds as conformed to Jesus Christ as HIGHLY as possible, in humility, empowered and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, grounded in the Word of God, and in communion with the saints throughout history, both in heaven and on earth. This is why I am the second smartest person in the United States (my mentor, Geoffrey Wainwright, like I said, is the smartest, because his mind is more grounded in Scripture, and more in conversation with the entire communion of saints, living and dead).

Michel Foucault, one of the greatest secular minds of the 20th century, one time wrote that, "to comment is to admit by definition an excess of the signified over the signifier; a necessary, unformulated remainder of the thought of language has left in the shade--a remainder that is the very essence of that thought, driven outside its secret--but to comment also presupposes that this unspoken element slumbers within speech (French = parole), and that, by a superabundance proper to the signifier, one may, in questioning it, give voice to a content that was not explicitly signified. By opening up the possibility of commentary, this double plethora dooms us to an endless task that nothing can limit: there is always a certain amount of signified remaining that must be allowed to speak, while the signifier is always offered to us in an abundance that questions us, in spite of ourselves, as to what it 'means' (French = veut dire). Signifier and signified thus assume a substantial autonomy that accords the treasure of a virtual signification to each of them separately . . ." ( Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, translated from the French Naissance de la Clinique, 1963, p. xvi)

In many ways, Foucault's words ring as true today as they did back in 1963!

Foucault, a true social prophet, saw many of the horrific abuses that the modern Western democracies would increasingly perpetrate. Whether it is the coerced euthanasia of the Netherlands, U.S. detainment of foreign nationals even when acquitted (Military Commissions Act of 2006), anti-pro-life legislation that denies the right to free assembly of pro-life protesters or the practice of CIA internment of suspected terrorists outside any due process of law, truly, we are living in Orwellian times, and it was people like Foucault who could see it all coming to fruition.

To signify is to lead. To be signified is to be led.

Of course, one of the legionous tactics of the Western democratic police state is to always play the role of the signifier, by force if necessary. Pro-labor movements can be conveniently signified as "communists" (e.g. the anti-apartheid forces of 1980's South Africa). Intellectuals can be signified as hopelessly "out of touch" and living in "ivory towers" at best and even classified as "mentally ill" at worst. I know of one professor who one time classified both the world's foremost moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and Pope John Paul II as both being "crazy," all because he was too stupid to rationally follow their arguments.

Yes, to signify is to control. To be signified is to be controlled.

Therefore, let us as Jews, Christians and good rational secular thinkers (like Foucault) produce a signifying that the world will never forget. Anti-apartheid forces succeeded in signifying the racist apartheid regime not as "capitalist," but rather as racist and thus evil. Pro-life forces are waging a war to signify abortionists as murderers, rather than being signified as "religious fanatics." Mother Teresa, the late Pro-Life Voice, called into question such signification by accepting any unwanted child. And now, from the military to our Federal Government, being intelligent is suddenly "in vogue." Rather than being "mentally ill" (Alasdair MacIntyre or the Pope!) or being "out of touch," suddenly America wants intelligent leaders.

Thank you for your time.

God bless,
Rob J King