Skip to content

An Interview with Graham Powell on Immanuel Kant, the Logic of the Nonexistent, and Major Milestones and Developments (Part Eight)


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/11/08


His Lordship of Roscelines, Graham Powell, earned the “best mark ever given for acting during his” B.A. (Hons.) degree in “Drama and Theatre Studies at Middlesex University in 1990” and the “Best Dissertation Prize” for an M.A. in Human Resource Management from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England in 1994. Powell is an Honorary Member of STHIQ Society, Former President of sPIqr Society, Vice President of Atlantiq Society, and a member ofBritish MensaIHIQSIngeniumMysteriumHigh Potentials SocietyElateneosMilenijaLogiq, and Epida. He is the Full-Time Co-Editor of WIN ONE (WIN-ON-line Edition) since 2010 or nearly a decade. He represents World Intelligence Network Italia. He is the Public Relations Co-Supervisor, Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, and a Member of the European Council for High Ability. He discusses: patterns in the issues; additions to the formats and changes to the structure of the leadership; Kant and the highest good; meeting like-minded people; more on Kant’s highest good; corporations, British Mensa; the logic and philosophy of the nonexistent; and puzzles.

Keywords:  AtlantIQ Society, British Mensa, editor, Graham Powell, Kant, puzzles, WIN ONE, World Intelligence Network.

An Interview with Graham Powell on Immanuel Kant, the Logic of the Nonexistent, and Major Milestones and Developments: Editor, WIN ONE & Vice President, AtlantIQ Society (Part Eight)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: (Apology for the thick text in advance.) Issue IX was published on 12/12/12, as some may see the patterns – if they looked into the publication dates on the cover pages – of the materials with the publishing dates: 10/10/10, 4/4/11, 11/11/11/, 6/6/12, and 12/12/12, and so on. Why these patterns? A fine touch to the ideas of problem solving with numeric sequences within the dates of the publication too. So, in another tone of not only the fact of the patterns themselves, why these patterns, too?

Graham Powell: When I agreed to take over the role of WIN ONE editor, Evangelos Katsioulis mentioned that the date of publication could have some numerical sequence. Since that conversation, I have gained a certain amount of joy continuing the tradition, the first one having the obvious value of being all 10s. The second series is more subtle, 4 divided by 4 and then divided by 11 coming out with the series 0.09090909 (recurring). Some later dates, which you have not quoted, were Fibonacci sequences; others were prime number sequences; one was International Pi Day – which is also Einstein’s birthday. Therefore, it’s mainly just a quirky feature of the magazine. We’ve tended to produce the magazine every six months, so finding a sequence within a particular period of the year is a challenge. It is, in fact, what dictates the publication date. The next publication date will be 3-11-19, these being prime numbers.

2. Jacobsen: This issue works within the framework of “philosophical notions” challenging to “ardent intellectual brains” with an emphasis on the “thought-provoking” and “amusing” nature of the works. This issue continues to represent a stabilization in issue size and the complement to the eighth issue with the inclusion of the post-reportage on the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness and announcements from WIN, including the appointment of Dr. Manahel Thabet as the Vice-President of the World Intelligence Network or WIN and the continuation of efforts by Dr. Katsioulis (the President) on work for WIN. How did these additions improve the format, the content, and the generality of the presentation to the WIN membership? How does the inclusion of a Vice-President help with the organization?

Graham Powell: Manahel Thabet has been a stalwart of the WIN for many years and she finances many aspects to it, which is very generous of her. She advises on how to run the WIN more efficiently and, though it is primarily a charitable, online entity, she makes it run in a more economically sound manner. This is mainly regarding the maintenance of the website – which inevitably had costs covered by the WIN administration, that is, before she intervened. I volunteered to help her organise the conference in Dubai and that developed into a series of workshops, which for me was a chance to put out into the world some thoughts, especially ones I had been developing during a sabbatical from work. I also wanted to include photographs from the conference and the cover shows the waterfall by the entrance to Dubai Mall, a place where Evangelos and I had dinner. It was a special few days during which we enjoyed each other’s company. From our discussions, a few more ideas became projects, the appointment of Manahel, for example, stemming from one such talk. I think overall, the WIN website is much better now than it was, the earlier versions being cumbersome and overly complex to navigate around easily. People just didn’t bother much – or took the easy route by asking me to advise them. Access to the magazine is also easier as a consequence of all that I’ve mentioned about the site.

3. Jacobsen: “The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good (Pt. 1)” by Paul Edgeworth contained sections 8 through 11. He begins the issue with a philosophical mind wallop, with Kant’s conceptualization of virtue, happiness, and the highest good with fancy terminology including supremumconsummatumoriginariumperfectissimum, phenomenal, noumenal, and so on, where focus is on the modern commentators’ neglect of “his conception of the highest good.” Within the context of the nature of the think-piece, one idea comes from the idea of existence, personality, and rational being with the existence of a rational personality. Another comes from the Stoic idea of virtue and the Epicurean concept of happiness as an interplay and a hybrid between Stoicism and Epicureanism to come to the “highest good,” which appears to take on the Aristotelian maxim of moderation between virtue and happiness. Even so, Edgeworth places virtue as “cause” and happiness as “effect.” For the true attainment of the highest good, Kant requires the existence, through reason, of the soul and God. Without the eternality of the soul and the absolute existence of God, the cause of virtue and the effect of happiness cannot lead to the highest possible good. It begins to sound like lay notions of a Christian heaven. The rational being, through the eternality of the soul, must continue endlessly for the existence of the highest good. The complete subsuming of the will to the moral law for achievement of moral perfection becomes impossible in one’s own lifetime (thanks, Kant). However, one can strive towards the highest good through pure reason, as “the pursuit of the highest good.” As Edgeworth quotes in a statement, “Thus Kant declares, ‘We ought to strive to promote the highest good (which must therefore be possible).’”[3] This highest good is permitted in the light, as aforementioned, of an ultimate cause of “supreme being.” This may hold bearing on some of the previous articles on atheism. I like the explanation of the co-incident nature of nature and human rational beings as enacted virtue in line with moral law to produce happiness closer to the highest good with the explanatory framework around which nature’s larger manifestation – in a manifestor, i.e., God.  Humans co-incide in the Good with God.

Edgeworth brings forth the work of Terry Godlove, Jr.[4] An argument for the non-coherence of moral acts by non-theists, not a-theists interestingly, without the supreme being, God, because the ultimate cause for a penultimate end of good acts in a highest good requires an omnipotent unifier of moral virtue, for moral law, where non-theist moral acts, even if moral, become disjunct from one another and in some sense foundational sense dis-unified and, therefore, worthless in an eternal view. This, to Edgeworth and Kant, paves the road to the “Kingdom of God” in which “nature and morals come into a harmony through a holy author who makes the derived highest good possible.” Intriguingly, Edgeworth describes the Christian ethic as heteronomous, or non-theological (counter-intuitively), and autonomous pure practical reason with devotion duly placed in duty. Happiness does not become the goal, but the result of a partial achievement in attainment of a targeted objective, the highest good: some worthy of happiness; others not worthy of happiness in proportion to their attainment of the good oriented towards the highest possible good bound to the eternality of the soul and the absolute existence of God and, in the end, leading to the necessity in some practical  philosophic sense to the need for proper religion for proper moral virtue and real happiness of which one becomes worthy.

What was the reaction of the community to this article? What changed the orientation to a philosophically heavy one in this issue as an executive editorial decision? What seems right in Kant’s thinking about the highest good? What seems incomplete, if at all? What about a non-theist religion? Would this – a non-theist religion – by definition become impossible to attain in some manner?

Powell: Firstly, Scott, I must congratulate you on what is, without doubt, the longest introduction terminating with questions that I have ever had put to me. I will try to break it all down a little, and, indeed, this was the main factor in presenting this essay in the magazine. The notion of “an author who makes the highest good possible” summarises neatly the article, though the reaction of the community to the article was, as usual, not specific. Only Evangelos Katsioulis expressed appreciation of the content and tipped his intellectual hat towards the contributors, particularly Paul Edgeworth. Paul is a good friend – as are, still, the majority of people who contributed to edition IX. I think this steered the content towards the philosophical, it being part of the friendship I share to this day. As to what is ‘right’ in Kant, well, in retrospect, my girlfriend believes in the kind of predetermination that Kant and Paul describe, Lena being convinced that we are destined to emerge with our good intentions made reality, primarily by God’s will. This approach has fortified my altruistic mental framework, if I can express it that way for now. I sense that many people prefer to act on behalf of an extraneous force, or being, which, when genuine and demonstrable by action, is implicitly of ‘a higher good’. I think the current Pope, Francis, is of a similar line of thinking, the majority of great religious figures too. To have a sense that you are primarily doing things and creating thoughts for the benefit of the universe outside yourself, in whatever way that manifests itself (and towards whichever essence) is the highest good. I don’t necessarily believe that a god is necessary to attain that supreme level of goodness, to the point where I think such thinking is restrictive and ultimately, risks divisiveness. “Divine, divisive, divide” to summarise in three words. In short, I think a non-theist interpretation of the highest good is possible. Buddhism is a non-theist “religion”, though (and hence) the word “religion” is not usually ascribed to it by those who practice Buddhist thought. Taoism is also, by definition, “of the way”, to give another example. I don’t usually discuss religion in everyday life because, in my mind, I have a caveat that I call “Powell’s Law”, put simply, that discussing religion inevitably leads to division. I try to live peacefully and have no problem, per se, that people believe differently from each other, believe differently from me. I consider that the highest good. 

4. Jacobsen: “Meeting of Minds” images presented interesting displays from the 12th Asia Pacific Conference on Giftedness. Christina AngelidouDr. Evangelos KatsioulisJonathan WaiMarco Ripà, and yourself can be seen in some. I like the one with the gargantuan Burj Khalifa behind Wai and Katsioulis. What was meeting everyone in person like for you?

Powell: I have no doubt in placing the experience of meeting all the people you mention, plus colleagues from the European Council for High Ability, right at the pinnacle of my joyous existence. It was just wonderful! Everyone was so enthusiastic and ready to make a difference in the world. Meeting Christina Angelidou, then going around the arena at the centre of the conference, was delightful, and we discussed my first workshop too, which was intellectually rewarding. Christina is the founder member of Mensa Cyprus and she was introduced to me via my contacts in America: I was interested in getting Mensa members to the event, Mensa International being based in the USA. British Mensa, which I joined in January 1987, directed me to liaise with the Americans about attendance at the conference. Christina and I are still in regular contact. Dr Jonathan Wai was also a joy to meet, so calm and mild mannered, yet with a subtle, incisive sense of humour. We got on very well. I was also very pleased to meet Marco Ripà in person, something Evangelos arranged. I helped Marco with his presentation, which he was nervous about, quite naturally, because English is his second language and he doesn’t get a great number of opportunities to speak it. I was happy to reassure him about his ability to communicate, which he did very well in the end. It was also an opportunity for me to speak Italian, which was useful for me. Quintessentially, it was astonishing to reflect on the fact that I was often standing in front of four people, knowing that the SD 15 IQ points of those four people added up to well over 650. That is truly tremendous brain power! 

5. Jacobsen: “The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good (Pt. 2)” continued with sections 9 through 16 of the essay. Edgeworth starts with some commentary of the highest good made apparent, as a transcendent object, to the rational being through pure practical reason. This gives grounds to actualize the highest good here-and-now, to bring the Kingdom of God, according to Kant, into the present and the future. He – Kant – makes immanent the highest good. I like this point in the argument for extension from the theoretical into the practical with a Kantian ethic meaning someone must act in such a way as to do that which they have not ever done if it leads them into a state of approximation of the highest possible good further than before. A sub-argument for individual growth as axiomatic, or at least derivatively unavoidable. In describing the base of transcendent moral law, Kant eked out some normatives. In a sense, every individual rational being becomes, or can become, a locus of the highest good in the real world on the condition of promoting it “with all his capabilities.” The idea implied before through the endlessness of the soul becomes explicit with mention of an afterlife. Edgeworth notes a limitation or blindspot in the thought process of Kant with “the highest good” implying “the reincarnation or rephenomenalization of the moral self.” Only infinite existence, hence the soul, permits the arena in which the endless striving for moral perfection or towards the moral law exists. Edgeworth provides a tip of the hat to an accurate description of a physicalistic, naturalistic, and secular interpretation to ethics-in-action with morals as something achieved in the here-and-now by human beings, where Kant’s first two, earlier, works began as more theological and latter, and third, work began to lean more secular in orientation in the morality. In short, a secular interpretation of the targeted objective of Kant becomes social ethics. Also, the, apparent, in-between comes in the form of an ethical commonwealth, which reminds one of The Commons from Anglo-American law in which everyone contributes and all benefit. This ethical commonwealth as a means by which to attain a status of a “rational church,” back to religion as a foundation for a unified ethic with God and an eternal soul. As Edgeworth states, “We can therefore state without fear of contradiction that Kant’s formulation of the highest good makes it abundantly clear that it is fundamentally about a common and shared human destiny,” whether secular or religious and, in this sense, more humanistic but atemporal too. What was the final takeaway from this extensively researched and well-written academic essay for you? Of those in the community who read some or all of it, what was their commentary on it? By chance, any commentary by scholars of Immanuel Kant?

Powell: With these points that you make, Scott, I am now of the mind that a review and a prompting of discussion would be beneficial, a kind of ‘afterword’, as I would call it. The production of the WIN book was intended to put these notions out into the general public and to stimulate discussion and some reassessment of the current milieu. The most apparent result of publishing such well-researched  pieces was, I think, the generation of enthusiasm to read further and to attempt to produce work of a high standard to publish on the internet, whether for the WIN ONE, or on other sites, in other blogs. I still wish to produce books that will have more of an impact on broader society, but the acceptance of that is still being negotiated. As mentioned earlier, from my part, ‘peacefulness’ as immanent in the highest good was what I carried away from the essay, though I remain sceptical about any eternality of self regarding that. 

6. Jacobsen: “The Corporate Strategy Column” by Elisabetta di Cagno gives a punchy set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots about corporate culture – take from it what you may, I suppose. “Differentiating features of gifted children and dealing with high IQ societies” by Marco Ripà examined giftedness, identification, and, sometimes, problems, even “big PROBLEMS” encountered by the gifted young with some connection to hyperactivity. The orientation of the academic article comes in the form of a human rights perspective and a compassionate one, too, in which myths abound about the gifted and their needs in life. Does di Cagno miss anything about corporate culture and output? Does the article on giftedness sufficiently differentiate the identifications of the different levels of the gifted? How does British Mensa, of which you remain a member, help the gifted and talented and distinguish the needs of the levels of gifted, of cognitive rarity and exceptional mentation?

Powell: Elisabetta’s piece is fictional, yet with overtones from reality, as the best fiction does – it’s part of what makes prose ‘literature’. Having read it again, I see it primarily as a statement about preparing for an interview and how that asks people to transcend, even betray, their inherent instincts in the name of ‘Business’. As a postgraduate student of Human Resource Management, I was most interested in Organisational Culture as part of the course. Dr Jackson liked my contributions and essays. Even Hugh Scullion, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, admitted to the class that the best way to earn a promotion and ‘getting on’ in an organisation was via getting involved in events outside of work hours. Elisabetta’s piece hints at that, plus an inordinate display of knowledge and expression about share pricing (which she calls ‘stock’) and basically kow-towing to those in a position of power. If I may enlarge the discussion for a moment, this pays homage to what we talked about earlier on in this series of interviews, when we talked about Hollingworth and the difficulties of communicating and relating across broad spans of intelligence. In the context here, the more recent writing of Michael Ferguson and his popular essay about The Inappropriately Excluded has many ‘hits’ on his blog, so I recommend people to read it, plus the discussion pieces that surround it. 

Marco’s article was originally his presentation at the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness, a presentation I helped him with just prior to him delivering it. It helped forge our friendship. In no way is it an attempt to cover all aspects of giftedness in youth and the associated problems; it was more an attempt to open people’s minds to some of the almost universal aspects of giftedness, especially prejudices and the lack of understanding and identification of hypersensitivities. British Mensa does contribute to the aspects you mention, especially via its promotion of national entities which are dedicated to provision for the gifted. I contacted British Mensa with a view to it sending people to Dubai for the aforementioned conference, but I got deferred to Mensa International in order to get contributors. Amongst my numerous friends in the high IQ community, the most ardent people who are transforming matters for fellow high IQ folk are not members of Mensa anymore, if, indeed, they ever were.  

7. Jacobsen: Dr. Manahel Thabet wrote “Organizing the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness.” A significant event, as stated, “6,000 participants, all of them experts, teachers, researchers, decision makers, parents and educators. 325 papers were presented, from 42 countries.” Dr. Chris FischerChristina AngelidouDr. Evangelos KatsioulisJonathan WaiDr. Lianne HoogeveenMarco Ripà, and yourself took part in the event as well. “Artistic License,” “Between You and You,” “Seventy Shades of Gray,” Safe Between the Fluffy Covers,” “The Sleeping, Roving Genius Among Us” in “Poems” by Dr. Greg A. Grove provided some reflection on, in many cases, stark contrasts without direct opposites. What did “Poems” evoke for you? How important was the post-event reportage of Dr. Thabet for wrapping up the event? Any further developments since that time?

Powell: I asked Doctor Thabet to write something, which I could have done myself, having been heavily involved in the organisation and supply of people for it, but I was already contributing much to the IX edition, so I wished for someone else to write an article. As it was, she was busy, so I outlined for her what I considered should be written, then added the summary at the end anyhow. I had hoped that the filming of the event would produce extensive courses and presentations for posterity, but that never happened. Several of the WIN members put their presentations on Youtube, but that was it. I was really looking forward to seeing my presentations, especially the second one: it went down really well and Manahel’s assistant came running up to me afterwards saying what fantastic feedback I had received. It’s all part of the low-key work I have done in the eyes of the majority these last ten years. As for Greg’s work, they were extracts from a book he produced and it is still available in Kindle format. They form part of a total assessment and expression of psychological states and attitudes. I enjoyed the read and have the entire kindle book “Leopards in the Sky” on my computer. I recommend people look for it and make what they want of it. It’s subtitle is “For the Preconscious Mind”.

8. Jacobsen: Then we come to “On the Epistemic Standing of Claims of the Nonexistent” by Phil Elauria. Another interesting twist on the content of old, often boring and sterile, debates found only in philosophy classes and theology seminars. The first two points remain salient with principles of non-contradiction as a point of thought contact for existence as a property and the knowledge of the non-existent, as in the statement of “formal (deductive) logic and mathematics are, when applicable, the highest form of certainty.” Paraconsistent logic in Dialetheism is an interesting notion. However, Elauria finds this dishonest approach dishonest. He runs through the logic of non-contradiction with the famous problem of evil, often seen as the most difficult problem to theologians within Abrahamic traditions in search of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent self-existent (with property aseity) being. Elauria asserts, “Indeed, the fact that there is apologetics concedes my point. For, if reason weren’t important in the defense of theistic claims, then apologetics would be a waste of time at least, and an elaborate red herring constructed to mislead people from the fact that reason actually plays no role in coming to the conclusion about the existence of God,” as Elauria identifies as an atheist (one can assume an absolute atheist). Does this problem of evil in the midst of the Law of Non-Contradiction seem like a serious problem to the hypothesis of a God? He makes other examples with 2-dimensional objects and the statements of a single object having the complete set of properties of two 2-dimensional objects at the same time: a square and a circle, which amounts to a contradiction, e.g., a square circle or a circle square. His next methodological placeholder ideas become plausibility and likelihood. Is a God plausible? Is a God likely? He presents science and fallibilism as the next premises.[5] These through contacts of plausibility, likelihood, science, and fallibilism form the basis for the argument called the Weak Knowledge of Non-Existents. Much of modern science seems premised on the opposite secondary part of the title with tentative of weak knowledge, ever-improving and searching and refining, of the existent. This becomes the basis for the doubt inherent in the position of atheism for Elauria. Does this argument convince you? The argument for the non-existence of God. Also, in personal experience with 2-sigma and higher high IQ community, what tendencies in religious and non-religious beliefs exist among them? Does a tendency exist more towards theism, whether mono-theism or poly-theism, or a-theism, or an agnosticism amongst members? Does Elauria’s professed atheism seem as if atheistic as an assertion in a philosophical sense and then agnosticism in an empirical – plausibility, likelihood, science, and fallibilism – sense?

Powell: In a literary context, the notion of evil was an initial criticism of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, his stated aim of ‘justifying the ways of God to man’ faltering because many thought the depiction of the Devil more engaging than that of God. People empathised with the fallen angel, who reacted to the vicissitudes of God and was punished eternally for it. The Epicurean Paradox, which Phil Elauria alludes to, has often fascinated me and I have talked to Phil about choices and how they make for life’s experience, because in life, we have choices, right up until our death – and even then, perhaps, there are more choices to take. We can not be certain about that, as we cannot be certain of the existence of God. I favour an approach which (to paraphrase Pascal) does not concern itself so much as to whether or not there is a god, but rather, focuses on the notion that we should behave as if there is one. 

As for the ‘Weak Knowledge’ and the your interpretation that science proceeds via searching with the ever improvement and refinement of knowledge of the extant, again, this is a linear progression as stated, but knowledge does not proceed like that, according to Popper and Kuhn – for example. Phil Elauria chooses, as a corollary of his arguments, to be atheistic, though I prefer the agnostic stance whereby there is still a possibility of an alternative existence, even if it must remain within the realm of post-death. I actually think the confrontation with what is regarded as an inevitable in life (death) is the reason why mankind has confronted existence with the idea that there is something after death, preferably something good.  

As for the high IQ community, discussions on belief and the existence of God always divide vehemently, the arguments for and against often becoming so intense that even the highly intelligent start resorting to ad hominem after ad hominem. I am loathed to try and define trends in the high IQ community regarding this topic, but most of the people I respect express strong arguments in their particular paradigm (as I wish to express it here) and that is intrinsically what retains my respect for them. My experience notes that those who believe in a god believe that there is only one, so they have monotheistic beliefs, and, moreover, this places them within a deistic stance. Those who counter the argument for the existence of God take a similar line of argument as Phil Elauria, so are atheistic. That’s my experience, Scott, especially online. 

To summarise, your notion about atheism having a philosophical sense, agnosticism an empirical one, has credence, based, again, on my experience.

9. Jacobsen: Finally, we come to the “3D Lego Griddler ‘Chasing Nessie’” of Alan Wing-lun. Are puzzles an important inclusion for each issue? How do you vary the puzzles in order to maintain interest in these sections of the issues?

Powell: I like to have puzzles in the magazine, yes, the magazine genre demanding them to a certain extent. Most of the magazines pitched towards the high IQ sector have puzzles and quizzes and I produce most of them myself, which I also enjoy. Akin to the concept of having a series of numbers in the publication date (which began this interview) I like the inherent creativity involved in creating diverse and interesting puzzles. Alan certainly veers into the esoteric, which is very much his personality too. I was very pleased to meet him in London and we had a lively discussion about many things. I hope more people will contribute puzzles in the near future to maintain a diversity of interest and an enhanced expression of puzzle creativity. Most puzzles are derived from others. I read quite widely and, if I like a puzzle, I try to adapt it into something not seen before. I especially like puzzles which also tell a story.

10. Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Graham.

Powell: You are welcome, Scott. It has been a very enjoyable interview.


Di Cagno, E. (2012, December 12). The Corporate Strategy Column. Retrieved from

Edgeworth, P. (2012a, December 12). The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good (Pt. 1). Retrieved from

Edgeworth, P. (2012b, December 12). The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good (Pt. 2). Retrieved from

Elauria, P. (2012, December 12). On the Epistemic Standing of Claims of the Nonexistent. Retrieved from

Grove, G.A. (2012, December 12). Poems. Retrieved from

Thabet, M. (2012, December 12). Organizing the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness. Retrieved from

Powell, G. (2012a, December 12). Introduction. Retrieved from

Powell, G. (2012b, December 12). A Meeting of Minds: pictures from Dubai.. Retrieved from

Ripà, M. (2012, December 12). Differentiating features of gifted children and dealing with high IQ societies. Retrieved from

Wing-lun, A. (2012, December 12). 3D Lego Griddler “Chasing Nessie”. Retrieved from

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Editor, WIN ONE; Text Editor, Leonardo (AtlantIQ Society); Joint Public Relations Officer, World Intelligence Network; Vice President, AtlantIQ Society.

[2] Individual Publication Date: November 8, 2019:; Full Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2020:

[3] Edgeworth in “The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good” states:

Accordingly, the highest good in the world is possible only insofar as a supreme cause of nature having a causality in keeping with the moral disposition is assumed. Which is to say that the supreme cause of nature, if it is to be presupposed for the highest good, must be a being that is the cause of nature by understanding and will, that is to say, God.

Edgeworth, P. (2012, December 12). The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good. Retrieved from

[4] “The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good,” in full, states:

This question has both been raised and answered by Terry Godlove, Jr. In his response, he notes that while both the theist and non-theist may share an immediate action, only the former may undertake the moral life, for only he can truly intend to further the highest good. Thus without the hope of success in his moral life (since only an omnipotent moral law-giver could bring about such a state of nature), the non-theist cannot in actuality describe himself as working toward a unified moral end, the highest good, for he cannot intend to do what he knows to be impossible. Nor can he regard his conduct as furthering anything more than immediate ends, since he cannot aim at the final end of moral conduct. Consequently, the non-theist cannot set out to lead a moral life, where by “moral life” we signify “more than a brute concatenation of otherwise independent moral actions.”

Edgeworth, P. (2012, December 12). The Importance of Kant’s Concept of the Highest Good. Retrieved from

[5] “On the Epistemic Standing of Claims of the Nonexistent,” in full, states:

We can reject any claim involving the existence of some object or being to the extent that we can justifiably maintain confidence in a given scientific thesis that contradicts or refutes some necessary property of the object or being in question, which is to say, a property that the object or being must possess in order for us to continue to identify it as such…

…We can say that no object or being exists, with confidence, to the extent that we are epistemically justified in accepting a given scientific thesis that refutes or contradicts properties that are said to be necessary to identify some claimed object or being as such.

Elauria, P. (2012, December 12). On the Epistemic Standing of Claims of the Nonexistent. Retrieved from


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: