This is a real problem: how we can find something that is omnipresent, that is common, that everybody knows about, that everybody deals and copes with and imputes to each other, but nobody can define it, can describe it hardly, roughly and briefly, although making a list of both main and secondary features of this phenomenon would be quite easy.

This problem deserves the finest and greatest minds.

We compared stupidity to air and it was an interesting comparison, but not quite right. Air, though invisible, is matter, a substance which exists physically, only physically – air can be weighed, can be condensed and liquefied, many things can be done to air which can be done to different substances not similar to air. While one can’t do these things to stupidity, so similar to air in some aspects. Stupidity can’t be liquefied, but it can be condensed, let alone something can be inflated with it although it is not a substance.

It would be better to compare stupidity to gravity. Gravity is, exists, everybody knows about it, everybody feels it, we can even measure it, which is incomparably harder in the case of stupidity, almost impossible, yet nobody knows where gravity comes from and how it works – we think of praxis, of course; theories can be extremely nice and beautiful, but they are inferior to praxis (for example: piano playing . . . . . . what does the theory knows about what one feels touching gently the gleaming creamy keys? . . . . . ) though in this very case theory seems to be superior, because it is impossible to detect any graviton, this almost mystical particle, although it is not prohibited by any fundamental law; it is simply impossible to build a detector big enough… It is like in the case of sillytons, isn’t it?

Provided that there is something like a sillyton. A particle responsible for silly (stupid) interactions. For talking and writing and playing stupid things. Silly tons. Silly tones.

But let presume it is. Should the detector be bigger than the one to find gravitons which is supposed to have the mass of Jupiter? By Jove! Let’s hope not. Maybe it should be very small. And very snoopy. So it would be a dispersed detector. Like a swarm of wasps. Like a cloud of mosquitoes. Like the morning or evening fog.

The Dispersed Register System.

Let’s presume we have constructed a detector and it works. It detects the particles of stupidity. The sillytons. Tons of silliness. Tones of stupidity. And? What next? What should we do with the sillytons? Catch them? Store? Destroy? Compress them and make silly missiles? . . . . . Misillies? . . . . . . . Destroy. How? Mash them up with the heels? Incinerate them? Annihilate? . . . . . Oh, yes. Annihilate. In special annihilators of stupidity – in silly annihilators.

Let’s presume we have annihilated whole stupidity. We have removed and deleted it entirely and ultimately. Would we be hovering then in the state of permanent wise weightlessness? In weightless wisdom? It’s risky. In spite of appearances and desires. Yes, it could be very risky. To get rid of something not having controlled earlier how the world would be functioning without one of its fundamental elements. A computer simulation should be prepared first: what will happen when everybody makes right decisions, right choices and draws right conclusions. A horribly fascinating experiment this would be. A bit similar to this simple and seemingly innocent game when the participants promise to speak only truth – a really bizarre game it is because the reality, the praxis of reality, is not binary.

What else can be done to stupidity? Can it be recycled? It’s stupid to expect that the recycled stupidity will be less toxic, less malevolent… So let it be transformed into something else. What else? Whatever it is, it is not stupidity, and this would mean the extermination of stupidity… Well, it looks like we can only keep tracking the sillytons, just for sheer satisfaction, for intellectual pleasure, or for real profits like plenty of stupid PhD theses or works of old-fashion tachism.

We presume nothing, because it has no sense, because we will not succeed to build a detector and we will find no sillytons, because they simply and stupidly don’t exist. What will we do then?

Tests. Quizzes. Surveys… What will a test for trees or ants look like? It’s really silly to presume only humans are stupid.