The Nature of Genius


A discussion on the Ne Plus Ultra forum

Sun, Dec 14, 2003 – Thurs, Jan 8, 2004





From David Quinn

Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 pm:


Hello everyone,

My name is David Quinn and I am a co-founder of Genius Forum. I have no idea what my IQ is, but I am a thinker of timeless wisdom and consider myself to be a sage. A short biographical sketch of me can be found here.

I'm not exactly sure why the Coyote invited me to this forum, considering that my intellect and MO appear to be very different from those used here. I like to make my points in plain English, for example, using simple sentences that are jargon free. Hyper-complex sentence structures littered with puffed-up esoteric terminology leave me cold. I also have no interest in academic thought, especially in regards to philosophy, as I find most of it to be disingenuous, trivial and inane.

So on the face of it, there doesn't seem to be much common ground between us. Already, after a couple of days of perusing this forum, I regard most of you to be quite, quite mad. And no doubt, in turn, most of you will come to see me as an ignorant simpleton. And so our exchanges will probably peter out after a few days and I will disappear from this place, never to be seen again. If the Coyote was hoping that my presence might add a bit of spark to this forum, he may end up being disappointed.

Anyway, I would like to discuss the nature of genius. To my mind, genius is a property which is intimately linked with consciousness. A genius is someone whose consciousness is of a very high quality. I'm not referring here to the ability to think complicatedly, but rather to its opposite: the ability to think truthfully and simply. A genius possesses the simplicity of someone who has opened his mind to the nature of Reality. He no longer experiences any delusion in his mind and thus no longer has to conjure up complex solutions to imaginary philosophical problems in the way that ordinary academics do. He is able to cut through to the very core of things with ease. This leads to another essential quality of genius, which is independence of thought. Because a genius grounds his every thought in Ultimate Reality, his thinking is completely unaffected by the values, myths, beliefs, and mores of his culture. He is like a child of God, producing every thought from within himself, dwelling far above the confines of human relativism. His every movement is an expression of eternity.

In light of this, I wouldn't call Einstein or Bach or Feynman geniuses. While these men had extraordinary talent, their lack of awareness of the nature of Reality meant that their consciousness was not of a very high quality. They still suffered from gross delusions, which, given their advanced intellects, made them appear very foolish. The best historical examples of genius that I can find are Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Huang Po, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Weininger.




From Andrew Beckwith

Sun Dec 14, 2003 3:12 pm:


Quote:

In light of this, I wouldn't call Einstein or Bach or Feynman geniuses. While these men had extraordinary talent, their lack of awareness of the nature of Reality meant that their consciousness was not of a very high quality


You can believe whatever you want. The world thinks differently. I got to know Feynman personally for awhile when he stayed at UCSC for a month and he made a memorable quote which I will give you :

" Scientific genius requires a willingness to suspend disbelief and to play with the fundamental issues with the openess of a young child ".

Your willingness to discount the intelligence of others here means you are a closed system. You are therefore missing the boat. Badly.

To whit, Coyote is a full blown member of Pars, arguably one of the most elite IQ societies on the planet. I am a mega foundation member and so are three other people in this forum. But, you know what, no one here went in with a brass horn to announce their psychometric scales to the world.

I write extremely directly, as do others. Stick around and then maybe your opinion would change.

Oh, and while you are at it, here is a working definition of "reality" for you.

http://www.well.com/user/ddigor/students/kyra_rice/the_file_liked_to.html

Break out with a new paradigm changing construct and then I will be impressed. Otherwise, your self praise is a sociological vaccum state.




From David Quinn

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:10 pm:


Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

DQ: In light of this, I wouldn't call Einstein or Bach or Feynman geniuses. While these men had extraordinary talent, their lack of awareness of the nature of Reality meant that their consciousness was not of a very high quality

AB: You can believe whatever you want. The world thinks differently. I got to know Feynman personally for awhile when he stayed at UCSC for a month and he made a memorable quote which I will give you :

" Scientific genius requires a willingness to suspend disbelief and to play with the fundamental issues with the openess of a young child ".



I'm not convinced that Feynman was aware of what a fundamental issue was. He wouldn't have stayed within the limited confines of science if he had been.


Quote:

Your willingness to discount the intelligence of others here means you are a closed system. You are therefore missing the boat. Badly.



I'm not saying that Feynman wasn't intelligent, only that his vision was narrow and not particularly deep. He was essentially a glorified lego-player.

What , in your opinion, was the wisest thing he ever said or did?


Quote:

To whit, Coyote is a full blown member of Pars, arguably one of the most elite IQ societies on the planet. I am a mega foundation member and so are three other people in this forum. But, you know what, no one here went in with a brass horn to announce their psychometric scales to the world.


You're obviously making up for lost time now!





From Andrew Beckwith

Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:41 am:


Quote:

I'm not saying that Feynman wasn't intelligent, only that his vision was narrow and not particularly deep. He was essentially a glorified lego-player.

What , in your opinion, was the wisest thing he ever said or did?


Narrow ? This is tommy rot. Feynman created QED and also the Parton model of high energy physics. I am familiar with both. These are paradigm changing achievements of the first magnitude.

Quote:

I'm not convinced that Feynman was aware of what a fundamental issue was. He wouldn't have stayed within the limited confines of science if he had been

.
I will be rude here to get your attention. Your very judgemental tone precludes you from having the humility to understand others. You are a closed system. Real science forces people to look outside of themselves. You are incapable of doing that.


Quote:

AB: To whit, Coyote is a full blown member of Pars, arguably one of the most elite IQ societies on the planet. I am a mega foundation member and so are three other people in this forum. But, you know what, no one here went in with a brass horn to announce their psychometric scales to the world.

DQ: You're obviously making up for lost time now!


Can you read ? I think not. I said this with an eye toward telling your mightiness that there are a LOT of bright people here. I am the least intelligent of the so called cognitive elite which resides here. Others are more distinguished than I am. But still you are dreaming if you think you are unique. Relax. You are not.





From David Quinn

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:32 am:


Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

DQ: I'm not saying that Feynman wasn't intelligent, only that his vision was narrow and not particularly deep. He was essentially a glorified lego-player.

AB: Narrow ? This is tommy rot. Feynman created QED and also the Parton model of high energy physics. I am familiar with both. These are paradigm changing achievements of the first magnitude.


Aquinus used to do groundbreaking work in the field of theology. It used to impress his fellow theologians, and no doubt it required a considerable amount of intelligence to carry it out, but in the larger scheme of things, looked at from the perspective of a great philosopher, it is nothing.

What , in your opinion, was the wisest thing Feynman ever said or did?


Quote:

DQ: I'm not convinced that Feynman was aware of what a fundamental issue was. He wouldn't have stayed within the limited confines of science if he had been

AB: I will be rude here to get your attention. Your very judgemental tone precludes you from having the humility to understand others. You are a closed system. Real science forces people to look outside of themselves. You are incapable of doing that.


You're not being open to the point I am making.





From Andrew Beckwith

Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:03 pm:


You are a theologian, and I am a scientist who has connections with the CTMU philosphy from a deist stand point but who has no interest in a personal God. You rate religious insight over science, and I call them co equal.

Feynmans main contribution. QED. Read it in a link HERE.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691033277/103-2909718-3284664?v=glance

"Amazon.com: Books: QED and the Men Who Made It
... LA. This is a very technical and historical review of the creation
of the 20th Centuries most accurate of all physics, QED. "

If you are not impressed, then go to a nunnery, to paraphrase Shakesphere.

The hell with Saint Thomas Acquinas. I consider NEW theology and NEW areas of knowledge. And I am already tired of this topic.





From David Quinn

Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:43 pm:


I actually rate philosophcal reasoning and logical truth above both religious insight and science. Neither religious insight nor scientific theorizing can yield knowledge of ultimate truth, which is the most important knowledge of all. They are both trapped in the realm of uncertainty - science because of its provisional nature, and religion because of its reliance on blind faith.

No one becomes a genius until they go beyond both religion and science.





From Andrew Beckwith

Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:38 pm:


Science is trapped in uncertainty ? So what ! Prove to me that matters ! PROVE IT.





From David Quinn

Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:11 pm:


Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

Science is trapped in uncertainty ? So what ! Prove to me that matters ! PROVE IT.


It matters to anyone who values the absolute certainty of ultimate knowledge.


Quote:

The hell with Saint Thomas Acquinas. I consider NEW theology and NEW areas of knowledge. And I am already tired of this topic.


It won't be long before Feynman's theory of QED is old hat, just like Aquinas's quaint speculations.





From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 16, 2003 6:17 am:


The only certainty people have in their lives is eventual death. Get over it.





From David Quinn

Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:07 am:



Our deaths are no certainty. Science could, in the next decade or two, discover the key to physical immortality through their work in genetics. The possibility currently seems remote, but it can't be dismissed altogether. It's also possible that our consciousness (which is essentially what we call "life") will survive the death of our bodies in some way. Again, the possibility seems remote, but it still exists nonetheless.

Death is an empirical event that we presume will occur in the future; this alone makes it inherently uncertain.





From M

Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:01 pm:


David Quinn wrote:

It matters to anyone who values the absolute certainty of ultimate knowledge.


David, how do you define "ultimate knowledge" in this context?

Back to your first post, you call yourself "a thinker of timeless wisdom." What do "timeless" and "wisdom" mean in this expression? Perhaps you didn't intend us to take this literally, but, if not, could you explain what you did intend?

Would you consider Ghandi a genius? What of Jesus or Buddha? Your description of genius lends itself to an overwhelming number of disparate interpretations, so it's pointless to attempt a simple one, but one interpretation seems solid: you define a genius as someone you aspire to be or think you are becoming. True? If true, then isn't it true than most people have the given ability to become geniuses by choosing to search for and abide by this wisdom you seek? And if that's true, then what's the point of calling someone a genius?





From David Quinn

Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:04 pm:


“M” wrote:

Quote:

DQ: It matters to anyone who values the absolute certainty of ultimate knowledge.

M: David, how do you define "ultimate knowledge" in this context?


Knowledge that cannot be overturned in any way, either by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, and is therefore true in all possible worlds. This contrasts with the relativistic and/or provisional truths of science.

A simple example is the Buddhist truth that "nothing inherently exists". This is ultimately true because a thing necessarily depends on other things for its existence. A shadow, for example, depends on light, physical objects capable of casting a shadow, a surface capable of receiving a shadow, etc. Take any of these things away and the shadow disappears. Its existence is dependent upon the existence of these other things. It doesn't inherently exist.

The same principle applies to everything else in Nature; there can never be an instance in which the assertion "nothing inherently exist" is not true. It is part and parcel of the very nature of existence.


Quote:

Back to your first post, you call yourself "a thinker of timeless wisdom." What do "timeless" and "wisdom" mean in this expression? Perhaps you didn't intend us to take this literally, but, if not, could you explain what you did intend?


Timeless - not subject to time.
Wisdom - consciousness of Ultimate Reality.

"A thinker of timeless wisdom" thus means a person who generates thoughts out of a consciousness of Ultimate Reality which never changes.


Quote:

Would you consider Ghandi a genius?


No. He might have been an extraordinary social reformer, but he had no awareness of Ultimate Reality as far as I can see. I also found his preoccupations rather narcissistic and perverted - e.g. sleeping with virgins (in a non-sexual sense) to "test" his attachment to celibacy.

What about you? What is your conception of genius?


Quote:

What of Jesus or Buddha?


If I filter out most of the drivel surrounding the legends of these two men, then yes, I can conceive of them as geniuses. For example, to my mind, about 20% of the Gospels is breathtakingly wise and smacks of true genius, while the rest is forgettable herd-speak. It's almost as though there are two very different Jesus's contained in the Gospels.


Quote:

Your description of genius lends itself to an overwhelming number of disparate interpretations, so it's pointless to attempt a simple one, but one interpretation seems solid: you define a genius as someone you aspire to be or think you are becoming. True? If true, then isn't it true than most people have the given ability to become geniuses by choosing to search for and abide by this wisdom you seek? And if that's true, then what's the point of calling someone a genius?


Do you believe that genius is only a valid quality if one is simply born with it?

From my perspective, genius is as much a trait of character and decision-making, as it is of raw intellect. Some people are born with very high IQs and razzle-dazzle intellects, but because of character flaws - e.g. they might be cowardly or overly-timid, or they might be full of anger and revenge from a lifetime of being taunted at school for being a nerd, or they might be preoccupied with seeking fame and admiration within the intellectual community, etc - they misapply their intellects in unintelligent ways and don't mentally develop into geniuses.

Genius is a mental quality which is activated when the intellect is consistently applied in wise ways. By this definition, Stephen Hawking isn't a genius, even though he has a highly-active intellect. He might have been born with some of the raw material for genius - namely, a high IQ - but it wasn't enough. He didn't have the passion for ultimate understanding and the ability to think profoundly, which is just as important for the development of genius as raw intellect is.





From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:00 pm:



David Quinn wrote:

Our deaths are no certainty. Science could, in the next decade or two, discover the key to physical immortality through their work in genetics.


I would not mind living to be 100 years old, but then I WANT to die. I actually am after I have been here long enough eager to see what lies ahead. Spare me analogies with the Christian God, please. This has nothing to do with religion.

I cannot imagine living for a thousand years. God it would be so damn BORING.





From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:04 pm:


Quote:

Knowledge that cannot be overturned in any way, either by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, and is therefore true in all possible worlds. This contrasts with the relativistic and/or provisional truths of science.


Do you realize that you just made a perfect description of a living hell on earth by what you just wrote ? Knowledge which cannot be challenged ? What fun is there in that ? None at all. I like being able to kick a can around and to tinker with it.

And, what you THINK you know about Buddhist Nirvana is way off the mark. Just letting you know





From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:05 pm:


Quote:

And if that's true, then what's the point of calling someone a genius?


None. Robbie he wants a closed system of thinking which has no input from the real world.





From David Quinn

Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:58 pm:


Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

Do you realize that you just made a perfect description of a living hell on earth by what you just wrote ? Knowledge which cannot be challenged ?


Ultimate knowledge can indeed be challenged - in the form of trying to rationally refute it. It's just that it continually passes the test.


Quote:

What fun is there in that ? None at all. I like being able to kick a can around and to tinker with it.


Don't worry, I'm not trying to take away your precious scientific theorizing. Rather, I'm arguing for a greater form of rationality which is at home with both the uncertainties of science and the certainties of philosophy. There is plenty of room in the world for both.

Part of being a clear-minded thinker is knowing how to distinguish between what is certain in life and what isn't. There's no need to be scared of philosophic certainty; it doesn't negate the open-endedness of science.


Quote:

And, what you THINK you know about Buddhist Nirvana is way off the mark.


In what way?


Quote:

I cannot imagine living for a thousand years. God it would be so damn BORING.


I would love to live for a thousand years and beyond. So tell me, which one of us is really creating a living hell on earth?





From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:27 pm:


Something tells me that you have never, never, never tried scientific inquiry. If you had, you would not be so certain about your creed. Inquiry in its highest state mandates receptivity to flashes of insight which are almost a religious experience in intensity.

I wish you had this experience. Since you have not, I realize that my discussion of what you are lacking is like trying to make you drink water when you wish to be parching yourself into a near comatose state while you wander in the desert of your search for absolute certainty. What a shame.





From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:31 pm:


Quote:

I would love to live for a thousand years and beyond. So tell me, which one of us is really creating a living hell on earth?


First, why live a thousand years ? What fun is there in that ? I do not believe that we are bound to our here and now for our ultimate fate. Why delay ad infinitum a natural process ?

Me creating a living hell on earth ? This is asinine. Please tell me how anything I am talking about is a hell on earth experience .





From M

Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:48 pm:


David Quinn wrote:

A simple example is the Buddhist truth that "nothing inherently exists". This is ultimately true because a thing necessarily depends on other things for its existence....It doesn't inherently exist.


Existence isn't a predicate (of itself) and is presupposed in hypothesizing all possible worlds. In other words, in all possible worlds, all possible worlds exist, so existence is necessary in all possible worlds.



David Quinn wrote:

The same principle applies to everything else in Nature; there can never be an instance in which the assertion "nothing inherently exist" is not true. It is part and parcel of the very nature of existence.


Let's assume that existence is a predicate (of that which enables existence and thus doesn't necessarily exist ). You're effectively declaring that contingent existence must be necessary to itself by nature. Or, it is the nature of existence to be necessarily contingent. The obvious problem here is that a necessary predicate, or a predicate that always accompanies a concept, cannot be true only under certain conditions or it would not always accompany that concept. Contingency and necessity are polar opposites; think about it.



David Quinn wrote:

Timeless - not subject to time.
Wisdom - consciousness of Ultimate Reality.


We have no experience of anything that occurs outside spacetime, so how can we be sure that something timeless exists or, if so, what it means to be timeless?

What does "Ultimate Reality" mean???



David Quinn wrote:

I also found his preoccupations rather narcissistic and perverted - e.g. sleeping with virgins (in a non-sexual sense) to "test" his attachment to celibacy.


That's funny. This sounds like typical Buddhist behavior and, for all of Buddhism's and Ghandi's positive qualities, I find this preoccupation ridiculously naive.



David Quinn wrote:

What about you? What is your conception of genius?


Genius is a useful motivator but a tad trite nowadays. I prefer not to discuss it and let the masses tear it to triviality.



David Quinn wrote:

For example, to my mind, about 20% of the Gospels is breathtakingly wise and smacks of true genius, while the rest is forgettable herd-speak. It's almost as though there are two very different Jesus's contained in the Gospels.


Hmm. I would say more but I unfortunately can't think about the Bible without wincing.



David Quinn wrote:

Genius is a mental quality which is activated when the intellect is consistently applied in wise ways.


No offense but we're right back to that amorphous concept of "timeless wisdom." Please elaborate.

I often find truth between meaning.
Then I find that truth between meaning is meaningless.
Then I find a cloud of confusion rising to suffocate me.
Then I run away from it and find truth again.
After about 15 minutes of this shit, I throw up and wish I were dead.
But then I realize that I would find truth after I die,
which doesn't make any damn sense so must be true....




From David Quinn

Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:59 am:


M wrote:

Quote:

DQ: A simple example is the Buddhist truth that "nothing inherently exists". This is ultimately true because a thing necessarily depends on other things for its existence....It doesn't inherently exist.

M: Existence isn't a predicate (of itself) and is presupposed in hypothesizing all possible worlds. In other words, in all possible worlds, all possible worlds exist, so existence is necessary in all possible worlds.


Contingent existence, yes.


Quote:

DQ: The same principle applies to everything else in Nature; there can never be an instance in which the assertion "nothing inherently exist" is not true. It is part and parcel of the very nature of existence.

M: Let's assume that existence is a predicate (of that which enables existence and thus doesn't necessarily exist ). You're effectively declaring that contingent existence must be necessary to itself by nature. Or, it is the nature of existence to be necessarily contingent.


The latter, yes.


Quote:

The obvious problem here is that a necessary predicate, or a predicate that always accompanies a concept, cannot be true only under certain conditions or it would not always accompany that concept. Contingency and necessity are polar opposites; think about it.


True, an assertion that is only true in certain cirumstances cannot be classed as a necessary truth (which is true in all circumstances). But this has no bearing on the point I was making - which is that whenever or wherever something exists, its existence is necessarily contingent. That is to say, a thing can never have a non-contingent form of existence under any circumstances.


Quote:

We have no experience of anything that occurs outside spacetime, so how can we be sure that something timeless exists or, if so, what it means to be timeless?


Logical/definitional truths are timeless in the sense that they can never be falsified. For example, 1+1 will always equal 2, given the way we currently define these terms. It is not something that will become false over time.


Quote:

What does "Ultimate Reality" mean???


Nature as it really is, as opposed to what deluded people falsely imagine it to be.


Quote:

DQ: What about you? What is your conception of genius?

M: Genius is a useful motivator but a tad trite nowadays. I prefer not to discuss it and let the masses tear it to triviality.


These two sentences don't seem to go together. Do you value genius or not?


Quote:

DQ: For example, to my mind, about 20% of the Gospels is breathtakingly wise and smacks of true genius, while the rest is forgettable herd-speak. It's almost as though there are two very different Jesus's contained in the Gospels.

M: Hmm. I would say more but I unfortunately can't think about the Bible without wincing.


It would be a shame to let that sort of emotional reaction to influence and limit your perspective on things. Foolish, really.





From David Quinn

Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:03 am:


Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

Me creating a living hell on earth ? This is asinine. Please tell me how anything I am talking about is a hell on earth experience .



Because you're suicidal in your outlook.





Contents Next

End of Chapter 1