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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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.
End of Chapter 1