Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 05:34 am
@The profits pen,
The profits pen wrote:
Genius, the collaboration of the soul. A spirit unto itself, it is created by those who stand with a sense of purpose, a part of this universe, and dis-attachment to themselves. the word change comes to mind, certainty of change and the ability to cause change, as well as the ability to prevent change. The world exist in symbols and metaphors, which in term are put together to manifest a certain type of change.

The world exists as cconceived...
0 Replies
 
addictor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 01:47 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Would the world be better off fostering a social environment that nutured genius?


No, the world is as good as it gets. Let the genius find themselves and their place in society. If the kid is smart, just move him up another level. It works good this way. You see, a genius cant even end society's problems. All they have is better comprehension and problem solving skills. They are still like the majority -- self serving.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 06:02 am
@Theaetetus,
Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds...From pangloss, from Leibniz...

We let our concepts, even our concepts of Genius get the better of us... What we are as a practical matter, all we know, and hold and control are made possible by forms... Yet, we let our forms tyranize us...Our forms of government and religion, our forms of economy, our ideologies fail us...

Genius is some times fed, but most often starved...It is because humanity is often starved to feed our forms... People are want to point at the great advances of our form of economy.... Can they see how many people it has destroyed, how many cultures it has run over, how much pollution it has caused, how many wars it has started and fought, how many species it has driven into extinction...If failure is success our form of economy is success... Does it nurture Genius??? How can we objectively tell??? It feeds that genius it can use, and even that it does not reward... Look at patent law...No one can leave a business and invent without fear that his old boss will claim all...Where then is the reward of genius???Where is the true support of it, if we only consider genius genius so long as it can be turned to profit???

We must understand the world as nascent... We are making it as we remake ourselves...Until we approach life and our forms with the best moral understanding, Genius is part of the problem and not much of the solution... For every person of genius working for human understanding there may be ten working on new weapons of war... Look at the great numbers of geniuses backed up by very able techs who created our first nuclear weapons....They went almost from zero to light speed in 3 years, and in the end, the product worked...It was our social, and moral forms which did not work... No amount of genius can make decrepit forms work as they did when new...Inevitably they suck up genius like every form of life and energy people can bring to them... New forms, and natural forms give life...Old and broken forms take life...
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 06:17 am
@Theaetetus,
Well said............
0 Replies
 
The profits pen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 07:06 am
@Theaetetus,
Genius indeed involves the special and most favored ability to see past things as they are perceived, but seeing past genius itself, you see everything. (quite literally)

good messenger Fido
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 08:39 am
@Theaetetus,
Thanxs y'all!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 08:48 am
@Theaetetus,
I am not really sure what genius actually is.

I do know that history is full of individuals who liked to state that genius should rise above and lead the masses with their endless benevolence. Of course the individual saying this generally considered themselves more than capable of providing that benevolence and leadership.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 12:29 pm
@Theaetetus,
You have to be pretty damn smart to say for another individual what he most needs for his happiness and well being....What is wrong with all our forms of government is simple: Each denies to itself the wisdom of the people... They are not self government, but various forms of rule, so the people are not informed, and they cannot inform their rulers...If two heads are better than one, all the heads are better than a few or many... Concentrated rule in a few people leads to speed, but also haste, and waste....Each person speaking for himself can state his needs and show his ability... It is natural for needs to exceed ability, and for people to form relationships to solve large problems with a concerted effort...This fact is no licence for people to serve themselves, and justify it as serving the people when they are only throwing crumbs to the people...
Desiderus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 07:32 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
You have to be pretty damn smart to say for another individual what he most needs for his happiness and well being....What is wrong with all our forms of government is simple: Each denies to itself the wisdom of the people... They are not self government, but various forms of rule, so the people are not informed, and they cannot inform their rulers...If two heads are better than one, all the heads are better than a few or many... Concentrated rule in a few people leads to speed, but also haste, and waste....Each person speaking for himself can state his needs and show his ability... It is natural for needs to exceed ability, and for people to form relationships to solve large problems with a concerted effort...This fact is no licence for people to serve themselves, and justify it as serving the people when they are only throwing crumbs to the people...


I would disagree with this. An excellent book I read this year, and one which I'm sure many others on the forum have also read, is The Lord of the Flies. The entire point of the book, whose view I agree with, is that all forms of government, whether representative or non-representative, oppressive or not, have at times failed, not because they are inadequate or because one form is inherently superior to the other, but because the fate of a society as a whole depends on the actions of its individual citizens.

As for genius, well, I think they are often considered "insane" because the way they view the world tends to be so radically different from their peers. I would suppose that their views, both in their respective areas of expertise and on the world in general, are so obviously not those of their peers that they come across as insane.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 07:51 pm
@Desiderus,
Desiderus wrote:
I would disagree with this. An excellent book I read this year, and one which I'm sure many others on the forum have also read, is The Lord of the Flies. The entire point of the book, whose view I agree with, is that all forms of government, whether representative or non-representative, oppressive or not, have at times failed, not because they are inadequate or because one form is inherently superior to the other, but because the fate of a society as a whole depends on the actions of its individual citizens.

They all fail... The only reason gentile democracy lasted so long and persists in places today is that there was no excess of wealth to spread inequality... All forms fail... Marriages seldom last the entire lives of the married couple, and many which do survive are not successful in spite of that fact... Failure should be expected from forms, and people should be expected to confront that failure...Our government has been a failure almost from the start...It has not met its own goals, and has resulted in one civil war, and is working on a second... Jefferson had it right, and it is obvious that people do not like to change, and fear change and so endure form while they are sufferable... But everyone should know that humanity progresses with a change of forms, everywhere and always because we cannot change what is essentially human and what our human needs are...If this is true, then forms should be built with a time limit, and everyone should face that fact, that their form is their responsibility, and to change them is natural, and for them to change without common consent, as it were, on their own, with a nudge here, and a pull there until they little resemble their former form...
And I disagree...It is always the form which is inadequate...And they are made that way...If you make a form changeable enough to respond to the needs of individuals, you also make it malleable to the desires of individuals for wealth and power through the form... There is no remedy that I can see except the understanding and expectation that this is exactly what always happens, and since forms cannot be avoided any more than change, each should be embraced... Think of a form as a snake's skin which is shed to rid the snake for a short time of parasites...Parasites are a natural fact of life...That does not mean we should endure them, but rather, that we should not find our form so dear that we embrace parasites with the form... Get rid of both at once, and begin fresh...
Desiderus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 07:41 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
They all fail... The only reason gentile democracy lasted so long and persists in places today is that there was no excess of wealth to spread inequality... All forms fail... Marriages seldom last the entire lives of the married couple, and many which do survive are not successful in spite of that fact... Failure should be expected from forms, and people should be expected to confront that failure...Our government has been a failure almost from the start...It has not met its own goals, and has resulted in one civil war, and is working on a second... Jefferson had it right, and it is obvious that people do not like to change, and fear change and so endure form while they are sufferable... But everyone should know that humanity progresses with a change of forms, everywhere and always because we cannot change what is essentially human and what our human needs are...If this is true, then forms should be built with a time limit, and everyone should face that fact, that their form is their responsibility, and to change them is natural, and for them to change without common consent, as it were, on their own, with a nudge here, and a pull there until they little resemble their former form...


I'm a bit confused by your position. That all forms of government fail was my original point; does your disagreement occur over the cause of this failure?

Fido wrote:
And I disagree...It is always the form which is inadequate...And they are made that way...If you make a form changeable enough to respond to the needs of individuals, you also make it malleable to the desires of individuals for wealth and power through the form... There is no remedy that I can see except the understanding and expectation that this is exactly what always happens, and since forms cannot be avoided any more than change, each should be embraced... Think of a form as a snake's skin which is shed to rid the snake for a short time of parasites...Parasites are a natural fact of life...That does not mean we should endure them, but rather, that we should not find our form so dear that we embrace parasites with the form... Get rid of both at once, and begin fresh...


Once again, you are going to have to clarify. By "forms" you mean the various forms of government? And you mean to say that every time a democracy, for example, runs into problems, it needs to become something other than a democracy?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:41 am
@Desiderus,
Quote:
Desiderus wrote:
I'm a bit confused by your position. That all forms of government fail was my original point; does your disagreement occur over the cause of this failure?
We have only the choice between government and being ruled.. There is a tendency of people to take over their forms and use them for themselves as individuals rather than themselves as nations, or humanity, like a kid inheriting grampa's car and taking it to the dragstrip...People are not blessed with historic vision, but have to learn to see historically...It does not help that in the case of our constitution we are taught that it is perfect, and the best possible... Such thoughts are nonsense...It is neither what it was, nor does what it was designed to do, which is clearly stated...How can it be perfect if it has led us to impasse and hatred of our fellow man and each other???



Quote:
Once again, you are going to have to clarify. By "forms" you mean the various forms of government? And you mean to say that every time a democracy, for example, runs into problems, it needs to become something other than a democracy?

I use forms in exactly the sense that form has always been used, and for example, as Jefferson used the term, correctly in the Declaration of Independence... If we start out with democracy, understanding that it will be perverted then the goal is again democracy...Democracy is particularly suseptible to perversion as we have it, as majority rule... This is hardly self government... And something else: There has been a quality of successful revolution that should be noted... It is not the capture of tomorrow, which few will sign on to, and most would rather avoid...It is the recapture of a mythic past... In England with her Round Heads, and America with her Yankees; each was revolution made to recapture the English Constitution which has never, as a guide, been written... The Roundheads came very close to achieving all the American revolution did accomplish a few hundred years later... But we see the conflict between those who see only the form, the constitution, and those who want to govern with empathy, which is to say, with the spirit that guided our revolution and constitution...Even those who most realize how badly the constitution has failed us dare not tamper with the only protection most of us have from each other or the government...
Paggos
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 09:50 am
@Theaetetus,
This world would be better if it well lead it's genius's and not bashed them. Though, if it were not for other minds, we wouldn't have the knowledge they had. Time makes a difference, and so does getting a grasp on reality which people don't have as much anymore.
0 Replies
 
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 05:20 am
@Fido,
Fido;64011 wrote:
I use forms in exactly the sense that form has always been used, and for example, as Jefferson used the term, correctly in the Declaration of Independence... If we start out with democracy, understanding that it will be perverted then the goal is again democracy...Democracy is particularly suseptible to perversion as we have it, as majority rule... This is hardly self government... And something else: There has been a quality of successful revolution that should be noted... It is not the capture of tomorrow, which few will sign on to, and most would rather avoid...It is the recapture of a mythic past... In England with her Round Heads, and America with her Yankees; each was revolution made to recapture the English Constitution which has never, as a guide, been written... The Roundheads came very close to achieving all the American revolution did accomplish a few hundred years later... But we see the conflict between those who see only the form, the constitution, and those who want to govern with empathy, which is to say, with the spirit that guided our revolution and constitution...Even those who most realize how badly the constitution has failed us dare not tamper with the only protection most of us have from each other or the government...

Monarchy has made England a secure democracy and the constitution has made America an insecure one. How's that for irony?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 08:37 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7;67057 wrote:
Monarchy has made England a secure democracy and the constitution has made America an insecure one. How's that for irony?

England is not a democracy at all, nor a monarchy and it is not secure at all...It is one crash away from revolution just like America, and its island nature is no more a defense now than distance is for the U.S... There are no natural boundries, and there are no moral absolutes... The constitution has failed us... So has the old English constitution failed them....
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 04:43 am
@Fido,
We don't have a constitution, and it has done us very well thank you very much. We are not on the brink of revolution we are merely in a mire of mediocraty, unrelated to the perfectly good systems of democracy we have in place. We are certainly a hell of a lot more of a democracy than the US, which barely counts.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 05:52 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7;67945 wrote:
We don't have a constitution, and it has done us very well thank you very much. We are not on the brink of revolution we are merely in a mire of mediocraty, unrelated to the perfectly good systems of democracy we have in place. We are certainly a hell of a lot more of a democracy than the US, which barely counts.

You have a constitution...It has been written of often, and often changed; but it does not have the drawback of being cast in stone as ours is...We think of ours as perfect even while it has led to our present problems, and even to a bloody civil war...It allowed that terrible smear on our country until we could end it and still defend ourselves.. Yet we still have slavery, and property rights are stronger today than when people made property of each other..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Genius
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 12:48:27