'The arrogance of genius'

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:31 pm

Hi there,

as a small and lowly rabbit, not fitting either description of genius nor man, I stumbled upon this forum:

"Welcome to Genius Forum, the forum for Dangerous Thinkers."

Danger on a quest is obligatory, although the definition of genius within a narrowly conceived male-worldview is a blindness in itself. Danger beckons not only the bravehearted, but also the foolhardy and arrogant. Perhaps I thought to take a brief passage in this direction to mix with this in this disposition to see where it leads.

It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the bravehearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex.

Oh I see. It seems the Admin has anticipated braveheartedness although failing to define it, I wonder where this leads if not a patriarchal arrogance, and allusion to metaphoric subjugation of feminine genius?

[We hope you find this forum stimulating and challenging.]

What is Genius?

I'm not sure, so perhaps I'll stay for a while, curious in discovering what it is in this forum.

xoxoxoxo

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:44 am

Hi Miffy! I am zagreus. I have things sticking up out of my head too.

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:02 am

Hello Zagreus!

Lovely to meet you! I'm sure you have plenty of things sticking out from other places too - I'm pleased to discover the things sticking out of your head for the meantime!

Lots of love,

xoxoxoxox

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

Chadwick Stone · Post by **Chadwick Stone** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:07 am

Hi Miffy. Traditionally, genius is defined as extraordinary intellect and creativity; however; the theme here seems to follow a philosophical bent. Definitely, some interesting reading.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:07 am

Welcome to the forum, "Miffy". I have to say from the outset that it's difficult for me to take someone seriously who elects to express themselves from behind the persona of a bunny, but I'll do my best.

I have 2 questions: 1) Is "Lots of love, xoxoxoxox" an expression of "feminine genius", and 2) Do you see any contradiction in the accusation of "arrogance" in your thread title and your admission that you don't really know what "genius" is?

Dan Rowden

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:24 am

Dan, are you inferring that an individual is incapable of entering the realm of understanding via an initial path of motivated love for bunnies?

http://fanart.lionking.org/Artists/Frod ... Wabbit.jpg

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:51 am

Hmm, apart from the fact that you infer and I imply in that instance, I don't know what to say to that. I've never directly experienced the phenomenon of bunny-love. Perhaps it has some revelatory quality that I have overlooked.

I'll have to try it sometime. I'm told it tastes like chicken. But then, doesn't everything?

Dan Rowden

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:52 pm

Welcome to the forum, "Miffy". I have to say from the outset that it's difficult for me to take someone seriously who elects to express themselves from behind the persona of a bunny, but I'll do my best.

Hello Mr Drowden.

Thank you and your point is noted. I have a similar parallel in not being able to take seriously, pompous men feigning genius and assuming defence within the clique of a boy's club. Then going on to belittle little rabbits.

Surely genius grows up beyond the immaturity of its beholder?

Now on to the serious questions:

I have 2 questions: 1) Is "Lots of love, xoxoxoxox" an expression of "feminine genius"

Are you, perhaps, as a genius, expressing parodic stupidity? Although perhaps there is more assonance in your expression with the concept, devoid of the parody. Every rabbit knows that 'Lots of love', is an expression of affection. Affection belongs to the affective domain, you silly sausage and not of the intellectual one. The intellectual domain belongs to the domain of the wise. Whereas modern Cartesian thought dichotomises the affect {emotion} from knowing {cognition}, the wise, exemplified through the embodiment of human geniuses (insert your own example here, excepting "Eintein" described in the blurb of this forum) lived out this form of love. Those less than genius tried to think out this love: think about Kantian Categorical Imperatives for example.

At best, it is only the wise who can grasp that love is the highest form of wisdom: what else does the teachings of geniuses teach us? At worse, it takes a narrowly conceived mind of a lesser man, to fail to recognise love.

Feminine genius has a long history; encapsulated in Sophia, hidden and latent, wise in its shadows. Its corollary is not the masculine boasting and self-advertisement of its own genius.

That will be the Yahoo ads on the http:// servers.

2) Do you see any contradiction in the accusation of "arrogance" in your thread title and your admission that you don't really know what "genius" is?

Clearly, the poster of this question of contradiction, fails to grasp the concept of parodic stupidity.

By extension, the arrogance of a self-declared genius, is easily conveyed in the attitude, that 'others don';t really know what "genius" is, thus implying oneself as "genius" and others as lesser bunnies, unable to grasp the concept.

Thank you for your comments Mr Dowden. They convey a degree of arrogance expressed in the very questioning of rabbit contradictions and inform me no better of the essence of authentic genius.

Lots of love.

xoxoxoxoxox

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:11 pm

Hi Miffy. Traditionally, genius is defined as extraordinary intellect and creativity; however; the theme here seems to follow a philosophical bent. Definitely, some interesting reading.

Thank you Chadwick. Your definition is a helpful start. Perhaps the word "genius" is less of a barrier to following this path down the philosophical bent, although somethings require straightening.

For instance - the bent comment: that this forum is for men of either sexes. At first, it seems an unmoderated and thoughtless comment aimed at persuading cross-dressing transvestite thinkers of all persuasions to identify with a masculine trait through forms of stimulation.

Secondly, it's discriminatory thoughtlessness in the very attempt of trying to include women through a subjugation into a paternalistic and patriarchal model: calling on women to be like real 'men'.

Your definition is tacit, and I find this helpful as it strips the cultural biases from the exploration of what is genius and in that respect, it is genuinely helplful.

In common parlance, "genius" does not surface often, except in reference to one. This is true, except for the deluded, and a forum like this will attract many of those. Any genius here familiar with Saussure's work will reject the notion that 'genius' does not need definition; revision, redefinition as its hermeneutic can only be derived in relation to the shifting cultural context in which words are differentials, and not absolutes.

Less common, reification through words, such as "genius" harbour a primitive Platonic fantasy that words themselves might have an analogue to the Forms. As if there was any truth in genius. If genius is not a false category and in genius is the highest extension of truth in the human man, then perforce, this is to be seen clearly in this forum.

Lots of love.

xoxoxoxoxo

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:04 pm

it is only the wise who can grasp that love is the highest form of wisdom

I can't help but feel that even a fierce bad rabbit can be taught to love listening to you dear carrot!

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:22 pm

Oh, that's just great; now I'll feel like some kind of voyeuristic pervert every time I come to this thread.

Thanks, Zag

Dan Rowden

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:22 pm

"I can't help but feel that even a fierce bad rabbit can be taught to love listening to you dear carrot!"

You are not beyond loving either - lots of love to you too!

xoxoxoxo

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:02 pm

Zag is an atheist, by the way; I thought that might be interesting to you.

Dan Rowden

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:13 pm

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject:
Zag is an atheist, by the way; I thought that might be interesting to you. - Dan Rowden

Hello again Mr Rowden.

Bizarre statement. Why should Zag being an atheist impede him from being loved? I have asked myself if I am an atheist, and on my journey, find more in common with atheists. Why should Zag be barred from being privileged by Kantian Categorial Imperatives? Or even plain and simple human kindness? Surely even atheists aren't so far out of reach, unless their masculine arrogance refutes any and all emotion as feminine, thereby disavowing love in any form, rejecting love, in order to maintain a persecuted complex.

The only reason which I, rabbit, can fathom, why an atheist would be rendered unloveable is by a bunch of rampant fundamentalists.

So far as we are talking about genius and wisdom, there is no room for such narrow-minded thinking - perhaps we could leave fundamentalism in Texas or whereas else it belongs.

Lots of love.

xoxoxoxoxo

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:16 pm

Most of that reply seems irrelevant to my post, but the reason I mentioned Zag's atheism is because of your most recent blog. Obviously I misunderstood it. I took it for a lament about the soullessness and emptiness of atheism.

How do you define "love" as you're employing it here?

Dan Rowden

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:24 pm

Hello again Mr Drowden.

As an itinerant rabbit, I'm on my way through life's journey. I haven't found the answers, so I've been looking, traversing over vegetables fields, philosophy forums and atheist blogs.
(btw - thanks for your feedback on my own blog. I know it can be misunderstood, because its writing isn't straightforward. Someone once wrote back, accusing me of slating the British public health service....and that certainly wasn't intentional either...)

Zag is a very cute name isn't it? I'm sure he's quite a hunk too, what with a zippy handsome name like that. Oops. I'm straying from defining love.....back to a more cerebral version...

errr..my mind's gone blank. Back later...

I have a bog. I am a blog.

Lots of love.

xoxoxoxox

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:29 pm

Miffy,

Would you mind leaving the font size at "normal" in your posts? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding much of what you're posting is too small to be read with ease.

Dan Rowden

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:02 pm

drowden wrote:Miffy,

Would you mind leaving the font size at "normal" in your posts? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding much of what you're posting is too small to be read with ease.

Dan Rowden

He really doesn't want you to pay much attention to it Dan, but still convey the message. Thatâ€™s what I take it to be, coming across it for the first time myself.

I simply cannot understand (not really though) why can't people have the patience to wait a bit and see a person for what he really is, rather than immediately infer pejorative conclusions from superficial words? Give a person the chance, and yourself too, to conclude wisely. Immediate conclusions and their declarations, however right, are still a sign of arrogance. Pointing to the delusion of a Self still believing in the permanency of â€œhisâ€ form, although he declares to logically know its impermanancy.

Some clear thoughts there Miffy.

Are they masculine thoughts? Feminine thoughts? When will one really and actually understand that ultimately it does not absolutely really matter! And "come back" to actually live them both, to it's fullest experiencial capacity!
:)

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:55 pm

Itinerant Miffy, don't be zippy Miffy, or if you must, remember us!

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:52 pm

suergaz wrote:Itinerant Miffy, don't be zippy Miffy, or if you must, remember us!

Zag, although you are quite bright, you seem to actually not have even the slightest of confidence in your Self.

You seem to have the problem of actually having a yearning to be recognized for your Slef-ness by others, looking for an objective Truth, which actually lies in you.

Have some spine my friend. I feel it remains a matter of maturity, which actually does not necessarily come with age, hence one could remain immature even at 80, so try doing that mentally applying reason and logic, for that is the only criteria I would consider when looking at it.

You are too excited from the one feeling that you have found and inferred absolutism, eventually it will subside, by addressing the issue I mention above.

Relax :D

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:23 pm

O the oracular nature of Sapius! Itinerancy is beneath you? The poetic alarms you? But it's your lawfully wedded 'strife'!

Please never again tell me to have some spine because I am pleased to meet someone.

Sapius · Post by **Sapius** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:49 am

suergaz wrote:O the oracular nature of Sapius! Itinerancy is beneath you? The poetic alarms you? But it's your lawfully wedded 'strife'!

Please never again tell me to have some spine because I am pleased to meet someone.

O! Beware thee mortal! Thou shall drink bitter waters! (Rumble! Rumble!) For thou doest test the patience of the Gods!
(Repeat Rumbles with a crackling sound deep from the pillars that hold up the Heavens!)

Trust the Oracle blindly, for none could produce any better rumbles when the toga flies! :D

Hey! you I think I'm not please, and poetry is not actually a problem with me, neither is being a kid at times, the side that most here are unaware of. All I suggest is grow up from being literally a kid, for obvious reasons that you should be well aware of.

However, end of the day, the prerogative is yours. :D

outofthebox · Post by **outofthebox** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:05 pm

Mockery at every turn isn't becoming of a genius board.
It's like arguing about the war in Iraq. People that want us out make the case that "the troops are dying", "their packs are heavy and it's hot in the desert", "they have become the enemy". All truisms that can't be argued with, but that is the nature of war. There is no good thing to say about war.

To sit here day after day, waiting for someone to become careless with a word so you can pounce and insult and cast aspersions isn't something you'd expect to see from people who google to find elite minds to communicate with.

It just seems to me that counterpoints, without character assassination, would be more becoming. And aren't genius' supposed to know that they should be becoming or at least courteous to encourage thoughtful discourse? Trading insults may be useful for "yo momma" in the ghetto, but I learn very little from scurrilous paintball discussion.

Carrotblog · Post by **Carrotblog** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:10 pm

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject:
Itinerant Miffy, don't be zippy Miffy, or if you must, remember us!

Why thank you Zag! It is true, for itinerants do not stay for very long. A resting rabbit remains a ready-target ;(

O the oracular nature of Sapius! Itinerancy is beneath you? The poetic alarms you? But it's your lawfully wedded 'strife'!

Please never again tell me to have some spine because I am pleased to meet someone.

How your sweet poetry flairs in its referencing and against the rational coldness of dead-end thought! Thank you for the hope that you embody. Yes, I am finding this too; in Francis Bacon, an acceptance of poesie as the right arm of reason where reasoning lies on its left.

Mr Drowden -

apologies for the quote functions for the small font. I haven't grasped quite how this forum works. Nor how some of its more unique members do too.

You've asked me about love in another post: my thoughts have been posted on the 24 June 2006:

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com/

Lots of love

xoxoxoxo

Miffy

http://carrotblog.livejournal.com[/quote]

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:35 pm

That's great but I'd rather you just answered my question here.

Thanks.

Dan Rowden