Top 10 Greatest Geniuses

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, thinking itself is an abstraction of the concrete, phenomenal world, so the mind is filled with stand-ins to manipulate toward clarity. You need the stand-ins, too, to communicate to others. You are more erudite - you call them the symbolic or semiotic. Stand-ins, abstractions, metaphor, sign or symbol - it's all the same. It's the stuff of thinking, but not the stuff itself!

I'm approaching this from what I think is a radically different perspective: the concrete lying exactly there in the abstract, metaphoric approach. Of course one can assert a "mirror" world of non-abstract, phenomenological essences but there's no meaningful way to interact with it because of its apparent inherent chaos, going so much beyond and besides our existence. So we approach it by increasingly higher order symbols that through reverberation can provide us with some interface, no matter if one calls it thinking, feeling, knowing, intuition or experiencing. It's all part of the same face.

[Pye]

Diebert: Of course one can assert a "mirror" world of non-abstract, phenomenological essences

I hasten here, Diebert, to make sure that my phrase regarding "the stuff itself" is not confused with your above mentioned notion of "the stuff in itself." Personally, I am not an advocate of Platonic thinking in this sense at all. The thing-in-itself idea (or, phenomenological essences as real) is "nonsense on stilts," in my estimation (to borrow a quote from Jeremy Benthem).

There is the concrete pen I write with - a phenomenon rising up the concrete world - and then there is the word "pen" to stand in for it in my mind. The pen that I am thinking of is not the pen I write with, and never can be. That would be a serious violation of any law of identity.

This is the sense in which I mean that all thinking is abstraction of the concrete phenomenal world. Words and such are the abstractions that stand-in for things whilst we think about them - in order that we can think about them. Concepts themselves, as we know, are abstract by nature as well. All thinking is. It is the capacity to mentally grasp something that isn't actually there.

[Carl G]

Carl asks: No, but hypothetically, how would you silence me?

Hypothetically or actually, I have no interest in silencing you, Carl :) I happen to like you overall. What I know about you is that you work in an office and sometimes "represent the pink" and that you sometimes write some very clever parody of others (Tomas does, too).

As for "knowing" anything deeper about you, well, you're right. I don't know you at all . . . .

Thanks.

For the record, I was laid off from my office job last autumn and have since then revived my home and yard care (handyman) business. As for the pink dress shirt, I demoted it to yardwork until recently, when I was able to replace it -- long sleeved cotton work shirts are surprisingly hard to find, especially in summer -- and have since sent it out with the weekly trash.

Hope we see more of you around the forum.

[Carl G]

The observations were meant to address the age of most religious or spiritual figures on some lists. They or their work appear to have been morphed into something a living breathing person will never be able to. Some of your pop star examples serve more as a simulation of this effect but with "artists" i was thinking more or art living on through the centuries and which people are in awe of because of the the authority the age and context has given it.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you about the pop world, which perhaps can be extended to other living icons of today, such as the Pope and Dalai Lama in religious circles, Dawkins and Sagan in science (Sagan was quite a revered figure while alive), Warhol, O'Keefe, and Wyeth in art (all dead now but icons in their own time), JK Rowling the writer, Mandela the statesman...

Probably this reflects more on the public that demands its royalty and heroes whether or not they actually qualify or not.

And so we have QRS, who in many ways are as astute as Jesus, but are not celebrities and probably never will be. The public is quite selective about its definitions of Genius and who gets put onto pedestals. Maybe the quality of public relations work, both during and after the facts are what end up elevating the man to godhood.

[Pye]

Strange times in America, eh Carl? I don't know if you like working out of doors, but I like thinking of your self-employed free-air situation better than an office anyday. And you're right about long-sleeved cotton shirts being hard to find in summer. I tend to work the garden covered up like that myself. Sunburn, bug bites, branch-scratching, breathable protection, don't you know.

Carl: Hope we see more of you around the forum.

Thanks back at you.
I have but 19 more delicious days of no ongoing classes and just some piddly work with some graduate student independent studies before the Fall semester proper starts up. Getting some more work done on the endless book. Swimming, gardening, reading, writing, bird-watching, cloud-gazing, "lazing on a sunny afternoon . . . ." It's good to be home again.

[Carl G]

Strange times in America, eh Carl? I don't know if you like working out of doors, but I like thinking of your self-employed free-air situation better than an office anyday. And you're right about long-sleeved cotton shirts being hard to find in summer. I tend to work the garden covered up like that myself. Sunburn, bug bites, branch-scratching, breathable protection, don't you know.

Carl: Hope we see more of you around the forum.

Thanks back at you.
I have but 19 more delicious days of no ongoing classes and just some piddly work with some graduate student independent studies before the Fall semester proper starts up. Getting some more work done on the endless book. Swimming, gardening, reading, writing, bird-watching, cloud-gazing, "lazing on a sunny afternoon . . . ." It's good to be home again.

Sounds great, and yeah, I know it's off-topic, but what are you studying/ studying to do?

I do enjoy outdoor and self-employed work, even more than before I got that crummy office job. Hope I never have to work for another poorly managed little corporation again. Definitely no geniuses there!

[Pye]

Carl asks: yeah, I know it's off-topic, but what are you studying/ studying to do?

(I've been on the teaching side of the school equation for quite some time, Carl. That studying never goes away, though!)

[Carl G]

Heh, thanks for the diplomatic reply. Pardon me for the false assumption.

[Pye]

Previously I wrote: All thinking is . . . the capacity to mentally grasp something that isn't actually there.

This is, of course, what makes delusion possible. Like any organ in the human body, it can malfunction, and make a person sick.

Carl: Pardon me for the false assumption.

Not at all, Carl. Why should I [falsely] assume you already knew? :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And so we have QRS, who in many ways are as astute as Jesus, but are not celebrities and probably never will be. The public is quite selective about its definitions of Genius and who gets put onto pedestals. Maybe the quality of public relations work, both during and after the facts are what end up elevating the man to godhood.

It's somewhat interesting to consider their representation remains sort of disembodied. Partly because of the way the internet works and partly because the preference for the utmost sobriety and focus in the way they frame the whole thing. The detachment provided by the benefits of modern societies and media somehow made it possible for them to pull off an act which normally takes ages or ripening and modification to fulfill the same function. While of course still imperfect, it looks like this age has the ability to compress and summarize many foregone ages. Sort of quickening, some might say, but the question remains if it's a good thing or not.

As for celebrity status, how many trustworthy followers did Jesus actually have during his life? So give them a break :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There is the concrete pen I write with - a phenomenon rising up the concrete world - and then there is the word "pen" to stand in for it in my mind. The pen that I am thinking of is not the pen I write with, and never can be. That would be a serious violation of any law of identity.

In my view it's more accurate and less confusing to say that the pen that you're thinking of is not the pen that you've magically visualized and understood to be writing with. The point is that a phenomenon rises up in the world through its symbolic meaning c.q. placement. And we can build up many orders of references in an near infinite regression. Like a pen relates to the nearby act of writing but I can also think of the pen you're thinking of. And others can think of the pen we're discussing or examine their own pens. Some might write a TV comedy or dissertation about our conversation here but we'd just have more orders of symbols stacked upon each other, neither of them necessarily false in the way it's representing the pen issue: all depending on the context or how the penny drops at the receiving end.

I hope nobody inserts a bad Freudian joke at this point.

This is the sense in which I mean that all thinking is abstraction of the concrete phenomenal world. Words and such are the abstractions that stand-in for things whilst we think about them - in order that we can think about them. Concepts themselves, as we know, are abstract by nature as well. All thinking is. It is the capacity to mentally grasp something that isn't actually there. This is, of course, what makes delusion possible. Like any organ in the human body, it can malfunction, and make a person sick.

But when one would accept that nothing is really "actually there" in a way that could ever be fully conceptually grasped or dismissed, it would make delusion impossible. Truth therefore becomes a principle first and any mentation can become true of false fully depending on the whole ever-changing context. This is why it could be said that "everything is true" or "there is no delusion" or "everyone is always enlightened" and still remain correct in a very specific easy to misunderstand way.

One could argue that a full set of sensations like vision, touch and smell which can be repeated at will do not constitute an abstract symbol. But my point is that these are still symbols which are just of a very low order, just as incapable to reveal any 'actual reality' to us as some high-brow, over-complete intellectual description of the event. Sensation of course being easy to manufacture through various means. Their reality is derived from highly symbolic entities like consistency, habit and trust issues, not from the sensation itself.

The delusion therefore finds place in both extremes: the animal like confusion of something looking or smelling the same, therefore assuming it to be the same or the intellectual confusion of conceptualizing something that has no relevance to ones existence, ie: no link, like a Micky Mouse helium balloon hanging somewhere in a tree yet being weighed down with importance and relevance nevertheless.

[uncledote]

Stephen Bartley (artist who flew over london then drew the skyline in perfect proportion and detail after only viewing it for 15 minutes)

I would think this would also fall into the category of talent, rather than genius.

Welcome to the board.

Is Stephen not Autistic or Aspergers? Where is the wisdom in such a mimetic trick?

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

the original list was brilliant. i present my own list too:

1 Stephen Hawking ( because i thought my soul was the biggest black hole in existence, but i was proven wrong )

2 Michelangelo ( this guy had talent and defied the social convention of having to change his underwear in time )

3 Shakespeare ( a very wise man )

4 whoever built the pyramids ( thumbs up to the master of mystery making )

5 Barney ( he taught me to spell by boiling noodles in the shape of letters. ingenious! )

6 Jesus ( probably the most famous redhead that ever lived, he rocked it for the gingers )

7 Sidis ( he wrote a book about streetcar transfers that about three people wanted to read. now THAT is talent. i love this guy. )

8 me ( solopsism happens, and i can see almost without pupils in my eyes )

9 Einstein ( his hair and his morality are timeless feats )

10 Michael Jackson ( he was just very cool )

[yana]

Lord Rama, Lord Krishna, Lord(?) Buddha

and my good old pal Ludwig Wittgenstein.

[Pincho Paxton]

1. Me
2. Leonardo da Vinci
3. Einstein

etc..


You think I'm joking?

No really, but who cares anyway. I mean I care about Da Vinci, and Einstein, but Me, well I will be unproven for hundreds of years, only to maybe discovered by some sort of historian.

[yana]

1. Me
2. Leonardo da Vinci
3. Einstein

etc..


You think I'm joking?

No really, but who cares anyway. I mean I care about Da Vinci, and Einstein, but Me, well I will be unproven for hundreds of years, only to maybe discovered by some sort of historian.

You sound like a genius to me. Is that a token of appreciation enough?

[Pincho Paxton]

1. Me
2. Leonardo da Vinci
3. Einstein

etc..


You think I'm joking?

No really, but who cares anyway. I mean I care about Da Vinci, and Einstein, but Me, well I will be unproven for hundreds of years, only to maybe discovered by some sort of historian.

You sound like a genius to me. Is that a token of appreciation enough?

What I would really like is to direct science in the right direction so that we can move forwards a bit faster, because currently science is stuck in a deep hole.

[yana]

Pincho: You never know who is reading these forums.