GENIUS FORUMS

PreppyBoy wrote:The intelligence in Astrology was based on me being an Air sign
(Aquarius). Aquarius, Libra, & Gemini are Air Signs.

I'm a Leo.
Leos don't believe in astrology.

Preppy Boy wrote:

I would still like to know what it is the formula used to be considered a genius.

Here’s something to start with:

G= (m(initial)-f) + F
= (F+m(final))

F = heightened femininity - meekness, overly inquisitive, curious, aesthetic sensitivity, above average understanding of emotional behavior and body language, artistic inclinations, and so on.

f = worldly femininity – the source of all attachment and psychological suffering.

m (initial) = distorted reasoning and logic because f is the master, this type of m also includes other masculine traits as well such as predisposition to ambition, competition, violence and so on.

m (final) = heightened masculinity – analytical, logical, able to arrive at correct conclusions on a consistent basis, understanding of what can be known and what cannot be known, calculative, precise, and accurate in ones thinking, pragmatic, efficient in all behavior,

F is also the master of m, as ones sensual sensitivity to the world is the basis for all rational thought.

m (final) is born from F, after f has been totally subtracted from the equation.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

PreppyBoy wrote:I would still like to know what it is the formula used to be considered a genius.

An IQ genius has the results of IQ tests to score who is or is not a genius, but other kinds of genius don't have a formula.

Okay, thanks to Ryan, we now have a Genius formula.
.

Ryan R wrote:Preppy Boy wrote:

I would still like to know what it is the formula used to be considered a genius.

Here’s something to start with:

G= (m(initial)-f) + F
= (F+m(final))

F = heightened femininity - meekness, overly inquisitive, curious, aesthetic sensitivity, above average understanding of emotional behavior and body language, artistic inclinations, and so on.

f = worldly femininity – the source of all attachment and psychological suffering.

m (initial) = distorted reasoning and logic because f is the master, this type of m also includes other masculine traits as well such as predisposition to ambition, competition, violence and so on.

m (final) = heightened masculinity – analytical, logical, able to arrive at correct conclusions on a consistent basis, understanding of what can be known and what cannot be known, calculative, precise, and accurate in ones thinking, pragmatic, efficient in all behavior,

F is also the master of m, as ones sensual sensitivity to the world is the basis for all rational thought.

m (final) is born from F, after f has been totally subtracted from the equation.

nice formula

bert wrote:nice formula

I agree that it's really good. The only thing I'd qualify on that is the artistic inclinations in order to temper it with the pragmatism and efficiency of m(final). I agree with the artistic inclinations; good math clean science amongst other things have an artistic quality that indicates superiority, but some things considered artistic are of the f variety, so such things could be misleading without a footnote qualifying "artistic."
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

bert wrote:nice formula

I agree that it's really good. The only thing I'd qualify on that is the artistic inclinations in order to temper it with the pragmatism and efficiency of m(final). I agree with the artistic inclinations; good math clean science amongst other things have an artistic quality that indicates superiority, but some things considered artistic are of the f variety, so such things could be misleading without a footnote qualifying "artistic."
.

mhm,I see what you mean,and want to extend on the problem at hand - what makes the 'genius a genius'...

the value of the Artist lies in his awareness that anything has its beauty and significance;and in giving visual reality to his conceptions,however fantastic.

all ideas, abstracts, conceptions and hypotheses are assumptions from factual premises, but they are often so badly rendered as to be worthless....

Art ,on its side, is a means of experience by abstracts that cannot be validatedby other means.
Mathematics are a compose of human logic - an arbitrary thesis which of itself evolves nothing and proves only possibility.
Logic refutes its syllogisms.
the laws of Art and Logic are (but) limited rules of patterning.

scientist constantly mistake the 'means' for the cause: brain ,nerves ,body,.. are the media of thought,and when thought is dynamic in body then we call this 'mind',which might have some awkward relation with the Mind behind it all.

it are those rare artists of past that sought an inclination with this Mind;taking prometheus as hero,they were on their way(Michaelangelo,Swift,Voltaire,Shakespeare,Darwin,Balzac,Baudelaire,cervantes,..).
science too has to await its rare artists to make a bodacious guess for enlightenment.

A "formula" for genius based on QRS ideas about "femininity" and "masculinity?"

Ugh...

I wonder if it really makes sense to say that Math is more rational and Masculine than Art? (not that I'm assuming Ryan is neccesarily concluding that)

If you consider the psychological insight, wit and irony found in a great deal of poetry, plays, novels, film - Art seems to have something math lacks. Math doesn't really help us know our selves psychologically, in an ironic light - at all. I almost agree with Noam Chomsky when he reportedly said that we will probably always learn more about human nature from novels than from science. He seems right here insofar as I think the insight of certain works of art guide science in the direction that great Art points.

And no, 'not talking about Warhol's soup cans here. ;)-

As far as I can tell, Philosophy and science are like two contrasting types of male who fancy different types of women. The scientist finds it easier to express his lesser truths via math (calculation, formula, statistic) - as he is focused on particular parts that relate to the benefit of his particular self. Whereas the philosopher's most valuable tool for expressing his greater truth is more apt to be akin to art, with its metaphor, expression of organic movement, illustration and ironic parable. It's the difference between Ernest Rutherfod and Soren Kierkegaard.

Cory,

I would say that math (as it is normally used) is rational in its own context, while art is rational in another context. For instance: The mathematics behind an engineers calculations to support a highway bridge is rational in its own regard, just as the rant of a mystic poet is rational in its own regard.

So I agree with you to a point, but let us not restrict a philosopher’s endeavors and forms of expression to what you have dictated. The distinction that you made between philosopher and scientist is not always so rigid, as the philosopher can study any scientific discipline, and express himself in many different ways.

For instance: Some of the greatest scientists were philosophers at heart – Aristotle, Newton, Darwin, Bohm, Einstein, and so on.

Moreover, they were quite a few scientists that could perform complicated calculations related to their theories, and then create and enjoy artistic creations with metaphor, irony and all the rest.

I recently watched a documentary about a chap at Nasa that works his 40 hour work week perfecting robotic technology for mars walks, and on the weekend he writes psychological drama novels. Not that I am planning anything as ambitious as him, but it proves what is possible..

So I dont view this as an either/or situation. One doesn’t have to strictly follow one road, as I am open to the possibility of mastering both areas of thought.

Moreover, the equation I’ve created illustrates how the structure of mathematics is a language in itself and it can be used to point to something profound, just like other forms of communication can also be used.

What's an intereting place!
I like it.
I don't know what a genius looks like, and what makes a person genius.
I think there maybe some criteria of how to be a genius.
The person first created the word genius might set the criteria or the person made genius genius might set the criteria of being a genius.
But the meaning of genius is changing all the time.
A man may in his time be defined to a crazy man or an idiot, but be thought to be a genius in 100 or more years later.
So maybe anyone can claim that I'm a genius in these criteria.

DHodges wrote:

PreppyBoy wrote:The intelligence in Astrology was based on me being an Air sign
(Aquarius). Aquarius, Libra, & Gemini are Air Signs.

I'm a Leo.
Leos don't believe in astrology.

If you don't believe in astrology, how can you believe you are a Leo?
Is it funny?
I'm not fully believe in astrology.
But sometimes it gives you a correct analysing of a person's personality.

If you don't believe in astrology, how can you believe you are a Leo?
Is it funny?

Yes Borat, he was having a little joke

Jamesh wrote:

If you don't believe in astrology, how can you believe you are a Leo?
Is it funny?

Yes Borat, he was having a little joke

I see.
Maybe I lacked a little bit humor.
But I'm not Borat.
My name is Luo Juan.

.

Maybe PreppyBoy will have another look, or be directed here again by others. What he said he is looking for is right here.

If visitors have time constraints, as most people do, they can treat boards with short thrift. Perhaps more people could point them in the right direction in future.


.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

Maybe PreppyBoy will have another look, or be directed here again by others. What he said he is looking for is right here.

If visitors have time constraints, as most people do, they can treat boards with short thrift. Perhaps more people could point them in the right direction in future.


.

As promised, I am back.

I would like to thank all who contributed to my post.