GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:

Sapius wrote:

Loki: After all, the object and the smell of the object are two different things.

David: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

Arbitrarily speaking of course… for when exactly would it be that we do not arbitrarily decide I wonder… would the claim of arbitrariness of boundaries, be arbitrary too?

Would you say that logical truth is arbitrary?

-

Would you say that 'there are no logical truths' is a logical truth?

David Quinn wrote:

Sapius wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Not really. The limit resides in your current understanding. When you grasp the reality that Kevin's words here are pointing to, then it all becomes crystal clear and you can see that his language is pointing directly at the reality in a clear fashion. It's just a matter of taking that leap in understanding.

I don’t think it is the matter of language or understanding, but acceptance of particular “reasoning” by an individual, whatever that that may be. However, it always ends up with chopping wood and carrying water, in any which case.

It has nothing to do with accepting the reasoning of another individual. It is all about understanding the nature of non-duality in one's own mind. If Robert can do that, then Kevin's words will become crystal clear, as will the words of Jesus, Buddha, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, etc. No longer would he have accept that he is "far from grasping it fully", or that he "can't really make sense of them".

-

What I mean is that I have to keep re-reading the words, I have to keep referring back to the writings in an attempt to find something I've lost. The first time I got it seems now somehow diluted and foggy in my mind, lacking the clarity I felt on that initial understanding of the concepts and ideas that Kevin is writing about. This isn't a criticsm of anyone but myself, there seems to be a resistance in my mind that keeps me from going that one (or few) step(s) further and taking "that leap". I'm not sure what that resistance is, or even if I can call it that.

David: It has nothing to do with accepting the reasoning of another individual. It is all about understanding the nature of non-duality in one's own mind.

I said nothing about accepting the reasoning of another individual, but ones own, and that acceptance is what you call the leap. It is one thing to "understand", but a totally different to actually accept without a doubt. In other words, wholehearted submission to ones own understanding, (mind you, irrelevant of what that understanding may be); an extremely difficult task for the one who is truly a relentless digger of truth. But when it happens... it happens. Just like... shit happens! :D

Sapius wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Loki: After all, the object and the smell of the object are two different things.

David: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

Sapius: Arbitrarily speaking of course… for when exactly would it be that we do not arbitrarily decide I wonder… would the claim of arbitrariness of boundaries, be arbitrary too?

David: Would you say that logical truth is arbitrary?

Would you say that 'there are no logical truths' is a logical truth?

To be a logical truth, some logical reasoning would have to support it. What is that logical reasoning?

-

Sapius wrote:

David: It has nothing to do with accepting the reasoning of another individual. It is all about understanding the nature of non-duality in one's own mind.

I said nothing about accepting the reasoning of another individual, but ones own, and that acceptance is what you call the leap.

My mistake. I misread you there.

It is one thing to "understand", but a totally different to actually accept without a doubt. In other words, wholehearted submission to ones own understanding, (mind you, irrelevant of what that understanding may be); an extremely difficult task for the one who is truly a relentless digger of truth. But when it happens... it happens. Just like... shit happens! :D

It seems we are talking about different things when it comes to the "leap". What I was referring to was the leap in understanding which occurs when one makes the logical connections in the mind that resolve the issue - in this case, the issue of non-duality.

You seem to be refering to the post-leap process of factoring the whole of one's life into that understanding. An existential and ethical leap.

-

Robert wrote:

David Quinn wrote: It has nothing to do with accepting the reasoning of another individual. It is all about understanding the nature of non-duality in one's own mind. If Robert can do that, then Kevin's words will become crystal clear, as will the words of Jesus, Buddha, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, etc. No longer would he have accept that he is "far from grasping it fully", or that he "can't really make sense of them".

What I mean is that I have to keep re-reading the words, I have to keep referring back to the writings in an attempt to find something I've lost. The first time I got it seems now somehow diluted and foggy in my mind, lacking the clarity I felt on that initial understanding of the concepts and ideas that Kevin is writing about. This isn't a criticsm of anyone but myself, there seems to be a resistance in my mind that keeps me from going that one (or few) step(s) further and taking "that leap". I'm not sure what that resistance is, or even if I can call it that.

It may be that you are not quite ready to make that leap (in a permanent sense). The necessary connections can't be made because of gaps in your current understanding of things. In other words, it could simply be a growth issue, rather than an intellectual or character deficiency.

Patience is the key here. Growth can't be forced. The intellect can leap ahead, but it takes time for one's bedrock understanding to catch up.

If you've done it once before, there is no reason why you can't do it again, and with even greater clarity and maturity.

-

David: It seems we are talking about different things when it comes to the "leap". What I was referring to was the leap in understanding which occurs when one makes the logical connections in the mind that resolve the issue - in this case, the issue of non-duality.

Then that wouldn’t be a leap per say, but a radical shift in understanding or realization; a leap in my opinion means that extra yard covered which would help sink in and maintain such realizations, and that requires intense emotional strength to push logic to its limits; the passion to push logic to its limits comes from emotional strength, not logic itself.

And if it were only a matter of making logical connections, then there wouldn’t be a need for a “leap”; for do you think it would then take a rocket scientist to understand your e-book?

You seem to be refering to the post-leap process of factoring the whole of one's life into that understanding. An existential and ethical leap.

Not really. We do understand ‘leap’ differently, so... never mind really.

(PS: I might not be able to respond for a while)

David Quinn wrote: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

-

Alright David, you give good examples.

But what about blatantly separate objects, like the chair you're sitting on, and your keyboard? How is it that these two things are arbitrarily separate things?

Loki wrote:

David Quinn wrote: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

-

Alright David, you give good examples.

But what about blatantly separate objects, like the chair you're sitting on, and your keyboard? How is it that these two things are arbitrarily separate things?

The keyboard is not blatantly separated from the hutch, which is not blatantly separated from the floor, which is not blatantly separated from the chair. The process is infinitely iterative. How am I doing, David?

David Quinn wrote:A person stuck in a virtual world has as much access to wisdom as anyone else.

But you do not know if a person can get stuck in a virtual world. On what basis, then, can you make a statement like that?

When I say nagging, I mean "persistent", rather than "disturbing".

There are countless possibilities - speculative theories, cosmologies, theologies, hypotheses, etc - all of them equally unimportant.

Therefore certainty is a matter of degree. No matter how many possibilities there are, one cannot know for certain that any one of them is unimportant unless one first entertains it. How do you know they are all equally unimportant? Even if they all are, that's quite something you have there, a countless number of such theories, none of which can be said to be impossible. How firm a foundation is that for a philosophy, David?

Loki wrote:

David Quinn wrote: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

Alright David, you give good examples.

But what about blatantly separate objects, like the chair you're sitting on, and your keyboard? How is it that these two things are arbitrarily separate things?

Before I answer that, I'd like to hear your concept of what "separate" means. What does it mean for two things to be separate?

-

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:A person stuck in a virtual world has as much access to wisdom as anyone else.

But you do not know if a person can get stuck in a virtual world. On what basis, then, can you make a statement like that?

If our observable universe is a computer simulation (and it could well be), then it is we who are stuck in a virtual world.

This is why we have to raise the bar so high in our spiritual search for wisdom. We should seek to become so wise that our wisdom and knowledge will be forever beyond the influence of such possibilities. Otherwise, our houses will be built on sand.

brokenhead wrote:

When I say nagging, I mean "persistent", rather than "disturbing".

There are countless possibilities - speculative theories, cosmologies, theologies, hypotheses, etc - all of them equally unimportant.

Therefore certainty is a matter of degree.

Only in these mundane empirical matters.

No matter how many possibilities there are, one cannot know for certain that any one of them is unimportant unless one first entertains it. How do you know they are all equally unimportant?

Because wisdom transcends all of them them utterly.

Even if they all are, that's quite something you have there, a countless number of such theories, none of which can be said to be impossible. How firm a foundation is that for a philosophy, David?

If one's philosophy requires things to be a certain way - e.g. that the observable universe isn't a computer simulation - then it is worthless. The great wisdom of the sages is so free that it doesn't have to make requirements of anything.

-

DQ wrote:The great wisdom of the sages is so free that it doesn't have to make requirements of anything.

And as such, free of any requirements made of it. It does not need to appear consistent and it does not have to answer any particular challenges. It is more useless than the most primitive of religions. A Kalahari bushman might pray to a rock when a thunderstorm approaches. It may afford him some comfort before he is soaked and then struck by lightning. Your philosophy would have delivered even less to him. It would merely have upbraided him for not being sage-like. At which time, he would have been soaked and struck by lightning.

The notion of *godhood is incoherent. The first falsity in the mind is that there is 'something' superior to our vulgar, common *consciousness as upper ape primates.

It took us from approximately 280,000 to 30,000 years ago to make that dramatic shift from animality to savagery in Southern Africa (before we began our great migrations north); what were we doing there? One site was making spear heads, and another site was making blunt stone clubs. This went on for thousands and thousands of years. The neurons in our brain began to increase in volumetric size as our population density in these sites increased.

Next we see the primitive proto-embryonic development of civilization, that is commercial technological products. These products are still quite crude and childlike. We did not entertain the foolishness of a *god concept, since our animal mind fed off of concrete, sensory objects in our immediate site, environment & world.

What did those stars mean? What was thunder? What was rain? What was masturbatory sex for? Why did most women & their babies die in childbirth? Why were we so dirty, smelly and hungry all the time? [Remember, agriculture had not been developed yet]. There is still no picture of *god in these settings.

So when does this ignorant notion of *god develop? Sometime around 10,000-6,000 BCE [Before the Common Era], before writing was slowly developed from 3350-2700 BCE. From the later narratives [Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite & Hebrew (Syrio-Palestine)], we can infer working backwards that the elaboration of the *gods was modeled on the palace metaphor of the ruling king.

This gives in a crude summary as to how this ignorant notion of *godhood materialized. Why did this madness take hold? The answer is to be found in economics (the science that deals with scarcity of natural resources): Kleptocracy! The power to steal from the tribal group by the king and the priests. If you eliminate *god from the mind of stupid people (who are 90% of the human population with I.Q.'s less than 120 measuring units), what principle are you going to use to govern these ugly, wild, ignorant humans? They are not capable of reasoning. They do not have sufficient words in their brains to think with. All they can do is feel, emote, imagine and lie/cheat/steal.

So we bamboozle this ignorant mass of vulgar humanity with the pumped-up nonsense of *deity, so they can hide their own self-loathing from themselves. Furthermore, by window-dressing their religious duties, they furtively continue their crimes against the group.

That in a nut shell captures this delicious wickedness of belief in nonsensical *gods. Besides, there was a reason why our ancient homosexuals (11% of the human race) flocked to the priesthoods and the king's court---it was their intelligence that elaborated the rites, rituals and incantations over a thirty century period (c. 5000 BCE to 2000 BCE)!

The talk about *wisdom is more convoluted, murky and blurry to disentangle from the uneven archival historical records of the last 50 centuries. However, it is an equally stupid content for the most part. The key is intelligence, technology & power! Power can be viewed as "work energy" loosely. We have not changed much from these earlier times in our basic conceptions.

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin,
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
Informatica Corporation
Executive Division
Cecilia, Louisiana 70521-0460

Contact Information: Informatica@go.com

--

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:The great wisdom of the sages is so free that it doesn't have to make requirements of anything.

And as such, free of any requirements made of it. It does not need to appear consistent and it does not have to answer any particular challenges. It is more useless than the most primitive of religions. A Kalahari bushman might pray to a rock when a thunderstorm approaches. It may afford him some comfort before he is soaked and then struck by lightning. Your philosophy would have delivered even less to him. It would merely have upbraided him for not being sage-like. At which time, he would have been soaked and struck by lightning.

If you mean by 'Kalahari bushmen' a generic term for 'primitives' of say 30000+ yrs ago, then wouldn't your example ironically actually be an exact description of an evolved intelligent being acting wisely if, in his environment and time in human history, he uses his mind to think up a mental device as a potentially useful tool (prayer) to direct his attention and thoughts in a focused, deliberate manner towards a physical object (the rock) with the hope that his action will have an effect on an external and uncontrollable event (the weather)?

The fact that today we know prayer and rocks don't affect the weather and that his actions would have been useless is besides the point. Given his context in the development of the human species, I would call such a bushman a sage. He was using him mind, his reason and logic that would have made consistent sense to him and his understanding of the world.

How is it any different now? Isn't that the definition of a sage; knowledge at it's ultimate?

If I understand a little of what David means with "The great wisdom of the sages is so free that it doesn't have to make requirements of anything", is that we now can see that the behaviour of the bushman is foolish. Nature doesn't have any requirements, there is nothing to worship in that external and seperate way that will have any effect on our existence. It's through the demands that we've made of primitive religions and philosophies have led us reach that knowledge.

David Quinn wrote:

Loki wrote:

David Quinn wrote: If we arbitrarily decide that is the case, then sure.

Alright David, you give good examples.

But what about blatantly separate objects, like the chair you're sitting on, and your keyboard? How is it that these two things are arbitrarily separate things?

Before I answer that, I'd like to hear your concept of what "separate" means. What does it mean for two things to be separate?

There are two conclusions which are necessary if one is to think of them as separate.

1) These two objects are comprised of a finite amount of matter.

2) These two objects have empty space (non-matter) in between them.

Robert:

You made some good points. As with many readers-writers here at the forum, there is not sufficient mastery of a more detailed awareness of how we acquired over a 280,000 year period our mental capacities as upper ape primates. Nor is there sufficient understanding of the developmental stages of our brain growth in neuronal complexity induced by the sheer monotony of producing or manufacturing spear heads and blunt stone clubs.

Just think what we have developed in our brains as information complexity (capacities) within the last thirty years. One living in America in 1960 would view how we live now (2009) as completely mad.

To a Bushman living 30,000 years ago a rock (especially, if it fell from the sky, or meteor) had intensified symbolic value: it kept you lord over the animals, and it killed your human enemies encroaching on your food and sex supply. It was later that it acquired 'magical' or talismanic fetishism.

As is usual, it is our written records of the last 53 centuries that complicate the matter. Generally, when ideas were instantiated, we hear nothing. We have in the archival historical record merely the debris and after-thoughts (poorly developed with their hidden agendas) of ignorant propaganda.

It is not easy to develop a refine chronological sensibility due to the plethora of crappy books written to mesmerize the ignorant by filling their minds with more ignorance, half-truths, outright falsehoods and trivial, silly, banal ideas.

The notion of the Wise Sage or Philosopher is a concept that developed from c. 2700 BCE to 500 ACE. Its golden age was the Fifth Century BCE in Greece, Persia, Mesopotamia & India.

When you actually read the sayings of these presumed wise sages in their respective ancient Oriental languages, their wisdom is fairly pedestrian and self-serving. We would dismiss it as clap-trap or babbittry [Sinclaire Lewis' novel, Babbitt, whose main character talks mindless, meaningless clap-trap] in our present age.

Reading astutely the Book of Proverbs and the Book of Wisdom (Bible) will capture its triviality. Ironically, no one reads as great wisdom the Second Isaiah or Ezekiel's spattered texts of proto-embryonic apocalypticism. Yet here is profound spiritual wisdom!

It should never be forgotten that the purpose of wisdom or knowledge was magical: (1.) control the world; (2.) learn timeless secrets; and (3.) see the divine.

Respectfully,

John E.D.P. Malin,
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
Informatica Corporation
Executive Division
P.O. Drawer 460
Cecilia. Louisiana 70521-0460

Contact Information: Informatica@go.com

--

Loki: There are two conclusions which are necessary if one is to think of them as separate.

1) These two objects are comprised of a finite amount of matter.

2) These two objects have empty space (non-matter) in between them.

In addition... by definition (or the famous A=A), if one wants to look at it philosophically, or by the mere fact that one is conscious of something other than ones sense of self, irrelevant of what one names or calls that “something’. And of course, ‘separate’ need not necessarily mean absolutely independent of any other thing in and of conscious awareness.

JohnEDPMalin, to Robert wrote:
You made some good points. As with many readers-writers here at the forum, there is not sufficient mastery of a more detailed awareness of how we acquired over a 280,000 year period our mental capacities as upper ape primates.

On the contrary. Many of us understand the genetic infusions from extraterrestrials such as the more advanced Annunaki.

Nor is there sufficient understanding of the developmental stages of our brain growth in neuronal complexity induced by the sheer monotony of producing or manufacturing spear heads and blunt stone clubs.

Kind of like the sheer monotony of producing widgets in a modern factory and then going home to watch network television? Gotcha.

Just think what we have developed in our brains as information complexity (capacities) within the last thirty years. One living in America in 1960 would view how we live now (2009) as completely mad.

Uh, for the most part we now are almost completely mad.

To a Bushman living 30,000 years ago a rock (especially, if it fell from the sky, or meteor) had intensified symbolic value: it kept you lord over the animals, and it killed your human enemies encroaching on your food and sex supply. It was later that it acquired 'magical' or talismanic fetishism.

Kind of like a mustang convertible in the sixties, a motorcycle and a leather jacket in the fifties, or a V8 pickup with a lift package today? Or, a wad of cash?

As is usual, it is our written records of the last 53 centuries that complicate the matter. Generally, when ideas were instantiated, we hear nothing. We have in the archival historical record merely the debris and after-thoughts (poorly developed with their hidden agendas) of ignorant propaganda.

It is not easy to develop a refine chronological sensibility due to the plethora of crappy books written to mesmerize the ignorant by filling their minds with more ignorance, half-truths, outright falsehoods and trivial, silly, banal ideas.

Amen, brother!

The notion of the Wise Sage or Philosopher is a concept that developed from c. 2700 BCE to 500 ACE. Its golden age was the Fifth Century BCE in Greece, Persia, Mesopotamia & India.

Such as this, for instance. Don't you hate it when wisdom is pigeon-holed into such limited models? The Sphinx may be 30,000 years old. You don't feel it represents a philosophy?

When you actually read the sayings of these presumed wise sages in their respective ancient Oriental languages, their wisdom is fairly pedestrian and self-serving. We would dismiss it as clap-trap or babbittry [Sinclaire Lewis' novel, Babbitt, whose main character talks mindless, meaningless clap-trap] in our present age.

Yes, we have many fools today who would dismiss the great writings of Taoism, and the ancient wisdom teachings of many oral traditions around the world. The average person definitely has demonstrated the sagacity to discern what is pedestrian and self-serving, having attended public school, mastered text-messaging, and read important self-help books like "All I Learned I Learned in Kindergarten" and "Who Moved My Cheese."

It should never be forgotten that the purpose of wisdom or knowledge was magical: (1.) control the world; (2.) learn timeless secrets; and (3.) see the divine.

The purpose to whom? Magical how? If it "was", what is the purpose now? When did it change?

Carl:

Thank you for your insightful and witty response to my dreadfully long blog. Many of your comments were re-validations of my claims, so I need not invoke an echo chamber on my own words solipsistically.

I have never entertained seriously the possibility that extra-terrestrials infused our brains with higher consciousness or the divine spark. The general level of human stupidity (90% of humans have I.Q.'s below 120 measuring units) validates this claim.

Your comment concerning the Anunnaku or Anunnaki requires philological elucidation: This Akkadianized Sumerian term A.nunna(k) means "Offspring of the divine Prince" [whom we scholars speculate refers to the god Enki (Sumerian mythologem) or Ea (Babylonian mythologem)] as "Prince." We scholars do not have supporting textual evidence for this claim in our more than 500,000 cuneiform tablets reconstructed by modern scholarship of the last 130 years. However, the mythologoumenon (mythic insight) is obvious: it is the collective name of a group of higher divinities, ranking above the Igigu or Igigi [another collective name for the entirety of the gods, or, more commonly those gods that occupied heaven; we have no idea what this term's origin or meaning is]. Around the second half of the second millennium BCE the term Anunnaku/Anunnaki was more readily used for the gods of the Netherworld; it also was used indiscriminately for the entirety of the gods.

The pattern that developed in the mythological-theological tradition was viewing the gods as the living king and his court. The palace-temple economy reinforced each other in their kleptocracy [Greek, "power to steal"] against the people! As kings grew more wealthy by plunder and warcraft, their propaganda needs grew to bamboozle the ignorant mob. This was achieved by royal and divine rites, rituals, incantations and royal costumes supplied by the scribal priestly culture that did the administrative work to run the economy.

One need not invoke extra-terrestrials; we have substantial texts and testimonies as to how these magico-theologico-religious traditions developed over 30 centuries as re-constructed by scholarship (archeology and philology).

I will deal with some of your other lucid comments later. I do not wish to exhaust your patience or time.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin,
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
Informatica Corporation [AD 1984-2009]
Executive Division
P.O. Drawer 460
Cecilia, Louisiana 70521-0460

Contact Information: Informatica@go.com

--

Loki wrote:There are two conclusions which are necessary if one is to think of them as separate.

1) These two objects are comprised of a finite amount of matter.

2) These two objects have empty space (non-matter) in between them.

There is no such thing as empty space. A vacuum is a mental construct and does not exist in the phenomenal world.

My previous post on this was only half in jest, Loki.

I have long wondered about the concept of "one." As a mental construct, an abstraction, it is intuitively unambiguous. But when applied to anything "out there," it always has to be qualified before it can quantify. One what? We can say one person, for example. But that one person is comprised of parts, innards, atoms, subatomic particles; he in- and exhales molecules which come from and blend with the environment, namely, something which is not him. As well, he could be a soccer player, for example. Then he is but a part, a fraction, of one team. Therefore, when we say he is one person, he is no such thing other than what we are defining him at the moment to be, what we are assuming he does and does not consist of. And there are stories of identical twins who always speak in unison and never leave each others' sides. It is said of them that they are one person in two bodies. If it is possible to speak of one person, should it not be an unambiguous concept such that the identical twin thing is logically impossible? It seems unambiguity is an ideal which does not exist except as an agreement between at least two minds. It is not a property of real phenomena.

In a very real sense, the world in which we live demands that the smallest number is three. Because any external entity requires another entity which it is not so that A=A holds; it also requires the existence of at least one consciousness to which the realization that A=A occurs, i.e., it requires an observer.

brokenhead wrote:

Loki wrote:There are two conclusions which are necessary if one is to think of them as separate.

1) These two objects are comprised of a finite amount of matter.

2) These two objects have empty space (non-matter) in between them.

There is no such thing as empty space. A vacuum is a mental construct and does not exist in the phenomenal world.

Is it possible to realize this without science?

Loki wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Loki wrote:There are two conclusions which are necessary if one is to think of them as separate.

1) These two objects are comprised of a finite amount of matter.

2) These two objects have empty space (non-matter) in between them.

There is no such thing as empty space. A vacuum is a mental construct and does not exist in the phenomenal world.

Is it possible to realize this without science?

That's an interesting question, maybe even a loaded one.

The only way I can answer that is by observing that science is always questioning its own assumptions.

The things which I personally realize, to the extent that I possess realizations, have been informed by science, both within academia and without. I do not think for a moment that any idea or realization which I have had is original in any way. I have said this numerous times in these forums.

There is no real reason for me to believe that if some notion, such as the impossibility of a perfect vacuum in the real world, is amenable to science, that it cannot also occur with every bit as much certainty to someone not trained in science.

That is, if it is indeed a fact, as I believe it to be, it is amenable to be ascertained on that basis alone by an individual who is not trained formally but rather insists on rationality in his thinking.

The Krishnamurti/Dabid Bohm discussions are a wonderful example of two intelligent men from widely different backgrounds talking about the same ideas, how they disagree at times, but more interestingly, how they agree and build on each other's insights.

brokenhead wrote:

Loki wrote: Is it possible to realize this without science?

That's an interesting question, maybe even a loaded one.

The only way I can answer that is by observing that science is always questioning its own assumptions.

Ok, so is it an "assumption" that a vacuum does not exist in the phenomenal world? Do you question this assumption? Or do you you know with absolute certainty that a vacuum is impossible?

Brokenhead:

Very well stated to Loki!

Your comment on Identical Twins naturally caught my eye, since I am an identical twin. We brothers have been bred very closely (why we never married or had children---we did have separate and mutual lovers in our youth).

Here is how we perceive it: we are either 1/2 of a human being or we are two human beings in one body. We do not have an integrated singular personality. When we are separated for more than several months (which has happened periodically in our 61 years of life), we exchange personalities. I become more like my brother, he becomes more like me. Otherwise, we are opposites in many ways: extrovert-introvert, scientific-mathematical---literary- artistic. It has been only in our last several years (age 58 to 61) that our intelligence is cross-pollinating. We are viewed by our fellow man as eccentric; we view ourselves as out of the ordinary (perchance Gladwell's phrase "Outliers" will do here).

When we underwent twin studies in Indiana in our youth, the medical doctors and psychologists used the phrase you are a sort of rare genius called "Genius as magician"; they did not explain it to us. We just wanted to get out of there---five days of extensive medical tests is a little too much.

When we die we are donating our bodies and brains to a group of researchers at Berkeley conducting brain research! We took care of that more than 13 years ago.

Thought you might be interested in this anecdotal evidence, Brokenhead.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin & James F.D.P. Malin

P.S. My lady friend has come over now, so I need to get off the computer. Will check in later (after my afternoon pleasures wear off)!