GENIUS FORUMS

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html


I found it annoying...

what's your opinion on it.

It seems to me the article is quite compatible with the view on genius that's most common at this forum. The true genius of anything, being it sport, game, music or science will become almost one with the patterns of the objective, being it hand-eye coordination, foot movement, timing, sense of beat or melody or mathematical equitation. He now lives inside it so to speak, regards the matter more often than not "from the inside out".

A genius in philosophical sense, anyone spirited really in this specific regard, doesn't roll into this by accident or somewhere later in the autumn of life. One becomes unsettled already quite young; a refusal to submit or settle one way or another. Always looking, wondering, sensing the suffering and the weight of existence itself, the ecstasy of joy as well as the darkness of despair. The machinery of a genius has always been busy in this very existential sense: it paves the way to be able to regard the matter "inside out".

It gets one or two things partially right, like genius is the ability to maintain consciousness for long period of time, and that a high IQ or extreme talent does not determine genius. However, the fundamental error that it makes is saying that genius means practicing, or concentrating or focusing on petty things. It talks about the development of talent, and not genius, because the author himself is obviously far from being a genius.

Genius itself is simply consciousness, and nothing more or less.

jupiviv wrote:It talks about the development of talent, and not genius, because the author himself is obviously far from being a genius.

Now, if he were a genius, like you, imagine what he would have accomplished!

jupiviv wrote: Genius itself is simply consciousness, and nothing more or less.

As though he knows for certain just what consciousness actually is. Funny!

Quantum physicists with Ph, D.s aren't certain what consciousness is and this clown acts as thought consciousness is something simple.

This is what I call the statement of a 'simple-minded' person who thinks he's got it all figured out.

Well, I'll use his strategy from the other thread against him.

Okay, you are certain that there is no such thing as the moment NOW, right? Well then, prove to me there is such a thing as "simply consciousness". OBVIOUSLY you are an expect on "simply consciousness" so do explain it to us 'simple' folks.

This should be fun! Get your popcorn and candy bars for the show!

Bring it on, monkey-boy genius!

ruben_m wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html


I found it annoying...

what's your opinion on it.

Agreed, I think it's annoying too. While I usually enjoy David Brooks (always rare to come across a "moderate conservative" these days!), it's usually a "red flag" for me whenever I hear someone begin with things like, "We, of course, live in a scientific age, "modern", blah-blah-blah...".

Logic and the scientific method are simply tools, and to assume they'e all the tools we need now is absurd on the face of it. Funny how the "true believers" in "scientism" can often be just as self-righteous and dogmatic as any "bible-thumper".

For example, Hindu mystics intuited the speed of light and quantum dimensions, over 5,000 years ago, long before the "discovery" of any so-called "scientific method". So I disagree with Brooks... it’s not only about what you do, it's about who (or what) you are, as well.

Ming on Mongo wrote:For example, Hindu mystics intuited the speed of light and quantum dimensions, over 5,000 years ago, long before the "discovery" of any so-called "scientific method".

Possibly because some of the Hindu writings logically expand on the absolute one-nature of reality. However, intuition and the creation of very general descriptions, no matter how logically consistent, with no clear path toward testing and measurement, shouldn't be confused with any scientific method. Perhaps we can call it philosophical method instead?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Ming on Mongo wrote:For example, Hindu mystics intuited the speed of light and quantum dimensions, over 5,000 years ago, long before the "discovery" of any so-called "scientific method".

Possibly because some of the Hindu writings logically expand on the absolute one-nature of reality. However, intuition and the creation of very general descriptions, no matter how logically consistent, with no clear path toward testing and measurement, shouldn't be confused with any scientific method. Perhaps we can call it philosophical method instead?

Unless it's about semantics, what's your point? That knowledge acquired any other way than thru the "scientific method" is irrelevant (a.k.a. "Scientific Fundamentalism" http://www.cjas.org/~leng/scifund.txt)?

"There is only One True God and His Name is Allah, Jesus, Odin, "Modernism", SCIENCE, etc. (fill in the deity of your choice)...!"

Ming on Mongo, why quoting creationist John Clayton quoting Wallstreet Journal on me? What has that to do with your or mine position? Lets hope not that much!

Anyway, back to the point: Hindu astronomy, while advanced for its age, contains many numbers and facts that are totally wrong and only seem to serve their religious, symbolic cosmology. There is no reason to believe the number for the speed of light is based on intuition or correct assumptions. Actually, a good case can be made that the number was convenient to express the believe the light had to travel the whole universe in one day (see also: The Speed of Light and Puranic Cosmology -Subhash Kak). The calculation just ends up being remarkably close to the current number but looking at the overall numbers in their system one cannot assert intuition nor a correct view at all on the size of the universe.

MoM, can I ask you something: are you involved in alternative science or healing in any way? How much invested are you in certain ideas? This way I can try to understand why you seem so defensive when somehow attempt to show you the limits of your knowing or in other words: helping to clear your thoughts on the topic.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Ming on Mongo, why quoting creationist John Clayton quoting Wallstreet Journal on me? What has that to do with your or mine position? Lets hope not that much!

Anyway, back to the point: Hindu astronomy, while advanced for its age, contains many numbers and facts that are totally wrong and only seem to serve their religious, symbolic cosmology. There is no reason to believe the number for the speed of light is based on intuition or correct assumptions. Actually, a good case can be made that the number was convenient to express the believe the light had to travel the whole universe in one day (see also: The Speed of Light and Puranic Cosmology -Subhash Kak). The calculation just ends up being remarkably close to the current number but looking at the overall numbers in their system one cannot assert intuition nor a correct view at all on the size of the universe.

MoM, can I ask you something: are you involved in alternative science or healing in any way? How much invested are you in certain ideas? This way I can try to understand why you seem so defensive when somehow attempt to show you the limits of your knowing or in other words: helping to clear your thoughts on the topic.

"Diebert".... I've mentioned this to you before, and as a courtesy I'll repeat it here once more. Would be happy to chat with you and respond to your ideas, whether we agree or not. But if you're just going to be obtuse, narcissistic and talk "past me", or worse, rudely ignore my straightforward questions, then I don't want to talk to you and I'll simply ignore you in the future. Comprende?

Ahhhhhhhhhhahahahaha!!!!

This is a truly beautiful example of what Diebert has described:

Trading is just skillful quarreling. In the end it turns out participants are always qualifying the exchange according to the attitude they take with them during the engagement. No escaping that one.

In this case and in all cases it's the trading of ideas. I love participating in relationships, exchanges - it is fascinating, the power balance that CANNOT be escaped in them. The concept of power is INHERENT with our dealings in the world. Capitalism is REALITY. It does not matter how open and forthcoming we try to be or appear to be. It is at the extremes, at what matters...I kill you, you kill me, or we kill someone else together.

Ironically, it is women who know this better than anyone (men).

skipair wrote:In this case and in all cases it's the trading of ideas. I love participating in relationships, exchanges - it is fascinating, the power balance that CANNOT be escaped in them. The concept of power is INHERENT with our dealings in the world. Capitalism is REALITY. It does not matter how open and forthcoming we try to be or appear to be. It is at the extremes, at what matters...I kill you, you kill me, or we kill someone else together.

Ironically, it is women who know this better than anyone (men).

Kill or transform? Either way, only love has that power. You either "die" and stay here, or "die" and go somewhere else.

Ming on Mongo wrote:Would be happy to chat with you and respond to your ideas, whether we agree or not.

So, could we try to establish then, given the detailed information freely supplied, that your statement on the Puranic speed of light being intuited as opposed to derived from a scientific method is baseless? That the medieval astronomers involved were an example of early scientific method, three centuries before a Danish astronomer got it right by using measurements?

Of course one could wonder about the surprising accuracy but then again, a lot of other numbers in the same tradition are way of base. Could there be some biased selection be at play here? At the same time I do not need to reject the idea of intuiting insights, even to the degree of detailed numbers or events or even people's psychology. But I do need to question the origins of this specific instance as all I read are calculations by astronomers.