GENIUS FORUMS

Matt Gregory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Are you sure? I thought he was celibate?

I was talking about spiritual descendants, like Bodhidharma or Hakuin. Don't you ever look at the context of what you read?

* note to self - Matt has Leyla's sense of humor. Stop poking bears with sticks.

edit to add quote due to post appearing on next page

You're just looking to be abused. I know your game.

Matt, don't worry -- Elizabeth just gave you a backhanded compliment. Leyla has a great sense of humour. It just flies over your head if you don't pay close enough attention.

(Oh, and I think Gotama had a wife and children before he went on his spiritual adventures)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

DHodges wrote: No, it's refusing to play the monkey-game of establishing a heirarchy of who is alpha-male and who is beta, and so on down the line. That's a dominance game, driven by ego.

But my point was that the list seemed intended as a personal evaluation of wisdom perceived in several sources. In the end we only know little bits and pieces of each entry and so it can never be more than an indication of what the list-maker established for himself. It's in relation to the value-maker. This is why the author can never appear on the list: he is the list.

This is a good point. It would make more sense to ask me for my own chart. Aside from my stated quibbles with David's I do, in fact, have others. For one thing I would need a chart with more increments.

sschaula wrote:Carl,

Don't waste my time. Don't be condescending. Don't think my anger needs a bandaid.

This is true, it doesn't. It needs a nuclear device.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I asked the same question as Clyde, but for me it stemed more from a glee in hell-raising than anything else. As I imagined the possible responses and reactions, the idea of asking the question simply amused me.

I can't imagine a wise person obtaining glee from hell-raising.
.

What was that supposed to mean, Dan?

Scott: I guess it depends on whether he's referring to Hiroshima or Cuba, and whether he's taking the stance of the Americans, Japanese, Russians, or Cubans.

What was that supposed to mean, Dan?

New-clear in-site.

What do I have to do with any of that?

Dan Rowden wrote:For one thing I would need a chart with more increments.

Thank you for the laugh.

clyde

Dan wrote:

I have a couple of quibbles with the wisdom chart myself. Firstly, Newton should not be on the same line as Einstein and Darwin. Outside of his scientific brilliance, Newton was a two-bit nong. If he were living today he'd be one of those Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy types, only worse. And I also think Spinoza should be one place above his companions.

I'm not sure about that. Spinoza had a strong bent for metaphysics and developed what I would call a "proto-understanding" of the Infinite, one that never developed into full understanding. So yes, in a metaphysical sense, he did have that over his companions on the scale.

On the other hand, both Wilde and de Sade had a deep understanding of human psychology and possessed a well-developed sense of irony. In that sense, they too had a proto-understanding of the Infinite. Like Spinoza, they were on the right track, and like Spinoza, they fell short.

As for Newton being a nong, weren't the other two also nongs outside their scientific endeavours? Darwin didn't seem to think of anything at all outside of his research into natural selection, while Einsteins's philosophical views were extremely undeveloped.

-

Scott, it's a more flattering metaphor than giving a child a band-aid for a boo-boo. He's taking you seriously enough that he thinks you need to be armed/nuked (depending on which metaphor he was going for).

I don't get it. What would I need a nuke for?

For your anger, I presume? Instead of giving it a band-aid, you get rid of it entirely with a nuke. Or, alternatively, you give it a nuke so it can do some damage.

Matt wrote:

Why did you rate Bach, Mozart and Beethoven the way you did?

Do you mean in relation to themselves? Or to others on the chart?

Who do you think is the wisest rock and roller? Zappa? Jimi Hendrix? Jim Morrison maybe?

I'm not sure that one can speak of wisdom in the same breath as rock and roll. I'm also not sure that rock music has actually produced a genius yet. It might be another fifty years before a true rock genius arises.

If the criteria was that the music had to elevate the mind and inspire one to become more philosophical, then I would have to go with prog rock acts like Yes, Gentle Giant and Pink Floyd. That kind of music is more artistic and introspective and can certainly lead to mystical/altered states of mind. But this might be my own bias coming through, since I was more or less raised on prog rock.

As for Zappa, his music can be interesting, but to me, his humour gets old real quick. I prefer to listen to his instrumental stuff. When he starts trying to be philosophical in his cynical kind of way, he always reminds me of a drag queen - i.e. someone wanting to express masculinity in feminine attire.

As far as the wisdom scale is concerned, I would place all these people - Zappa, Yes, Gentle Giant, Pink Floyd - somewhere between 0.05 and 0.1. That is, above the average person, but less than Tiger Woods and co.

-

Trevor,

For your anger, I presume? Instead of giving it a band-aid, you get rid of it entirely with a nuke. Or, alternatively, you give it a nuke so it can do some damage.

What a stupid thing to say. Not you. Dan.

David Quinn wrote:If the criteria was that the music had to elevate the mind and inspire one to become more philosophical, then I would have to go with prog rock acts like Yes, Gentle Giant and Pink Floyd.

"See Emily Play" by Pink Floyd was quite an interesting little psychological piece, wasn't it?
.

sschaula wrote:Trevor,

For your anger, I presume? Instead of giving it a band-aid, you get rid of it entirely with a nuke. Or, alternatively, you give it a nuke so it can do some damage.

What a stupid thing to say. Not you. Dan.

My meaning was getting rid of it entirely. It's way beyond the bandaid stage. It's of Incredible Hulk magnitude. I was simply looking for the other extreme to "bandaid".

It's still a stupid thing to say. I'm sure if my anger was completely obliterated it'd be a little easier to say such stupid things, though...so I can understand why you said it.

David Quinn wrote:Dan wrote:

I have a couple of quibbles with the wisdom chart myself. Firstly, Newton should not be on the same line as Einstein and Darwin. Outside of his scientific brilliance, Newton was a two-bit nong. If he were living today he'd be one of those Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy types, only worse. And I also think Spinoza should be one place above his companions.

I'm not sure about that. Spinoza had a strong bent for metaphysics and developed what I would call a "proto-understanding" of the Infinite, one that never developed into full understanding. So yes, in a metaphysical sense, he did have that over his companions on the scale.

Plus his life reflected that understanding to a high degree.

On the other hand, both Wilde and de Sade had a deep understanding of human psychology

I think "deep" might be stretching it some.

and possessed a well-developed sense of irony.

That much is true.

In that sense, they too had a proto-understanding of the Infinite. Like Spinoza, they were on the right track, and like Spinoza, they fell short.

I still don't think the comparison stands. Spinoza actually lived like a philosopher. I don't see much evidence that the "metaphysics" of the other two really got much beyond the arguments of an intelligent 12 year old - which is not to say the arguments aren't valid in themselves.

As for Newton being a nong, weren't the other two also nongs outside their scientific endeavours?

Not to the same extent. Newton was a dead-set weirdo.

Darwin didn't seem to think of anything at all outside of his research into natural selection,

It took over his life, certainly, but he at least threw away his theological beliefs and never recanted his position despite enormous pressure to do so.

while Einsteins's philosophical views were extremely undeveloped.

My reason for putting Newton incrementally lower than the other two was that he was simply mad, much like moderns like Nash and Godel were mad, though possibly even worse then them. Most people don't know this about Newton outside his scientific work.

clyde wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:For one thing I would need a chart with more increments.

Thank you for the laugh.

Well, if you think that was funny, wait till I do my actual chart....

Newton was a dead-set weirdo.

He was still smarter than Einstein and Darwin.
.

ohh, the pointless value systems, when will they ever end.

NEVER, because we are all emotion based beings - and without any doubt at all the QRS are no different for all that they pretend.

Jamesh wrote:and without any doubt at all the QRS are no different for all that they pretend.

What evidence do you have that makes you so certain?
.