GENIUS FORUMS

guest_of_logic wrote:Diebert, I was tired and I wasn't thinking clearly when I made that post - I withdraw it.

No problem. I'll withdraw a few words of my post then, probably the troll and capacity bits. I'm just not sure with you at times.

Jeannie wrote:Seems only budding geniuses are able to make criticisms...truly.......if an outsider thinks what is said is crap, particularly when it is merely an opinion, don't they have as much right?

I don't know. What's a budding genius supposed to be anyway? Your criticism looked like crap though but feel free to expand.

Why didn't the quote say "Geniuses have no interest in making a living" or something like that to avoid confusion. I love the old "you have to put it in context" line. Just like the Scriptures, hey?

Just like life: everything would be meaningless outside context. And I mean everything!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'm just not sure with you at times.

Perhaps it's that I become more combative than is helpful at times - I get a little caught up in the dynamic of conflict rather than the unemotional dialectic process. That hoary old ego, eh?

Diebert: everything would be meaningless outside context. And I mean everything!

why, you ol' postmodernist, you! :)

Jeannie wrote:Seems only budding geniuses are able to make criticisms...truly.......if an outsider thinks what is said is crap, particularly when it is merely an opinion, don't they have as much right?

Of course they have such a right. But it also helps to not be too anal about what was a fairly unremarkable witticism. And don't forget that the person who said it is a woman, Joey Lauren Adams (i.e. the one about geniuses and making a living).

It surprises me that a woman wrote it, but nonetheless....I see it as clearly as A=A.

A genius can do anything except make a living. Unless we want to get pedantic over the meaning of "anything" in this statement which I think is what people are alluding to.

Girls can do anything could also be taken in "context" to mean they should not be held back if they want to do things traditionally reserved for men. Woodwork, for example etc etc

For the record, I also think this is a silly statement, because of the same argument of the genius quote.

Well, obviously I won't make the genius grade when I can't work out the italics code pmsl Shit happens!

Oh well, that's what admins are for - to get people out of the shit that's happening. And whilst I agree there's hyperbole in the content of both quotes, the simple fact is the "feminist" quote was attempting to make a serious socio-political point and therefore the hyperbolic content meant more. The quote about genius is really just a throw-away one-liner.

My goodness! My italics suddenly appeared!

If it is a throw away line why do you bother putting it in writing? If it means so little, why highlight it?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:No problem. I'll withdraw a few words of my post then, probably the troll and capacity bits. I'm just not sure with you at times.

I think your initial assessment of Laird was accurate. Don't let the facade of an intellectual mislead you.

Jeannie wrote:My goodness! My italics suddenly appeared!

If it is a throw away line why do you bother putting it in writing? If it means so little, why highlight it?

Who ever highlighted it? To include it in a collection of witty aphorisms is not to highlight something. It's just to stir the mind into action. Words can be stimulating without being directly profound. You've made a mountain out of a molehill here, Jean, frankly.

Nick Treklis wrote:I think your initial assessment of Laird was accurate. Don't let the facade of an intellectual mislead you.

Is that why you didn't respond to me a second time in the "Knowing about Knowing" thread?

Yes that, your seemingly hyper-active nature, and the fact that intellectualizing too much about the nature of the Infinite distracts from the greater goal.

We were discussing something that you referred to as an understanding of "everything". I can't think of many more important discussions that a person could have than that of the potential problems with what they believe to be such an understanding, but if you want to dismiss so readily my critique and the possibility that you can improve your philosophical position, then so be it: so much for dedication to truth.

those who believe they are of genius are arrogant. those who take action on this belief are of genius.

it is smart to reproduce a known idea; it is genius to produce an unknown idea.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Jeannie wrote:Seems only budding geniuses are able to make criticisms...truly.......if an outsider thinks what is said is crap, particularly when it is merely an opinion, don't they have as much right?

I don't know. What's a budding genius supposed to be anyway? Your criticism looked like crap though but feel free to expand.

Why didn't the quote say "Geniuses have no interest in making a living" or something like that to avoid confusion. I love the old "you have to put it in context" line. Just like the Scriptures, hey?

Just like life: everything would be meaningless outside context. And I mean everything!

Diebert

A budding genius, to me, is somebody who is trying to become a genius. Yes, I understand context. One cannot have "tall" without "short". If I don't ask I don't know. I am sure plenty of other people would ask the same question I did.

Dan, it might be a mountain out of a mole hill to you, but I was very interested in the responses to this question. Perhaps I see many mountains out of mole hills in here.

The two statements are of completely different natures.

The first statement "A genius can do anything except make a living" sets the individual in question against an opposition of lower cognition, and the latter half of the statement indicated a relative functionality within a society.

The second statement "A girl can do anything" has the individual in question against an opposition of men. The context is not as clear, however, if it meant to say that women can do anything men can do, then its a failed statement, it doesn't really portray that, though I suspect that is the implicit meaning. Otherwise it could just be "People can do anything" which is a blatantly absurd claim. The strongest implication here seems to be that women can do anything regardless of what men can do. It seems to imply not just that women can do what men can do, but that women can also do what men can't do.

One can extrapolate the implications, but that's all one can do with either of these statements. Suppose the latter statement really does intend to say that women can do things men can do and things men can't do. For example, women can get pregnant and give birth to a child. However, men can get erections and lift weights above 50lbs. Women are so obviously inferior in this regard as to have special orders in factory work. Martin and Chaffin (1972) found that the maximum manual lifting weight acceptable by 95% of men was 51lbs, while it was only 23lbs for 95% of women. In the same study, Martin and Chaffin tested capacity in a variety of angles, for example lifting weight straight up or pulling it horizontally. They found that men and womens skills varied (Source: Manual Materials Handling M.M. Ayoub and Anil Mital). It seems to me to be a politically loaded statement characteristic of the feminist mindset, primarily because it ignores the obvious evidence to the contrary in pursuit of an emotionally charged soundbyte.

guest_of_logic wrote:We were discussing something that you referred to as an understanding of "everything". I can't think of many more important discussions that a person could have than that of the potential problems with what they believe to be such an understanding, but if you want to dismiss so readily my critique and the possibility that you can improve your philosophical position, then so be it: so much for dedication to truth.

Trying to discuss truth with you is like trying to discuss truth with a drunk at a bar who's looking for a debate in order to spew his talking points, ad nauseam. I have absolutely no interest in such a debate, and I'm certainly not going to play along with your little charade. There's a reason scientists don't debate with "flat-earthers". Similar reasons apply here.

l interpret 'genius' in this place as being able to think without delusion and see without illusion. This is destructive if not dangerous to making a living in society.

Its not in the sense of IQ, which is a measuring stick of one's intellectual capacity relative to others and arguably measures the utility of one's intellect to society.

Hence useless to playing useful social roles, like making a living.

This type of genius sees through society and isn't fooled by its deceptive narratives, such as 'measure my thinking ability and put it to work.'

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just like life: everything would be meaningless outside context. And I mean everything!

"Everything" cannot be positioned in context (relation to other,) otherwise it ceases to be everything.

pointexter wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just like life: everything would be meaningless outside context. And I mean everything!

"Everything" cannot be positioned in context (relation to other,) otherwise it ceases to be everything.

It could be positioned in relation to nothing at all; no other. This merely demonstrates the emptiness of existence and the development of the conceptual.

OK then, Nick. Stick with what you think you know, and I'll stick with people who are interested in challenging their own ideas.

I have no doubt "Girls can do anything" is politically motivated. It is also obvious men have greater physical strength. I am beginning to understand the witticism in the genius quote.

However, if you guys ever got your books published and made money, would that not be making a living? :)

Actually, that is a good question. Would you be interested in making money if people bought your book/s?

Jeannie wrote:I have no doubt "Girls can do anything" is politically motivated. It is also obvious men have greater physical strength. I am beginning to understand the witticism in the genius quote.

However, if you guys ever got your books published and made money, would that not be making a living? :)

Actually, that is a good question. Would you be interested in making money if people bought your book/s?

Ah, a widow (or better yet, an heiress) with $$$!

Jeannie eats a honey bun for breakfast and some salami for lunch. I love her hair!