GENIUS FORUMS

I think Hendrix was a bit more psychedelic than the Doors. But I'm not sure if that's a sign of wisdom or just a sign of massive drug intake.

I have to agree with Cory that Zappa was probably wiser than both of them. But they were all pretty conventional, really. They all had girlfriends and Zappa was married. Beethoven is the only bachelor musician I can think of.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:And I'd place morrison above Hendrix. Morrison perhaps had brief sparks of philosohical genius, although he was just a battery plugged into the charger of Nietzche. Hendrixes genius I think was just aesthetic brilliance, not much philosophical capacity.

Morrison above Hendrix...

In terms of capacity, I gotta go with Hendrix. The shear brilliance of his innovation, coupled with the fiercity of his axe, suggests a mind capable of great things. It's tough to guage the influence that drugs had on their output, and if that even should be considered. You'd probably know better than I.

Morrison seemed to possess a poetic exuberence that would lend itself to philosophic crossover. But Hendrix's level of consciousness, of his scene, of his technique, I think far surpasses anything that The Doors managed to achieve. Both borrowed immensely from the blues, but Hendrix took things to space, at Mach 5.

I agree that Hendrix had a more impressive talent, aesthetically speaking - and I suppose we can attribute that do a highly specialized part of his brain. But I don't think he was very interested in philosohpy or psychology, although he may have been very intuitive and cynical about people. He was all feeling and expression more than anything, and didnt show much interest in philosohpy as far as I can tell. But Morrison loved Nietzche and Freud, philosophy and psychology. Not that he went very deep compared to the greats, but I think he was a bit more well rounded and aware in terms of consciousness than Hendrix. It's seems kind of silly to compare too much though. If you don't value aesthetics and emotions, then there's not much worth to be found in either of them - but at least Morrison left us with some very articulate quotes that seem a bit relative to the values of this forum:

“That's what real love amounts to- letting a person be what he really is. Most people love you for who you pretend to be. To keep their love, you keep pretending- performing. You get to love your pretence. It's true, we're locked in an image, an act-”

“The most important kind of freedom is to be what you really are. You trade in your reality for a role. You trade in your sense for an act. You give up your ability to feel, and in exchange, put on a mask. There can't be any large-scale revolution until there's a personal revolution, on and individual level. It's got to happen inside first. You can take away a man's political freedom and you won't hurt him- unless you take away his freedom to feel. That can destroy him. That kind of freedom can't be granted. Nobody can win it for you.”


“People fear death even more than pain. It's strange that they fear death. Life hurts a lot more than death. At the point of death, the pain is over. Yeah, I guess it is a friend...”

“Expose yourself to your deepest fear; after that, fear has no power, and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free.”


“Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn't it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses, you build up a whole suit of armor, so that nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life...You give them a piece of you. They didn't ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like kiss you or smile at you, and then your life isn't your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like 'maybe we should be just friends' turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It's a soul-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. I hate love.”

Actually, if Mozart's behavior in the comical movie Amadeus was a somewhat realistic depiction, then I'd say Morrison ranks a notch above.

Here are a few more Morrison quotes:

The most loving parents and relatives commit murder with smiles on their faces. They force us to destroy the person we really are: a subtle kind of murder.

--

Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence.

--

We fear violence less than our own feelings. Personal, private, solitary pain is more terrifying than what anyone else can inflict.

Man, I never considered Morrison to be such an elequent speaker. Right on. His stark poetry had me fooled. Excellent.

Actually, reading those quotes brought Morrison down a couple of notches on my scale. I'd now equate him with someone like Robert Smith, singer for The Cure.

I just realized that Hendrix was more psychedelic because of all the production work they did on the music, effects and tape loops and stuff. The Doors recorded their music basically as played.

Morrison was an adolescent poseur. Hendrix was a great musician but hardly philosophically significant. Zappa was very intelligent & had a lot of psychological insight but was mired in negativity.

Elvis Costello & Richard Thompson (& quite a few others) are more insightful than any of them but the music personality I have the most respect for is Bob Dylan. He has great integrity, always followed his own star & had the courage to go his own way no matter where it took him, no matter how many people thought it was stupid or wrong. If you read his memoir Chronicles it's clear that he was always concerned to use his art in such a way as to be uplifting to humanity. In a world dominated by crassness & cynicism he dares to be idealistic.
.

David Quinn wrote:Shahrazad,

What makes you think that Newton was not rational?

He was rational within a limited sphere, which, from the larger perspective, makes him largely irrational.

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.

Dan,

Outside of his scientific brilliance, Newton was a two-bit nong.

I can't agree. Just having the guts to question the long-established theory that heavy objects go down because "that is their natural place" took quite a big amount of genius, and it wasn't just scientific intelligence involved there. He had to ask himself "why" in a philosophical way. Science never fully answers the question why; only what, how and when.

.

Dan;

Since you seem relatively comfortable with the "wisdom chart", perhaps you will answer: Where are you on the "wisdom chart"? David? Kevin?

clyde

Matt Gregory wrote:I just realized that Hendrix was more psychedelic because of all the production work they did on the music, effects and tape loops and stuff. The Doors recorded their music basically as played.

You should give Hendrix credit for pioneering a lot of that. It's not production "they" did; he should get credit for innovative production as well. He had a knack for knowing how things would sound when they were played backwards, for instance, that other people found mysterious. He had a big influence on Marshall (in getting them to make more powerful amplifiers), and he had a lot of input into the design of effects (e.g., the Octavia).

If you watch video of Hendrix playing live, you'll see that he did not depend on post-production tricks. He was a hell of a player, and he got there through many, many hours spent with his guitar.


None of that has much to do with wisdom, of course. I don't see why a wise person would necessarily make good art, or a good artist would be wise. Art is about technique and aesthetic sense.

But maybe there is a similarity - in the end, it comes down to endless focus and discrimination. If you truly value something, then it makes sense that everything else will be subordinate to it - whether what you value is innovative guitar, understanding reality, seeking amusement, or having children. In the end, where you put all your energy and attention says what your values really are.

clyde wrote:Since you seem relatively comfortable with the "wisdom chart", perhaps you will answer: Where are you on the "wisdom chart"? David? Kevin?

I think it is wise for David, Kevin and Dan to ignore this question.

clyde wrote: Since you seem relatively comfortable with the "wisdom chart", perhaps you will answer: Where are you on the "wisdom chart"? David? Kevin?

Such questions should be turned around: where would you put them on your own chart. And if you don't have one, why are you without values? And still interested in those of others?

But on the mentioned scale I'd put Quinn and Solway around #3. This is not any indication of how 'near Buddhahood' they'd be of course, but just which value I've given to their output over time so far.

Why some people can be so nervous to put down their ratings remains an interesting question. They often start dancing around hiding behind all kinds of vague concepts, as if afraid that someone will hold them to their value judgment somehow. Perhaps so afraid to be judged themselves they refrain from judgments altogether. Fear hiding behind air of nobility and equality.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:They often start dancing around hiding behind all kinds of vague concepts, as if afraid that someone will hold them to their value judgment somehow. Perhaps so afraid to be judged themselves they refrain from judgments altogether. Fear hiding behind air of nobility and equality.

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.

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.

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.

Shardrol wrote:Elvis Costello & Richard Thompson (& quite a few others) are more insightful than any of them but the music personality I have the most respect for is Bob Dylan. He has great integrity, always followed his own star & had the courage to go his own way no matter where it took him, no matter how many people thought it was stupid or wrong. If you read his memoir Chronicles it's clear that he was always concerned to use his art in such a way as to be uplifting to humanity. In a world dominated by crassness & cynicism he dares to be idealistic.

I'm not familiar with Costello or Thompson, but Dylan, I forgot all about him. Yeah, I agree, he's probably the one. I haven't heard much of his music either, actually, but what I've heard seems very intelligent.

DHodges wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:I just realized that Hendrix was more psychedelic because of all the production work they did on the music, effects and tape loops and stuff. The Doors recorded their music basically as played.

You should give Hendrix credit for pioneering a lot of that. It's not production "they" did; he should get credit for innovative production as well. He had a knack for knowing how things would sound when they were played backwards, for instance, that other people found mysterious. He had a big influence on Marshall (in getting them to make more powerful amplifiers), and he had a lot of input into the design of effects (e.g., the Octavia).

I actually didn't know that he was involved in the production of his music. I knew he was into the pedals and stuff. And I wasn't trying to downplay the value of production; I think it's just as much of an art as being a musician, although it takes a lot less investment in time to be a good producer, I would think. I think he made some of the best recordings ever. They might not be as clean as, say the Beatles, but they have spirit, you know? I seriously feel like I'm tripping out when I listen to his music :-)

If you watch video of Hendrix playing live, you'll see that he did not depend on post-production tricks. He was a hell of a player, and he got there through many, many hours spent with his guitar.

Oh yeah, no doubt about it. Nine to the Universe is one of my favorite albums of all time. I thought that was a good showcase of his actual guitar playing.

None of that has much to do with wisdom, of course. I don't see why a wise person would necessarily make good art, or a good artist would be wise. Art is about technique and aesthetic sense.

But maybe there is a similarity - in the end, it comes down to endless focus and discrimination. If you truly value something, then it makes sense that everything else will be subordinate to it - whether what you value is innovative guitar, understanding reality, seeking amusement, or having children. In the end, where you put all your energy and attention says what your values really are.

Yeah, I said Hendrix because of his single mindedness, which would put him at the level of Tiger Woods, I guess. But I think Tiger Woods a bit superior to Hendrix in that regard because he didn't get sidetracked into drugs and all that crap. I guess Hendrix spent quite a lot of time primping himself as well, which I can't imagine Woods doing. But if you make 87 million dollars a year, then I don't think you need to worry about combing your hair.

Blah, you could spend a lifetime picking apart everybody's little behaviors. It's enough to make me ill.

Scott,

Your responses seem very reactive, and seem skewed by some beliefs you've picked up along the line, about truth-seeking. It seems you've had a bad experience and are trying to back pedal back to before. It is as if some aspect of the truth or your process of discovery has created a bitter taste in your mouth and now you are trying to spit all of it out, even that which you have already digested.

CG: If one is awake one can see that most people are asleep. Who disputes this?

SS: I dispute this. If you see yourself as awake and others as asleep, you're not yet truly awake. You're just brainwashed and a narcissist.

If one is awake, one will be aware of that awakeness. Then, if one looks, one can see others who are not awake. It is very simple. Nothing necessarily to do with brainwash or nacissism.

A person who is truly awake sees themselves and everyone else as the same.

Depends on which level you mean. If, as David points out, one injects the word "inherent," then yes, on that level we are all space dust, energy, or cells within the body of God.

The human struggles disappear, including the struggle of enlightenment.

Yes, on that level, in fact, they never arise. There is no matter and nothing of what we say matters.

But you and I also live in bodies, and have minds, here on Earth, and so there are issues regarding living thus. Do you deny this?

"Why then did (insert name of famous wise person here) teach?" The answer is that (the famous wise person) wasn't truly awake.

You are saying that anyone who teaches is necessarily unawake. This is prejudice, and is patently false.

Your statement appears to reveal some hurt you feel and have experienced.

CG: And temptation and excuses aside, does this not make a person somewhat different, if not special?

SS: Wisdom makes no one different or special.

"Special" is a loaded word, and I'm not sure it is helpful to use in this situation. Wisdom does make a person somewhat unique or rare at this time on planet Earth, though, simply because so few practice it.

If a "wise person" thinks that, they're only playing a stupid mind game with themselves, and they should never be called wise. They are shitting all over the very teachings they share.

This is another spurt of your hurt and your anger at being hurt. Can you pin-point where this happened? It would help you resolve the issue and move on.

To the point, it is not a game, nor is one "shitting on teachings" to simply see what they are, and to notice the relationship of that to what else surrounds them -- i.e. people who are not concerned with wisdom. There is nothing wrong with seeing distinctions. That what philosophers do.

It is not necessary to emotionally load this issue with negativity.

If people didn't believe that Jesus and the Budda walked on water, or floated in the air and multiplied food, then they would see no reason to hold them up on a pedestal and parade them around like they do. They would forget about them.

And most people have forgotten. But you seem to be running down people like Jesus and the Buddha, running down all Pathfinders and all Path. Why?

If these famous wise people never attracted a crowd, and if they didn't seem mysterious, there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to pay attention to them.

Again you are projecting. You are saying there is no reason for you to pay attention. You are trying to put on them that they are charlatans, that there is no gain to be had by following the path of which they speak, and that indeed there is no path or destination (i.e. truth, consciousness, wisdom).

This whole thing is about the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of making yourself into something great. A person seeking the truth shouldn't want to become a sage.

Who seeks truth in order to attain a label? In this discussion, only a strawman.

They should want to figure "it all" out. There's a vast difference between those two wants. One truly makes you into a sage, and one makes you into a full of shit cult leader.

Okay, but who here advocates setting oneself the goal of becoming a sage or a "full of shit cult leader?"

Again, what's up with the overlay of anger?

With discovering the truth, like Trevor said, there's a huge temptation to feel special. But a truly wise one should comprehend in that very moment that feeling special or different is one of the most deluded things you can feel.

If one is more aware than the average person, then seeing that is not a delusion. It is simply fact. If ego is attached to that seeing, however, then I agree, delusion is also.

Putting others below you on your little value scale is a sure sign you're full of it.

Delusion is not a sign of being "full of it." It is simply delusion.

No need to add loathing, Scott.

A wise person should understand that everyone is capable of reasoning.

Yes, if reason is defined as "a motive or cause for an action, belief, thought," or "a explanation for or defense of an action, belief, etc." Everyone has their reasons.

No, if reason is defined as "the faculty of thinking logically; power of drawing conclusions or making inferences." Not everyone is capable of rational thought.

Everyone does it on a daily basis. The reason why it seems like they're "asleep" is that they aren't good at it yet.

This is a particular strand of New Age theory. It doesn't hold water. For instance, what is the real difference in practical terms between "seems like they're asleep" and actually being asleep?

A wise person shouldn't get frustrated with this, and distance themselves from others.

It is wisdom itself which distances the wise person. By definition.

A wise person shouldn't feel the need to make people snap out of it.

A wise person doesn't, unless someone seeks his help. Besides, who snaps out of anything? Your anger showing again.

They definitely shouldn't do both at once, like many hermit-like philosophers do.

You sure have lots of stipulations, but let's think this through. In what way does a hermit feel the need to make people (who aren't around, because a hermit lives alone) "snap out of it."

None of this shit has to do with understanding reality.

You are right, Scott. None of these projections and anger issues have anything to do with it.

It has to do with human drama. A person who engages in any of this is an absolute fool, and any recognition they get as a thinker is an complete waste of breath. Their teachings fall apart in their own hands.

Pure projection. A rant.

No one is above it. I'm not. David's not. You're not. Trevor's not. Jesus wasn't. Socrates wasn't. The Buddha wasn't. Weinenger wasn't. Nietzsche wasn't. Kevin isn't. Clyde isn't. Etc...

Nyah, Nyah. Okay, no one's perfect. Doesn't mean there isn't worthiness for some in working, nor that there shouldn't be others for them to look up to, as beacons on the way.

What's my point? People thinking they're wise should recognize this, in order to overcome their stupidity.

Recognizing wisdom is not stupid.

"Thinking they're wise" is moot; it's not the issue.

That's the point of philosophy, isn't it? Love of truth/hatred of stupidity.

No, hatred is not the point.

Trying to understand how things really are. It shouldn't have anything to do with this hierarchy that people like David create.

There are orders of magnitude throughout life on the physical plane. Of trees and mountains, as well as ideas, and levels of consciousness and love.

You attempt to refute and also find refuge from this fact by citing the Ultimate playing field where indeed all may be level. Meanwhile you dwell in the mire of your emotions, so, of what use is it? In what way is it different from "when I die I will go to Heaven?" How does that idea alone, without the action of climbing the ladder you have heatedly chopped down, help you live your life better?

Carl,

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

The strange thing about consciousness, is the higher you ascend, the more and more you rely on the processes inherent in making good art. There is a certain creativity in the Universe, that makes for a near objective overlay onto reality. One could argue that a fully enlightened Buddha is as much an artist as a philosopher, the common thread is there.

sschaula wrote:Carl, don't waste my time.

Sorry you see it that way. Looks like I wasted mine, then.

Question: what are you doing at Genius?

Don't be condescending.

I haven't been. Again, sorry you see it that way.

Don't think my anger needs a bandaid.

I don't. It doesn't. That is my point.

David Quinn wrote:. . . Buddha have dropped down a notch because their flaws are too noticeable to ignore and clearly undermined their wisdom to a degree.

Are you sure about that, David? He had quite a lot of descendants. How would you account for that?

Matt Gregory wrote:

David Quinn wrote:. . . Buddha have dropped down a notch because their flaws are too noticeable to ignore and clearly undermined their wisdom to a degree.

Are you sure about that, David? He had quite a lot of descendants. How would you account for that?

Are you sure? I thought he was celibate?
.

Here is my chart

1 - Everything
0 - Everything

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:

David Quinn wrote:. . . Buddha have dropped down a notch because their flaws are too noticeable to ignore and clearly undermined their wisdom to a degree.

Are you sure about that, David? He had quite a lot of descendants. How would you account for that?

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?