GENIUS FORUMS

Steven Coyle wrote:Just havin' some fun love

why do we love fun ?

prince wrote:No, definately not. As Dan said in the psychology thread,

"Psychology does not manipulate reality; it engages it according to its type."

Meaning, it follows patterns of recognition. The patterns being purely arbitrary, and infinitely overlapping.

well..we create reality...our thoughts manifest reality...we do manipulate reality by our thoughts...how could it be arbitrary that anything happens ? We evolved according to how we thought...through whatever situation we found ourselves in we had to adapt and evolve...it wasn't arbitrary...there are causes and conditions for everything to happen as they do...interdependent origination

Kunga wrote:how could it be arbitrary that anything happens ?

Try walking through a brick wall and see what happens. Arbitrarily you can't. You will do something else, not walk through it. All matter works in this manner. What happens does, what doesn't happen, doesn't. So again, A=A.

prince wrote:

Kunga wrote:how could it be arbitrary that anything happens ?

Try walking through a brick wall and see what happens. Arbitrarily you can't. You will do something else, not walk through it. All matter works in this manner. What happens does, what doesn't happen, doesn't. So again, A=A.

if i knew how to manipulate energy i could walk through a brick wall .

yes...it's not impossible...everything is possible....is it also possible that there is some kind of intelligence playing with us here ?

The wiser one gets the more one can assess the most probable future. Often news events induce us to think or something, which also prompts others to think and write or act upon the same thing.

It is true though, there may be some form of intelligence playing with us - but I can't see the rationality in that -what the fuck for!

Still, I'm a little uneasy about ASSUMING that ALL these occurances, whether seeing small details of the past or the future, are purely coincidental, although I acknowledge the majority will be precisely that. I'm beginning to think that there is some form of alternate, non-sentient, originating cause for some of these unusual coincidences. I think an extremely primitive or devolved - due to other subsequently evolved senses being more useful - 6th sense is possible. Some people may still have a "wave sense" leftover from the time before animals with our current senses evolved.

I am not convinced noticing such "coincidences" are entirely a play of the ego. The problem I have is that I feel such premonitions or readings of the past average out at about a 5% greater degree of accuracy or coincidence than can be explained by causes.

The brain does exude electromagnetic energy waves as part of the though creation process, so perhaps such waves received in the brains of others induce like thoughts. 100,000 people watching something in a difference time zone may cause a reaction in someone elsewhere on the planet, once the brain waves arrive from afar - if so this would occasionally prompt a brain to raise conscious thoughts about the same thing.

As I believe the past never disappears, then this would enable people in the present to see vague aspects of situation configurations of the past. An energy wave to me is simply past time released into the present.

Admittedly, to say the above may be wishful thinking of my ego lead astray by memories related to this general topic that consist entirely of coincidences or situations where other people have falsified the facts, subconsciously or consciously, for the sake of their own egos.

if a primitive, and since obscured sixth, then why not also the evolution of its re-extension to intellect?

We will become more and more directly plugged into technology (often cordless, so requiring wave based communications), so that well may occur in the future.

Lol, as we seem to have so much within our DNA that appears to not presently be activated, perhaps it is still there waiting for the opportunity to be caused to evolve into something reliable and useful. Maybe this is why people who concentrate on such matters over many years say they develop skills others cannot see the existence of.

There is a kind of precedent - depressed, stressed out minds do seem to induce illnesses that they would otherwise not get, and the instructions that would cause this subconscious destruction may originate in the DNA. It is easy to see how we could have evolved instinctual DNA instructions - the sooner depressed individuals within a herd die, the better off the herd will most often be [Edit: I'm referring to past times here, animal and primitive. In the current world, the human herd will be better off in the long term, if society and individuals act to discover the best ways to properly deal with depression, and perhaps some of its primary causes. Martyrs suck, but explorers are cool]. The Oz aboriginal Pointing the Bone ceremony may be symbolic of this effect.

And since you agree with me, that the past is fixed, then how can't you see that time is of consciousness, not space?!

I'll respond to this point on the Wisdom of the Infinite Regress thread, soon.

Kunga wrote:

David Quinn wrote: the average person has a very poor understanding of coincidence and statistical frequency, which explains, in part at least, why people tend to seek paranormal explanations whenever they are confronted with something unusual.

Intuition or even psychic abilities are natural..not paranormal wouldn't you say ?

If psychic abilities exist, they would be natural, yes. Everything is natural, by definition.

Even if the scarab appearing was totally coincidental, wouldn't it be against all odds even if it was a statistically frequent occurrence ????? (or is that a contradiciton ?) Oy Vey ...

Cold hard logical explainations is all there is ?

Surely, you must know that is the case.

-

David wrote: "I am always pointing to it whenever I speak, but you don't look. You have already convinced yourself that there is nothing to see."

More games, as is usual, but under the games one notices a more dangerous current.

You hold up 'enlightenment' and 'nirvana' as representing supreme value, such that people (men mostly, and younger men) get captured not by anything even remotely tangible and even somewhat definable, but by an enormous promise that seems to have little substance. And like in a cult---in group-think and cult-think---they are induced to sacrifice their substantial life for an hallucinated 'great goal'. It is almost fantastic the way that this 'game of values' is played here, with undercurrents of deception, and it all takes on a religious tone. "Take away a man's Gods, but only to give him others in return".

One notices a type of mind here, a mind with a certain inclination, a certain predisposition, and it is classically 'rationalistic' but yet---strangely!---deeply attracted to the religious, a rigorous religiosity. No matter what information is presented to this mind, no matter in what way 'life and life's mysteries' is expressed, there is only one rigid and universal means to interpret and to pattern that interpretation. Rationalism and reductionism combined, and tossed into the psychology of rather desperate individuals (this 'desperation' needs to be defined, explained, looked into), limited intellectually and badly prepared, strangely enough becomes 'possessed' by what looks like an even more rigid 'religiosity' than that which gave birth to it, and that which it resists.

Like a train, the 'machine of neurosis' has a unique strength: the ability to just keep chugging on and on and on. There is no idea or thought that it will allow in to modify the rigidity of the position---such modification is perceived as failure, or something as dark as succumbing to the 'feminine', and so the Machine just keeps chugging on and on, pursuing what appear more and more to be a vain chimera. Not at all that spiirtuality cannot and does not avail us of something, or is not worthy and necessary, but this particular religion is one that consumes value, reduces value.

When the 'Position' is assailed, all hands (among the religion's True Believers) rally to its defense. The defense is at its core an emotional defense sometimes revealing a great deal of anger, but no matter how absurd these displays are, no matter how anti-rationalistic and illogical, the game-players can patch-up the breach, they defend the Position, the oppositional army is turned away, and the neurotic religious game is only strengthened for the long run, among the forums 'Die-Hard Believers'. It is a fantastical, self-repairing machine.

I suggest that this is not at all the way to go. That this is itself a disfunctional group-game, an acting out among participating boys, of desperate impulses couched in an unassailable rationalistc rhetoric that cover over much content---unconscious content to use Jungian language. There are disfunctional pressupositions that inform the main players, and so what comes out of this group of choices and rejections, is a distorted praxis that cannot ever repeair itself. It is almost incredible the mechanisms by which it continues to function. As much opposition as it receives, the opposition only strengthens the original (absurd) position. Opposition is a rallying point and, to be truthful, the structure here feeds off of opposition!

Take a way a man's gods and those gods have an odd way of reappearing again, reasserting themselves, of 'claiming' devotees. But, and this is a psychological fact, they become more and more possessive, more and more forbidding, and more and more 'anti-life'. What I see is a cult-game. And I am not exaggerating.
_________________________________________________________

The 'synchronicity' issue is always played out in the same way. I have seen it time and time again in forum conversations. I knew when I posted that bit about the patient who dreamed of a scarab beetle, and the appearance of a beetle at the window, that it offered a realistic picture of the kind of person that this forum attracts, with rationalistic barracades, against what can be referred to in many ways but in simple terms one could call 'the magnificence of life', or the Mystery of existence. The Fourth Genius, of course, simply destroys the 'question', renders it meaning-less, unconsiderable. It is (of course) just a trick to get control of the playing board. I have noticed all throughout cyberspace on forums like this that deal with heavy questions the exertions of persons who define for themselves what I call The Ultimate Arbiter's Position. Getting ahold of this position (inventing it, cobbling it together, sending it up as a manifestation not of reasoned positions but of a structure of personality), it shows itself capable of defending itself against all comers. That is its one, core purpose. No matter what is brought forward as evidence, as discussable positions, is rhetorically shot down and the Ultimate Arbiter's Position is thereby---eternally!---defended.

The curious thing, from my own perspective, is that in one way or another, at some time or another (I suggest...) a 'beetle' will land on your window sill, and this 'beetle' will have a message for you, and the message will come from an unforeseen and unknown quarter, one that is pushed out of the picture by an arbitrary, rationalistc position carved out of infinity by a reductionist, 'rationalistic' mind. All that is pushed away---unnaturally, let us say---has a way of just darting under the surface, but it tends to resurface again and make itself known.

PS: Funny, I am at an internet cafe since I don't have a connection at home. There are a bunch of children here playing in the hall as their mom is reviewing her email. Just when I posted this the kids started a train-game. 'Choooo-choooo! Choooo-Choooo!'.

Alex, you've outdone yourself with that post. Very insightful. Thanks.

This must be the comedy hour.

Alex gives a rousing speech rallying the troops to his cause, belittling everyone who doesn't belong to his cult - not reducing them, heaven forbid - and then along comes Laird to give his brotherly embrace, just to affirm that he too is proud to be part of the cult.

It's "Cult vs. Cult" - on now at Genius Forum!

Nietzsche once said, "To the swine, all things are swinish." He could have also said, "To the cultist, all people are cultists".

As regards the synchronicity thing, it seems that some people can never get over the loss of the sense of "mystery" experienced in early childhood, and they spend the rest of their lives constantly looking back, as it were, trying to recreate those feelings once again. Not just a case of arrested development, but of backward-looking development. Regression Syndrome, I suppose it can be called.

Alex must have hated it when his parents told him there was no Santa Clause. What a misfortune to have such rigid, cult-like parents!

-

David Quinn wrote: Alex must have hated it when his parents told him there was no Santa Clause. What a misfortune to have such rigid, cult-like parents!

My parents said if I sit on Santa's lap I'd receive a train set for Christmas. I was (at age 4 or 5) absolutely terrified of that fellow. Never got close to that loser and pretty much to this day thoroughly find the fellow and all "he" stands for, absolutely repugnant, repulsive and trained our children to flip that devil-in-red off in a most-respectful way.

Heaven is to the North and so is Santa's (Satan's) lodge.

PS - You and Alex (with Diebert) are most interesting. Still Remote Viewing the lot of you.

PPS - Received the train set anyway. But not gift-wrapped :-/

Remote Viewing > http://www.crystalinks.com/physmet.html

Reminds me of something out of a Phillip Roth novel but I don't remember which one. The background to the anecdote is that American Jews spend a great deal of time explaining to their kids what Jews believe and what they don't. For example, you have to have it explained why Jews don't believe in Jesus, and of course Christmas, and by extension Santa. In strict families (mine wasn't at all) everything about 'pagan' culture has to be resisted. It is really quite a big deal for a kid.

So, in this anecdote there is a little boy sitting at the window watching the snow fall and he thoughtfully, but perhaps anxiously, asks his mom, "Mom, do Jews believe in snow?"
________________________________________________________

I don't think I have anything more to contribute so will now retire back into the deep night of ignorance and there sleeeeeeeep.

It was fun and interesting.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:I don't think I have anything more to contribute so will now retire back into the deep night of ignorance and there sleeeeeeeep.

It was fun and interesting.

Consider travelling to Australia and meet with these blokes.

The other Alex (skipair) did. Life is short, do it.

PS - Bring some psychedelia with you (or maybe David has some leftover stash) and
you all can trip the light fantastic. Even old Kevin Solway was an acid head .. once.

South American 'hallucinates' - what a beautiful choice!

Alex T. Jacob wrote:I don't think I have anything more to contribute so will now retire back into the deep night of ignorance and there sleeeeeeeep.

It was fun and interesting.

Don't go yet! I haven't finished with ya! :)

David Quinn wrote:Alex gives a rousing speech rallying the troops to his cause, belittling everyone who doesn't belong to his cult

I'm sure you could have been a little more original than, "It's not me! It's you! And even if it is me, it's you TOO!!" That one's as old as the ego. Anyway, you've blown up beyond their actual meaning those observations that Alex made: he didn't write that you're running a cult, and nor would I. He wrote (italics mine) "And like in a cult---in group-think and cult-think", and (italics in the original) "What I see is a cult-game". Exaggeration for purposes of attack is unbecoming a supposedly enlightened sage.

Diebert, I'm working on a response.

Howdy Jason,

When you just disappear, where do you go?

The 'conversation' (more a monologue I realize, except for some tepid observations from Diebert which serve more to derail than anything else) has helped me to concretize 'the issue'. I don't care how advanced these assholes think they are, or say they are, what I see are a group of kids 'playing' at spirituality. True, they have trekked back toward the Font, in that Mysterious Mountain so few even conceive exists, and at the very least seem aware that there are Sacred Waters, but I would like to suggest that in no sense have they really touched, or drank from, those waters. Though their whole trip is in saying they have and do.

That represents failure in my book. I would like to suggest that True Water (referring to The Well) has a very different effect on the human organism. Naturally, a crux here is that I think we come to that Water not through striving, and certainly not building a tower of reason, but through a kind of Grace. You have to be invited, you cannot crash the party. Those who crash the party never seem to get to the upper story where the real action takes place. The ones who speak from the Upper Story (as I see it) actually DO say wise things. Not only that, they tend to have the effect of instilling the desire for knowledge in other people. (Despite the use of language that can be construed as Christian I think we are talking about something universal, and all symbols and 'charged metaphors' refer to 'it').

It seems absolutely crucial to understand that whatever it is that we refer to with the word 'spirituality', that we have to be clear about what it is NOT. Part of the conversation about such an important theme has as its purpose the attempt to define what spirituality isn't. At the same time its purpose is to attempt to define what it is, what it can and should be. Based partly on the time I have spent here, I am largely convinced that it must be about a union between all the different parts of the person: emotional, intellectual, somatic.

These are some of the main ideas that, as I see it, are still there to be explored (for me anyway):

"What is helpful, I found, is to understand that in certain areas they (Q-R-S and Forth Genius) can be said to be right on the money. Well, if it is not exactly 'right on the money' it is on a ramp that leads to the right questions, to the right focus, to possibility of a certain kind of discipline (etc). One of the problems is that many who write here are essentially uneducated and preliterate persons. But to handle ideas, to come under the sway of great ideas and great men requires greatness. Mediocrity, partial conceptions, half-attained knowledge, a partial understanding, when it comes in contact with the possibility of great things, will 'crack', will show its failings, will become its own worst enemy. Q-R-S-G4 are quite brilliant and very worthy in many areas, but even if they did 'have' enlightenment, it would be just such a 'cracked' enlightenment. Still, though, it hearkens to that Other, to something noble and whole and worthy."

"I have come under the sway of an interesting idea, but I am finding it hard to articulate. It is essentially that we live in the aftermath of a sort of 'death' of an entire conceptual order that sustained us (The Medieval Order, European man, and the 'self' that had been constructed to live in a complete, a Totality, world, universe, kosmos...)

"Our relentlss pursuit of knowledge, in all fields but especially all that is subsumed under 'science' and materialism (science of the senses), essentially undermined an old conceptual order with which the world was sustained, and was understood (and which 'made sense'). This is an event of real magnitude for humankind but especially for the modern individual, the individual sentient being. It is nothing less than losing the ground under one's feet. But, very few can really grasp what is happening, or why. So in the world in which they now exist, they are essentially surrounded by shades and ghosts that rise up from the 'Graveyard of Meaning'.

"It is fair to say that no one really understands any longer where they exist, why they exist, and how to act in existence. It is therefor a strange and dangerous territory, a land through which one must voyage without a Guide.

"However, we are in fact (or perhaps it should be a question: Are we in fact?) on the cusp of the formation of a new total relationship to the Whole (or 'the Totality' as QRS like to put it). A relationship that involves the whole man, not just the reasoning side. In the death of a conceptual order which I mentioned there is a schism, a stark and dangerous separation: the spirit goes one way, the mind goes another, and the 'body' is left in the dark. This leads, obviously, to various pathologies. When we lose our unity we naturally become desperate, and one of the 'signs' of modern man is just this desperation. It is a dangerous point in the psychic life of the individual and, of course, the collective.

"In this dangerous space, the world that we live in, in this terrible division between spirit and mind and body---horribly---a new player has come on the scene. It is an invention of man but it also become independant of him. In the absence of the Whole Human it necessarily arises. And that is the Machine.

"Since we live, effectively, in a world divorced from a conceptual order where God is real, and really interacts with us, what arises to order existence, to control it and offer sense, is the Machine. It is all very, very peculiar because the structures we create begin to look more and more like machines, and one is 'asked' to imitate the machines that rule over us. In a sense the successful personality of today is a machine-personality. But we are in no sense such machines. To become machines is, very really, a kind of madness. And in our modernity this is something we really do deal with. There is a very real pressure that is put on us.

"So, the questions seems to come forward, If we once had an organic relationship to the Totality, if once 'the world' made sense, can't we again redefine and reexperience---in a somatic/spiritual sense---a new unity? I mean, isn't this what all of us who struggle with ideas in an existential sense are attempting to do? Do the doggy stroke just to survive? Just to keep from drowning?

"But we don't really know what 'spiritual life' is anymore. We don't seem to know how to 'recover' our relationship to the Whole. It certainly cannot be done exclusively mentally, that seems true enough. One cannot 'think' one's way to wholeness, one cannot 'reason' one's way. No, it has to be the Whole Person who finds the magical key.

"Most people---I have found---who pontificate about spiritual life, often just cobble together portions of the Old Mysticism, that is to say, they take hold of concepts they find in the Graveyard of Meaning, they blow a little life in them and try to get them to walk about on the land, but they are just partial-entities...ghosts...phantasms. They do not ever seem capable of really answering the questions we are all posing, whether we are conscious of it or not.

"It is of paramount importance that we somehow come to articulate the right questions."

guest_of_logic wrote:He wrote (italics mine) "And like in a cult---in group-think and cult-think", and (italics in the original) "What I see is a cult-game". Exaggeration for purposes of attack is unbecoming a supposedly enlightened sage.

Okay, then you're so much like a weasel and are portraying some astounding resemblance to an idiot.... Does that really make it better?

Alex T. Jacob wrote:The 'conversation' (more a monologue I realize, except for some tepid observations from Diebert which serve more to derail than anything else) has helped me to concretize 'the issue'.

Most of the time you do seem to mumble to yourself, attempting to expel your very own demons by playing all the sock puppets of your own imagined rocky show of horrors.

If anyone seems seriously stuck around here in a mental cage, demonstrating overcompensation of insecurities and insincerity like some teenage girl, it's Mr. "Look at me I'm leaving, look at me I'm back again".

It's clear by now you're here not for the reasons you're suggesting to yourself. And it's possible you'll never leave. You're being consumed by something you're conjuring up yourself.

If you think I'm stuck in a mental cage you should really try to demonstrate it. In what way do you think I am insincere?

I don't have too much more use for this forum anymore, honest-Injun. It did certainly help me to clarify thoughts befofre though. With reservations I jumped in again. I am actually quite happy with the 40-odd posts in this thread. I am going to find a away, how I am not sure, to use these ideas in a fictional piece I have in mind.

Do you mean (about being here for different reasons than what I say) that you think I am just preaching?

I would honestly like to see more substance from you Diebert.

Finally, I really do have to back up Laird. I do indeed think that the mental system in operation functions like a cult system, but I don't think this is a cult. I try to express myself (it is just discursive habit) in a forceful way but always with at least a little humility (like, I could be wrong).

Alex T. Jacob wrote: I am going to find a away, how I am not sure, to use these ideas in a fictional piece I have in mind.

The juju man averting the evil eye.

Do you mean (about being here for different reasons than what I say) that you think I am just preaching?

It seems to me you're struggling with something. All that talk is mostly distraction, customized for and aimed at yourself.

Diebert wrote: "It seems to me you're struggling with something."

Finally, you say something just a wee bit perceptive. Of course I am struggling with something. To really think things through is to struggle through. It is almost endless what I struggle with. I also see all people, all the time, struggling. What interests me, and greatly, are 'conceptual pathways' that go to hell-realms and to heaven-realms. In the Grand Metaphor in which we are all participating such 'pathways' are crucial.

All you are doing here, Diebert, and it is quite boring, and somewhat beneath you, is playing cheap psychologist. I only deal with expensive psychologists.

If there is anything---ANYTHING---you want to know about me, just ask.

"The juju man averting the evil eye."

Tan bobito tu eres a veces!

Repeat question: If you think I'm stuck in a mental cage you should really try to demonstrate it.

Make it substantial or I will stop responding to you.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:If there is anything---ANYTHING---you want to know about me, just ask.

Previously, on the David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION thread...

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Also, respectfully, though you may be right that I don't 'understand' what you are talking about (because my core presuppositions are different, of course!), it is not at all that I have not known or felt 'enlightenment'. It is just not something that I would ever talk about.

Stay tuned for the latest episode...

Alex T. Jacob wrote: To really think things through is to struggle through.

To really think things through is always clarifying. It's a struggle when there's a block preventing the process.

In what way do you think I am insincere? I would really like to hear what you have to say.

You're just stalling, dragging it out now. It would be just a repeat of the various earlier exchanges, right back to our first discussion. Your request just reveals an unwillingness to [let it] go.

C’est des conneries. When a conversation moves into a territory that is uncomfortable for you-plural, you derail the conversation. It is literally infantile.

Alex T. Jacob wrote:Howdy Jason,

When you just disappear, where do you go?

What do you mean? When do I "disappear"? You mean when I don't post for a while?

The 'conversation' (more a monologue I realize, except for some tepid observations from Diebert which serve more to derail than anything else) has helped me to concretize 'the issue'. I don't care how advanced these assholes think they are, or say they are, what I see are a group of kids 'playing' at spirituality. True, they have trekked back toward the Font, in that Mysterious Mountain so few even conceive exists, and at the very least seem aware that there are Sacred Waters, but I would like to suggest that in no sense have they really touched, or drank from, those waters. Though their whole trip is in saying they have and do.

The so-called "assholes" you are referring to are not even attempting to engage in "spirituality" as you define it.

You seem to view spirituality as being at least partly a means to satisfy deep human needs. That is certainly not one of the main aims or concerns of the GF contributors that you are taking issue with. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Most of their path is very "ascetic" in a sense, it might even be compared to self-mortification, with the sin being irrationality and the punishment being a strict adherence to reason. They readily admit that their path consists of much pain and suffering - self-inflicted. It's seen as a byproduct of the method by which purification is attained. It has nothing to do with attempting to placate and satisfy human needs.

The Principle, reason, logic, takes absolute unwavering precedence over any satisfaction of the human - the human's needs and desires are a problem, and the human passes through this shredder of reason and gets various parts lopped off, leaving only the core supposedly perfected being on the other end.

I'm no stranger to this type of mindset. I've lived it. I've considered it to be somewhat masochistic in a way, and likewise I've considered it to be somewhat sadistic when attempts are made to spread the mindset. The Principle takes center stage, and the human is hostage to it. Truth, whatever that is thought to be, supersedes all, even if bowing to its principles causes major suffering and dissatisfaction verging on complete breakdown.

I think this post by Dan is a good illustration of how The Thought becomes a beast that rules the thinker's life.

Note that I'm not saying that I disagree with this path.

That represents failure in my book. I would like to suggest that True Water (referring to The Well) has a very different effect on the human organism.

The effect on the human organism is ultimately not important - it's all about consistently conforming to The Principle. You seem to approach this almost from the opposite direction - always concerned with the outcome, the fate, the satisfaction of the human. The human comes a far second to The Principle.

I see a lot of similarities to science in their method. The answers that science gives are not at all designed to be comforting, satisfying or even significantly meaningful to humans and their everyday life. The answers are simply meant to be accurate, correct, true - stuff if it they upset humans or make some of their lives less satisfying.

It seems absolutely crucial to understand that whatever it is that we refer to with the word 'spirituality', that we have to be clear about what it is NOT. Part of the conversation about such an important theme has as its purpose the attempt to define what spirituality isn't. At the same time its purpose is to attempt to define what it is, what it can and should be. Based partly on the time I have spent here, I am largely convinced that it must be about a union between all the different parts of the person: emotional, intellectual, somatic.

Well then you are simply talking about an entirely different conception of "spirituality." You're talking about cats and they're talking about dogs, so you're not even having a meaningful argument. "They like to chase balls!" "No they don't, they like to lick their fur for hours!"

One of the problems is that many who write here are essentially uneducated and preliterate persons. But to handle ideas, to come under the sway of great ideas and great men requires greatness.

You don't need to be "literate" when The Principle is so simple and it's the only thing you need to know to accomplish your goal.