GENIUS FORUMS

Good evening gentlemen,

(I realize saying good evening in an international and intertemporal dimension is simply an outmoded convention, so forgive me! But I do like the old quaintitudes- they remind me of a better time when the strong and smart were rightly honored!)

I know many of you were born aware of your own stifling intellectual superiority over the common man/woman/racial. But I myself only became aware of this acute imbalance in reasoning power at around age 8. Let me share with you this amusing tale.

My peers at the time were engaging in simple physical activities like kickball or tag, but I grew quickly bored with such meaningless exertions of my lesser muscles. Instead I preferred exercising that great oyster of wisdom in my skull. While a gaggle of inferiors ran giggling and farting around the playground, I sat alone on the monkey bars and contemplated various universal truths. My favorite activity during this time was nasal excavation- I believe even Plato and Aristotle knew the value of simple pleasures for a thinking man.

One little baboon, named Bubb or something like that, ran under me at such a time as to catch a dollop of my nasal bacterium directly in the face. He stopped immediately, screwing his eyes up comically, attempting to identify the unknown stimulus that had so rudely intruded on his insular little life. Slowly he raised his misshapen head and crowed shrilly: "Hey you dropped boogers on me! I'm telling!"

I smiled and addressed him calmly, never taking my eyes from him- the lower orders grow powerless when fixed by a piercing gaze of intelligence and wisdom. "Now then little boy, how dare you address me in such a tone? And look at your face, you are a dirty little scoundrel. Go wash that off immediately!"

He ran off, bewildered, and no trouble came of the incident. By utilizing the language and expressions of an adult, and therefore a societal superior, I had gained complete control over the brute. I began using this method more and more, even achieving a series of disciplinary calls home when Bubb and some other boors beat me over the next few years. My triumph gave me insight into sociological secrets and launched me on my life of studious thought.

From that day forward, I knew I was a genius.

Please share your stories. When did you first discover your powerful intellects?

Is this the sort of low brow satire that we can expect from the "Somethingawful" membership, pray tell? This is not a board for geniuses, it's a board about genius.

Please share your stories. When did you first discover your powerful intellects?

you might be insterested in this from Genius News (see link up top)

Matthew Timpanelli: I think it is a very difficult thing to discern who really is a genius from a forum such as this. Yes, many have an advanced intellect, but how exactly would one go about catagorizing one as a genius?

David Quinn: That's easy enough. By examining their words and assessing whether they are consistent with the genius's comprehension of Reality.

Matthew Timpanelli: If I was a genius and looked at all the posters in the forum, I wouldn't see any genius because (a) I posses genius where some do not and (b) because some posseses genius beyond what I can understand.

David Quinn: If you were a genius, then you would have no major difficulties in being able to judge those who were not up to your level of genius. As for those who have more genius than yourself, they would necessarily be geniuses by default.

Matthew Timpanelli: If Leonardo da Vinci wandered in here and gave his views about enlightenment, would we recognize his genius?

David Quinn: Was Leonardo Da Vinci a genius? I see no evidence of it. He was energetic and inventive, yes. But a genius ....? I don't think so.

Matthew Timpanelli: You must not be familiar with Leonardo da Vinci's life. He is exactly what you describe. I suggest you look him up. A very interesting character, indeed. He was probably the first scientist to study human organs in dead bodies, an experiment which could have gotten him arrested in that time. An example of how you would characterize him as a genius would be, he used to sit and study how birds flap their wings for days, weeks. He was an observer, and studied reality till his death.

David Quinn: He was a scientist-type. As far as I know, he didn't attempt to open himself up to the Infinite. Nor did he encourage people to abandon their delusions or challenge them to strive for ultimate knowledge. He displayed none of the traits of a true genius.

Matthew Timpanelli: In my view, he may have been the only genius to grace this earth.

David Quinn: Well, let's put this to a test: What, in your view, was the wisest thing he ever did or said?

Matthew Timpanelli: "Iron rusts from disuse; stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind."

David Quinn: "Use it or lose it", as the saying goes these days.

Matthew Timpanelli: I don't believe this to be the wisest thing he has ever said, but this really does sum up his life. His never ending quest for the truth. His accomplishments speak for themselves. He was making plans for tanks and helicopters 100s of years before they were brought to life.

All these scientific accomplishments aside, his greatest accomplishments are those of an artist. You are wrong to say he is a scientist type, because truly he was a painter. All his scientific work was due to his gift of observation. His greatest work though was in my opinion the "Last Supper".

David Quinn: To me, all of this constitutes proof that he wasn't a genius. Instead of focusing upon the only matter which befits a genius - namely, the deepest comprehension of Reality - Leonardo instead diverted himself with the painting of pretty pictures and the invention of toys. So rather than think of him as a genius, we should regard him as someone who frittered away his great potential for genius on mere trifles.

Matthew Timpanelli: To me a true genius is one that can express beauty and emotion in such a way that no one can deny. Simply said, the man was far ahead of his time. When everyone was superstitious, he was a man who changed the way we think today.

David Quinn: That may well have been his greatest accomplishment, yes. For that he should be commended.

Still, I don't believe that mere inventiveness and artistic skill is enough to qualify one as a genius. What is invention exactly? It is the process of creating something new and useful. For this to spark into action, a person needs to find ways of escaping the traditional manner of viewing the world so as to free up his mind and enable him to make new mental connections. This is all very admirable, and it does share a set of traits that are found in the true genius (as I define the term). But it's not enough. It's what we do with this great freeedom of mind that determines our level of genius.

What distinguishes a person of genius from the rest of the human race is his authoritative grasp of Reality. Most people tend to hold back in their thinking, for fear of gaining genuine knowledge of anything. The genius, by contrast, goes for the jugular without any hesitation at all. He doesn't rest until he has shaken every last secret from Nature. But most people are far too modest and humble to attempt anything like this.

In other words, genius isn't a function of intelligence as such, but rather of the application of intelligence. Genius is the fruit of intelligence applied wisely. Most men have the genius seed inside them; all it needs is a bit of nurturing for it to grow and flower. But most people aren't interested and it shows in their words and behaviour.

Matthew Timpanelli: All of your ideas, DQ, about genius are a matter of opinion. You make it seem as if a genius is easily spotted by his thirst for knowledge of realtiy. [If that were the case], wouldn't all of us here be geniuses? To actually find out who is a genius we would have to define what genius is. The definition of genius is quite varied from person to person.

David Quinn: I define it as the ability to thrive and prosper in the light of Truth. The genius is easily spotted (at least by other geniuses) by his comprehension of Reality and the demeanour this produces.

WolfsonJakk: The greatest scientists have more in common with the greatest artists than they do with other artists or scientists. People should pay more attention to the Cubist period (led by Picasso) of modern painting history in conjunction with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein once described his ideas as visual: "I experienced the barn as I past on the train all at once...."

...speaking of his imaginings of approaching the speed of light.

Picasso once said of his Cubist period something like "...I experienced my subjects from many different angles and even times". The two were contemporaries, though not aquaintances. They did not know each other, it is presumed.

Zagreus: The greatest artists and scientists only have to do with each other what a great man has to do with them. He can only do away with them ultimately.

Scatteredmind: Definitions are always a matter of opinion. So there must be as many forms of genius as there are opinions. Surely David's opinion of genius is simply that-- David's opinion of genius. But David, poor David. Won't anyone ever live up to your definition? Intentional dismissal of people not up to your standards is not a good definition. You are no more genius than my left foot. It seems abrashness is the only thing that gets noticed here - never mind genius. How sad.

David Quinn: If we don't raise the definition of genius to the highest degree, then all we do is weaken and dilute it. This would then lead us to lower our standards and cause us to start calling the merely talented and the industrious "geniuses" ......

Avidaloca: I think this is a simple matter of David Quinn's definition of genuis being vastly different to the average person's understanding of it as someone who is exceptionally gifted in a certain field (or just generally). David thinks of the word as the embodiment of a wise person or someone who has attained enlightenment, which could not be said to be the usual use or understanding of the term.

Scatteredmind: David's definition of Genius is akin to God. Why expect, or accept, anything less? Man cannot be God.

David Quinn: I don't believe that my concept of genius is all that different to traditional concepts of it. In essence, all I'm doing is isolating the genius portion of great scientists and artists such as Einstein and Michelangelo, and relating this portion to the greater concentration of genius found in wise people such as Jesus, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Buddha, Weininger, etc.

The "genius" exhibited by Einstein and Michelangelo is really just a weakened form of spiritual genius applied narrowly within a certain field of endeavour, such as the field of scientific theorizing or artistic expression. One of the major differences between an Einstein/Michelangelo and, say, a Jesus or a Weininger is that the former is unable to express his genius outside his field of expertise. Whenever Albert Einstein, for example, stepped outside of the realm of physics and commented upon other issues, he invariably displayed a complete lack of genius - as was evidenced by his painfully adolescent and uninspired philosophical observations. He magically ceased to be a genius in these circumstances and became just another ordinary man! This would never happen to a Jesus or a Weininger. The great spiritual genius never ceases to be a genius, no matter what he is doing.

Given this, one could perhaps say that da Vinci was a greater genius than either Einstein or Michelangelo, on account that he was extraordinary in both science and art. He was like an Einstein and a Michelangelo all rolled into one. That would certainly be a valid point to make, but still not a very interesting one. All it would mean is that da Vinci had a knack of spreading a weakened form of spiritual genius over many superficial areas. It's not much of an achievement.

Matthew Timpanelli: Actually, Michelangelo was more than just an artist. Architecture takes a great knowledge of physics and Michelangelo was one of the greatest architects ever. Also, he was a writer. Hence, the whole renaissance thing. This multi-disciplinary studies of art, nature, science, philosophy, etc.

A man like Jesus devoted most of his time to teaching. How does that make him more of a genius? Perhaps he is a genius because he was more accepted amongst his people. But this was only because they thought Jesus was there to free the Jews from oppression.

Dont get me wrong. I have a great respect for Jesus and Buddha. But don't count out everyone else just because they prefered to be an artist. Artistry is philosophy of pictures and feeling. Most great artists could do many other things but devote their time to making art because art is important. Is the statue of David less important than the Bible. No.

Take someone like M.C. Escher. The man created such beauty, and had mathmatical theories, but never graduated past the 4th grade. He found an importance in art more than any other field. My point, then, is that wisdom is shown just as much in art, if not more, than in books. In fact, writing is an art and so is everything else - math, science ......

Fail.

If you invested a little time reading the content posted by the geniuses here you could have come up with some satire that was actually relevant and funny. :|

You might try again with some jokes on their relationship with women, wisdom, life as illusion, superiority over all the deluded ones, absolute truth, etc, I think you have some potential.

or this one

Was Einstein a Genius?-

Dan Rowden: I rate Einstein more highly than Hawking. Theoretical physicists and mathematicians of Hawking's ilk are, to me, more or less just Bishops representing a modern religion - in this case the Church of the Big Bang.

That's for sure. I think Einstein could have been able to become enlightened, whereas Hawking has zero chance. Hawking is irrational to me. Einstein seemed to know the limitations of his theory, and was not impressed with the mathematical bullshit of QM theory. To me relativity is the key to everything.

For some reason I was expecting more from this crowd. I've been waiting for this forum to appear on Weekend Web for so long that when my dream finally came true, it turns out it wasn't worth the wait. A few trolls that couldn't cut it for more than a few hours, and some two-bit hecklers.

I'm disappointed. And a little embarassed that I sometimes like the stuff that appears at SA.

Ignus comes in many shapes and sizes. I think he's just having some more fun/wanting attention. I don't mind.

He is right, though, that the best place to study the sociological effects of nerd on bully is from the perspective of the nerd. I believe it was Nietzsche who proved that somewhere in the sixth book of the series, right after the death of Dumbledore.

It still doesn't make what he said funny, since he wrote it unconsciously.

Yesterday..6.24 pm.

<Full story in my memoirs.>

Kind of funny, but ultimately... ------------------->------------------------------------>--------------------------------->------------------------------------>>>

You sir are not a genius.

Don't let your false assumptions of "Genius" trick you into believing you are such.

To me, all of this constitutes proof that [da Vinci] wasn't a genius. Instead of focusing upon the only matter which befits a genius - namely, the deepest comprehension of Reality - Leonardo instead diverted himself with the painting of pretty pictures and the invention of toys. So rather than think of him as a genius, we should regard him as someone who frittered away his great potential for genius on mere trifles.

LOL.

I love this place.

Philo...

Not funny... stop being so jolly.




poop on a rat, poop on a cat.

Dear iSolvedPhilosophy911,

I am disappointed that none of the Senior Geniuses of this site has to date conducted a thorough personal analysis of the character flaws that hold you back from True Genius, although I have no doubt that you are indeed afflicted with a character crisis of some nature, because at least one Senior Genius has expressed disappointment with your post, and were you to have ascended to a level anywhere near His own I have no doubt that He would have recognised the unfailing, effortless wisdom that would in that case have naturally flowed from your fingers.

Being but a humble seeker, and far too beholden to my emotions (and, more frighteningly, to the bottomless pit that is Woman) to be considered anywhere near yet Enlightened, I cannot hope to have any success in accurately examining the deeper issues of your current existential state. I take some small comfort in my own progress though in that I am not so deluded as to deny that I am deluded; it is not, however, for me to know the full extent of my disconnection from Ultimate Reality: for that I defer to those who have trodden the spiritual path to its bitter end. Nevertheless, having some small (pray, Holy Trinity, do not crush me by adding the qualification "vanishingly") intellectual understanding of the concepts to which a True Genius is privy, and judging (oh, how imperfectly) that I have traversed more spiritual territory than has your (and please do not take offense, I speak honestly for your spiritual benefit) less advanced self, and given that our Elder Sages seem to have deemed the task fruitless, I will attempt to elucidate for you some of the conceptual framework that it is necessary for you to arrive at on your own should you wish to push yourself to the Final Realisation.

It is very important for a start that you think for yourself! Thinking for yourself begins with accepting the meanings that Senior Geniuses give to words such as "genius", "thing" and "enlightenment". The essence of True Genius is Humpty Dumpty. Perhaps you will understand what I mean a little better if I quote some Alice in Wonderland to you:

Lewis Carroll wrote:`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Note particularly Humpty's final sentence: this is a key point. The nature of Genius is to be the master of language. The True Genius is not concerned about other people's understandings, except so far as He can correct them. He (unfortunately, there have been no true female geniuses, except for those who have become men - and I'm not talking about surgery here either - and in that case it's more appropriate to refer to them as men anyway) is not concerned about what other people think, and especially not what other people expect words to mean. Only the True Genius knows the Absolute Meaning of a word; He does not kow-tow to delusional understandings of what a word points to: to Him it is a precious marker on the path to Enlightenment with a meaning that He has uncovered in his perfected strivings for Ultimate Understanding. Note also that only those who have gone all the way have access to this rarified understanding, so thinking for yourself involves first and foremost an alignment of your definitions with those of the Senior Geniuses. You will notice that the many free-thinking Seekers of this forum - those who are well on the way to Enlightenment - have taken this first step: they understand the necessity of the True Genius definition of Woman as unconsciousness; of God as "everything". They know (the Senior Geniuses have affirmed it) that there is no other way: more specifically, they know that any other way is Deluded. Indeed, they can prove it. They know that the logic of the Senior Geniuses is the only path.

Please also note the subtlety here though: recognising their unenlightenment, and recognising that the Elder Sages have achieved the intellectual component of Enlightenment, and accepting the proclamation of the Elder Sages that only the Enlightened are qualified to define Enlightenment as well as the mechanism by which Enlightenment is achieved, the Seekers are truly grateful for the guidance that they receive - they think for themselves but they have a wonderful safety-net: if what they think does not accord with the Perfect Wisdom of the Elder Sages then they know that they have erred. And how does a Seeker know that an Elder Sage is who He says He is? Why, because the Elder Sage has become Enlightened, and because Enlightened Ones speak only Truth, that's how! This, you might recognise, is a fine borrowing from the thinking of Christianity.

I hope, iSolvedPhilosophy911, that through my modest (but no doubt subtly deluded) contribution you now have a clearer understanding of the nature of Genius and of your failings in this regard. You should, of course, stay longer in the hope that one of the Elder Sages (or even one of my fellow but more advanced Seekers) exercises some of His abiding compassion by harshly criticising you, holding you to the fire and poisoning your heart. I know that a single sentence from one of these inspired men can be like a bolt of lightning to a sincere man, and you strike me as a particularly sincere man. Your post convinces me of the honesty of your intentions.

Your brother on the path to Ultimate Understanding,
Laird

Quote:
To me, all of this constitutes proof that [da Vinci] wasn't a genius. Instead of focusing upon the only matter which befits a genius - namely, the deepest comprehension of Reality - Leonardo instead diverted himself with the painting of pretty pictures and the invention of toys. So rather than think of him as a genius, we should regard him as someone who frittered away his great potential for genius on mere trifles.

Philo: LOL. I love this place.

Philo is right though. David's opinion above bears no resemblance to reality. One must ask what choice Da vinci had!

The world is a not a playtoy for philosophers, as David seems to take for granted. Rather it is dog eat dog world of survival of the fittest, which means people often have no choice than to toe the line, when necessary. It is something we learn from birth - David's obvious ego seems to imagine itself as an immaculate conception of humanity.

Laird wrote:. . . Your brother on the path to Ultimate Understanding,
Laird

The Yin and Yang ...dude. Women have a different type of genius than men. I think to deny feminine genius is to deny any possibility of understanding all that is genius.