Female Genius

[Alex T. Jacob]

• Does anybody pick on Deja-vu? Dan seems to want something from Deja-vu that Deja-vu does not want to give. Isn't it more fair, more accurate, to say that Deja-vu 'picks on' some 'guys'?
• (I only suggest this in the spirit of accuracy of description, not taking sides. Anyone who grasps the 'sizeless makers of the mole and whale' gets special treatment in my book).
• And who's complaining about 'picking' anyway? Deja-vu?

[Kunga]

Fair enough, although it's a suspicious statement considering your earlier description of the men you so selflessly care for, all being locked to stupid tv shows, videos games and porn. Or perhaps you see in him something similar !-)

i guess i would expect people that consider themselves highly intelligent...or truth seekers...to have a bit more equanimity built into their radar...being obsessed about critisising others in a spirit of hatred and loathing seems to me to be more revelatory of an internal conflict. Maybe it's a tendency of an obsessive-compulsive personality.

I feel sorry for the men in my life that have no interest in pursuing Truth.
I consider Dejavu a highly intelligent, creative, loving, humorus personality.
I am perplexed by the smug assessments of him. He has graciously accepted his attacks and humorously deflected it's negitive energy.

I sense a lot of testosterone flying through the cyberspace !

i've spent the whle morning reading and responding and not posting ...i am exasperated by the lack of peacefulness within us ...triggering negative responses and causing emotional outbreaks amongst each other.


Isn't GENIUS also having the ability to co-exist and live in peace ???

[Anders Schlander]

sometimes the desire to co-exist in peace stands against progress rather than helping it. Sometimes conflict is neccesary to resolve problems...

Think of couple, one day, they both contract a deadly bacteria that causes a visible sign that looks quite nasty. They don't know its deadly, and they both have a sign, unkown to themselves, quite protruding in their foreheads, nobody wishes to tell the other person that they theres this 'mold' on their foreheads, because it would be rude to tell them that they look stupid. Eventually, since they have no mirrors, and nobody wishes to point out the mistake, they both get quite ill, noticing the mold too late, they die.

In the same way, if nobody is willing to create conflict, you'll eventually end up with the blind leading the blind into pits.

[Kunga]

lol...well that's where love comes in...when you love someone you care about their well-being and if you notice something strange growning on their forehead you try to help them.....we've been fighting on this planet forever...where has it gotton us ?

It's easy to use brute force compaired to using your brain to negotiate a peaceful solution.
But the only way we learn is by making mistakes....peace and co-existing are attributes of a higher civilization. Hatred & war ...continuous conflicts ...of a barbaric "civilization" . But you are right...the only way to peace for us will be through war...the only way we can learn is through the school of hard knocks. Without conflict there can be no peace.

[pointexter]

Those who feel a profound need to justify themselves,
have difficulty with the pointing of those who do not.

Those who seek to understand have no use for one,
who having understood, has no understanding to impart.

Left to face void, alone, will not go there, when already are there.
When looking, only looks at and for.

Who sees other, searches.
Who searches, sees other.
Seeking to draw answer therefrom and thereupon.

To construct a mirror upon which to reflect.
Thus, illusion be given form in the shape of reflected delusion.

Who, looking through a window,
sees their reflection in the glass.

Who looks and sees nothing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You have plenty of writing, reasoning and words from me here, coursed over some years. But still we will never be "entirely clear" to one another in this.

My larger point needs perhaps explaining. You were addressing the mythical image of this "the sage-who-removes-itself", but this makes it hard to know about whom we're talking exactly. To me for example Alex seems way more removed than the usual targets of his criticism, with the intellectual frameworks he loves to invoke, the explaining power he desires to wield, the lack of the hard logic of reasoning. Reasoning at the core is very down to earth, very basic, here, as it must be grounded in presence and attention, in self-knowledge and self-experience more than anything else I can think of.

But I can only guess you were addressing a tendency on this forum, by... Kevin? Ryan? It becomes all very vague. So I turned the focus back on you and me having his conversation: to pull you down to an actual mutual understanding. We've done it before so I don't doubt your ability.

Bible: In the beginning was the Word . . . .
Faust: Ah, no - In the beginning was the Deed . . . . :

The Bible however continues with: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us". The Biblical term introduces the Logos as something the Deed happens through. Without it, there are no deeds whatsoever, only events. And even passively witnessing an event could be called a deed, indeed, as one keeps invoking frameworks to indicate and implicate.

[Pye]

Diebert: My larger point needs perhaps explaining. You were addressing the mythical image of this "the sage-who-removes-itself", but this makes it hard to know about whom we're talking exactly . . . But I can only guess you were addressing a tendency on this forum, by... Kevin? Ryan?

I had no one in mind from here, Diebert, for what I had in mind wouldn't be here at all. The rhetorical address was indeed to the paradigm itself, yet everywhere I suspect are the 'withdrawn from the worldly,' or at least, those who believe they are. Better, those who believe they cannot attain the desired consciousness except under these delicate and retreating conditions. It's a false paradigm that speaks to weakness and not to strength.

Alex: It seems, Pye, that if you are asking a question, it is a question that can only be answered 'psychologically'.

I was asking after the rationale. If none can be provided, perhaps then is the appropriate time to lay it on the couch.

Maybe this is a good time for you to explain what you mean by 'psychological'? Does this refer to a deterministic view of everything pertaining to the human mind, including its rationale? I hadn't got the impression that you considered reason a non-creational mechanism.

Any psychologist of worth that I have ever known has expressly considered the 'way out' of these unconscious (hence mechanistic) pathologies to be the very use of the rational capacity. It's creational in every way.

[Conservationist]

Eh, female genius exists, but per the complementary principle of the sexes, it doesn't occur in the same way as male genius.

Arguably Mary Shelley and Jane Austen were genius, for a quick example.

Female genius is not as rare as genius among the non-favored races (Negroes, lower Asians, hybrids like Mexican indios) but it often expresses itself in ways that are not measured as they're directed into family and community. It cannot replace male genius for leadership, anecdotally.

[Kelly Jones]

Arguably Mary Shelley and Jane Austen were genius, for a quick example.

Can you read the introduction to this forum before making any more posts, please?


..

[Conservationist]

Arguably Mary Shelley and Jane Austen were genius, for a quick example.

Can you read the introduction to this forum before making any more posts, please?


..

I dislike passive aggression.

Genius is a function of one's relationship with Ultimate Reality and thus is a function of consciousness. The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

You mean that part, to which my definition of genius is conflatable?

[Kelly Jones]

Only slight impatience. I could see that you hadn't read the forum introduction. It is designed to get our visitors up-to-speed on the purpose of the Genius Forum. You could also check out the high-quality material available via theabsolute.net, the entry page to the forum.

I don't know why, but links to the Thinking Man's Minefield, David Quinn's website, and Absolute TV have all been removed from the forum banner. Seems a tad short-sighted.


You asked, "You mean that part, to which my definition of genius is conflatable?"

Mary Shelley and Jane Austen weren't geniuses. They had some talent for making up stories that would frighten children, and observing match-making techniques, basically. Johann Sebastian Bach was far more talented, creative, intelligent, and insightful, yet he too was not a genius.


..

[Kelly Jones]

You could do worse than to peruse Dan Rowden's website at your leisure. It's here.


..

[Conservationist]

I could see that you hadn't read the forum introduction.

You were wrong.

:)

[Kelly Jones]

Well, what were your thoughts from reading about the definitions of genius, including the quotes?

If you read the introduction, you would have noticed that Bach, Einstein, et al. are not regarded as geniuses, by the author of the introduction. Yet you decided to post that Mary Shelley and Jane Austen were geniuses. Didn't it occur to you that there was some kind of dissonance between your definition of genius, and the one in the introduction? If so, perhaps you could explain why you ignored that dissonance.


..

[Conservationist]

Well, what were your thoughts from reading about the definitions of genius, including the quotes?

I agree with it. There's a difference between great talent (Einstein) and genius in perceiving reality and a transcendental approach to it (Schopenhauer).

However, what you and I disagree on is that those people did not also possess this.

Your one comment to me has consistently been "you don't understand, you didn't bother to understand" -- never even considering that my position is legitimate.

Further, you're a classic case of nurture over nature, which is unscientific and illogical. The basic problem with humanity is stupidity; enlightenment has no bearing on this other than to avoid it. But part of realism is recognizing it, and enlightenment won't happen without realism.

Why don't you just take it to its logical extreme and tell us about all the Down's syndrome kids who became transcendental geniuses?

[Kelly Jones]

Well, what were your thoughts from reading about the definitions of genius, including the quotes?

I agree with it. There's a difference between great talent (Einstein) and genius in perceiving reality and a transcendental approach to it (Schopenhauer).

However, what you and I disagree on is that those people did not also possess this.

Which people are you referring to? Jane Austen and Mary Shelley? If so, you need to explain precisely what leads you to believe they perceived the true nature of Reality. Claims without evidence aren't acceptable.

Your one comment to me has consistently been "you don't understand, you didn't bother to understand" -- never even considering that my position is legitimate.

You didn't give any information to support your position, so how could I consider it legitimate?

Further, you're a classic case of nurture over nature, which is unscientific and illogical.

You're making assumptions there. Intelligence isn't biologically determined, which is evident in that genius doesn't run in families. But nor is it wholly generated without biological factors (such as a functional brain).

The basic problem with humanity is stupidity; enlightenment has no bearing on this other than to avoid it. But part of realism is recognizing it, and enlightenment won't happen without realism.

The problem is not stupidity but lack of courage. Almost everyone (every male, that is) is cunning and inventive in finding ways to circumvent conscious reasoning. Most have the well-practised knack of justifying or rationalising the avoidance of reason. But this all boils down to fear of reason, not ignorance, since they intuit that reasoning will reveal something difficult and uncomfortable.

Why don't you just take it to its logical extreme and tell us about all the Down's syndrome kids who became transcendental geniuses?

Try not to make false assumptions. Saves energy.


.

[Dauphine]

Perhaps you could point out those "obvious" logical fallacies? - especially given the quotes don't formally make an argument, as such...

Some things are too obvious to point out.

That would come under the heading: "classic cop-out". As for the Paglia quote, the larger quote is:

"Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials. But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper. Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures. I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. Genius is not checked by social obstacles: it will overcome. Men's egotism, so disgusting in the talentless, is the source of their greatness as a sex. . . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."

You must mean a broader context still because that doesn't seem to make your case (whatever that really is anyway). Why don't you simply state what that case is?

The problem with Sontag's opinion, quoted above, is this: While she might be right that pen and paper were equally available to men and women [At different points in history, and in different locations, when was this true, and for how long?], education in writing, math, and basic science have not been equally available to women over the long period of time implied by the list of geniuses (this appears to be the plural in use here?) in discussion here. Further, being able to achieve genius in math, poetry, and/or philosophy and record it with pen and paper, did women have equal access to publishers, universities, and intellectual societies so that their work could become known?
Left completely unaddressed is the problem of suspicion of witchcraft. I imagine more than one woman was accused by illiterate people who feared a woman who could write poetry and work out figures. Both appear magical when done by a genius.

Just my tuppence's worth.

[paco]

incomparably beautiful

[Kelly Jones]

As for the Paglia quote, the larger quote is:

"Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials. But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper. Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures. I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant. Genius is not checked by social obstacles: it will overcome. Men's egotism, so disgusting in the talentless, is the source of their greatness as a sex. . . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."

You must mean a broader context still because that doesn't seem to make your case (whatever that really is anyway). Why don't you simply state what that case is?

The problem with Sontag's opinion, quoted above, is this:

Susan Sontag wouldn't write something like that. It's Camille Paglia, from Sexual Personae.

While she might be right that pen and paper were equally available to men and women [At different points in history, and in different locations, when was this true, and for how long?],

All cultures for millions of years have had some form of making marks, even if it's not the paper and pencils we know of. Even scratching symbols on a rock.

education in writing,

Even the illiterate make up their own secret symbols. Hunters, for instance, can read marks in the landscape, and intentionally make marks for others to read. One renowned illiterate, Hui Neng, was regarded as an uneducated barbarian by his peers fit only for grinding rice in the monastery mill - but the abbot recognised his understanding and secretly chose him as his successor as the fifth Zen patriarch. Hui Neng needed people to read texts to him before he could explain them, yet his understanding improved theirs.

math,

Math was invented accumulatively. It didn't drop out of heaven fully formed. Inventive minds created new theories out of nothing. For instance, Srinivasa Ramanujan.

and basic science

Basic science comes from the individual's own observations and thought. Every individual who creates a scientific theory relies on their own private calculations and generalisations.

have not been equally available to women over the long period of time implied by the list of geniuses (this appears to be the plural in use here?) in discussion here.

Some girls have been going to schools, or receiving private education, for millenia.

But don't forget that most people didn't receive formal educations, particularly the poor, since their labour was of greater value: "A person's social class, caste or gender might in turn determine or limit the occupations which he or she might follow and the education that he or she would receive." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education)

Instances of girls' education in ancient civilisations:

- Women as well as men learned to read and write, and for the Semitic Babylonians, this involved knowledge of the extinct Sumerian language, and a complicated and extensive syllabary. Vocabularies, grammars, and interlinear translations were compiled for the use of students, as well as commentaries on the older texts and explanations of obscure words and phrases. Massive archives of texts were recovered from the archaeological contexts of Old Babylonian scribal schools, through which literacy was disseminated. The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Ancient Mesopotamia is among the earliest known works of literary fiction. The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BC) (Dalley 1989: 41-42). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education)

- Although girls were not provided with formal education in the yeshivah, they were required to know a large part of the subject areas to prepare them to maintain the home after marriage, and to educate the children before the age of seven. Despite this schooling system, it would seem that many children did not learn to read and write, because it has been estimated that at least 90 percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the first centuries AD could merely write their own name or not write and read at all, or that the literacy rate was about 3 percent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education)

- For most of Greek history, education was private, except in Sparta. During the Hellenistic period, some city-states established public schools. Only wealthy families could afford a teacher. Boys learned how to read, write and quote literature. They also learned to sing and play one musical instrument and were trained as athletes for military service. They studied not for a job but to become an effective citizen. Girls also learned to read, write and do simple arithmetic so they could manage the household. They almost never received education after childhood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece)

- If their parents could afford it, boys and some girls at the age of 7 were sent to a private school outside the home called a ludus, where a teacher (called a litterator or a magister ludi, and often of Greek origin) taught them basic reading, writing, arithmetic, and sometimes Greek, until the age of 11. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome)

- Madam Ban Zhao, Female Confucian philosopher and historian, (ca. 45-116 CE) wrote "Admonitions for Women" for Chinese women, promoting the view of the ideal woman as someone who is retiring, silent and fertile. She possesses inner strength and is known for her forbearance and patient sense of restraint. Clearly some women are getting educated. Also, Empress Wu Zetian (624-705 CE) had "Biographies of Notable Women" written on her behalf, and changed policies in order to ascend the throne. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian)

- Until as late as the nineteenth century, all university fellows and many schoolmasters were expected or required to be in holy orders. Schoolmistresses typically taught the three Rs (reading, writing and 'rithmetic) in dame schools, charity schools, or informal village schools. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... in_England)

Further, being able to achieve genius in math, poetry, and/or philosophy and record it with pen and paper, did women have equal access to publishers, universities, and intellectual societies so that their work could become known?

Well, let's narrow it down to a period in history where all people have easy access to publishers, universities, and intellectual societies. So, that would be the last couple of centuries since the industrial revolution. There have been plenty of publications by women in this period, as you are no doubt aware.

Left completely unaddressed is the problem of suspicion of witchcraft. I imagine more than one woman was accused by illiterate people who feared a woman who could write poetry and work out figures. Both appear magical when done by a genius.

Well, she wouldn't be much of a genius if she couldn't figure out how to avoid being thrown into a pond by morons. For instance, Galileo renounced his views in public, under threat of death by the Catholic rulers of his time, so as to develop his ideas further in secret while under arrest. He managed to pass the texts on to friends later in life. So even though it looked as though he submitted to a crazy regime, he realised he had to preserve his life in order for the ideas to have a chance for survival in a more receptive culture. Alternatively, he could have become a martyr to a culture who probably would have gone onto develop new religious sects, rather than make scientific advances.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Some girls have been going to schools, or receiving private education, for millenia.

Immortals!

[paco]

fame and wealth will not be marked by one's riches and followers, but by one's perceived riches and followers.

Gurrb!!!!!

[paco]

• Does anybody pick on Deja-vu? Dan seems to want something from Deja-vu that Deja-vu does not want to give. Isn't it more fair, more accurate, to say that Deja-vu 'picks on' some 'guys'?
• (I only suggest this in the spirit of accuracy of description, not taking sides. Anyone who grasps the 'sizeless makers of the mole and whale' gets special treatment in my book).
• And who's complaining about 'picking' anyway? Deja-vu?

God

[Blair]

Dejavu is the biggest pile of dogshit to to ever walk the earth, and he knows it. Alex might come second.