McMahon, in "Divine Fury," is convincing in his notion that genius, or the concept of it, has far more to do with how we view the world than meets the eye. Looking back to the 18th century, when the Age of Enlightenment shattered the remnants of the Old Regime, the now-famous philosophers - Hobbes, Locke and Helvetius - argued that genius was a product of education - that is, that all had the ability to become geniuses. It was Locke who first stated that we are "tabula rasas," blank slates whose minds were inscribed only with the annotations of experience (thus founding the English Empiricist School) As an anthropologist, I know well that this notion, while seldom stated so starkly, is the driving idea behind current social theory. In anthro, it is so because of the late 19th and early 20th century attempts to classify people's abilities by race; in Locke's time, it was so to abolish the idea of an aristocracy of blood - that is, to open the way for democratic institutions, as no one would then be "born to lead."
That this is clearly our favored public view of "genius" is also witnessed by the great success of Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers," where he reiterates the 18th century idea that "genius" is born from practice in the "10,000 hour" dictum; that is, that it takes 10 thousand hours of practice to become an expert at anything. Gladwell also repeats Helvetius's idea that a 'genius' becomes so by being at the right time and place. Putting these two ideas together, he recounts stories of successful people. Bill Gates, for instance, happened to be in the West Coast near a major college (I forget which) just at the time that computers were being developed there. He was able to gain access to them at an early age, spent his 10 thousand hours, and peaked just as the technology was becoming sufficient to go public.
The account is well verified, but it begs the question that bothered other 18th century thinkers and still hounds us like a shadow: why Bill Gates and not Joe Average? What made HIM the guy who took advantage of his circumstances and not others? What gave him the drive and the abilities beyond all others?
Gladwell remains content with the notion of "hours of practice at the right time in history," staying comfortably in the "politcally correct" zone that we are all equal, regardless, but McMahon does not - it is not his role. Rather, he continues to show how "genius" was further modified by the French Revolution and other factors to make the uncomfortable blend that we REALLY believe today - that is, that environment has something to do with intelligence, but, really, for those at the high end, it is inborn. This notion, if we dare mention it, proceeds on to races: Jews, many believe, are smarter in general and Chinese with math in particular, leaving us in our uncomfortable situation: if some races can be smarter, can't others be less so? Afro Americans, for instance, are believed (with good practical reason) to be better racially at sports; could they not be less capable at things of the mind? And what of European whites? Did their culture not conquer the world?
I can say that anthropology, at least at my time of studies in the '80's, did not have the answer. There are others, though: Carl Jung believed in racial archetypes, and abilities accrued through them in a non-empiricist fashion that has not sat comfortably with today's social scientists. Fred Myers, writing from the late 19th century, was more specific, at least concerning genius, and he seems to have solved the problem that I have stated: genius came from a vast "overmind" that was available to all but accessed only by a few because of natural disposition or accident. Thus we find that there is a natural disposition (which we all must admit), but this does not dismiss the possibility that we ALL are part of genius, just as each island is a part of the ocean floor. Culture does push us away from or towards this genius, but individually we all have access to it if we wish. Yes, practice makes good, but genius is something set apart. While some are born to it, all can develop it using certain techniques of meditation, hypnosis, and several other techniques.
But where resides this "overmind"? It is, believes Myers, in a spirit realm of sorts - which again confounds and frustrates the empiricist. But as McMahon shows, ours (Western Culture) was the first to abandon God ever. All others, including pre-enlightenment Europe, believed in the genii - the spirit - of inspiration (literally, the indwelling of spirit); it is ours alone that manufactured, for reasons of expedience (as with Descartes) the empirical model. But as Fred Meyers stated, we have taken this view and held to a certain notion of it regardless of the proof. True empiricism lies on experience, and experience has shown to us without question that there is a spirit world, however we wish to define it. And from that, from that inspiration, the seed of genius is born. We shall see what McMahon makes of the Myers and the late 19th century in chapters to come. FK
That this is clearly our favored public view of "genius" is also witnessed by the great success of Malcom Gladwell's "Outliers," where he reiterates the 18th century idea that "genius" is born from practice in the "10,000 hour" dictum; that is, that it takes 10 thousand hours of practice to become an expert at anything. Gladwell also repeats Helvetius's idea that a 'genius' becomes so by being at the right time and place. Putting these two ideas together, he recounts stories of successful people. Bill Gates, for instance, happened to be in the West Coast near a major college (I forget which) just at the time that computers were being developed there. He was able to gain access to them at an early age, spent his 10 thousand hours, and peaked just as the technology was becoming sufficient to go public.
The account is well verified, but it begs the question that bothered other 18th century thinkers and still hounds us like a shadow: why Bill Gates and not Joe Average? What made HIM the guy who took advantage of his circumstances and not others? What gave him the drive and the abilities beyond all others?
Gladwell remains content with the notion of "hours of practice at the right time in history," staying comfortably in the "politcally correct" zone that we are all equal, regardless, but McMahon does not - it is not his role. Rather, he continues to show how "genius" was further modified by the French Revolution and other factors to make the uncomfortable blend that we REALLY believe today - that is, that environment has something to do with intelligence, but, really, for those at the high end, it is inborn. This notion, if we dare mention it, proceeds on to races: Jews, many believe, are smarter in general and Chinese with math in particular, leaving us in our uncomfortable situation: if some races can be smarter, can't others be less so? Afro Americans, for instance, are believed (with good practical reason) to be better racially at sports; could they not be less capable at things of the mind? And what of European whites? Did their culture not conquer the world?
I can say that anthropology, at least at my time of studies in the '80's, did not have the answer. There are others, though: Carl Jung believed in racial archetypes, and abilities accrued through them in a non-empiricist fashion that has not sat comfortably with today's social scientists. Fred Myers, writing from the late 19th century, was more specific, at least concerning genius, and he seems to have solved the problem that I have stated: genius came from a vast "overmind" that was available to all but accessed only by a few because of natural disposition or accident. Thus we find that there is a natural disposition (which we all must admit), but this does not dismiss the possibility that we ALL are part of genius, just as each island is a part of the ocean floor. Culture does push us away from or towards this genius, but individually we all have access to it if we wish. Yes, practice makes good, but genius is something set apart. While some are born to it, all can develop it using certain techniques of meditation, hypnosis, and several other techniques.
But where resides this "overmind"? It is, believes Myers, in a spirit realm of sorts - which again confounds and frustrates the empiricist. But as McMahon shows, ours (Western Culture) was the first to abandon God ever. All others, including pre-enlightenment Europe, believed in the genii - the spirit - of inspiration (literally, the indwelling of spirit); it is ours alone that manufactured, for reasons of expedience (as with Descartes) the empirical model. But as Fred Meyers stated, we have taken this view and held to a certain notion of it regardless of the proof. True empiricism lies on experience, and experience has shown to us without question that there is a spirit world, however we wish to define it. And from that, from that inspiration, the seed of genius is born. We shall see what McMahon makes of the Myers and the late 19th century in chapters to come. FK
RSS Feed