Finishing with McMahon's "Divine Fury," we find that today, we are all geniuses - or, as he quotes commentator Charles Spearman, "every normal man, woman, and child is...a genius at something." Quoting from the ever-great 19th century commentator on American, Alexis de Tocqueville: "Scientific and literary genius is as rare as ability is common" in the United States; in advanced conditions of democracy and equality, "genius becomes rarer and enlightenment more common; what in aristocratic societies was concentrated, here it would be "divided equally among all," and with tremendous possibilities, unleashing a combined creative ingenuity greater than anything the world had known.'
So - is genius among us all, or has it been diluted by democracy? And if the latter, does this really lead to a "combined creative ingenuity greater that anything the world has known"? For those who have been to Europe, they might have found that even in countries where wealth has been heavily redistributed, there is still a notion of aristocracy that is expressed in both manners and bloodlines. And yet: where are the geniuses of yesteryear? Has Europe now attained such a level of equality (in custom, not cash) that it has banished its geniuses for the ingenuity of the masses?
Good questions, but ones that I will not attempt to answer here, because something more important was alluded to in the conclusion of the book: that is, that we have returned more to the time of the Romans and the Greeks (and to earlier societies) with our notion of genius. If the reader might recall, the Romans invented the birthday party not for the corporeal being but for his spirit companion, or his genii (or genius). This was not a fun idea, but something taken seriously, for they did not have modern psychology to explain to them how ideas and passions came to them. During the Classical era, then, it was thought that, even as everyone did not have the genius of Socrates, everyone DID have a genius, or a connection to a larger, more insightful world that is normally invisible to us.
When I compare the different perspectives on genius - the sociological, the psychological and the magical, I admit that I prefer, from experience, the last. The sociological explanation might explain the difference in the celebrity of genius, but it does not explain genius itself. Yes, it tries to, in fashioning a complex theory of socially constructed personality, but that does not wash with me concerning genius - that is, concerning the reception of ideas that, by definition, transcend society. As for psychology, that, too, is wanting - for the "subconscious" is nothing more than an abstract construction, similar to the social being itself. How does originality and creativity stem from a suppressed element in ourselves? Yes, here there might be great energy, but novel ideas that transcend personal and social knowledge? I am not convinced, to say the least. Rather, I believe the modern and ancient concepts are correct in that we all have, or can express, genius; but also that the ancients, and non-Western orientated moderns, are correct, or at least more correct, when they say that the genius exists outside of ourselves. Fred Myers claimed that "genius" exists at a common base that we all share and can access, but this amounts to the same thing as the spirits of the ancients - it, genius, is a thing apart, an element either foreign to or beyond our normal social persona. In both cases, it appears to the one experiencing it to have a mind of its own.
Thus while I wouldn't claim that all of us are geniuses - this is indeed a complex construct of an era - I would say that all of us have access to (or if you prefer, "a") genius. Most everyone reading this has encountered it - in flashes of insight as well as in odd moments of synchronicity. For those like myself who regularly engage in creative tasks, it often comes in sustained measures. In writing, for instance, I am often lost to time and myself in the task, and just as often wonder who the hell just wrote what apparently I did? Even more so than in the words, I find the strangeness in the overall structure and in its resolution, often demanding far greater insight - intelligence, if you wish to call it - than I normally possess. But that is not genius - that is accessing, or being accessed by genius. the final results, as one might guess, are in how the ephemeral personality handles the inspiration - and that is what separates the OK from the great. Why some have the ability to express this genius more clearly than others still remains a question, but for me, the question of genius, at least as to who has it, does not; we all do, as McMahon said. But it is not in response to democracy or society or our suppressed desires. Rather, it is a part of our total humanity, and truly the last - and endless - frontier for all of us. FK
So - is genius among us all, or has it been diluted by democracy? And if the latter, does this really lead to a "combined creative ingenuity greater that anything the world has known"? For those who have been to Europe, they might have found that even in countries where wealth has been heavily redistributed, there is still a notion of aristocracy that is expressed in both manners and bloodlines. And yet: where are the geniuses of yesteryear? Has Europe now attained such a level of equality (in custom, not cash) that it has banished its geniuses for the ingenuity of the masses?
Good questions, but ones that I will not attempt to answer here, because something more important was alluded to in the conclusion of the book: that is, that we have returned more to the time of the Romans and the Greeks (and to earlier societies) with our notion of genius. If the reader might recall, the Romans invented the birthday party not for the corporeal being but for his spirit companion, or his genii (or genius). This was not a fun idea, but something taken seriously, for they did not have modern psychology to explain to them how ideas and passions came to them. During the Classical era, then, it was thought that, even as everyone did not have the genius of Socrates, everyone DID have a genius, or a connection to a larger, more insightful world that is normally invisible to us.
When I compare the different perspectives on genius - the sociological, the psychological and the magical, I admit that I prefer, from experience, the last. The sociological explanation might explain the difference in the celebrity of genius, but it does not explain genius itself. Yes, it tries to, in fashioning a complex theory of socially constructed personality, but that does not wash with me concerning genius - that is, concerning the reception of ideas that, by definition, transcend society. As for psychology, that, too, is wanting - for the "subconscious" is nothing more than an abstract construction, similar to the social being itself. How does originality and creativity stem from a suppressed element in ourselves? Yes, here there might be great energy, but novel ideas that transcend personal and social knowledge? I am not convinced, to say the least. Rather, I believe the modern and ancient concepts are correct in that we all have, or can express, genius; but also that the ancients, and non-Western orientated moderns, are correct, or at least more correct, when they say that the genius exists outside of ourselves. Fred Myers claimed that "genius" exists at a common base that we all share and can access, but this amounts to the same thing as the spirits of the ancients - it, genius, is a thing apart, an element either foreign to or beyond our normal social persona. In both cases, it appears to the one experiencing it to have a mind of its own.
Thus while I wouldn't claim that all of us are geniuses - this is indeed a complex construct of an era - I would say that all of us have access to (or if you prefer, "a") genius. Most everyone reading this has encountered it - in flashes of insight as well as in odd moments of synchronicity. For those like myself who regularly engage in creative tasks, it often comes in sustained measures. In writing, for instance, I am often lost to time and myself in the task, and just as often wonder who the hell just wrote what apparently I did? Even more so than in the words, I find the strangeness in the overall structure and in its resolution, often demanding far greater insight - intelligence, if you wish to call it - than I normally possess. But that is not genius - that is accessing, or being accessed by genius. the final results, as one might guess, are in how the ephemeral personality handles the inspiration - and that is what separates the OK from the great. Why some have the ability to express this genius more clearly than others still remains a question, but for me, the question of genius, at least as to who has it, does not; we all do, as McMahon said. But it is not in response to democracy or society or our suppressed desires. Rather, it is a part of our total humanity, and truly the last - and endless - frontier for all of us. FK
RSS Feed