Notifications
Clear all

A definition of "genius" very like AC's  

  RSS

gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
23/11/2011 3:08 am  

There's a relatively famous chap called Chris Langan who apparently has an off-the-charts IQ (he had a moment of fame in the media a decade ago, can be found on YouTube). Some think he's barmy (partly because he has shown some support for the more philosophical aspects of creationist thinking, the "Darwin isn't quite enough" school of thought), some think he's a genius (admittedly very few 🙂 ). He's got a sort of theory of everything called the CTMU that's sometimes discusssed, often as an example of crank ideas. The theory seems to be a sort of updating and putting into modern mathematico-logical language a kind of monism much like Spinoza's or Hegel's (or for that matter, Advaita and other similar Eastern systems), the gist of it being that Reality is a "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" (shades of "Logos"?). Very difficult to read, but there are plenty of precis and summaries, some by Langan himself. Well worth having a look at in and of itself, but it's not the main topic of this post.

After one recent online critique of the CTMU, there's a long, fascinating discussionof his ideas, of set theory and various other things relating, and the man himself weighs in at points (a rare and recent internet appearance).

The thing that's struck my attention is something one of the commentators wrote (someone called Jeremy Jae, no idea who he is), which I think is an extremely interesting passage:-

Religious mystical experiences are literally anthropological self-interpretations of the core intelligence of the universe implicated within existence. Genius sees behind the veil of this religious garb into the otherness we call God. He experiences an affirmative moment of reflex in the cogito whereby the ineffable sense of the design itself gives some essential variable of it's wholeness. Many have said that genius is close to madness but they have not made the connection that high IQ could be linked to a transcendental form of intelligence i.e. the spiritual dimensions of IQ.

I'll be darned if that isn't something very much like what old Crow was banging on about with the A:.A:. But even in its own right it seems to me to be an exceptionally lucid and possibly quite true statement.

Thoughts?


Quote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
23/11/2011 6:34 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
The thing that's struck my attention is something one of the commentators wrote (someone called Jeremy Jae, no idea who he is), which I think is an extremely interesting passage:-

Religious mystical experiences are literally anthropological self-interpretations of the core intelligence of the universe implicated within existence. Genius sees behind the veil of this religious garb into the otherness we call God. He experiences an affirmative moment of reflex in the cogito whereby the ineffable sense of the design itself gives some essential variable of it's wholeness. Many have said that genius is close to madness but they have not made the connection that high IQ could be linked to a transcendental form of intelligence i.e. the spiritual dimensions of IQ.

I'll be darned if that isn't something very much like what old Crow was banging on about with the A:.A:. But even in its own right it seems to me to be an exceptionally lucid and possibly quite true statement.

Thoughts?

There are a lot of unquestioned assumptions in the above quote. Such as:
1. Something called a "core intelligence" objectively exists in the universe
2. There is an "otherness" that objectively exists in the universe, that "we" (who, everyone?) call God.
3. An experience leading to a subjective mental affirmation somehow confirms this objective existence.
4. The myth that IQ is a measurement of intelligence and the belief that the IQ test can be applied equally to all humans


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4920
24/11/2011 12:24 am  

I wonder why so many threads, including this one, rapidly turn into subjective vs objective, intuition vs intellect, reality vs illusion? Why does this happen?

Well, it's because (may he be damn-dogged) some people are expressing what they experienced above the abyss, some below the abyss, some read it in a book (or quote the same), and some are confusing the planes. It quickly becomes a game of 4-dimensional chess.

Any subject that is introduced that deals with concepts that lie beyond reason (remember, "reason is a lie!"), such as creation, intuition, Will, Agape, are certain to draw fire down here in the land of never-ending opposites.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/11/2011 7:39 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
Any subject that is introduced that deals with concepts that lie beyond reason (remember, "reason is a lie!"), such as creation, intuition, Will, Agape, are certain to draw fire down here in the land of never-ending opposites.

"The land of never-ending opposites" is a more poetic and generous interpretation than what I was thinking. Hogwarts and wizards waving their wands at each other and shouting "Reductio ad absurdum!!!!" . 😀


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
24/11/2011 5:43 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
The thing that's struck my attention is something one of the commentators wrote (someone called Jeremy Jae, no idea who he is), which I think is an extremely interesting passage:-

Religious mystical experiences are literally anthropological self-interpretations of the core intelligence of the universe implicated within existence. Genius sees behind the veil of this religious garb into the otherness we call God. He experiences an affirmative moment of reflex in the cogito whereby the ineffable sense of the design itself gives some essential variable of it's wholeness. Many have said that genius is close to madness but they have not made the connection that high IQ could be linked to a transcendental form of intelligence i.e. the spiritual dimensions of IQ.

I'll be darned if that isn't something very much like what old Crow was banging on about with the A:.A:. But even in its own right it seems to me to be an exceptionally lucid and possibly quite true statement.

Thoughts?

There are a lot of unquestioned assumptions in the above quote. Such as:
1. Something called a "core intelligence" objectively exists in the universe
2. There is an "otherness" that objectively exists in the universe, that "we" (who, everyone?) call God.
3. An experience leading to a subjective mental affirmation somehow confirms this objective existence.
4. The myth that IQ is a measurement of intelligence and the belief that the IQ test can be applied equally to all humans

Well, whether they're unquestioned in that guy's system of understanding or not, I don't know, I'm guessing not because (judging by the rest of his posts there) he seems to have thought pretty hard about it. Speaking for myself, I seem to understand what he's talking about 🙂

I think what's meant by "core intelligence" is the fact of intricate structure in the Universe. IOW, the universe has a way about it (Dao). It goes a certain way and not other ways. This isn't a cosmological argument for the existence of an old man with a beard who made it all, but it is a cosmological argument for a structuring principle of some kind to the Universe.

This structuring principle seems to be independent of our will, therefore "other" in that sense. What the guy is saying is that mystical experience actually breaks through that sense of otherness.

"Subjective mental affirmation" - hmm, no, it's the same as any other experience. Is your seeing a tree a "subjective mental affirmation"?

At any rate, what Mr Jae is saying does seem to be quite similar to what Crowley meant. Especially in the Equinox, I believe, there are quite a few passages where he talks about the whole purpose of the A:.A:. being to produce genius on demand, or at least find the keys to that, for the benefit of mankind.

If I paraphrase what Mr Jae is saying, when you have a creative insight, or an insight into truth, the structure-of-being that you perceive is implicit in the Whole (it was a possibility in God's Mind from yea time, so to speak). That moment of insight makes you isomorphic to God for that moment (there is a one-to-one mapping to God's mind just for that moment, in respect of that insight about reality). What's going on metaphysically at that point is simply that you are the Universe expressing one of its possibilities. This is the same for a mystical insight, or an insight into how to make a better cup of coffee - in fact there's no essential difference at all, just a difference in the utility of the insight in relation to X goal.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
28/11/2011 10:49 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
I wonder why so many threads, including this one, rapidly turn into subjective vs objective, intuition vs intellect, reality vs illusion? Why does this happen?

Why are you turning this into a one thing verses another issue? 

If someone says, for example, "Religious mystical experiences are literally anthropological self-interpretations of the core intelligence of the universe implicated within existence." and I point out that that statement is, in fact, subjective, I am not presenting a subjective vs. objective argument.  I am simply clarifying that the person's statement represents a subjective perspective, not an established fact. I am not making a judgement about that person's personal experience.  I am simply clarifying the nature of their declaration.

Often if a person wants to believe that their subjective experience represents objective reality (eg "I had a spiritual epiphany where I spoke to an Angel therefore Angels are real") then they will likely be defensive if I (or anyone) points out the distinction between subjective and objective, and will try to convince themselves and others that I (or whoever) is "against subjective statements" or some such thing (see the True Act of Magick thread for blatant examples of this).  It is an attempt, whether conscious or unconscious, to divert the conversation so the person can avoid facing the nature of their own beliefs.  For example, look at your own response - you tried to make my response about some grand subjective vs objective perspective yet didn't bother to address any of my 4 specific critiques.  How convenient!

To be clear:  intentionally, clearly distinguishing between X and Y is not the same as pitting X against Y or preferring X over Y. 

Additionally:  claiming that a person who distinguishes between X and Y is only doing it because of a preference for one or aversion to the other is an irrelevant diversion from the topic at hand. 


ReplyQuote
Share: