05 07 10 - 07:00A reader asks:
You were lurking/posting around The Genius forums a few years back (Solway, Rowden, Quinn). What are your opinions on their thoughts to spirituality?
I am not so thoroughly versed in their worldview that I can give a complete assessment, but I think we agree on the basics: when we escape the barriers of our own consciousness, we can perceive reality as it is, which has aspects of the infinite to it. When we perceive the infinite, and its earthly conduit the highly-ordered thought or thinker (genius), we achieve a transcendent state in which we realize life has purpose and our own deaths by fitting into this purpose make sense. In this transcendent state, we are both realist (perceiving tangible cause/effect) and idealist (recognizing the patterns of cause/effect that are not visible), and many thinkers dance around this state of mind as Nirvana, seeing Ultimate Reality, having clarity, Plato's forms, etc.
The interesting thing is that old school Hindu thinking takes that even further: consciousness is not our own. We are all little slices of God's intelligence, or to be more scientific about it, the intelligence that "is" the universe whether conscious or not, and it is our quest to discover it and enhance its degree of organization so that we can outpace its entropy and constantly create new objectives, goals and struggles to keep our minds active.
What I like about the view I saw at the Genius forums is that the kumbaya/we-are-all-one happy horseshit was not present. If God is a giant calculus, then we are its numbers, not its answers. Most people find that terrifying, because it means that all of our wars, conflicts, struggles, etc. have a purpose which is to reach a higher state of evolution, and we're not there yet. That thought hammers home mortality, insignificance and everything else we like to deny as half-enlightened chimps.
As a monarchist, I also admire their clarity on the topic of genius. We cannot write enough laws, procedures and set up enough "checks and balances" to turn dishonest monkeys into great leaders. All we can do is find leaders (probably men) of great genius, and then give them the ability to be semi-arbitrary but to shape their societies as a sculptor shapes clay. Some will be bad; that doesn't diminish the fact that as a method, aristocratism/monarchism is superior to democracy and everything we've tried since.
It's an insightful outlook. While I think I'm leaning more toward Schopenhauer than Weininger, it's probable that most of what they are saying overlaps. Good to see some people here who also visit The Genius Forum.