Post: #26

(04-23-2016 07:23 PM)johnbozzz Wrote:  What did you think of Houellebecq's "Elementary Particles" if you've read it?

Rather bad novel. Author tries to emulate Celine, and fails. Unpleasant story, unsavory characters. Ugly writing style, too.

Instead of "Elementary Particles", you'd better read Celine's "Voyage au bout de la nuit"...

Post: #27

The fable of King Midas. Simple but effective.

The Prince and the Pauper by Mark Twain.

Post: #28

Neuromancer by William Gibson

Post: #29

(04-22-2016 02:50 PM)Pride male Wrote:  What do you consider genius?

I've got an odd idea about this.

Nothing ever strikes me as 'Genius'. I always see great works as being the result of a combination of factors, such as discipline, study, experimentation, refinement, commitment and craft. There's also more random factors, such as opportunity and luck.

'Genius' sells short the long, lonely hours spent learning and the many fumblings and failures the observer didn't see before the end result.

I suspect 'Genius' is simply the ability to work hard without giving up when faced with setbacks or failure.

Post: #30

(04-24-2016 07:55 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 02:50 PM)Pride male Wrote:  What do you consider genius?

I've got an odd idea about this.

Nothing ever strikes me as 'Genius'. I always see great works as being the result of a combination of factors, such as discipline, study, experimentation, refinement, commitment and craft. There's also more random factors, such as opportunity and luck.

'Genius' sells short the long, lonely hours spent learning and the many fumblings and failures the observer didn't see before the end result.

I suspect 'Genius' is simply the ability to work hard without giving up when faced with setbacks or failure.

I'm pretty sure that IS the definition of genius! The ability to see connections in areas where no one has seen them before.

Post: #31

Post: #32

So why did johnbozz get the hammer? He seemed like a nice guy.

Descent of man and Origin of species by Darwin are quite expectional.

Post: #33

Blade Runner, the majority of Frank Zappa's discography and Salvador Dali.

Post: #34

"The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli is an absolute masterpiece. You talk about red pill? This guy practically invented it. Machiavelli is a consummate pragmatist, a man who urged his readers to concern themselves with the world how it REALLY is, not as it should be. His work is every bit as relevant now as when he first wrote it.

Even today, (perhaps ESPECIALLY today) people still don't want to hear the truth. They'd seemingly rather be comforted by pretty lies than deal in ugly truths. Anyone who doubts the legitimacy of the previous sentence need look no further than the abundance of SJWs running around today, denying things that should be considered common sense.

The games haven't changed, just the people playing them. The tenets of "The Prince" are timeless.

Post: #35

(04-24-2016 11:11 PM)Pride male Wrote:  So why did johnbozz get the hammer? He seemed like a nice guy.

He was the man who asked too many questions.



I would say there are a number of Robert Greene's books that standout to me, but they don't reach the level of genius. I can appreciate how the man can separate himself from his work since his own view is far different than the tone of the writing in his books. Personally, I noticed The Art of Seduction holds many of the same concepts I have seen popup in the manosphere even though the terminology is different. The Dandies and the Rakes in the The Art of Seduction match with many of the dark triad qualities attributed to "alphas" in the modern world. The historical examples he gives usually help explain his writing, but sometimes the story is too vague and his point suffers as a result.

I think The 48 Laws of Power comes close to one of his best works. It has the added benefit of drawing source from Machiavelli's The Prince, and overall it has immediately practical advice for working in a corporate setting or even in daily life. His examples also become clearer in this book which makes understanding his points easier than in his other books.

I've still got a couple more books from him I want to read before I decide what his best work is. I've got The 33 Strategies of War followed by Mastery on my reading list.

Post: #36

(04-24-2016 07:55 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 02:50 PM)Pride male Wrote:  What do you consider genius?

I've got an odd idea about this.

Nothing ever strikes me as 'Genius'. I always see great works as being the result of a combination of factors, such as discipline, study, experimentation, refinement, commitment and craft. There's also more random factors, such as opportunity and luck.

'Genius' sells short the long, lonely hours spent learning and the many fumblings and failures the observer didn't see before the end result.

I suspect 'Genius' is simply the ability to work hard without giving up when faced with setbacks or failure.

Genius is the niche operator who becomes the lodestar of three factors:
- tireless forward motion (you identified this)
- luck of time and place (mentors, random influences and events)
- innate inborn passion for particular niche (think of the blues: it's a rather simple song structure expressing -- objectively -- prosaic everyday emotions... yet the practitioners who have stood the test of time have entertained and inspired thousands beyond simple expression. But are they really the best musicians? If you gave them a European classical structure could they excel? They might be interesting, but would never reach greatness and longevity. They fit their niche, and their niche fit them.)

Post: #37

Plato, Aristotle, Mises, Madison, Dostoyevsky, Handel, Carl Bloch, Shakespeare...

Post: #38

Off the top of my head:
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd

Not the Bible, for sure. Not a single author, hardly a clear or concise anything. without all the dogma and superstition, no one would even read the damn thing...

Post: #39

(05-04-2016 03:07 AM)kinnikinik Wrote:  Off the top of my head:
Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd

Like it or hate it, DSOTM is a milestone album, it is to music what Jaws was to film, marking a shift in music production values.

Post: #40

The Latin Alphabet.
Hindu-Arabic numbers.
The Declaration of Independence.
Brooklyn Bridge.
The Philly Cheesesteak.

Post: #41

(05-04-2016 02:26 PM)godzilla Wrote:  The Latin Alphabet.

But mostly based on the Greek

Quote:Hindu-Arabic numbers.

Of Indian Origin, only later adopted by Arabic

Quote:The Declaration of Independence.

Based on Montesquieu

Quote:The Philly Cheesesteak.

Based on Cheese-Whiz

Post: #42

Works of genius don't have to be original.

The Hindu-Arabic numerals are common term for them. I'm aware who invented them.

The Philly Cheesesteak is usually only 1/4 cheese and often ordered with provolone. (bread, steak, onions, and ketchup is common).

Post: #43

The Prophet - Kalil Gibran

Post: #44

Non-fiction is the first thing that comes to mind when I think "Genius".

That being said, Carl Sagan's Cosmos series from 1980.

Post: #45

(04-24-2016 07:55 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 02:50 PM)Pride male Wrote:  What do you consider genius?

I've got an odd idea about this.

Nothing ever strikes me as 'Genius'. I always see great works as being the result of a combination of factors, such as discipline, study, experimentation, refinement, commitment and craft. There's also more random factors, such as opportunity and luck.

'Genius' sells short the long, lonely hours spent learning and the many fumblings and failures the observer didn't see before the end result.

I suspect 'Genius' is simply the ability to work hard without giving up when faced with setbacks or failure.

Genius is about all these things, but it is about being in the right place at the right time also (which AB did cover by mentioning 'opportunity and luck', but I'd extend that concept further). Ask Galileo. They didn't think he was much of a genius, did they, when they burned him at the stake.

It's about coinciding with a dip in the time/fashion continuum. It's about not being hip, when all around you are being hip. Hence, out 'hipping' them.

I consider myself a genius. But I'd never compare myself to Michael Angelo. The bloke that used to work down the scrapper's yard and could turn two cars into one. Now, there was a genius. He wasn't even doing 'ringers', he was just making works of art. And people loved it.

No man is ever bad or evil. No man is ever 'great'. We all do what we do to the best of our ability. We are amazed by them as we look on in wonder, but what they did was all too human and natural to them. After working very long hours, at the expense of great sacrifice.


For example:

Buckminsterfuller. He wrote some very long essays that will take you three whole days to read if you do nothing else. He was a genius. His works are all around us, in the fields of geometry, geology, architecture, military, chemistry, physics. At least he tied a lot of those fields together in a generalistic multi-disciplinarian approach that others could benefit from.

I would say he was definitely a genius.

And as for AB's final point in the quote above: I suspect 'Genius' is simply the ability to work hard without giving up when faced with setbacks or failure.

Well, Bucky was ready to do himself in, his toes already in the water, when he asked himself what he could do for mankind, if he could overcome his self-pity at not being able to provide for his family, and the death of his new-born child.

He worked hard, without giving up, when faced with the greatest of setbacks and failures.

Now we have Graphene and Buckminsterfullerene and Geodesic domes, even if we don't have Dymaxion cars and dwelling places.

Geniuses are a bit oddball. James Dyson is a great engineer and entrepreneur, but he is no genius - just an exceptionally good and talented engineer, that probably had to keep going in the face of great adversity himself. It's a fine line.

Geniuses change our world like Bucky did. Dyson just made it harder to get a blowjob coz you couldn't afford the latest overpriced vacuum cleaner for the missus to upstage the neighbours. Certainly no genius in my book.

Feynman and Einstein were geniuses. But they got played, according to their own accounts of matters. Was the ability to create atomic fission a work of genius? Undoubtedly. But neither of those fellas felt so great about it afterwards.

What is genius when it leaves the genie out of the bottle?

...............

Leaving all that behind, I would say the works of Buckminsterfuller, in the form of his 'Everything I know' lectures are a work of genius.

https://bfi.org/about-fuller/resources/e...ing-i-know

Post: #46

(05-05-2016 03:37 PM)godzilla Wrote:  Works of genius don't have to be original.

Genius by definition is original and not derivative.

Quote:The Hindu-Arabic numerals are common term for them. I'm aware who invented them.

Ah, but that would not be apparent, as your overall post showed a lack of understanding of the origin of the inventions mentioned, and this point needed to be clarified to other readers.

Quote:The Philly Cheesesteak is usually only 1/4 cheese and often ordered with provolone. (bread, steak, onions, and ketchup is common).

And your point is? Of course the Philly Cheesesteak isn't 100% cheese. Then it would just be "Philly Cheese", though even that would hardly do for genius, as Cheeze Whiz is not of local Philadelphian origin, being created by Kraft corporation in a laboratory.

Post: #47

Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Post: #48

(05-05-2016 06:18 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Cough. Splutter. Bangs head into wall.

Laughs out loud.

Post: #49

(05-05-2016 06:02 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 03:37 PM)godzilla Wrote:  Works of genius don't have to be original.

Genius by definition is original and not derivative.

"We only see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants. At this point EVERYTHING is derivative of many other ideas. Things can still be genius.

Post: #50

(05-05-2016 06:02 PM)scrambled Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 03:37 PM)godzilla Wrote:  Works of genius don't have to be original.

Genius by definition is original and not derivative.

There are many 'geniuses' in our world, but they all had teachers, thus everything they thought of is derivative.

"There's nothing new under the sun". Creativity itself is the recombination and repurposing of existing information. It's not like a bolt of lightning from nowhere.

Ideas are constantly developed and improved, which is why the original building block ideas are forgotten whilst their derivatives live on.