Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: > The thing many of us have been missing all along is that genius is not the > exception but the rule of all life.maybe especially, although I am not sure > of that, human life. I think it is genius to survive each and every time it > happens and not a lack of genius but a tragedy when one doesn't survive. > While it is genius and creative to survive most of us are not valued or > respected for our accomplishment.
This sounds very similar to Taoism, except that the "sacred" is replaced by "genius". The idea that everything is genius (or sacred) just won't wash in a practical setting. Even _if_ all "stuff" is the same in some aspect or attribute, our methods hinge fundamentally on distinction, sight based on contrast, rhetoric based on dialectic, etc. So, sure, at bottom, everything is just as valuable, sacred, genius as everything else ... and we can always admit that on an intellectual level. But we operate by drawing relative (and to hook to the other threads, _relational_) comparison/contrast. We value what we, through our multifarious and perverse measures, determine to be better or "more genius" or "more sacred" than the rest. The beauty in the wisdom of crowds is that it smears out the perverse measures and brings us to a collective concept of "genius" (sound or not). And, in that context, mere survival doesn't cut it. To toss in another concept for the heck of it, I think that the delusion of "progress" hinges on this psychological (or instinctual) bias toward distinction. Since our methods are rooted in distinction, we must always distinguish ourselves from "the other", which includes all past things (generations, societies, styles, etc.). Hence, we tend to believe in "progress" because we see all sorts of differences between us and what's happened in the past. The only reason we don't _also_ see all sorts of differences between now and the future is because we are (or seem to be) mostly ignorant of the future. If we were as knowledgeable of the future as we are of the past (or as willing to admit that our ignorance of the past is as large as our ignorance of the future), then "progress" would be _obviously_ delusional. And, in that situation, not only would everything be genius (sacred), but everything would also be banal (profane). [grin] All is one. One is all. Now where's my beer? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
