Brian,
Something you mentioned earlier triggered some observations I had regarding the concept of genius. Since some of us have been working with the Personal Genius paraliminal, hopefully there will be some ideas of value and relevance here.
You're quote from Part 1 of this thread:
***************************************
All true geniuses are visual thinkers…
***************************************
In your earlier post, this statement I quoted absolutely leaped out at me. At first, I found it to be a very rigidly conceived description how genius is channeled (deleting other possibilities). I also found it provocative and intriguing, so my second thought was to explore your premise -- to see where it lead. You obviously have some detailed information on the relationship between delta and one's visually accessed creative abilities. I haven't studied that 'chunk' myself, and found your mention of it interesting.
In one respect, for us to even speak meaningfully here, we would first have to recognize and validate a piece of linguistic coding labeled 'genius' (and unconsciously assume the corollary that anyone who wasn't or didn't exhibit 'genius' fell into a category called 'not-genius' or 'other-than-genius'.) Next, we would have to agree on or, at least, assume we have a common definition of what 'genius' specifically refers to here.
How dare I question the idea of genius? After all, isn't it readily observable that there are certain people in the world who are so deeply inspired that they bring things into being for the benefit of us all -- in a completely obvious way that's impossible to miss? The light bulb…the automobile…etc., etc.? Yes, there are some major wonderful discoveries, the influences of which reach into virtually everyone's life. You betcha.
While I recognize and appreciate these things and the people who :"brought 'em through", I'm also looking at another piece of the scenery here: In popular folklore and in the culture in general the concept of genius is so deeply ingrained that it's taken as an absolute given and, apparently, considered beyond question by most people.
People will typically debate whether 'so-and-so's' a genius or not (based on a difference of personally-selected criteria, which is usually not explicitly laid out--hence each party can't quite figure why the other person can't "see the obvious truth of my way"), ….but the very notion of 'genius' ITSELF always seems to be taken as a sacrosanct, built-in part of reality.
My somewhat alternative perspective around the idea of genius is that, if we wish to consciously identify something called 'genius' -- it's perhaps a dormant potentiality in all of us waiting to be expressed. My guess is that what gets labeled as genius is simply an ongoing available process that gets expressed in EVERYONE, in some form, to some degree.
I think it goes on all the time, but not necessarily always in big, grandiose "what a genius he/she is"-type ways. Most often, I think it gets expressed in subtle, barely perceivable ways -- on a mundane level. Then there are the big breakthroughs To one person, it might be plain old 'ingenuity'. To another, it might come in the form of an 'aha' or creative breakthrough in some previously stuck area of life. A metaphysically-oriented person might call this Divine Inspiration, or something similar.
The Personal Genius tape, I think, gives us a way to go in and trigger this process toward a given outcome DIRECTLY -- and with lasered precision. I think this same capacity that The Great Ones employed might be available to each of us in our own lives, toward outcomes WE OURSELVES value. It's a way of deliberately bringing many of our creative unconscious resources to bear. I think when I person listens to the Personal Genius tape, if their unconscious responds favorably to the term 'genius' -- what's happening is that a verbally encoded representational system gets triggered. All finite pieces of information subconsciously stored away and encoded with the term 'genius 'are mobilized toward a chosen outcome
My intent here is not so much to take your statement to task, but to explore it. You were obviously referring to something specific. If you were specifically referring to manifestations of genius in terms of mechanical inventions, I'd say your comment was dead-on accurate. Tesla and Edison's hands would have most likely been completely tied without the ability visualize their inventions in vivid detail.
Let's assume here for a sec (as many people do) that certain musicians exhibit genius. I think it's safe to say that most musicians rely PRIMARILY on their auditory channel, while other channels such as visual and kinesthetic -- in relation to creating music -- are largely out of conscious awareness. In this context, the assertion that 'all true geniuses are highly visual thinkers' loses its relevance. I'm not sure what role delta plays in the conception of music. I suppose it's possible that a person could experience a visual representation of the music while in delta while experiencing it through an auditory channel in their day-to-day beta state. Who knows? To me, that's just one possibility. Studies in synesthesia seem to suggest all sorts of possible overlapping of sensory channels. Could there be a different dominant sensory channel depending on whether the brainwave level is at beta, alpha, theta, or delta? Hmmn…. You mention in you’re your post that delta is purely visual.
But the statement 'all true geniuses are highly thinkers' still implies having the ability to visualize vividly at a conscious level, at will. There are people who are held up as geniuses who aren't able to or simply don’t do this. They consciously rely on another dominant sensory channel such as auditory or kinesthetic.
