Congratulations Youngprer and welcome to the world of uncertainty. The question you bring up about agree/disagree highlights my point. As it stands that formulation implies a binary, a two-valued logic-- i.e. analogous to on/off, present/absent, subjective/objective etc. Those formulations have a limited use, and we construct them artificially--that is to say, abstractly--in our attempts at mapping "how things really are", "reality", "Being", whatever you call it. They really only exist in our abstract symbol-system of such two-valued logic, sort of like much of the mathematics you learn in school, especially at the "higher" levels. They may have some use, but in order to create more accurate maps of "what is really happening" we must recognize and sort-of transcend those formulations. Thus: "Now this is not to say that I do not exactly agree, which is not to say that I actually disagree" may serve to highlight the limitedness that such two-valued orientation imposes on our thinking. Besides I never use double-negatives so excessively...To sum up so far: I aim at establishing a more fluid ontology, which will mainly complement other mental-techniques such as PRing or whatnot, in order to provide a meta-critical foundation- the critical thinking which is aware of itself, and its own criterion, and endeavors to overcome semantic limitations, such as any binary or two-valued logic--on which a more capable "Genius" can develop. This foundation would thus interpenetrate all other layers of mind, "liberating" them in a very 'real' sense. The benefits of such an orientation prove immense, freeing people of dogma, 'irrational' emotion-reactions, and the suffering which comes from any intellectual allegiance-- which really means dependance.
I believe that people who spend valuable time practicing techniques aimed at unlocking Genius owe it to themselves to also work on such a foundation, as it provides the mental flexibility and the penetrating insight necessary for developing more accurate evaluations of "what is really happening". The difficulty with this path lies in the fact that no dogma, no preconceived, bottled and throttled system of metaphysics, can apply. The thinker must shed this baggage for the dead-weight it burdens him/her with. If you ask me that is the true path of knowledge, the true path of Socratic Inquisition, and the path of the Faustian Spirit as I have heavily referenced in my "name".
Unfortunately, the authority-figures, the "little Fathers", which most of our country elects as representative, not only into political offices but throughout our social situation, show little interest in such knowledge, preferring instead to launch moral-crusades, "faith-based" education and to generally retain their position as the sheperds that lead and fleece the sheep; they too live as sheep to impulses and emotion-reaction which, in a sense, herd and fleece them.
So, you can retain whatever beliefs you have about "genius", you can also retain any beliefs you have, but until you have questioned everything about yourself, down to a new foundation, one which, I hope, resembles and reflects a many-valued semantic orientation, containing the inherent understanding that all things sayable "are really just maps of 'what is really going on'", among other things, you cannot really experience Freedom. Wow, I must have mastered the LONG SENTENCE in one of my philosophy classes...
I'll end this lengthy addenda by saying, as usual, that much of my inspiration derives from certain 'philosophical' and 'spiritual' roots including: Zen Buddhism, Deconstruction, General Semantics, Martin Heiddeger, Nietzsche, J.W. Goethe, William Blake, and Taoism. I strongly encourage the study of all of those people/'systems' if you feel inspired or just plain interested by anything I've said. This does not mean that you must abandon the techniques of LSC, nor that I necessarily discredit such techniques, I want it to mean that a broader, deconstructed and liberated basis, provides the best soil from which the flower of Genius can bloom. Furthermore, in studying those systems, one often doesn't understand as quickly as one would hope, but stick with it, try to internalize it, meditate and reflect over it, dream about it, write about it, I promise great reward. Perhaps this world we live in will grow more sane, and suffering can be abolished, the goal, remember, of Buddhism.
Don't take my word for it, See for yourself
Kristoff Lundholm Olafsson
[This message has been edited by Kristoff Olafsson (edited April 16, 2003).]
