Responding to a Zembla post, I just invented a mnemonic for our newly-8-planet solar system:
After posting this, I worried it might not be original. So I Googled to see. The closest I found was:
Mine is clearly superior, and may even be definitive. And so I want permanent credit.
Or blame. Whichever.
I just took a quiz on the topic and it inaccurately says I "am" now these fictional beings:
No. Not even close.
Thinking about it, nowadays my mitigated background adult fantasy (in comic book terms) might be: orphaned deconstructo --a being who would have the power to deconstruct all evil if he did not live under the light of earth's yellow sun.
The quiz does add:
"you are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility"
Over the years I have taken a lot of online quizzes. Among them: which 20th century theorist I am: Homi K. Bhabha which movie do I belong in: Nightmare Before Christmas which country I am: Mexico what kind of dog I am: Italian Setter
which 20th century theorist I am: Homi K. Bhabha
which movie do I belong in: Nightmare Before Christmas
which country I am: Mexico
what kind of dog I am: Italian Setter
The true me quiz has good questions.
I once took an online personality quiz that said I was a 'Sober Rational Constructive Follower', one of its 16 possibilities. This type they nicknamed 'white house staffer', insulting me in more than one way.
It was dubious quiz. Other of its types were; 'golden god', 'enemy of the state', 'hacker', 'mob boss', 'evil genius', 'hippie'. I would give the link but it's defunct.
re-ordered and modified on 2007-10-29
That's the kind of thing that happens when you stick to historical figures, all of which you necessarily read about in documents. How can an un-genius figure out what genius is via such indirect evidence?1
As it happens, geniuses are around now, too. One encounters them occasionally.2 There is no need to peer into books and extrapolate from extrapolations of observations made centuries ago.
When someone says something to you two things almost always will occur to you:
- the mundane content of what they said
- why the person said it, in the most general way
- rote learning
- fight (introjected)
- flight (introjected)
You can tell (right?) from you friend's anger that their statement is about their underlying introjected fight against the universe (#2 on the list above).
In other words, you will always get the societal subtext of what people say.3 That is ..except for the thinking of geniuses. Some of their statements are exceptions. These expressions have have a free, origin-less quality. This may seem to you like a miracle or blessing, so you may respond: 'man, you are a genius!'
To actually explain genius, additional terms are needed, which do not appear in psychology textbooks. Specifically 'Prana', 'prana-face', and 'will'.
prana is energy that cells use to relate to each other.
In my opinion, geniuses are the few individuals whose prana-face is not entirely connected to their will. This means, in practice, that they have trouble expressing some societal feelings that are normally expressed by the face.
The profound social nature of the face is in the prana, too - and naturally gets transferred to the genius. This is why these people characteristically have a hopeful, optimistic quality, because the face itself is optimistic.
For two examples, the flaring of the nostrils or the raising of the eyebrows. If - in any person - the myriad entirety of these expressions is not available, then the quasi-facial expressions can remain internal, like memories.
Because, for these individuals, these quasi-thoughts are not in any of the 3 categories above (not fight, flight or rote), but emerge instead from the 'good' aspect of the primate (the human face) these individuals over time can produce not just oddly free statements, but also works of art or craft which can transform the world and sometimes seem to shine with their own light.
Genius is real and emerges from a particular minor disability (which cannot be defined without the recognition of prana). It is because they are disabled that geniuses are usually treated as second-class citizens.
A turn-of-the-century postal worker named Albert Einstein is the most famous genius. What characterized the prana of his face was a loose center and solid periphery.
In terms of his animal existence - Albert probably did not produce the full range of expressions with the nose and characteristic of this type of prana had an angelic expression which was reassuring because it held firmly without being at its center dogmatic.
His scientific theory formally matched the prana of his face (and is also - to intellectuals - angelic and reassuring). This theory - relativity - is firmly grounded yet not dogmatic.
- Imagine a field-goal kicker in the back of a van is gotten drunk and is blindfolded. He is taken to an empty stadium that has crowd noise piped in. The kicker thinks it's a real game. He is told where the ball is and where the goal posts are (very close, just ten yards away). He makes the kick. Cheers from the piped in crowd noise!! The kicker is told he made the kick. On the way back in the van the kicker feels surges of pride. More drinks!
- But it is a mistake to tell someone they are a genius (or what they just thought of was genius). If if you do they might interpret this as an insult. They might get the impression that you are calling them an idiot, that you are really saying: "that moron figured something out I cannot, therefore it must be some attribute, seperate and uncreditable, called: 'genius". ..And you really might be saying that.
- unless you are a moron