5.
ButchOk Jake, here's my smart ass shot:
In a recent conversation with Jack Foley (Genius and the Individual, Conversari 1/25/2006) you have this to say in your opening remarks about genius:
"I think we have to consider genius from the Romantic/Classical perspective as an inhabiting force, an in-spirit, inspiration. In this case genius is not a condition of intellectual brilliance, though it certainly doesn't exclude it. There are many kinds of intelligence and many kinds of inspiration. A poet may be inspired, inspirited, from something outside himself, and create poems under the spell of that inspiration -- and, too, the result may make him more intelligent generally since it engages his or her mind deeply. However, when confronted with the poem after the fact the poet may be no more capable of finding its meaning than any one else, and since the "spirit" came from elsewhere there is no absolute meaning."
And, in “Convocation: The Failure of Tongue and Text,” you have this to say regarding the written word:
“The word becomes something more than natural – it becomes supernatural. By a trick of sound and inscribed gesture one has transferred the position from which to be superstitious from the affect of powerlessness before nature outside to the illusion of power over nature held inside and that power is centered in the one that uses those inscribed gestures/words as a means to and expression of authority.”
I'm juxtaposing the above; I would like to take your train of thought here to be an inquiry, broadly put, into the shift of the idea of “genius” from one inhabiting the writer to one inhabiting the technology the writer uses. First, would you agree with this assessment?
Jake
Not really. I am talking about two different things.
The first, the notion of inspiration, or of being overwhelmed by an outside force, is akin to possession. I was making the point that the artist was not necessarily intellectually brilliant, but could be possessed by something that was creatively brilliant and not of his own ego.
In the second instance I am not asserting that the written word is supernatural but that it seems to be supernatural by those under its influence. As such it is an element of control, usually by an organizing power – a government, religion and so on. It is my contention that language, whether written or spoken, removes us from the possibility of direct contact with the world.
There is an exception in art to this tendency toward control, at least in some art, because it is a work that can only really be experienced as itself without the imposition of ideas and definitions. This is more likely in the visual arts because they have retained their plasticity, both in the mediums used and in how those mediums are applied. The same thing can also happen with words. In a prose poem I said that, “Poetry is the only language that does not kill.” By that I meant that poetry does not have to follow the function we normally ascribe to language. Instead of naming things it can un-name them and reveal them or liberate them. It can also turn language inside out so that it becomes an organic utterance and very like an abstract painting that is an animal that behaves according to its own nature. Poetry is the only language that does not kill the world because it destroys what language ordinarily does.
I don't think that there has been a shift in the idea of genius unless we collectively decide there has been since genius is a term we invented and can be applied any way we choose to apply it.
However, I do find your suggestion that genius can inhabit a technology to be very interesting. I don't see why not. Again, using the word genius to describe a force that inhabits. One might ask, “What is the genius of the internet, or a portion of the internet, at a given time?” The beautiful thing is that no single individual or coordinated group of individuals controls it. It is the result of multiple individuals acting for their own reasons unaware of everything else that is happening. As long as a system, whether it is the mind of a single person or the complex interaction of many people, as long as the system remains open to outside influence then there is always the possibility that things will happen that lie beyond the abilities or imaginations of the contributors.
Butch
Second, the idea of inhabitance and its shift of authority here. The stance of the Romantic that the affect of powerlessness towards nature and the author's subsequent engagement, in spite of that powerlessness, is source enough for the word's authority and its author. Shifting to the word's authority, in and of itself, achieved through disengagement from the author.
When thinking specifically of the word “genius,” my departure comes when you say that the power shifts from the Romantic stance to that power still being centered in the one using the words. Wouldn't that first act of disengagement, the written alphabet, enact a powerlessness for the writer as well? “Genius” as a word that delegates social status, if not power, back onto the writer? A delegation of power by way of meme and economic manipulation, merely the economy doing its job?
Jake
It would depend on who was doing the writing, or dictating the writing, and for what reasons. But writing that is not open is generally designed by its writer to express something specific and therefore control the shape of the ideas in another person's mind. I am doing that right now. I am trying to convince you of a particular point of view. If I am a very persuasive writer, or if I speak from the perspective of an authority you recognize, then I will shape the direction of your thoughts. I might even be able to persuade you to behave in a way quite different from what you would have if you had not read what I wrote.
Butch
But then again: could the act of writing, despite this powerlessness in the face of a written language and the disengagement it entails, despite the equal usurpation of the writer's authority by its economic modes of distribution, be considered the same stance the Romantic took towards nature?
Jake
Yes, but it depends on the circumstances. If the Romantic is overwhelmed by some natural force, whether it is a very obvious natural phenomenon, like a thunderstorm with rippling lightning, or something much more subtle then he or she is subject to that force. On the other hand if an animal is trying to kill me then I am either going to try to escape that animal, drive him off, or kill him. What I mean is that one has to be a willing accomplice. One has to submit and join the natural operation. The same is true with words. One has to submit to its influence at some point. By extending the idea of nature we could say that language that influences us against our will, that overcomes our individual will so that we submit to it, is like being overcome by a greater force. One might be injured or killed by a storm or by an animal. One might also be intellectually injured or killed by language. One might be persuaded to behave irrationally, or in a way completely out of character. This too may be considered a natural phenomenon. But then so is rebellion or fighting for your life in a storm.
I want to be clear on this subject though. I think that the written and spoken word is often used to persuade people to ignore realities and destroy other people or themselves. Words do not have to do this, but to some degree they are most often used toward destructive ends to the person that is the intended audience. Different people would choose different manifestations of this. A scientist might say that religious texts are used to convince people to ignore the truth while a religious person might say the same thing about a scientific text. In both cases the language is the result of an attempt to lens the world according to a specific prejudice. That makes it an element of control. Control over other individuals happens with other species as well, so we could say that control is an aspect of nature. But we have a choice. I think that people rarely recognize how powerful that element of choice is. We often appeal to a higher authority either to tell us how to live with regard to the world or to confirm the way we are already living. This is not necessary. While it is important to know what others have said, each of us has the ability to reject or accept those words and finally, hopefully to think for ourselves, or better, allow the world its place and constantly adapt to the changes. That is, not to be bound by internalized words, whether our own or someone else's.
Butch
And let's not forget that, while compiling this, I had to stop and unplug the computer several times so the lightning from the storm didn't short out the hard drive.
[ page 5 of 6 ]