I’m serious! I know that many will think it absurd that I could ask such a question. I’m too old now for that to bother me (not that I haven’t asked it or similar questions in public more than once in my blog, and before I had a blog). I would add that I think quite a few of my fellow artists ask themselves the same question. About themselves, not me. But not in public.
I find the subject of people asking that question about themselves as interesting as whether the answer to the question for me is yes or no. Taxonomical as ever, I believe the following hierarchy of workers relevant: world genius, genius, master, journeyman, apprentice, incompent. Most people are journeymen, reasonably competent at what they do but not brilliant. Some are temporary apprentices not yet competent at what they do but eventually will be. Some won’t, the incompetents–who are not very numerous however it may seem.
Masters are those acknowledged to be the best at what they do in their field, but never do anything significantly innovative. That’s what geniuses do–while probably but not necessarily being masters. World-geniuses are more innovative than geniuses, and their best innovations are at least an order of magnitude more significant than those of the geniuses. I think almost all world-geniuses are also masters of their vocations, although not always acknowledged as such.
You know, I suspect I’m semi-obsessed with this question, that I ask it in one way or another all the time. What I’m really asking is if I’m of value. For some reason, that matters. And, for me to be of value, I have to be a world-genius. Elitism, yes. And a large part of me recognizes that there are much more modest ways of being of value, like simply having a friendly smile for eveyrone one meets. I guess I want to be of greater value than anyone else IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
Its does matter, actually, if you blieve, as I do, that your urwareness (or soul) is eternal (because matter seems eternal so why shouldn’t mind be?) If our urwarenesses are immortal, the future matters (as it doesn’t for those believing in Heaven, as far as I can see–at least not after you get there).
The question, though, is whether or not I’m a world-genius. This leads to the more interesting question of just what a world-genius is. That is, what is a super-significant innovation? I think for verosophers (seekers of significant truths), it’s an explanation of some larger and central portion of reality: Darwin’s theory of natural selection, for instance; Newton’s theory of gravity; anybody’s unified field theory if one is found. Not the make-up of DNA, although discovering that was a work of genius. For artists it’s harder to say. I don’t know quite enough about music to be sure, but it seems to me that Beethoven and Wagner were world geniuses because music was significantly larger after them. Mozart for the same reason, maybe. Bach, I don’t think so.
On the other hand, doing nothing particularly new in the arts but doing it vastly better than anyone else–Bach and Shakespeare–may be enough to make one a world-genius.
Am I? If I am, the most obvious thing it’d be for my long-division poetry. What I’ve done with it makes me a genius, for sure, it it’s any good, but whether something is any good (or finally true) depends on what society as a whole eventually decides–as I’ve always maintained although it makes it very difficult for me to rate myself very high. I don’t quite think my long division poetry makes a large enough world for me to consider myself more than a mere genius. But my long-division poetry has at least gotten some recognition from others.
Not so my theory of knowlecular psychology. I think it important and vlauable even if completely wrong–and if right, up there with what Darwin did. If not, superior to Freud’s accomplishment, he being almost completely wrong but nonetheless a genius.
To jump to another topic I brushed against earlier, I’d love to know how many others ask the questin of themselves I’ve asked of myself. I suspect most people never consider it, taking it for granted that they are important because teaching social studies to high school students is important, or running a business, or a country. I also wonder how often a world-genius asks himself the question (or one like it). Do they take it for granted they are world-geniuses. Certainly megalomaniacs do.
Okay, enough of this ramble. I’m sure I didn’t say anything I have said at my previous blog more than once. Apparently, I have to keep on saying every once in a while. (Note: I’m only semi-obsessed with it; much of me doesn’t really care what the answer to it is.)


