Obiter Dicta

Literature teaches us what words mean,
how to use them.

Is that enough?

If we knew what all the words meant,
if we knew 'only' what words meant,

would that suffice?

Genius & Tyranny 4

Genius is established by insight, whereas wisdom sees through it all, even through the insight, and thus sees right through itself. The genius does not see through himself, has no insight into himself. (That is his particular sadness.) He is not freed from knowing, but is beholden to the knowledge he has gathered for himself.

The genius is not, of course, easily understood. He is often not understood at all. But the genius himself understands. He understands completely. He has become the tyrant of his own understanding. That is his knowledge.

Tyranny is established by conquest, whereas love conquers all, even the conquering, and thus itself. The tyrant does not conquer also himself, has no dominion over himself. (Will we grant the sadness of the tyrant?) He is not freed from power, but is beholden to the power he has gathered for himself.

The tyrant is not merely obeyed. Or rather, the tyrant is often not even obeyed. At bottom, it is the tyrant who obeys. Fully and completely obeys. He has become the genius of his own obedience. That is his power.

Genius & Tyranny 3

Tyranny is, let's say, a configuration of power, as genius is a configuration of knowledge. In both cases the configuration is oriented around a personality (the tyrant, the genius) who centers it.

There are other, less personal, ways to define a focus of knowledge and power. The touchstone of knowledge is truth, for example, while the touchstone of power is justice. Wisdom is a kind of absolute knowledge. And the only absolute power is, of course, love.

One might say: if my experience was all truth and wisdom, justice and love, how could the genius or the tyrant hold me in awe?

Genius is the takeover of knowledge by a strong personality. That personality may, of course, be one's own, but it is nonetheless a takeover, a knowledge-grab. (Just as the tyrant seizes power personally.) The genius renders truth and wisdom irrelevant, puts them out of the game. Genius is a way of knowing without respect for truth or wisdom. Could we perhaps say that genius does not transcend knowledge, that it remains immanent to the knowing it achieves?

But only if ... a big IF ... genius is like tyranny, homologous with it. Tyranny is power without respect for justice or love—power without decency. Is it not that tyranny fails to transcend power, that it remains immanent to the dominion it acquires?

And so there is a "tyrant of the intellect", i.e., a genius, as there is a "genius of volition", i.e., a tyrant.

Genius & Tyranny 2

Genius is to knowledge what tyranny is to power especially in their reception. The genius and the tyrant are celebrated in similar ways by "lesser" knowers and powers, i.e., minor scientists and politicians. We honour their "greatness" only by exposing our smallness.

All this is still a question. It is easier to accept this point in re the tyrant than the genius, isn't it? That's the whole point of the homologies.

Genius & Tyranny

It's an incomplete thought, but a homology just occured me. I could be wrong about this.

Genius is to knowledge as tyranny is to power. And, as we know, honesty is to knowledge as decency is to power. This could have interesting implications. One might be that honesty and decency are inversely proportionate to, respectively, genius and tyranny. Honesty and decency affect the conditions of possibility of knowledge and power.

You only need tyrants where there is no decency. You only become one if you have none. You only need geniuses where there is no honesty. You only become one if you have none. (Pause for thought.)

Whether in the society or the individual, genius is neither possible nor necessary under conditions of complete honesty. Likewise, tyranny is neither necessary nor possible under conditions of complete decency. The decent man cannot be and need not be a tyrant. Nor can the tyrant reach him. The honest man has no need to be a genius, nor can he ever become one. And the genius has nothing to teach him.