Topic: | Re:Re:Re:ReReRe:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:note-able quotes |
Posted by: | John Schertzer |
Date/Time: | 03/06/2003 14:22:06 |
Count, Mozart and DaVinci had access to the proper authorities (royalty), and Einstein with a prestigious peer group with whom he communicated. By marketing, I'm not talking about "marketing" per se, but but other means of influence which amount to the same thing. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the Internet. There is a book by a favorite writer of mine in which he talks about some of his really obscure influences, people he believes should be included to the western canon (genius group) but who were missed. He goes on to talk about how there are probably a thousand or more for every one of them who will never be historically documented, possibly greater than the greatest of the canon. It's really up to chance. I've read things about physicists who've said more or less the same thing, that often the people who are credited with certain discoveries, since nobody's ever realy working alone, are usually those with the biggest political clout. Einstein maybe a myth for all we know. An obvious example is Shakespaere. No one really knows who wrote the stuff he supposedly wrote, and lots of scholars say that the actual man by that name was most likely incapable of it. My opinion is that genius has two meanings. One of which is public, which is represented by the icons Mozart, DaVinci, Shakespaere & Einstein, while the other is personal, and therefore subjective. NLP literature sometimes confuses the two, ie R Dilts' Strategies of Genius. Which is an interesting project in spite of itself. best, JS |