Personal Note XXXIII

Yahweh in (יהוה‎):
Moses and the Burning Bush

My views on "Genius" |
Saturday – January 24, 2026

In modern times it's commonplace to consider certain persons to be "geniuses" and great thinkers, as if these people had some unique ability to come up with complex ideas that somewhat well correlates with the conditions of reality, and if a man is able to achieve this he is thought of and remembered as a genius; someone that had an above average ability to contend with ideas. I reject this concept for many reasons, and they are too numerous to list here, but my biggest reason why I reject the concept of a genius is simply because ideas cannot be owned by a single man nor can a single man out of nowhere, out of the cosmic flux, invent new ideas or new knowledge. Indeed, in the realm of ideas there are only two possibilities: either an idea is correct or the idea is incorrect, and since most ideas are incorrect most "geniuses" are eventually proved incorrect, especially in the temporal domain, since these ideas are rarely nothing else but further subdivision of matter, or if you will further refinement of matter until this concept of an idea starts to approach reality enough, read why you should not trust your body here. Of course, the concept of a genius is also deeply rooted in individualism: only this person could've come up with this idea, and this individualism has really created a situation were most men that engage with ideas only do this for their own vanity, and rarely do they fail to take credit for their supposed genius, read more about individualism in my "Collectivism & Individualism series". Of course, this strange and modern focus not on the ideas but on the "genius" behind the ideas tend to preclude most men from the actual content of the ideas, and this is really seen in the modern hysteria and commotion around science, philosophy, and technology. But ideas are really simple constructs from a metaphysical point of view, especially in the temporal domain: no man can ever be said to own and idea or even be the first person to express an idea, and in this sense a genius is really only the last person to have expressed an idea with some elements within it approaching the material limits of the temporal domain, that's it. But I do believe that it is also important to notice the monetary and speculative interest in theoretical and speculative ideas in particular, because they tend to be shaped by the material interest of the persons pursuing them, and this phenomena is something that surely has undermined most severely profane science. But apart from the hysteria and the commotion inherent in the modern enterprise of "manufacturing ideas", it's important to note that limitations that this materialist mindset imposes on the enterprise of ideas: in the even where robots become more intellectually superior, from a materialist standpoint, who can be said to own the ideas, or really reinventions of the material order, that these robots come up with? Would this not undermine the entirety of so-called "Intellectual property"? Yes, but that's a question for the modern to answer, but I will provide this further observation: the concept of "Intellectual property" is a very interesting case of materialism intersecting with individualism, and though they are the same thing, the fact that materialism is expressed twice in this manner is really interesting and goes to show how much materialism is willing to undercut itself; had the revolutionary elite been more circumspect they would not allow both of these same expressions of this modern confusion to coexist in one monstrosity, and this makes it quite likely that many men will lose whatever meaning they could cling to in the temporal domain, once robots really start to out compete them with ease. The question then is this: are human beings really necessary for the perpetuation of the materialist order, or can this order, once it is made aware of itself, move on without humanity? This is a question that I have attempted to explore further in my "Future series".

    The main reason why I refuse to write without anonymity is because I refuse to take part in this materialist pursuit of individual vanity, not that I would be considered a person of great importance, but I refuse to allow myself to fall victim to this demon, yes demon is the right word in the context, of the mind, or this precursor to mental illness. Yes if anything, I refuse to allow the materialist delusion to define who I am, and this insight is sorely lacking in most modern men; most of them believe themselves to be "Geniuses" of one sort or the other, and here genius doesn't only refer to the ability to create further clever subdivisions of matter, but also to such things as athleticism, oratory ability, and other supposed talents. My self image is detached from my writing; in no way is my writing a reflection of my peculiarities or my individualism, at least not inwardly. Yes, my writing may be reflective of me, but only outwardly and on a shallow level, and this is essentially the problem with the concept of a genius or someone  able in particular: their reflection lack skillful insight and really an intellectual depth, and this means that people resort to understanding the world through the peculiarities of one man, yet another step towards materialist compartmentalization of the world into categories that fail to perform any other function than a sorting mechanism for the ever increasing quantities to be contended with in the modern world, a sort of unskillful complexity that in the end can't be expected to solve any problems.

    Yes, don't fall for the genius myth, and don't allow this delusion to grow in your own mind: ideas are tools that either fail to describe the world or somewhat well describe the world, that's it, and this continual refinement of ideas is the reason for the increased material complexity of the world, but also the reason for less and less meaning and satisfaction. Yes, you can always reinvent the world, but in soon time computers and robots will be able to do this in no time, and then the concept of a "genius" will finally lose its traction. What am I supposed to do with a "genius", when my computer can cure cancer? Again, these questions are not for me to answer. But again do consider the stupidity and blatant falsehood in the concept of inventing an idea, as if this approach to the material domain was impossible without the "inventor", again here is a case of uncontrolled individualism and hubris; at best a genius may come up with a concept that is somewhat closer to approaching the ontological limit of the temporal domain.

Reginald Drax – January 24, 2026.