Mr. Allin, I would heartily concur with your thesis--stated in the conclusion of this piece--and have no desire to detract from it in the least. But, I have a bit of a problem with some of the steps you took to arrive at your destination. Some of my reaction is admittedly quite subjective...some not so. Sure, van Gogh was eccentric--perhaps even totally insane. You quote him as saying that the master of one thing--who understands one thing well--has insight into and understanding of many things. van Gogh did not say that the master of one thing is the MASTER of ALL things. There are people who possess the capacity to engage in such a broad range of function that, to one who lacks such capacity, may seem quite accomplished in many endeavors. There are also some people (from street bums to rocket scientists) who--even though they devote themselves to their "vocation," certainly are not snobs and DO have special insight. I am a bit surprised that you attempt to link van Gogh's creative expression with material success. It may be that Vincent just couldn't hack it in the "real world." Fortunately (or not) he had at least one family member who perceived greatness in Vincent's work and kept him alive long enough to leave us with evidence of Vincent's creative genius. There is little doubt that Vincent's genius would have been useless in a setting where survival skills were needed. But, we will never know. John Forbes Nash, Jr. wrote his greatest works in the 1940's and early 1950s and then proceeded to lapse into a supposed paranoid-schizophrenic funk for a couple of decades. I wouldn't want Nash working on my car or performing surgery on me, but it is difficult to argue with his Nobel Prize winning (40+ years AFTER his published works) mathematical skills. It is amazing that he did not die as a result of some of the barbaric treatment he received while institutionalized because of his mental illness. If he HAD died, should we apply the "van Gogh success test" to Nash? Would his contributions to math, and economics, and politics, and games all be for naught just because he didn't "pay the bills" while he was sick? I think not. Besides this "exception" I agree with the assertions you make here. It all makes me wonder how the human race survived for all those eons without such a high degree of specialization. Specialist snobbery is real, and it can be problematic. Let's not allow it to make us arbitrarily dismiss genius. There are some among us who are masters of one or more things, and do have insight into others. Thanks for the stimulus!

Great thoughts. Excellent, albeit brief, presentation. Of course the stilted attention span of most readers wouldn't be conducive to a more in-depth consideration of the subject. Two anecdotal experiences came to mind as I read this: The first one consists of interaction that I had several years ago with the president of our local Christian Coalition chapter. She had in mind to "expose" the seedy underworld of the adult bookstores. After meeting me at a church gathering, and finding out that I was a police officer, she asked me if I would accompany her and the "film crew" on their outings--for security. In response I told her that if she was interested in making advance visits to meet some of the people involved in the operations and discussing the purpose of her mission--and the love and concern that ostensibly motivated it--I would consider providing my services for the project. This woman looked at me like I had three heads. She was aghast and couldn't see "any good reason" for doing such a thing. After my once-you-are-successful-in-lobbying-"the government"-to-censor-the-adult-industry-what's-going-to-stop-them-from-shutting-down-your-church speech, we parted ways. These people just don't "get it." As far as I know the project wasn't pursued. The second experience involves my thirteen year-old son. Early in this school year he "discovered girls." Since then his school life has consisted of a steady stream of torrid "love" affairs. The distracting sham has been exacerbated by available technology (email, online chat, and the state-of-the-art cell phone that his mother insisted on giving him "for his safety"). There can be little doubt that exposure to the pervasive "let's rape each other" attitude expressed in contemporary entertainment has added fuel to an already difficult to tend fire. It is nearly impossible to speak reason into this situation. I cannot, and do not, blame the children for this situation. The mutual rape scenario is more prevalent than the overt non-love making that is represented. Materialism, consumerism, and governmental interventionism stand on the premise that someone is going to have to "bend over." The trick in the process is to either make the one bending over think that he or she WANTS to bend over, or get them to do it by subterfuge. Well, I don't want to go off on a tangent or try to give these thoughts a full treatment here in your space. But, I did want to provide some feedback. Thank you for your dedication, insight, and hard work. All the best...

While I appreciate and largely agree with your basic premise, I think that "Science" has not let us down--WE have let us down. Was Sophia (Gr. Wisdom) stupid to not bow down before the temporal (megalomaniacal) Hadrian? Were the deaths of Pistis, Elpis, and Agape (Faith, Hope, & Love) stupid martyrdom? I think not. This account stands as a lesson to us all. Hadrian was a "part" of the whole. His error was that he perceived himself as a god--as representative of the entirety of creation. Herein, methinks, is the key: Only when we worship "Science" (L. scientia - knowledge) as a god can Science let us down. It is imperative, as I know you also believe, that we seek awareness and enlightenment to our own purpose and satisfaction. Thank you again for a wonderfully challenging post. Cheers, Bruce

Thumbs UP!

Well, Mr. Allin, I think that having the capacity to think does not mean that one will necessarily think. Then there is the daunting task of co-thinking. Is it possible? I think so. Is it common? I think not so. Do you really think that the US media are largely dominated by conservative Republicans? That is an interesting slant. I think that the US media are dominated by a profit-grubbing elite that doesn't care a whit about political parties beyond the profitability of reporting on the conflict that arises as a result of their existence. But that's what I get for thinking. Media and entertainment thrive on non-thinking. They collude to turn minds to mush. Of course there must exist minds that have been prepared to be mushed. Leave that to our (non)educational system. Yeah, well, before we get into the whole circular reasoning thing, let's just agree to keep thinking. Cheers!

YES! Bill is back. Nice stroke, Mr. Allin. All the best.

I wonder if the postmortem "appreciation" of the first-rate mind has something to do with the psychic "pressure of presence" while the genius yet lives. New ideas seem to always pose a threat to the status quo. The pervasive prideful resistance of humankind is certainly deeply entrenched in that blanket insanity. It has always puzzled me why many (if not most) of the people in my life for whom I care the most respond to me so defensively -- as if I were out to hurt them. How many times have I declared, "I am not your enemy." I either need to make some serious adjustments in my relationship goals or learn to be happy alone. Social misfits are weird by definition. Who can say for sure if our phenotypical expression of first-, second-, or third-rate mindedness is rooted uniquely in the genotype? Albert Einstein thought that we were all born with the potential for great thought and innovative prowess, but that the environment destroys that for most in short order. Just some thoughts...

No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne (1572-1631). From "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII"

Bill, Who can argue that humankind suffers from distribution issues and not supply issues? Just as certain as the existence of unequal distribution is the fact that it always has been, and I suspect always will exist to some extent. Subjectively, the ones who you allege suffer from malfunctioning distribution only see a lack of supply. I do not pretend to have "the answer," and applaud your heart-felt plea to "do something." It occurs to me that so much deficiency exists on the local level that most folks are not even able to start to look at the global problem with any real objectivity. The enormity of this matter is indescribable -- well, I cannot describe it. Obviously we cannot send our refuse to starving countries in some sort of doggy bag fashion. Maybe we all should buy a pig and/or some chickens and turn the garbage/slop into livestock that could be sent to these developing (?) nations and peoples? I agree on one level that we are "committed to every other person on the planet." We are a part of the whole, no doubt. But to divert local focus to global dilemma will damage efficacy on the local level. We are back to the apathetic paralysis "thing." You raise some good points . . . as usual. I'm here for the long haul. Just thought I would pop in. Peace, Bruce

Oh, I wasn't arguing the point. You're dead (?) on! No doubt...lazy is such a, well...lazy word. ; )