I've had the privilege of working with creative, innovative geniuses for years. From my father... to world renowned scientists like Stephen Hawking... or musical legends like Kenny Loggins... all of these individuals have shared something in common -- passion!!
It was my father, a multi-faceted artist whose works were splashed across the pages of Life Magazine, the programming of PBS-TV, and in World Fair Exhibits, who once told me that the way to access your genius is to focus on what you're truly passionate about. When, as a young man, I asked him how I could know what career to pursue, he answered, "It's simple... find out what you truly love to do... what you would do even if you weren't paid... and make that your career."
"But what if what I love to do changes?" I asked. "Change careers," was his simple, but profound answer.
So what are you truly passionate about? What really engages your mind, body, and soul? Is that the work (or play) you're engaged in? Have you truly tapped into your inner genius in a powerful, meaningful way? If not... we should talk. If you have... let's talk and share the joy.
P.S. Click on "Links to this Post" to see the comments in the body of the blog or click "Comments" to see the comments in a pop up window.
Views of those commenting have not been checked for accuracy and do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog publisher or his associates.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Where Passion and Genius Meet
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Chris!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really neat topic.
I have wondered the same thing my whole life- how am I going to get by in life, financially, when I really love to have fun, and make people happy? there are so many things I can do with this passion- happiness- but not all of them suit me so well, I thought about being a teacher for a while, and although it is a great thing to be, its not for me- I love kids, and I love teaching but it doesnt draw my attention as much as some other things do- I am studying yoga right now, and I think that is a great 1st step to finding my happiness in allowing people to feel free and happy...but there is a block- I worry too much, and I try and look down the road of life-and I sometimes miss whats right in front of me- this worries me too- so I am sometimes a circle of worry... I dont want anything to stop me from being the person I know I am, and doing the things I belive I am here for and know I am capable of- have you come accross anything like this in your search for passion and your search for the right career? I think the only thing in my way is fear of suceeding , or fear of failing...
nice job on the blog!
loves
ems
Hey Chris,
ReplyDeleteNice topic.
The first thing that jumps up in my mind is the fact that the definition of genius is a REALLY big subject, and that I'd be interested in seeing how other folks view the various iterations of the term. In thinking of the different contexts in which I've heard the term used it can mean anything from extreme intellectual prowess to athletic superiority to financial or artistic accomplishment all the way out to spiritual mastery. But rarely (read: probably never) do all of them show up in one person, which isn't necessarily bad (for one thing, it makes parties a lot more interesting!), but the fact that just as often, folks who get the genius label relating to one aspect of their lives, in my experience, are completely capable of being complete dumbasses/reprobates/just plain fools in other areas of their lives. To one degree or another, of course, that's true of all of us, but I'm interested in people's concepts of just what constitutes "genius". I think there's a lot of room under that particular umbrella, and it's something I think about when experiencing great music, or great art of any kind or reading great philosophy. I certainly don't have any one answer, because I don't think there is only one. That's why I think you're definitely on to something when you describe the passion/genius nexus. I am deeply influenced, because of my profession, by yin/yang theory and the basic Taoist take on the world, and in that stream, everything imaginable is ruled by the interaction of those two forces, in other words, between the raw material and basic substance on the yin side, and the animating, energizing life force (Qi) on the yang side. Without the energizing force of the yang, the raw material on the yin side is simply inert raw material with no form or function. Without the raw material on the yin side to ground it, the energizing fire on the yang side is simply formless energy that has no shaping vessel through which to manifest. It's the balanced and dynamic interaction of the two that is the great engine that drives the manifest world. In the dyad you propose, I see genius as that yin side, that marvelous well of potential that we each have at least some access to as part of our human birthright, and passion as the vital, animating force that makes that raw material into something more than just inert potential. As such, all the good stuff happens right at the point of interaction between the two principles, and that's where it really gets interesting.
I might also propose, for the sake of discussion, that we consider a third "force" that might make the dyad a triangle. What if we include something like growth, or evolution? Maybe there is a better term, but you get the idea. I keep getting struck when I think of the intersection of passion and genius, how the great ones in anything always seem to have a very specific drive to do what they do, not just because they enjoy it, which is the passion, but because they have some great orienting idea or desire to see something exist that hasn't before. Maybe that will add something to the discussion.
Anyway, that's the first thoughts that come into my head in relation to your comments. Thanks for lighting that particular fuse. I am as always, enriched by your presence in my life.
Greetings to all.
Brent
OK, so it seems to me that you have all accepted that the passion and the "inner genius" have to be connected in order for happiness to manifest? Or am I wrong?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous... I think you've made a logic leap that perhaps goes one step beyond what's been said (at least in regard to what I've written). And it's a step beyond that's well worth considering
ReplyDeleteHappiness is a tricky subject in many ways... and I'm not sure, at this point in the thought process anyway, that happiness is solely restricted to the accessing of our inner genius (unless perhaps we make the connection that we are happiest when we are free to be our truest selves and inherent in our truest selves is our innate genius).
Have to give that some more thought though... do we have to connect with our inner genius to manifest happiness? Hmmm... great question. Any one else have a perspective on this?
Well, OK. That leads me to yet another question, then. Would you define your inner genius to be a genius only if you are aware of it and consciously pursuing it with reward (as, for instance, constituted by happiness) in mind? Would it also lead to happiness if pursued without expectation?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous might be on to something. Sort of demands the question about whether happiness is actually the goal of accessing the inner capacity beyond the individual ego identity. To what degree is the need for "happiness" strictly a function of the ego? In other words, is my happiness the samee as yours, or is there a state that we can all access at the collective level that is actually the same for everyone who gets there? For example, people called Dr. Mengele a genius, but I very much doubt that whatever he got from his experiments had anything to do with what most of us would call happiness, regardless of how he felt about it. Or is there another factor, peace, for example, that can describe what occurs when we access that collective space beyond the limitations of separate identity?
ReplyDeleteAnnonymous... BKO... deep minds... brilliant questions.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few thoughts to consider:
I'd suggest that genius is genius whether we recognize it or not (it may be latent genius or genius untapped or genius not recognized, but it's still genius that will become genius applied, once it is put to use).
I'd also suggest that the application of genius can lead to happiness, unhappiness, and a whole other host of emotional states depending upon the extent to which the person applying it had expectations (and whether they were met or not).
Genius, to BKO's point, it seems, can also be applied for the greater good, for no reason at all, or for one person's version of good (e.g. Mengele thought what he was doing was for the good of humankind, though that logic may seem proposterous to most or many). From the little I know of Mengele and others who have utilized their intelligence to do what are sometimes judged as horrendous acts, whether he was happy or not I can't say (happiness is after all a relative state, yes?), but he did seem to gain a great deal of satisfaction from his work (at least until he was forced to escape Germany).
Now... here's another question... Is there one level of happiness that applies to the individual (i.e. our egos); and perhaps another level of happiness (or joy) that may transcend the individual and be experienced by us when we transcend our limited identity and in particular if we are involved in doing something that benefits the greater whole (humans, planet, other animals, etc.)?
Ultimately genius might be described as the unlimited base of knowledge, wisdom, information, applications, etc. available to us when we tap into what some have called the supra-conscious and it's immediate next dimension, the super-conscious realm. How that information gets put to use may depend upon what perspective (or level of consciousness we default to (or generally reside at) when we apply the genius.
Your thoughts?
To me, genius is where our passions and gifts meet. Without passion it's just a gift, something we're good at, but with passion that gift can transcend the world of the ordinary to become something unique and deserving the name genius.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not sure that happiness is something one can aspire to; it's an emotion and all emotions, according to my many therapists, are meant to be momentary, transitory feelings. One can't really hang on to any emotion if one is healthy and staying in the moment. I can however be at peace with myself even though I may not be happy right at that moment. I do think that contentment might not be quite so elusive a goal, I can be unhappy and yet at peace all at the same time, and I know for me it's leading a life of passionately using my gift (s), especially the ones I'm passionate about that give me that contentment.
A wonderful, huge topic. Thanks Chris
Well now, this discussion IS getting to be quite interesting!
ReplyDeleteChris, I do also believe that genius is inherently genius whether or not recognized as long as our operational definition of genius is that we use the word for descriptive purposes. I would rather apply it as a more “ethereal” concept, however. If genius is something we can think of as a universal truth it doesn’t matter whether or not we recognize it as it will still be there, held by – if nothing else – our thoughts.
One of you mentioned Stephen Hawking. My understanding (or rather, perception) of his work is that it is heavily thought centered, meaning, the impact of and creativity held by a single thought is more than a human mind can effectively analyze or dissect without getting stuck on definitions. It is limitless and endless. Intelligence, however, appears to have limitations. Happiness and genius also have limitations, unless, of course you are suggesting that genius is a collective compilation of intelligence, goodness and positive energy? In that case I suppose we are operationalizing genius to be more than a description of intelligence (Chris’ mention of super/supra consciousness)?
Also, BKO asked: “To what degree is the need for "happiness" strictly a function of the ego?”
My answer to that question would be - with a standard disclaimer related to the obvious pitfalls of using “ego” without defining the term – that since happiness as we know it is always determined by the self that happiness is always a function of the ego.
I find this discussion interesting. Very much so. I hope we can venture onto the unbeaten paths, however, and start looking at why we find is necessary to talk about, define and otherwise dissect concepts we appear to hold universally true. Maybe language isn’t truly the way to find our answers. As a university student I can speak with some authority about the limitations of empirical research and data analysis utilizing empirical methods. As a foreign language speaker I can attest to numerous difficulties utilizing language as a communication tool when definitions differ or appear unclear. As a human being I can speak with some authority about my own inadequacies and inabilities related to conceiving and effectively utilizing my perceptive abilities. And as a mother I can attest to the fact that none of the sciences can explain the happiness and contentment contained motherhood. Linguistics, semantics, biology, and religion – they all fail to even come close to a complete description of happiness, genius or intelligence. So consequently I have little belief in terminology. However, I am deeply respectful and awestruck by creation (and nope – I cannot define that term). ☺
P.S.
I believe that maybe true happiness is a state obtained when we are able to disregard the scientific methods and allow ourselves to just be, even without definitions or clarity. What is clarity anyway if limited to available definitions?