Anyone such a creative genius to the point of getting misunderstood...

>Its a /mu/homosexualfaggot having an existential crisis - to need reafirm his sense superiority posting in a Literature board Episode
Dont forget . Polite sage.

New research suggests it. A book called Predisposed goes into it. Appearently some subtle personality and physical features like taste influence whatever you are more likely to end up on the right or left. And it is largely but not fully heritable.

That's a really pretentious way of saying "I don't care about what other people think, so why don't I resonate with them?" Also the fact that you can only think about your work in these "esoteric" terms is pretty good evidence that it's not very good.

That's not what I said, if you were as smart as you think then you'd know that.

Most psychological research shows nothing. It's just a pseudo-scientific exercise in philosophical categorization. These kinds of "studies" don't actually have a way for controlling for almost any factor. It's true that, in this time period in America, certain tastes and behaviors tend to be somewhat, though not meaningfully, grouped by political preference. What you obviously have backwards is that politics determines taste, and not the other way around, in that someone who is conservative will more often than not be a pickier eater, and prefer tastes and sights and smells that have positive associations in their memories, where as someone who is liberal, more often than not, will want to try new things with greater frequency. Fundamental to both taste and politics is one's desire to rely on what works even if it's not perfect or to try something new without knowing the full consequences.

>replying to this thread

This would be a lot better if there was a bunch of nonsense words sprinkled throughout. Also needs more absurds
6/10

>your political views determine your long-developed personality traits and innate perceptory predispositions

If you can't articulate complex ideas to laymen, you clearly aren't a creative genius, let alone above-average intelligence.

why is everyone acting like this isn't someone trying to make a pasta

theres nothing to get; ur deluded
its like someone trying to tell u about the revelations they had on an acid trip

>Kanye West
Don't worry - you're definitely not a genius buddy

This also most people don't care about complex ideas to begin with, just stick to talking to people on the internet when it comes to these things tbqh

>Doesn't show any examples of his, so to say: "I'm creating a lot of neologisms and new conceptual frameworks, enriching language like Shakespeare in excess"

If you're so smart then learn how to communicate effectively

you can't prove insights from an acid trip are delusional.

haha, what a load of bullshit.

where's your manifesto?

show us your ideas. it's probably just an irredeemable pile of shitty pseud nonsense.

of course normal people would find an egotistical non-genius pseud hard to understand if he spouts nonsense

>Like, when I say that I am making language unfold to its logical future conclusion by not following the linguistic rules of the now because my mind is so advanced and prophetic it is already in the future and creating it, they always seem to be annoyed instead of struck by awe and wonder.

There's your problem, user. No matter how smart you are, no one likes someone going 'hey, guys! look at how smart I am'. Show, don't tell.

Also, if you want to dabble with languages and do all these sort of things, please tell me you've gone through and refuted Chomsky's work and the work of his supporters. As a bonus, go learn Esperanto, Lojban, and Ithkuil. I'll be willing to listen to what you have to say if you have all of that done.

> it is already in the future and creating it
If you think you're doing pic related, you have an issue. Insofar as causality is, retrocausality, or the future determining the past, seems highly far-fetched. On the other hand, link related: phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html

Still, you have an uphill battle.

>Anyone such a creative genius to the point of getting misunderstood? I'm trying to communicate high-end ideas and visuals but I think most people would not "get it"

Look, user. I would, in private, consider myself a (potential) genius of sorts, if it were not for the gross lack of actualization. Any idea, ideals, or aspirations I wish to inflict upon others, I do so from the beginning and with charisma and charm. People who know how to play the game of 'thinking' play along just fine and can follow what I say - they might disagree, but they 'get it'.

Recently, I had conversation about Christianity, literally as simple as 'what do Catholics believe', with a guy who would not play along or allow discussion because he had his own preconceived notions that were unwilling to budge (he literally did not know the difference between Catholics and Christians, or what the Reformation was, but held adamantly to his views about Christian theology - which were completely wrong save for the odd denomination). The other was that I told someone I studied philosophy. I think the topic of 'what is an ethical action' came up, but anything I rattled off became a problem of causality: but then who created the dinosaurs, and then who created God? Gurl, I'm not even talking about dinosaurs or God.

If you play the game with people who know how to play the game, you'll do fine - if you're not a loon. Just don't share your pearls with the swine.

I recognize this possibility, or the possibility of bait, I just believe in being earnest and sincere.

I'll assume you're being serious, and this isn't just some copypasta like everyone's saying.

> I am making language unfold to its logical future conclusion
Maybe ou're on to something (you're being pretty vague), but need to go deeper. The role of awareness and pattern recognition (or what you seem to be unironically calling "genius") is not to build on existing constructs to create more and more elaborate constructs, but rather to see through the illusion of commonly held constructs. Only when your own beliefs and unquestioned assumptions begin to fall, will you be in a position to evaluate the role of language from a logical standpoint.
As far as I'm concerned, the notion of conveying meaning through language is for the most part nothing but an illuion, but I think everyone will have to figure this out (assuming they ever do) on their own.
>You'll have to have just the right amount of crystallized intelligence, connectivity in the brain and schizotypy to fully "get it"
You already have just the right amount of everything to fully "get" yourself, and only when you understand the truth of your own existence will you be of any use to help others understand the truth of theirs.

>I'm guessing that it will take years for this work of mine to finally be understood let alone be appreciated.
You seem to be driven by a desire to change how other people see the world, see you. But the truth is that an authentic artist/thinker will toil in obscurity for as long as it takes to unravel the truth of his own existence. In fact, the notion of obscurity is totally irrelevant, since you can simply upload your work to the internet for future generations, if necessary.

>people aren't interested in my constant autistic ramblings that serve to stroke my ego
Wow shocking.

>retrocausality, or the future determining the past, seems highly far-fetched

Only if the future is considered to exist as future to the world beyond human understanding, meaning the position of "now" is observable beyond our species. This type of future is implausible, yes, but a future which is dependent upon human observation is not implausible if human observation is inherently out of sync with that "now." The possibility of losing a fraction of a second of the now due to the limited ability of conscious filters to not overwhelm us are easily shown to even the laymen through various psychotropic advances in medicine. That we lose a fraction of time as a species though, must give one pause to think of what it would mean to have the means to volition within the actual "now." Anxiety is not nearly the right word. Suspicion and dread, followed by utter disgust and revulsion - further followed by escapism, sensuality. I sometimes find myself cowering to what I can only describe as something entirely myself, something I am already, but something that is calling me, telling me to hurry, to go faster, to get here. I'm sure everyone plays that game with themselves every once and a while when you imagine what you'd tell yourself now if you were in your 90's, just as we imagine going back in time to undo our mistakes we fantasise ourselves in possible futures screaming and pleading. I guess I imagine this, except a fraction of a second in the future - and I imagine the rest of myself as a drone, a flesh holy incapable of volition. And I'm screaming for it to listen to my demands. But then who the fuck am I anyhow.

Fucking dunce. The point was clearly that inner traits determine everything else. The way one relates to the world will determine one's view of the world. A "conservative" begins as someone more cautionary and reserved and who likes to stick with what works, not upsetting the apple cart, and taking great joy out of being one with the crowd, of having things in common. If such a person comes to politics, they are more likely to be politically conservative. Meanwhile a "liberal" person would be more daring, more open to new experiences, preferring new methods to stodgy old ones, taking more joy out of their differences than their similarities with other people. Such a person if they approached politics would obviously be more inclined to new policy ideas, to changing things, to forgoing tradition for something that seemed better. Your behavior is dictated by how you see the world, by what you believe about the world, by your emotional relationship with people and things around you. It doesn't matter whether it's politics or music or food, it all falls into the same system of personality.

You should write for those who will get you then, even if those people are only a few. Don't aim to the wide audiences, but to reaching a point in your artistic skill where you feel you've made it. I think it was Cortazar who said that he started to beileve he was getting to where he always wanted to be as a writer when he "started to write exactly what he meant". I can't think of anything more rewarding for an writer than that. Will it bring you success or a big audience? Statistically no, as the popular and/or good authors are only a small portion of all writers in the world, but it will be rewarding and worth it.

>Also, keep a day job, just in case, you know.

So are you a determinist?

you have to put your ideas in context you ignorant retard. this isn't a free market where any product has inherent circulation value regained from sells. you have to place your idea in a history, or deconstruct the history completely for it to have a weight. not value. weight. as in weighing ON something which is history. or a line of thinking.

it's not like ideas are entities producing visuals for their consumers. how can you express if what you're doing is fundamentally selling? express rather than selling and you'll find out why. and how hard that is.

Could you give us a teaser on this "idea."

What's important is being able to find people who feel generally similar, so that you can interact with them and learn, through them, how to better understand yourself.

Legit.

go away and read the canon for 5 years

>high-end ideas

as opposed to bargain-basement ideas?

>meta-cognitive thought-world

full of high-end ideas I'll bet, really top shelf, straight off the lot with 5 year full warranty

>enriching language like Shakespeare in excess

ffs the way you write yuo've read 1 maybe 2 of his plays for highschool english

>In my mind I have synthesized various political thinkers from across spectrum

who would have thought that your mind was the place to "synthesize political thinkers." i'd rather do it in my glans

>humanoid thinkers.

what about robotoid thinkers, why exclude them?

this place is much less interesting since the guy who played all those characters like the guy who pretended to be in a cabin left

this board reminds me of why schoolyard bullying exists and is necessary

Bingo. Bullies are severely undervalued.

Your pasta is so good I red it and enjoyed it 10/10.

I got to know a junkie a couple years ago who would unironically say 80% of this while completely sober. It reminds me of him and I get a bit nostalgic.

Thus I speak to you in a parable-you who make souls whirl, you preachers of equality. To me you are tarantulas, and secretly vengeful. But I shall bring your secrets to light; therefore I laugh in your faces with my laughter of the heights. Therefore I tear at your webs, that your rage may lure you out of your lie-holes and your revenge may leap out from behind your word justice. For that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms.

The tarantulas, of course, would have it otherwise. "What justice means to us is precisely that the world be filled with the storms of our revenge"-thus they speak to each other. "We shall wreak vengeance and abuse on all whose equals we are not"-thus do the tarantula-hearts vow. "And 'will to equality' shall henceforth be the name for virtue; and against all that has power we want to raise our clamor!"

You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue. Aggrieved conceit, repressed envy-perhaps the conceit and envy of your fathers-erupt from you as a flame and as the frenzy of revenge.

I love you Kanye. Keep the good work.

Thanks man.

Say, you gonna eat all dat?

> I don't go with the right-left wing dichotomy

What if I phrase it as a big/small government dichotomy? That's the real conflict in politics(I'm assuming you haven't found Hobbes and Locke).

Try listening to podtail.com/podcast/the-world-in-time-lapham-s-quarterly/episode-03-john-micklethwait/

What? You start with the idea of an observer as influencing events(look into quantum mechanics), and you then talk about "losing time", where I can't see your meaning. My best guess is that you don't understand the fact that the present is distinct from the past and future.

newscientist.com/article/mg22530030-500-the-time-illusion-how-your-brain-creates-now/

this is only part of the picture
hint: there are more than two sides

You should stop pretending to be a genius in public. People find it obnoxious and you arrogant; which you are. Or maybe this is bait and I should just go to bed.

books about getting lobotomized after speaking your mind?

Kek