10. GENIUS AS A PHENOMENON

There is one phrase in which the wording of the concept of "genius" is clearly expressed mathematically, however, in a negative connection with another semantic concept of the world around us. There is one book where the notion of “genius” in the title, given already in a positive connection with a different concept, has been demonstrably investigated (mostly statistically).
The first is the phrase:
... genius and villainy
Two things incompatible ...
The second is a book:
C. Lombroso "Genius and insanity."
These starting points are taken to discuss the nature and, if I may say so, the etiology of genius.
The first starting point defines the axiomatics of the whole problem: genius is not compatible with evil, and since the third is not given, it is generated and is compatible only with good. But good is the divine prerogative, i.e. it makes sense to consider the genius of the work of God. Here, of course, it would be possible to carry out a full, exhaustive proof according to all the rules of Aristotle's syllogistic, so beloved by medieval scholastics and old theologians, and, probably, this will be done, but conceptual dashedness is enough to pose the problem. So, we assume that genius is the work of the hands of God, and after KG Jung gives this phenomenon the name "Spark of God."
Clarification needed. The word "genius" (lat. Genius) originally meant the Romans supernatural being personifying masculine power, vitality, then the patron saint of a man, family, home, community, city, even the state (Genius populi Romani). 'The genius of the emperor played a major role in imperial Rome. Roman's birthday was considered a holiday of his Genius (analogue in Christianity: guardian angel, "angel's day and his connection with a calendar birthday). Obviously, modern definitions of the concept of" genius "and" genius "as a" quality mark "of a man go back to the old Latin symbolism. But in the future we will use exactly modern concepts, and from the ancient definition we will only remember the words in italics: personifying life force, implying its existence a priori, that is, postulating it.
2. Naturally, both the formulation of the problem and the study of the phenomenon of genius cannot be conducted in a purely metaphysical spirit, rather, on the contrary, it is necessary to tie it as closely as possible to the real manifestation of this phenomenon - to art and science. In the work "The Phenomenon of the Spirit in Art and Science" KG Jung made an attempt to approach the problem "from the inside", i.e. from the perspective of psychology. Jung rejects the Freudian approach to the problem of the author-work of art, according to which it is possible to analyze a work of art from the sphere of the author’s personal experiences, he believes that purely personal means only limitedness for art, even vice. The creator of the work - according to Jung - is extremely objective, significant, superpersonal, perhaps even superhuman, because in his capacity as an artist he is his work, and not a person. The essence of a work of art is that it speaks on behalf of the spirit of humanity, the heart of humanity and appeals to them.
Jung amazingly accurately explains the problem of the genesis of genius as the problem of "the author and his creation", i.e. regards it as if from the inside. For him, every creatively gifted person is some kind of duality or synthesis of paradoxical properties. As a person, he can be healthy or painful, even abnormal (and in this Lombroso is right to feed the book with the names of geniuses), but as a creator he can only be understood from his creative inclinations. As an individual, he may have whims, desires, personal goals, but as an artist, scientist, creator, he is a collective person, carrier and sculptor of the unconsciously acting soul of humanity .. This is his duty, the burden of which often outweighs the rest, that his human happiness and all that adds to the value of ordinary human life must naturally be sacrificed. Further, Jung cites the opinion of K. G. Carus (referring to his study "On the Soul"): "... what we have called a genius is a highly gifted spirit, which stands out because, with all the freedom and clarity of self-development of his life, he retreats everywhere, cramped by the unconscious, this mysterious god in him, and it turns out that he is given some perceptions - but he does not know where, what brings him to action and creativity - but he does not know where, and what he owns impulse of becoming and development - but he still does not know for what purpose. " This, of course, completely refutes the way of proving Lombroso, which any manifestation of the unconscious refers to such features of brilliant people who allow him to rank them as crazy (he even introduced the term "damaged geniuses" for them). Thus, in Chapter XI of his book “Genius and Insanity”, Lombroso writes about Socrates: “Was Socrates, a genius thinker who foreshadowed Christian morality and Jewish monotheism, was not crazy when he was guided in his actions by the voice and instructions of his imaginary Genius or even simply sneezing ? " He even more severely assesses Cardano's mental state: “What about Cardano, which explained with the participation of some Spirit, not only his scientific discoveries, but even the crash of the board at the desk and the shaking of the pen in his hands! Next, except for insanity, can we attribute his own admission that he had been demon-possessed several times, and his book, On Dreams, which undoubtedly testifies to the abnormal mental state of its author? True, I must pay tribute: Lombroso understood that genius is not always associated with madness. He admitted that "if genius was always accompanied by madness, then how to explain to yourself that Galileo, Kepler, Columbus, Voltaire, Napoleon, Michelangelo, Cavour are undoubtedly brilliant people and, moreover, subjected to the most difficult trials during their lives, they never discovered signs of insanity? " All of the above leads to the conclusion that given the large statistical value of the Lombroso study, the methodology of its work requires revision. The problem of “genius and insanity” is not decided at all from the positions on which Lombroso stood.
Let us return to the arguments of C. Jung. The life of a creative person, according to the logic of his reasoning, “is necessarily overwhelmed with conflicts, because two forces struggle in it: an ordinary person with his legitimate needs for happiness, satisfaction and life security, on the one hand, and ruthless creative passion, wickedly trampling everything into the dirt his personal wishes, on the other. This is the reason for the fact that the personal life of so many artists is so unsatisfactory, even tragic, and not from a gloomy combination of circumstances, but about the reason for the inferiority or lack of adaptability of the human being in them. It is very rare to find a creatively gifted individual who would not have to pay dearly for the spark of God - his unusual abilities. As if everyone is born with some kind of vital energy capital that is limited in advance. own creative beginning, devours most of his energy, if he is really an artist, and for other things too little remains, so that any valuable thing can be developed from this remnant the awn On the contrary, a person is usually so drained of blood for the sake of his creative principle that he can somehow live only on a primitive or generally reduced level. This is usually manifested as childishness and thoughtlessness or as arrogant, naive egoism (the so-called "autoeroticism"), as vanity and other vices. Such imperfections are justified only to the extent that it is only in this way that I can save enough vitality. It needs such lower forms of existence, for otherwise it would have perished from complete exhaustion. The self-eroticism inherent in the personal appearance of artists can be compared with the auto-eroticism of illegal or generally abandoned children, who from early childhood must develop their nasty inclinations in order to withstand the destructive influence of their non-environment. Such children easily become recklessly selfish natures, either passively, remaining infantile and helpless all their lives, or actively, breaking off against morality and law. Perhaps, it is quite obvious that the artist should be explained from his own creative work, and not from the imperfections of his nature and not from personal conflicts, which are only the regrettable consequences of the fact that he is an artist, i.e. such a person who carries a heavier burden than a mere mortal. Increased abilities also require increased energy waste, so plus on one side must inevitably be accompanied by a minus on the other "(CG Jung Phenomenon of spirit in art and science. // Collected Works. T. 15. M., 1992, pp. 147-148).
In this argument, Jung answers many of the questions in the "creator and man" problem, and even more questions are posed. And in this connection let us turn our attention to the Jungian approach to the "recklessly egoistic" nature of a creative person, which makes him either helpless and infantile, or actively pregreshyuschim against morality and the law. Jung does not justify, he explains. Recall:
I read yesterday in Capital
What for poets -
Its law.
Any "ordinary person" rightly exclaim: - But what is it! If he has this notorious spark of God, then “everything is permitted” to him, any iniquity, but I, an ordinary person, deprived of this spark, deprived, cannot do anything ?! (Pay attention to the familiar intonations of Bes-Koroviev, Bulgakov's Fagot: "And ours, ours!"). Where is the justice ?!
And an ordinary person will be right, right, if we admit that he is really deprived, surrounded at the feast of life with the spark of God. However, what a spark of God is and how people are endowed with it. We will postpone the first, as they say, “until better times,” since it is connected with the deepest foundations of the worldview, no matter how they are called: God, the World Soul, Nature, pantheism, the noosphere.
The general formulation of such questions is as follows: does a person come into the world with inborn spiritual qualities and qualities, or does he come into the world as a “clean board” (more precisely, “pure soul”), on which life, education, teaching, experience and other external forces and circumstances write their "letters", creating a unique individuality of this or that person? From this point of view, the solution of the question on the “distribution function of the spark of God” looks like a faith-based (scientifically insoluble, as long as!) Choice of one of two distribution functions: “uniform distribution” and “distribution of the type of Dirichlet function”.
The idea of ​​a uniform distribution, altruistic in its essence, implies the presence of talent in any person who comes into the world. At the same time, the spark of God acquires a rather wide range of incarnations: from the general property of “burning” to specific abilities in any field of knowledge or skills. Coordination of this idea with real life, where any talents are still quite rare, requires the introduction of the concepts of “realized” and “unrealized” abilities, and this is a problem.
The idea of ​​the distribution of the type of the Dirichlet function requires, above all, the definition of this function. It is known that the Dirichlet function f (x) is described as follows:
F (x) = (1, if x is a rational number, 0, if x is an irrational number).
To take the description of the distribution of the spark of God, Dirichlet’s function cannot be taken: if the presence of talent is naturally taken as f (x) = l, and the absence as f (x) = 0, then we have a paradox, since the set of rational numbers is infinite, and people even with all the hysteria of humanity, the final number Therefore, you can enter another function of the same type, defined as:
F (x) 1 if x is a natural number, 0 if x is an irrational number.
Now the analogy is complete and we can use the term "distribution of the tick of the Dirichlet function". The idea of ​​distributing the type of the Dirichlet function is essentially theological and presupposes the existence of a mechanism (God, Destiny Providence is something superhuman), allowing each individual to be attributed before or at his birth to “natural” or “irrational” points (individuals). Of the former, they are then endowed with the spark of God, their minority, and of the latter, mere mortals, their overwhelming majority. By the way, faith requires the presence of the same mechanism so that the spark of God is evenly distributed, but then its intervention is one-time and for ages the subsequent history of mankind.
C. Jung did not go into the question (and even from the point of view of faith) of the distribution of the spark of God. Being a realistic man, he accepted the world as it is: individual gifted personalities, talents, geniuses among the ocean of mere mortals. It should be noted that at the same time he passed by the point where one could stop and think about the possible existence of an alternative variant - a uniform distribution, the notions “realized” and “unrealized” abilities resulting from it, the mechanisms leading to the realization or non-realization of those or other abilities, etc .; Jung passed this point, because he felt that such reasoning would lead him towards social, and this would lead to a cry: "But to ours!", that is, to the idea of ​​justice But he said correctly when he gave but, even before the revolution of 1901, M. A. Voloshin: "The idea of ​​justice is the most tenacious and most brutal of all ideas that have ever mastered the human brain. When she moves into the hearts and muddies a man’s gaze, people start killing each other. She draws the softest hearts into a steel blade and makes the most sensitive people commit atrocities "(Voloshin M. Lika of creativity. L., 1988, p. 193). Indeed, in the social practice of humanity obsession with the idea of ​​deprivation with the spark of God deliberately incorrectly formulated the idea of ​​inequality and the equally deliberately distorted idea of ​​justice arising from them - often led people to the bloody feasts of massacres, the peak of which was Hitlerism, this "movement of disadvantaged burghers".
What is the connection between the two sides of personality - the creator-creator and the author-man? “The artist and the person are naive, most often mechanically, connected in one person; in creativity, a person leaves for a while from the“ life excitement ”as if into another world, into the world of“ inspiration, sounds of sweet and prayers. ”What is the result? Art is too boldly, self-confidently, too pathetic, because he has nothing to be responsible for life, which, of course, such art will not be stolen. “And where we are,” says life, “is art, and we have everyday prose.”
When a person is in art, he is not in life, and vice versa. There is no unity and interpenetration of the inner in the unity of the personality between them.
What guarantees the internal connection of the elements of personality? Only unity of responsibility. But what I experienced and understood in art, I must respond with my life so that everything that has been experienced and understood does not remain inactive in it. But responsibility is associated with Ivin. Not only should life and art bear mutual responsibility, but also blame for each other. The poet should remember that his poetry is to blame for the vulgar prose of life, and let the man of life know that his lack of standard and the lack of seriousness of his life questions and demands are to blame for the fruitlessness of art. A person should become completely responsible: all her moments should not only fit side by side in the time series of her life, but also penetrate into each other in the unity of guilt and responsibility. "
This reasoning is taken from the first published work of M. M. Bakhtin (see: Bakhtin MM. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979, p. 5-6). For him, in principle, there was no this notorious throwing of the philosophy of art between two opposing tendencies — objective and subjective. He not only solved the problem of the unity of the author-personality and the author-creator, but also revealed the energy of this unity (as well as its violations). Judge for yourself: “And there is nothing to justify irresponsibility to refer to“ inspiration. ”Inspiration, which ignores life and is itself ignored by life, is not inspiration, but obsession.
The correct, not self-proclaimed meaning of all the old questions about the relationship between art and life, pure art, etc., is their true pathos only in the fact that art and life mutually want to ease their task, to remove their responsibility, for it is easier to create without being responsible for life. and easier to live without regard to art. Art and life is not one thing, but it should become one in me, in the unity of my responsibility. ”Inspiration elevates a person to the level of a genius, creator, possession may well diminish a person to the level of a fighter for justice allegedly deprived of God. Now is the time to return to the question: what is the spark of God?
Life force, life energy. These concepts in the previous history of mankind without exaggeration can be considered extremely significant.Both philosophy, and religion, and esoteric teachings, in their own way, with their axiomatics, with their methods of analysis, with their terminology, meticulously developed the concept described by these concepts. At present, fundamental science has begun to approach the understanding of this phenomenon. Of course, it should be described, analyzed and investigated separately, outside of this topic, but here we can confine ourselves to ascertaining the presence of a certain substance, obviously energy, which is the beginning of consciousness and self-consciousness in man (the microcosm) and in the Universe (macrocosm) that carries , phenomenizes the principle of intuitive knowledge - from the nusa of the ancient Greeks to the noosphere of Vernadsky.
The occult idea of ​​man as a miniature world, of the microcosm man, is based on the teaching of the Divine Macrocosmic Consciousness and the Divine Soul. According to this teaching, the degree of perfection of a person’s awareness of his individuality is the true and absolute measure of his own perfection. “A man of genius should be called a person who lives in a conscious connection with the world as a whole. At the same time, a genius is also truly Divine in a person. A person who feels his individuality feels himself in others. For him,“ You are Me ”( the well-known Hindu formula of absolute unity is not a hypothesis, but a reality. Higher individualism is the highest universalism. "
Occultist attitude to genius is based on the unification of the ancient and everyday understanding of the word "genius." Hence the peculiarity of such maxims: “Yves to the average person lives the world Whole, but it never reaches his creative awareness. One lives in an active-conscious connection with the World Being, the other lives in an unconscious passive. A genius person is an actual microcosm, not a genius “Potential. Only a man of genius is perfect." Above such texts is to reflect from the point of view of the Aristotelian syllogistic, and from the point of view of Hegelian dialectics. But the statement that should be remembered as axiomatic: "As man evolves, there is a simultaneous development of both awareness of his individuality and awareness of his community with the Universe ....This feeling of integrity and unity of this is in the tradition of the name of the Cosmic Consciousness. "
Due to the vagueness of the original definition of “genius” among occultists, one can also find such a definition of genius: “Genius is the anticipation of man’s greatness, it is a prototype of his cosmic domination and creative power. If talent is a product of the people, the closest environment that surrounds a person is the highest degree of development of some of its properties, the phenomenon of genius, on the contrary, is a consequence of higher causes, and his image against the background of history has always been like a suddenly burnt sun. " From here follow such paradoxes as the well-known aphorism of O. Weininger: "Universality is a characteristic sign of a genius. A genius is the person who knows everything without having learned anything", adopted by the occultists, hence the understanding of genius as aristocratic spirit, chosenness,the highest manifestation of which is the initiation into the secrets of "true knowledge", i.e. the whole system of esoteric knowledge. You can write hundreds of pages of occult texts, they are interesting, there are among them highly artistic, bright in form, but they are not evidence in a scientific sense, and even in terms of common sense. Take for example one of the occult maxims and F. Jacobi’s commentary on it.
"Every true knowledge is reflected in the clear and distinct self-awareness of its value. That is why every pain person clearly recognized the value of the teachings given, not only from a relative point of view, but also largely absolute. That is why one of the main signs of genius is inexorable conviction in truth in the correctness of his teaching. Having a criterion in himself and, moreover, more strict and sublime than those offered by people, such a genius completely considered the criticism and met his teaching as a truth ny, Ambassador Indestructible Truth, who performs his work without worrying about the results and consequences, because they are entirely in the Universal Mind hands. So genius, for example, was Spinoza, whose whole life has been tortuous and thorny paths between is cruel hatred and madness of human populations. "
And now F. Jacobi’s comment: “They will always talk about him like that. To understand Spinoza, this requires too long and stubborn mental tension. And he cannot be understood by anyone who, in his“ Ethics ”, remains at least one line, to someone who did not comprehend how this person could be so deeply inwardly convinced of his philosophy, as he often and resolutely expressed. At the end of his life, he wrote: “I don’t suppose I found the best philosophy, but I know that I have known the true philosophy. And if you ask me how I can be sure of this, then I answer: because of the conviction, the confidence with which you know that the three corners of the triangle are equal to two straight lines, for truth clarifies both itself and delusion at the same time. "
Everything is unsteady here, especially the example of Spinoza. The historical truth says that the great thinker Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) was persecuted, even cursed by the Jewish community for moving away from Judaism, there was an attempt to kill him, there was a denunciation from rabbis accusing him of atheism (in that it was more time than accusation of godlessness, the stigma of a robber, a libertine, an asocial person was put on a person. But along with this, he was surrounded by friends all his life, among whom were such people as Christian Huygens, a physicist, a mathematician and astronomer, Jan de Witt, a great boarding house who had led the Netherlands states for twenty years; corresponded with German scientists and philosophers Leibniz and Chirnhaus; and although there was great pressure from the theologians and from the government, he never refused his main idea: "Everyone is allowed to think what he wants,and say what he thinks. ”The analogy of confidence used in Jacobi’s commentary with the theorem on the sum of angles in a triangle, by the way, often used by Spinoza, unfortunately, is true only with respect to what every schoolchild knows today: the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees (two direct) only in Euclidean geometry, but it is not universal in our Universe. This is the tenacity of the reasoning of the occultists and does not allow to accept their maxims for the Absolute Truth. But the statement that cannot be understood:the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees (two lines) only in Euclidean geometry, and it is not universal in our Universe. This is the instability of the reasoning of the occultists and does not allow us to take their maxims for the Absolute Truth. And here is a statement that defies understanding:the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees (two lines) only in Euclidean geometry, and it is not universal in our Universe. This is the instability of the reasoning of the occultists and does not allow us to take their maxims for the Absolute Truth. And here is a statement that defies understanding:
“Two kinds of genius are the same eternal question about the Great Biner of the human soul. The Son of the Sun and the Earth is the purest type of the first kind of genius, the son of Water and Air - the second. Uniting in a synthesis that is general and absolute for them, these two types of person unite in purpose and entail unification on the way all the many aspects of the dualism of the human soul. ”
For those who want to understand, let us give a definition of the concept of Biner: this basic form of mind is in tradition the name "biner". According to Kant, antinomy. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant shows the transcendence of the nature of antinomy.
In order to complete the consideration of the problem of the author-creator - the author-person, we need to clarify the genesis of creativity in the author-creator. Jung notes that "art is born to the artist (creator-creator) as an instinct that takes possession of him and makes him his slave." But it is clear that this must be one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful instinct - the instinct of self-preservation. And now, having understood a little in the energy of the creative process, in the energy of the concept of genius, we can remember with gratitude MA Voloshin, who wrote a long time ago: “Those geniuses whose body has too complicated and violent fate, are inevitable instinct of self-preservation in a hurry to translate it into works of art. Self-sacrificers sometimes have time to pour all their destiny, their whole future into their creation.Therefore, the true life of the artist is always more fully and truly embodied in his work than in his biography "(M. Voloshin, The Magic of Creativity. On the Realism of Russian Literature // Libra, No. 11, p. 1-5). Psychologically, he is aware whether the creator is a creator or not, there is Jung's competent judgment on this point: “Does the artist-author himself know that his creation is conceived in him and then grows and matures, or does he prefer to imagine that, by his own intention, he designs his own fabrication, does not change anything in the fact that in fact his creation grows out of it like a baby from a mother. The psychology of the creative individual is, in fact, female psychology, because creativity grows out of unconscious abysses, in the real sense of the word, from the Kingdom of Mothers. If creativeness outweighs, then it meansthat the unconscious receives more power over life and fate than the conscious will, and that consciousness is captured by a powerful underground stream and often turns out to be an impotent viewer of what is happening. "
Let us take this opportunity and insert the word: not always, not always, the author-creator and the admiring spectator often turn out to remember the reaction of the creator of "Boris Godunov": Aye and Pushkin, well done! ..
And finally, the finale, where all the ideas considered by us are in contact: "This way the spiritual need of this or that people in the creation of the poet satisfies, and therefore creation means for the poet truly more than personal destiny - whether he knows himself or not The author is in the deepest sense an instrument and, by virtue of this, submits to his creation, for which reason we should not, in particular, expect an interpretation of the latter from him. He has already fulfilled his highest task by creating the image. l different and future. " This is a very important point in our reasoning. Right, there is something unworthy of a poet or artist-creator in self-explanation, in self-interpretation. Brilliant creators have always understood this. Here is how it is expressed in the famous poem of B. L. Pasternak:

Others on a living track
Will pass your way behind a span a span,
But defeats from a victory
You should not distinguish yourself.

В приведенном выше рассуждении не раскрывается как именно происходит удовлетворение душевной потребности того или иного народа в творении поэта, но теперь нам это ясно: если творение органически вырастает из автора, то удовлетворить душевную потребность народа автор может только оставаясь неотъемлемой частицей народа. Вот она, разгадка парадоксального лозунга: "Искусство принадлежит народу!"
Нельзя сказать, что мы полностью осветили проблему гениальности, но кое-какие выводы можно сделать. Главное — аксиоматический момент: гениальность, как Дар, идет от Бога и несовместима со злом. Далее становится ясно, что огромный материал, собранный и рассмотренный под углом психиатрии Ц. Ломброзо, должен быть пересмотрен под иным углом: психологическим.
Новая методология должна дать и иные результаты: те гении и таланты, которых Ломброзо объявил помешанными, таковыми не были, а находились в особых взаимоотношениях с так называемым "информационным полем" или "ноосферой", и их поведение и жизнь следует истолковывать с совсем иных позиций. Проблема эта еще ждет своих исследователей.
Further. Следует признать, что автор-творец и автор-человек могут гармонично сосуществовать только в осознании меры ответственности и своей вины друг перед другом. Поэт и художник ответственен за "прозу" жизни, а человек жизни ответственен за пустоту и бесплодность искусства. Полная разгадка внутренней жизни гения заключается в признании права Поэта жить по своему закону. А это значит, что надо признать любого человека талантом априори, надо ясно понимать, что вместе с талантом, г искрой Божьей, каждому человеку дается при рождении определенная, к сожалению, не очень большая по величине, доза жизненной силы или энергии, что он ее начинает тратить с момента рождения, что под влиянием окружающих людей (сначала родных, близких, а потом дальних, которые нередко становятся ближе родных), под влиянием среды, обстоятельств, при отсутствии знаний, опыта, высоких идеалов и целей он может полностью растратить ее (и чаще вс его тратит!) на пустяки (ну, например, на максимальное удовлетворение своих непрерывно растущих потребностей), а не на поддержание своего таланта, своей искры, которую он и окружающие его люди могут так и не осознать — в этом и заключена разгадка столь глубокой трагичности этого закона.
Свой закон для Поэта — это и есть подсознательное знание о несовместимости таланта и благ обычной жизни. Это знание дается ему вместе с осознанием себя как творца: источник жизненной силы один и брать из него можно только или для обычной жизни, или для творчества. Ее очень мало, жизненной силы... И поэтому, не переводя это знание в сознание, а повинуясь исключительно инстинкту самосохранения, Поэт делает выбор, не сознательный выбор, как бы повинуясь власти Творчества, как повинуются древние герои Судьбе, Року: беспощадная, всепожирающая творческая страсть поневоле втаптывает в грязь все его личные пожелания! Да, природный инстинкт, особенно такой как инстинкт самосохранения, действует безошибочно: не дачи же, не автомобиль или наследственные болезни оставлять потомству! От творца остается Творение. Оно и есть субъект бессмертия гения. Этого достаточно.
В этом же энергетизме заключена разгадка того, как создается та враждебная творчеству масса, обуянная бесами, кричащая о "справедливости", масса, которая в ослеплении вела гения на костер, а через сотни лет плакала при открытии памятника, где в мраморе запечатлен облик гения и надпись, справедливая для любого гения: "От столетия, - которое он провидел, на том месте, где был зажжен костер". (Надпись на памятнике Джордано Бруно, установленном в Риме в 1889 году.)
В этом же энергетизме заключена разгадка того, почему законы движения планет открыл сын хулиганки-трактирщицы и солдата-наемника, самой судьбой вроде бы предназначенный умереть в младенчестве или, став помощником трактирщика, погибнуть в одной из пьяных драк.
Да, для поэтов свой закон, но я не хотел бы, чтобы у читателя возникло ощущение обоснованности "элитарности", избранности творческих людей, к чему тяготеют оккультисты: мол, творцы, наделенные искрой Божьей, живут по своим законам, а серая масса пусть пребывает в духов ном ничтожестве, да еще и должна быть презираема за то, что гонит гениев при их жизни. Нет, народ по определению талантлив, искра Божья распределяется равномерно, все остальное — вопросы социологии, выходящие за рамки нашего исследования.
Но общий результат малоутешительный: отдельные гении и таланты где-то н захватывающей дух высоте идут, как по канат балансируя двумя Дарами - искрой Божьей и жизненной силой — и всегда (исключения толы подтверждают правило) безошибочно выбирав оптимальное решение — творчество, закономерно принося в жертву свое обычное человеческое счастье и все, что придает цену обычной человеческой жизни. А мы — поклонники — растрачиваем свою жизненную силу в погоне за раритетами жизни, кто — обычной, кто — шикарной, а некоторые — даже умопомрачающей...
Проблема поставлена, но далеко не исчерпана. Как говорил Вольтер, "тут есть о чем поговорить..."
ТЕСТ 10
1. Почему в трагедии Пушкина «Моцарт и Сальери» говорится об использовании яда?
? потому что Пушкин получил заказ на рекламу ядов
? because mozart poisoned salieri
? because salieri poisoned mozart
?because Pushkin dreamed of a quick outcome of events in small tragedies
2. What did the word "genius" express to the ancient Romans?
? supernatural being that personifies masculine power
? member of amateur
? guardian angel
?god of art
3. Why did Cesare Lombroso constantly describe the fate of geniuses?
? because he compared the brain volume in different people
? because he believed that genius is an expression of a normal healthy mind
? because all geniuses are capricious
?because he considered genius an abnormal person
4. Who wrote: “Wasn’t Socrates crazy?”
? Greek judges
? Plato
? Xenophon
?Lombroso
5. Why did Lombroso admit that Napoleon was not crazy?
? because Napoleon defeated Kutuzov
? because genius, in his opinion, is not always madness
? because Napoleon underwent a thorough psychological examination