Genius 2000:
A New Network
by Max Herman
for Freda
"Love! His affections do not that way tend,
Nor what he
spake, though it lacked form a little,
Was not like
madness. There's something in his soul,
O'er which
his melancholy sits on brood,
And I do
doubt the hatch and the disclose
Will be some
danger."
William
Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of
1.
Who are you and what is your name?
I'm Max Herman and this is my
book about my theory of history. I've
worked on it for a while and now I'm summing it all up for regular paper
publication. I think I might put photos
in it too. Anyway, I'm thirty-five,
mostly bald, a celibate demi-vierge, and more or less on antidepressants
constantly since 1996. I was sexually
abused once, when I was five years old.
I have two degrees in English, earn between thirty and thirty-five
thousand dollars per year, and live in
2.
Why should anyone read this book?
That's a good question. I think it's a relevant book and will present
a lot of useful information for you. It
will also show you my point of view on some things, give you some explanation
of some new ideas, and it will also help me set up and expand my Network.
3.
How long will the book be?
Two thousand quanta long,
which is standard book size.
4.
Will you put pictures in it?
I think I will just put url's
in it if and when I wish to point the reader to a picture. This will save me cash on printing and help
polish the fading sheen of the internet.
5.
Is your academic writing good?
It's not too bad, and what's more
important, I enjoyed writing it. Here's
an excerpt from a paper I wrote for my Master's degree entitled "Book
Review: The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783,
by John Brewer": "Brewer
argues that the English state before 1688 was shaped by three major
factors: medieval centralization,
England's avoidance of European wars, and the absence of a strong class of
venal or bribable administrators."
You may read the full paper on the internet at www.geocities.com/genius-2000/SinewsOfPower.html.
6.
Where
are you now?
I'm at the coffee shop. I'll be writing some of these on paper. I'll check the number at home before I go,
and then do that number on paper by hand.
7.
What
are the main ideas of Genius 2000?
The two main ideas are Albos-Koros-Hybris-Ate,
which I didn't invent myself but learned from the late Professor Barbara Fowler
in 1990, and the following question called "Contribution One" from
the Genius 2000 Video First Edition:
"What does it take to be a genius?
Do you have it? Does anyone you
know personally have it? What does the
year 2000 mean? Does it mean this to you
or other people? What do the concept of
genius and the year 2000 have in common?"
8.
Aren't
there any more main ideas?
Not really. I'm thirty-five,
and when I was twenty-nine and wanted to make a video about genius, I decided
to make it also about the year 2000 as a good complementary topic for
interviewees. Then I wanted to filter in
my own ideas unobtrusively, so used the Albos-Koros-Hybris-Ate cycle of tragedy
I'd learned in college from Dr. Fowler.
There were some other ideas as well but I would say that the primary
basic constituents are A-K-H-A and Contribution One.
9.
When
did you start Genius 2000?
I made a Genius 2000 pumpkin
and decided on the name for the video in 1998.
Before 1998, I'd never used the term "Genius 2000," but I'd
been in school, I'd had my theories about literature and so forth for a
while. Here's an excerpt from a paper I
did for Dr. Fowler, and then another one from a later paper about Hamlet and
Oedipus, to give an idea. I'd called
"my idea" by various names, such as "the Communicative
Hypothesis" and "the Communicative Paradigm," etc.
"Oedipus commiserates with the suppliants at
the very start of the play, 'I know you are all sick, yet there is not one of
you, sick though you are, that is as sick as myself....My spirit groans for
city and myself and you at once'(ll.59-64).
Ironically but fittingly, Oedipus identifies his own prosperity with the
prosperity of the city, constantly calling himself savior or champion. In a way, he is--he saved the city from the
sphinx."
"The ghost admonishes Hamlet, with a poignancy and tenderness
that riles up our most fervent filial instincts,
“If thou didst
ever thy dear father love--”
“O God!”
“Revenge his
foul and most unnatural murder.”
“Murder?”
“Murder most foul, as in the best it is, but this most foul,
strange, and unnatural” (1.5.24-30).
"The
simple yet striking meter in this passage, moving in seemingly innocuous but ineluctable
iambs and powerfully sounding the chord “Murder--Murder?--Murder,” expresses
remarkably the feeling of tenderness, loss, and passion that must have been
wringing Hamlet Jr. at hearing this news."
You may read these two papers in their entirety on the internet at
www.geocities.com/genius2000/ LearningToAcceptMistakes.html and
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/OedipusAndHamlet.html, respectively.
10.
Is it
true you're alcoholic?
Yes, I'm pretty sure that is
not in question. I would agree that I am
one. Maybe "alcohol addict" I
would agree with more.
11.
What is the purpose of the Genius 2000 Network?
I might be mistaken, but my
goal for it is to heal and fulfill human genius, to help with that very broad
and diversely pursued enterprise. To
help humanity live better, happier, and more fulfilled, is what I hope to
assist with. This is so general as to be
not much, but heck, it's the truth. I
don't care too much for the question--it implies there is, always has been, and
always will be only one purpose of Genius 2000, and that I can't agree
with. There isn't just one permanent
constant purpose. It's a stable
field.
12.
What is a stable field?
On one hand, the Genius 2000
Network is my own network, the network I have legally created and incorporated
as a business, a legally established for-profit corporation. So, its purpose is to make money or earn
profit. It is a stable field in that it
is a constituted platform or entity to carry out whatever needs doing for the
larger motive of profit. The Genius 2000
Network is my own independent music label and art gallery and publishing house
all in one, so like a restaurant, it's a stable field in which various food
dishes are made, sold, and eaten. Or,
where various records are made, sold, and listened to--it's the platform, the
continuing platform for all this.
13.
How
much money do you want to earn?
I'm single, 35, and addicted
to alcohol, so I don't need or want much.
If I could earn fifty thousand per year for the next fifty years,
adjusting for inflation, that would be enough for me. I don't have luxurious tastes. I do think there is a patriotic obligation to
acquire as much wealth as one can, not for one's personal gratification but so
as to "strike a blow for the common good"--to be able to protect the
Good. So, for example, a billion dollars
per year in revenue might ultimately be necessary--even a hundred billion
perhaps. Then again, one million gross
with $100,000 net might be preferable.
14.
Do
you support the U.S.-led War on Terror?
Yes I do. This is the toughest topic for me to
address. I used to be deceitfully
leftist, praising Nader and Chomsky.
This was a demented form of the semi-psychotic death-game called
"chicken." It's hard for me to
explain why I support the War on Terror, or what I sometimes call "the
Second Cold War." One can look at
all the horror, wastage, and misery of the First Cold War and still accept it
was necessary. I feel that way about the
Second Cold War, or CWII. It will take
me maybe my whole life to explain this adequately, in part because it is not
known yet how CWII will play out in all the variations.
15.
What
about all of your revolutionary posing from 1999-2002?
Well, that’s a tough
one. I guess I'd have to say number one,
in part I'm guilty of bad actions and regret that, and apologize, and have to
pay my debt to humanity. On the other
hand, I was never your orthodox Leninist for example, but rather went out of my
way to distance myself and Genius 2000 from doctrinaire Communism, Marxism,
etc. I say this despite my occasional
rhetorical episodes. For example, I
wrote in my "Crying Game" paper about Marx, sounding a bit Marxist,
but it's hardly damning. Also, in a lot
of settings they pressure you to pick a side, and if you don't they'll
excoriate you.
16.
Why
do you praise Chomsky so much in your early work?
I divide 1998-2002 as the
first part of Genius 2000, before I quit drinking and smoking weed and snorting
Ritalin in October 2002. On one hand, I
liked Chomsky; on the other hand, I wanted to call attention to certain
artistic factors and ramifications I felt that Chomsky and especially his fan
base neglect unjustifiably. I wonder
about this sometimes. But no, I can't
say I wasn't a bit confused about the value of Chomsky's work such as it is,
and his leadership. Taken objectively, I
don't see much similarity between Genius 2000 and Chomskyism.
17.
What
about the
You could say in one sense
that I've stolen or copied a lot of the ideas in Genius 2000 from Adorno,
Habermas, and Benjamin. That would be
fair. I would like to meet Habermas one
day. He was my first external way out of
post-structuralist literary theory as I encountered it at Oberlin,
18.
Why
use the question-and-answer means of composition?
Well, I like Collingwood,
whom I read in 1989 at
19.
Were
you a student at
No. My father was a visiting professor in biology
in 1989 and I visited
20.
Won't
it take forever to type these?
No. I type quickly. I type about 50 words per minute. I use typing at work, and learned real typing
at Sanford Junior High in
21.
Are
you ashamed of what you've done so far with Genius 2000?
Yes, very much so. Maybe so far I've had several phases of my
life in Genius 2000. Phase One was about
1998-2000, then my drinking went way out of control 2001-2002 so that was a
second, degenerate, evil phase. I really
feel ashamed about that alcoholic behavior.
It's disgusting to me to recall it.
22.
What
are your main anxieties?
I'm not sure I understand my
anxieties. Sexual I guess is the main
one. Social prestige and value in the
eyes of others, my sexual attractiveness, the health or wisdom of my celibate
life, whether I'm an insane failure or not--these are perhaps the main ones,
along with family and artistic phobias and worry. I worry that my mental health is so poor that
none of my reactions to anything are pure or healthy--I'm on antidepressants
and all. I worry that I'm homosexual or
sexually unsalvageable, unable to be an artist or even a human really without
sexual relationships. So, I guess I
worry about whether my tactics and goals are correct, my values, whether I work
hard enough or at the right tasks.
23.
Where are you now?
I'm at work. I work nine to five. My computer is acting weird. I'll be trying to type a few numbers here and
there during the workday, and at lunch, and then all evening so as to finish at
least five hundred numbers to send to agents in April. It could get me in trouble and fired
however. Work is a good place. The stress isn't overpowering; what is more
inimical to me and my peace of mind is the feeling of being an asexual failure,
or what you might call "an office eunuch," impotent and
inadequate. I never mentioned my penis
size, which is 5.5. This is no good for
all practical purposes, and thus I've felt it would be a manipulative insult to
request that a woman go to bed with me.
At work I get the feeling of not taking enough emotional risk, daring to
love at is were, accepting my fate and destiny, or loving love. Perhaps I could quit my job and write only
for three months--I do have the savings.
Exactly $2000 saved. I could go
for a brief time on that. And by selling
my Karmann Ghia, 1972 model year. Better
keep the job and write when I have time.
Palatino and Prestige elite, 1000 numbers by April 30. For the agents and all.
24.
How is Genius 2000 a theory of history?
Wow, good question. I may have to ask for a long-term answer
voucher for that. Genius 2000 implies
there are two factors that combine to create history: Genius and 2000. 2000 is the time, obviously; i.e., the
setting, conditions, space-time specificity, economic and technological
givens. Genius is the other complement,
and this is human genius, or just genius; human genius plus human 2000 equals
human Genius 2000. So, akin to how E=mc2
is a theory of energy and matter, Genius 2000 is a theory of history--an
equation or setting-forth of terms.
Genius 2000 is an equation.
25.
There is no equals sign, so isn't "Genius 2000" just a term?
Maybe Genius 2000 is a theory
or thesis about history, a hypothesis even.
By comparison, E=mc2 is part of Relativity theory of spacetime. G=mt2000 is an equation which is part of the
Genius 2000 theory of history. So,
Genius 2000 is rather a theory than an equation, but it implies the equation
History=Genius+2000 just as Relativity theory implies the equation Relativity=spacetime.
26.
What
is another theory of history?
Marxism is one, also
religions are theories of history.
Religions set forth how things started, how things or events occur, and
what is upcoming; cause and effect, patterns, conflicts, elements, rules of
events, etc. I might say that Science is
one theory of history, Dialectical Materialism another of the Marxist school;
factually I can't think of any more.
Nationalism and the various racist philosophies are theories of history;
one could say that Art is a theory of history.
Any idea or set of ideas, principles, that aims to define events or how
they happen and under what rules is a theory of history. So, the various economic theories are
theories of history in a sense.
27.
How can you justify the compositional form of this book?
There's no need to, because
how I write is my own business. I don't
have to justify it to you. That would be
slavish on my part. But, one could
justify it by my stable field theory, or by the aphoristic compositional style,
or the dialogue, or by In Medias Res, or any number of other compositions. But if you don't like it, you don't like it,
that's OK. I would prefer not to let
that make me feel sick and suicidal.
28.
Do you feel sick and suicidal today?
Somewhat. I occasionally will go off my antidepressant
and get depressed. I sense that I live
under a blanket so to speak, in a semi-protected infantile state due to my
medications. They protect me from my
nightmarish emotions with which I either cannot or will not cope. For example, off my medication I sense very
directly how intense and beautiful dating, love, sex, etc. could be, and this
makes me doubt my whole value system and worth as a person, making me feel
unsalvageable and in short repulsive.
Bald, thirty-five, and celibate but not in the funny who-cares way but
the horrifying, shameful, guilty, miserable, inexcusable way. The way that is a sin against humanity,
society, and myself. Nonetheless, as my
medication levels creep up over the next couple of days I will feel
monumentally happier, mellower, and safer.
29.
What
if someone doesn't feel like a lot of questions?
Well then they can just sit
and meditate. I am not saying people
should O.D. on questions or on trying to answer. As Collingwood said, it's a cycle. Excess of questions is manic; of answers
depressive.
30.
How
are you enjoying Nietzsche and Strauss?
Well, I'm reading Nietzsche
and Strauss for the first time. You
could say I lost touch, pace, with the real world of intellectual life in 1987,
when I went to
31.
Why
do you want people to know what you've read, and when?
I hate secrecy, and agree
with Benjamin Franklin that "honesty is the best policy." It saves energy spent in lying. So, I can't enjoy reading in secret. I don't like reading but not admitting it,
and I like getting credit for what I've read.
I also like getting credit for getting an idea before reading
something. For example, I critiqued
"Art" and "Plot" in Shakespeare as instrumental and linear
mistakes before reading Habermas, Adorno, Benjamin, and Benedict Anderson. I basically came up with their entire corpi
all on my own at age 24. And that
without reading any Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer--what have
you. So I want credit for what I did
before reading Nietzsche.
32.
Do
you think it's immoral to seek credit like that?
I feel guilty about it so you
could say I reflexively consider it immoral.
In other people, another person, I wouldn't consider it immoral at
all--I'd consider it refreshing. Much
more so than the same old classic rock tunes playing in the laundromat I'm
writing in now.
33.
Why
don't you try, for a change, to stop condemning yourself for actions you
wouldn't condemn in others?
I think I have habits of
condemning myself that have causes separate from whatever I might be doing,
i.e. the specific actions. For example,
I fear becoming vain and excessive in my braggadocio, and thus causing a disaster
for the species, that is, the polis.
34.
You
fear that to allow yourself to write freely and express your abilities might
threaten the polis?
I certainly do. I'm afraid that society could not survive if
I expressed myself freely and completely.
People would have to kill me to protect themselves from the consequences
my self-expression would have for the polis, the political-exosomatic patterns
that protect the future and present continuation of the species. In a sense, for me to express myself cleanly
and openly would, quite literally, kill the entire species so it cannot be
allowed. I suppress myself, therefore,
to save society the work-cost of repressing me and hope thereby to put my
society's heart at ease and gain its mercy if not reward.
35.
Isn't
that fairly neurotic and perhaps paranoid?
That is to say, isn't it merely an unhealthy obsession?
My gracious, it must be,
mustn't it? I can only think it
originates in my childhood deprivations and abuse. I suppress myself in a nightmarish automatic
response, because I've ingrained fear-based behaviors to the level of
reflex. If I'm confused about what to
write, or the role of the writer in 2005, I conclude that I must be evil. Because of course, when I kept myself
quiet--by the use of self-hate--through sad and abusive periods in childhood I
trained myself to think that to express myself would damage my social support
structure i.e. my family. I find this
moderately hopeful an analysis. It
suggests that I can un-learn my fearfulness and eventually get to a point where
I can express myself artistically, socially, and sexually. I.e. get a girlfriend.
36.
Do
you now accept and truly believe it is safe for your society for you to express
yourself in writing?
That would sure be great if
it were true. I'm not used to thinking
that way. I'm more used to thinking,
"I can't express myself because the world is too evil, desperate,
vulnerable, and dangerous. Therefore my
only hope to express myself is to fix the world, fix it to perfection and for
all time." But this is too
difficult. It forestalls my legitimate
hopes of doing a decent share, of doing enough, i.e. my two thousand hours of
socio-economic labor per year. I suppose
I would have to answer that I don't yet accept fully, in all its ramifications
and outcomes, the idea that I can fully and satisfyingly express myself in
writing without hurting or damaging my society of the human polis, but I
believe I can try and if you can try you can improve and theoretically
succeed.
37.
How
many quanta do you have left to write?
1963.
38.
Do
you often feel that the internet version of Genius 2000 was immoral, or do you
feel ashamed of yourself for doing it?
I feel extremely ashamed of
myself for doing it. I think there may
have been a grain of decency to it, but for the main part it was vile and alcoholic
in nature. I hope very much by writing
this book to clear up some of the evil-causing loose ends or sinful aspects of
Genius 2000. Again, this will take
approximately my entire life to live down.
Even one truly high-quality book isn't enough to repair the evil hybris
of claiming you're the Messiah.
39.
Do
you feel ashamed and guilty for having put yourself forward, even in
ultra-ironic postmodern self-mocking jest, as the second coming of Jesus
Christ?
Mainly I feel scared that
someone crazy, or more likely, a mob of very angry ignorant people, will
painfully kill me for having said it. I
feel that I have to or ought to exhibit
feelings of remorse or shame about it in order to save myself from being
murdered by zealous persons for blasphemy or sacrilege. In fact, I don't feel guilty or ashamed at
all for the internet phase of Genius 2000.
I made it partly crappy and partly superior on purpose. I'm scared that I'll be tortured and killed
for admitting that I did it. It's
complicated, now that I write it down.
40.
What
is your plan for Genius 2000 to help society?
To convince people to develop
their own genius and let other people develop theirs too. But given the crowded, confused, and
competitive nature of life in the zeroes, it's not likely to be accomplished in
one swift stroke. Rather, I hope to
enchant the avid reader into a sleepy, comfortably advancing state much as
sitting in class gradually adds knowledge to one's being. Despite the fatigue.
41.
How
are you feeling today?
Not very well. I took a three-day weekend using one day of
vacation time and feel rather traumatized.
I live in nearly total isolation.
I have a lot of doubts whether I can write or be a legitimate source of
wisdom given my isolated lifestyle. The
question whether a monk or a hermit can have any health or goodness
whatsoever. I am not sure of the
answer. It bothers and worries me
greatly that I cannot finish a good book, become a published writer, and do
something good or valuable for humanity under my current state of
isolation. I worry and fear that my
solitude and celibacy are a hideous sin, making me a broken and mentally ill
lunatic/mutant/freak, able only to write disgusting vomit. How to know?
42.
How
are you feeling today?
I feel pretty well. I have been pondering solitude and concluded
that it is a good thing, beneficial, if done correctly. It is not correctly done if one is expecting
a reward. The advantage of solitude is,
like that of G2K, anticlimactic. Nothing
happens. Once I rid myself of the compulsive
need to go see people or make myself girlfriend-worthy, nothing happens. A blessed nothing occurs. In this state is somewhat where I am today. I am resigned to the wisdom of writing daily
without extreme expectations or rules, just to sit and write, low-pressure,
reading and painting watercolor too. I'm
convinced there is no need to worry excessively. Rather than worrying about what to do, how to
fix the world, I can just write the two thousand. Noble two thousand!
43.
What
are your thoughts on Machiavelli?
He said that it is best to be
both feared and loved if one is in authority.
He implied that it is not always necessary to be loved. He also implied that love only, with no fear,
is never enough. I agree that authority
must be feared to some degree, to a sufficient degree, that the unavoidable
feelings of power-craving among those not in authority will not always lead to
an attack on authority, but will be instead filtered through a questioning
layer; and therefore a peaceful solution may be found insofar as one looks and
one is possible. In any measure the mood
of usurpation will be given a chance to pass, protecting against the risk of
all imperfect love to fail at one time or another.
44. What are your feelings on the progress of the
book?
I think it's doing fine. However, I return to worry as to my exoteric
naivete. Also as to the "factum
brutum of religious revelation."
Obfuscation, misdirection, things of this nature. I imagine that these may all suffer radiance
from my fear and uncertainty about becoming successful as a writer, i.e., read
by many. Would it throw a fragile
equilibrium into catastrophic imbalance?
Would the rapprochement of liberal and conservative elements outpace the
irritation of sensitivities or the need for diversity and dynamism? Do I dare to eat a peach? Gravel for my craw? O sages standing in God's holy fire, as in
the gold mosaic of a wall, come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre, and be the
singing-masters of my soul. Consume my
heart away; sick with desire and fastened to a dying animal it knows not what
it is, and gather me into the artifice of eternity.
45.
Are your ideas on the shortcomings of the art-as-object paradigm valid
or putrid?
I use to say "Art is
processes, not objects." I think
this is sound, though it never was my idea only. Think of E.H. Gombrich, Literary Change,
etc. Even the IDS tower is a process and
not an object. No one should doubt this
unduly much. Only out of fear would one
doubt it. The impermanent object vs. the
permanent process, the possibility thereof, the eternal return, the
will-to-power, fields of quanta, these all hold together. Even Shakespeare's "Like as the
Waves." Shakespeare is hardly rough
and raggedy. He's vernacular to impede
idolatry and to ease the shock of contrast.
A very kind and accurate fellow, truly.
46.
What is the relevance of Laughlin's theory of dots in a temporal
field? Rather, fields of dots in
temporal frames?