John wrote,
"Exactly, unless … the new evil genious can overcome his doubtful creator.
You misspelled “genius”.
Sorry, genius …or, ingenious …"
The difference is both subtle and/or obvious,
This is the point that Marx failed @, he downplayed the essential as an existential disqualification , using quantified “sense data”.
It became appearent soon that Russel’s idea led to infinite regress, and that regress was the unfathomable Nietzche said was reflexive, it " looked back" upon reflecting on it.
The axiomatic reflexive must be over come, the subtle must give way to the original reflection.
That original reflection is the material, but underneath it is a world of difference.
That world is even deeper, way deeper, then the mirror image world, the automation befuddling mere material existence, and it begs for that difference, lest all become a shadow world.
Existence is the shadow of the ideal, and that begging, further begs a remembrance. That remembrance is what is inscribed in eternity.
That eternity is the immediate, unmoved, mover.
The either this (material) could only be understood to deduce unto a point, a point in time-space , specifically limited one , that could be understood to bracket an specific existential ssituation.
An epoche.
With the failure to contain the regressive existence between what should have taken place, and what did? 30 years of displacement into a suspended animation took place.
That generation , held in suspended animation, fractured a carefully assembled detente, and reflected disingenuously into it’s material negative.
The genius knew better, It’s memory could be re-assembled instantaneously.
Of course the irreduceability of it leads to lower levels of fragmentation, past the critical point, and that is why containment becomes a primary defense against total chaos.
This is why, policy triumphs against social discursive points of reference.
The consciously constructed god of necessity is a real as the one which presumably developed from inorganic matter.
If the latter, then such development needs transcendentally objective premises, and becomes an eternal ontological reality. It becomes it, and it is becoming.
The former, is forever haunted by Descartes’ evil genious, the latter is assured primacy in a miraculous world, and lucky the one who find the genie to obey the command.
Note: in a manner of speaking, once this command is obeyed, Faust is forgiven. The problem with the evil genius is that it predicated on a chaotic reassamblage, wherein the absolute regression can never be exactly authenticated with enough hurt, or extension into the particular from the universal, that it can keep the reflection in a consistent mode.
The devil dissuaded humility, and can not transcend it into a pride that can never be accounted for. That becomes the genie’s out, through an extension, a gap, that need not hold to a fallacious system ( when a devilish person seeks an absolute wish to be granted within the first wish)
And that follows from sequential needs of greed, since even it knows that if it wishes everything at first, he may not have anything else to wish for next. It can not remember that there may really be other things to wish for beyond the absolute, because it has no belief in it.
There are ontological references to such:
Jesus refusing Satan’s offer of everything He could envision from a high hill.
And then the difference between a ’ genie, and genius:
‘So there is no linguistic relation between the two words, but they were eventually bound through phonetics and similar meaning. … By coincidence, the Arabic word jinn means a kind of supernatural being below the angels, and starting in the 18th century, the word genie (and also genius) became conflated with jinn.’
And it is possible that such co-incidence was far more.