Andie is the reason why I do not spend money on a therapist, because every so often he tells me what I really do feel ;-). Distrust, despise talent? Nothing of that sort, Andie. In particular, aren't you a bit hasty in assuming that Carl or I have no talent, or are we just self-hating geniuses? ;-) The above leaves me puzzled since there many readings of my post do not give me the subliminal message that I distrust and despise talent.
> and if they weren't nice people they'd urge on use the
> advice of the counselor in the proverb who showed his
> prince how to handle the menace of the great by taking
> him to a wheat field and cutting down to the common
> level any stalk that rose above the average height.
Not so at all. I wondered where "accomplishment" gains "identity" (in a "continuous spectrum of activity") and in what manner we celebrate it. I gave some examples. Carl already pointed out the difference between Michaelangelo and contemporary "achievers". Someone else pointed out how these awards hide both the collective effort and the vital disputes that culminated in the final product. Joanna pointed out that people *do* get rewarded for their talents (except not with 83 virgins or whatever number that is).
To return your favour, I suspect your view is poisoned by a right- wing'ish/Ayn-Rand'ish fear of the unwashed unskilled masses ;-): we (the unskilled) are envious ("despise", "distrust") of the talented [few] and lacking the ability to match their talent and raise ourselves to their level, prefer to bring them down to ours, all in the name of equality.
The real issue (especially in the light of the term 'meritocracy') is not whether you (or I, for that matter; for untalented dolt though I may be, I too have marvelled at the Duomo in Firenze!) can heap praise on Brunelleschi but how, in today's world, in day to day and larger context, "accomplishment" is defined, attributed and [the person it is attributed to] celebrated.
> Btw I'm not a snob. I like trash too and I liked most
> of the Harry Potter books and the Sopranos. Man does
> not live by brilliance alone.
Well, if you think Harry Potter or The Sopranos is "trash" then you *are* a snob, whether you like the "trash" or not, yes? I believe I *am* a snob for that very reason -- that I consider many of these things trash. I like my trash too -- its a different kind of trash perhaps: Seinfeld, etc. It's just that some times I get surprised by some people dressing up their trash (you know, stuff like The Beatles) as brilliance. But that's another flamewar...
--ravi