the source and travails of genius

So, to continue from the previous post - there is something undeniably, intuitively appealing about "pure" genius. As I mentioned earlier, genius can be the great tool for mass emancipation, or it can be the enigmatic tool for class suppression. But what is this notion of genius?
I am seeking to follow singular moments of geniousness - the eureka moments - back to their roots. Its really more of a continuous process, because I've been thinking about this for some time, but still....
Its' very easy to slog for an exam, or mug answers, and then get some apparent success. Case in point, it really gets my goat when some hot-shot asks a standard question in class - for instance, why a certain assumption was made, or why someone would support a certain policy, or when someone gives a really lame counterfactual - I mean, these are certainly important questions to answer, and really fiurther the discussion of the class et al...but its like, you saw someone asking it in some class, and realized the teacher really liked the question...so you parrot the question in every other class you go into. (And the teachers still appreciate the questions, though they must've heard it a million times - not something I'll ever understand.)
But this is clearly not what we mean by genius. Genius is, therefore, in my definition, what hits you when you're not trying too hard. It has to be almost natural, flowing from a fact situation or problem or debate (in this, Ayn Rand lovers would probably agree with me); but it should be distinguishable in that it is the unique interpretation or spin which only the originator of genius can contribute. I mean, it need not be that no one else in the history of this universe has ever come up with that thought; but even if it is concurrent discovery, the independence of thought must still be perceivable.
And lastly, a point which most people forget: practicality. Abstract genius is something which only goes to show that the genius isn't good enough to find a practical manifestation for itself. Abstraction to the point of futility is not evidence of scholarly attainment, but of sub-standard thought. (Of course, in my defense, what amounts to futility is a flexible definition. If the futility is combined with hope for eventual practical manifestation, then it might not be futile anymore.)
When you follow genius to its source, the eureka moment really consists of de-tangling an inconsistency perceived sub-consciously. If I'm reading a certain book, and this seems to disagree with some other book - genius consists in reconciling the two positions: at the very least, understanding where both come from, so practical conversation between the conflicting positions might be enabled. This is something which anyone can do, and genius, therefore, is not something unsurmountably seperating the Mensa-potential and the Dumb population in the world.
My own pet theory is, given the layers and layers of psychosis which each of uys carry around with us, the only substantive difference between the Mensa-potential and the Dumb, is the fact that the Dumb don't actually want to be smart. Or their perception of what is smartness, or what they want from their lives, is different; so they don't try hard enough.
Superficially, this seems an extremely snobby, elitist theory. But just give it a shot - watch the Dumb people (we all know tre types I'm talking about), and their reactions and thought processes. They would rather just fit in, or rather give out the standard question/answer for assured social acceptance of the same. This is what actually happens around you.
And then try to work, in the privacy of your room, perhaps in the middle of the night, or the crack of dawn. When you are working for yourself, and not for anyone else. And you'll find that thinking smart, thinking genius, is not that difficult after all. I don't, of course, refer to things like vocab or formulae, which need months to be absorbed into the brain - just try disentangling a conundrum of any sort. A mental challenge.
I am actually thinking that doing one GRE practice test a day is really stimulating, and even fun: maybe I should stick with it even after the exam tomorrow. Such atypial activity help your brain remain active - I think it has something to with exercising unused meural pathways.
But the downside of this philosophy is, its a heavy obligation to carry individually. Your mind doesn't mind working for long hours everyday, but your body definitely protests. You might have a brilliant idea in the middle of the night - but your body DOES NOT want to get out of bed, cut into sleeping-time, and follow up each and every idea you have.
Finally, we are left with the age-old question of just how much pace you can sustain in your life. Is it worth it to you to spend every waking moment, and then some, in the furtherence of some chosen cause? Or, like me, do you want a little bit of everything? Can you juggle a personal life and a challenging career, and make time for genius as well? Better still, can you integrate all of this into one stunning mosaic????
Make no mistake, genius is exhausting and demanding. But it is fun, and is well worth the effort.
Knowing its worth the effort, for some reason, is not sufficient incentive for me to take up and make good all the diversity and experimentation I had planned for this blog. So, you are stuck with my philospohizing, atleast for the time being.