Saturday, March 31, 2007

Ambrose Bierce's definition of an idiot:

"A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling."

Also, I was recently reminded of the original Greek meaning--a private person.

Recently I read the transcript of an official high up in the Bush administration, I can't remember his name, but trust me, he was pretty high, and when he was asked the question, "Do you think that George Bush would still decide to invade Iraq had he know what a disaster it would turn out to be?"

It's an idiotic question, to be sure. And yet, the official replied, "Yes."

Reality is generally as cryptic as a living nightmare, I agree, but aren't there certain limits?

I'm reminded of the machinist who, while demonstrating to a couple of co-workers how he happened to cut off two of his fingers, proceeded to cut off two more.

A cautionary story gone sadly awry.

At the end of history, though, even idiots have to say, "I must go on."



Blogger john hanson said...

the context is almost everything

you know they used to refer to downs' syndrome people
mongolian idiots

josef hasek
created a character
named schweik
who made idiocy
a real social virtue
in a political atmosphere that promoted stupidity
in the name of reason
and cervantes
has the greatest story
of human intrigue
shown to us in the character
who could be nothing more than
a bona fide idiot
but interesting none theless

the problem with the idiots who
presume to run things
is that they must convey personas
of seriousness and knowledge to the rest of us
we never get to see them
in their day to day world
their idiocy is assumed
without them even knowing it

the fundamental difference between
a character like dubbya
and bill clinton
(IQ levels aside)
seems to be the humour factor
bill clinton is a pretty funny guy
george bush is not funny

he has shit his pants in church
and is convinced that nobody knows

did not fuentes write a little novel
depicting bierce as a sort of
high class sophomoric ahmuhrikhun?

the scientific/agnostic atheistic mind of today is quite idiotic
in that it more or less refuses to admit
cognitive experience that defies
rationalist scrutiny
einstein with his wanger hangin out

scientific reasoning is a very low form of cognitive activity
much lower than serious poetic effort
and much lower than musical knowledge and adeptness
and much lower than philosophical speculation
speculation that includes traditional metaphysics that is
scientifuc thinking is
much lower than
the thinking that takes place while

so from an evolutionary point of view
scientific thinking is
near the patterns of monkeys

science has brought about all the luxuries
that may very well kill us

now is that idiocy?

thanks for the post dude


4:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home