A Bradburyan Nighmare: The Shunning of Intellect

Leo:

::cringe:: Aesop's Crow.

Here is the part where I would retort with a comment about [deleted], but I've been given a slap on the wrists for someone else's transgressions- this means that I'm going to have to pluck your little feathers by more civil means.

The second I found you extolling the virtues of Tivo and Nintendo like a ninny you put in mind many things of which I've had to scamper around for in my trash hence the time delay- here on my desk I have a copy of a quote accorded to our President:

"....but is it too early to ask the commissioners, are you beginning, of course, the commission's been, what, in effect 77 days or something like that. 77 days traveled to so many stages, uh states, which I think is very important, because I think its important when that report comes in it has a national concept to it, that it isn't regional in any sense. So that report, we can't ask the commsioners...."- from Dr. Joseph's "the Naked Neuron"

Here also is a cutout from the Washington Post:

"I love stretching. I love doing yoga, I'm like, a stretchaholic. And I read alot of books. And I love to read. I love to paint and do art. Just, you know, activities like that. I love "The Power of Now". I love the book called "The Secret", oh my gosh (sic) I have a bunch of books. there was one that I really- and sometimes I read them over because its good for your soul. But I think one of my favorites is a kabla book; its called "Taming Chaos". Its kind of dark and deep, but I like those kind of, like, you know, weird books like that" - Brittany Spears

To boot- I bought a pair of jeans some weeks ago and kept the tag that came with it. In garish pastel colors it reads:

"Here's the 411:
This gear has been washed in stuff that makes it soft and cool looking, so two are never the same...why? To be one of a kind, its totally rad!"

Therefore, brother, I would like for you to tell me about these book lovers that, much like yourself, don't even sound smart.
Tell me about the Kabbala swallowers.
Tell me about the family game shows with their nonhumiliating questions and nonthreatening hosts who year by year are made fatter and less attractive so that you don't feel a threat of being patronized or put down.
Tell me about our president who appeals to Florida seniles when he's all dressed up and communal he looks like a prole setting off for church.
Tell me about the appeals to harmless, Midwestern small-town meanness.

All this reflects the crippled imbecile that this 'most cultured century of all' that you keep blowing your horns about gives birth to, little boy.
Just as we find grace in the practiced, loving hand do we find ignorance in the lacking one whose earmark is indifference or worse, pretense.
And I know it when I see it.

Tell me something- how many buckets of water does it take to 'culture' wine if all one has is water?

And how many posts does it take for you to realize that this sentence is your fucking godmother? A person who thinks that he thinks, a crow who's showed up screeching about his being an 'elite' with the paradise birds- you.

I say again: Just as we find grace in the practiced, loving hand do we find ignorance in the lacking one whose earmark is indifference or worse, pretense.
And I know it when I see it.

You're the latter.

PMT:

Yes, it is and its getting tiresome. I thought the man (LeoDv) would understand some of what I was getting at- I was neither holding people in contempt nor their habits, only wondering at the ridicule most have for intellect.

He was a pugnosed loudmouth, maybe?

His program: Take any question and slap a "What is' in front as primer. Now discuss. Like hotcakes.

Bigbluehead:

Pause.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA....you, sir, truly are fresh air.
We call these Quinzubros.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26157

:Gendanken steeples her fingers for finesse, and raises her eyebrows for effect::

Yes, of course. Akin to the middle upper classed belief that the British lifestyle confers class, ipso facto. And so the middle classed Anglophilia in its choice of Colonial homes as opposed to the 'normal' kind, the digests on Renaissance art and literature which evoke elegiac emotions as opposed the newspaper, the studying of humanites and law as opossed to the vulgar persuasions of electrical engineers.Gasp. Those filthy electrical engineers, how low.

Also the consumption of patees, escargo, and truffles as opposed to pizza and Pepsi. My how classy the taste of salted blankets is to that of real food, would you not say Fluffy?

Here's my lame attempt:

Maybe its something like the wearing of a Monet T-Shirt or the carrying around of those Sistine Chapel parasols they sell in novelty stores nowadays that convey the idea of one being cultured without having to be- the thinking of LOTR as historically accurate is the movie 'buff' sitting through 12 hours of the trilogy and knitting the shit into a sweater he can wear.
He does not have to read the book to know he is wrong- so long as he is part of some LOTR circle where he can share his opinions on something he knows little about without getting cautgh by those that actually read the book he can go on to shopping through LOTR and Star War flicks for his 'nerdom' and Monty Python films for his wit.

Good.Point.
Though I think it a hybrid of the two- but to follow your point:

There is something that goes on between human interactions that use stereotyped phrases or words called 'strokes'- something like a ritualized socioemotional function: How you doin', have a nice day, nice weather we are having.
Chit chat, sevi?
Rules for the strokes are tacitly known by most people universally.

Now, some people fail to deliver the appropriate number of strokes- either too much or too little- and this throws the humans interacting with them off balance and forces them to analyse a situation that by unspoken law is never given consideration- this makes them uncomfortable, this having to stop to analyse the interaction. They thus avoid the clumsy 'stroker'.

These people bad at 'stroking' are usually the result of emotional deprivation in their childhood or a disturbance in thier ubbringing or a natural reclusiveness from others- therefore, these who fail to provide the "appropriate" number of strokes are seen as snobby (if attractive or powerful), or socially dense or abnormal (if not).

Those that humans avoid are left to go into themselves even more, aggraviting their social divorce all the more and so- VOILA, we've got us a nerd. A true blue, bonifie Turingy nerd.

Still with me?

Wes:

And nerdettas.....

Or someone to ridicule and curl your lip at because you find him abnormal.


Wolf:

In real life, its hard for minions to hide behind websites that have cut books down to a bony carcass by hacking out all the famous quotes and sayings of the author.

This is why those 'nerds', these plastic boils in their emo outfits that we meet in real life are louder than the true intellectual who is usually found fumbling for his words or surprised at his having the floor for once- the wannabes have all the loud confidene of one who's spent a whole afternoon memorizing neat sayings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i deemed that part nonsense and didn't address it. although tolkien was aiming for an english mythology fictionally represented at about 700 years ago. the races are not coincidentally reminiscent of various british isle (and surrounding) peoples. besides the point. occasionally being a "nerd" (or "intellectual" to go back to the theme of the thread) becomes cool in the eyes of the masses. is that such a bad thing? does it change who you are?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Swedish Pescado:

And that's the neatest time to go hunting down fakes.
If it "becomes cool", all you confess is your artifice.

That's when the picking apart of these people becomes delicious.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the Gendanken/Swedishfish exchange has exposed a peculiar thing, like the fossil of an octopus brought to light by the erosive action of silty water:

There are sub-nerd varieties. How troubling.

The "poor player", who practices his lines in the hope that one day he will say them... every quiet moment spent in front of their mental mirror, debonair smiles and laconic dismissals that no one ever sees.

The "true nerd", bereft even of imaginary role, surprised by any influence from the outside world; any interference is a wonder and a horror to them, the attention of a beautiful man or woman like the blast of an atomic bomb.

The "pseudonerd", not a nerd but a nerd poser, following nerd fashion in the belief that it will find them status in the strange world of the outcast unified - pursuing not the revilement but only its supposed benefits, even when the two are inextricable.

That's great, but with the ebb and flow of a person's life we have been all of these things - most often the first, I, for haven't we all wondered what life would be like as a musketeer, a gunman, a lizard rider on the distant planet of Knorg? To ride across the gladden fields, feel the surging reptilian muscles between your thighs... skewering the murdering Razortongues with your ceramic lance... bringing back their scintillating cores to offer shyly to the sweet young virgins?

But I digress...

We all rehearse for things that will never come.
We all feel a sense of unreality when our lives change.
Maybe we even all pose as nerds - self-deprecation - to improve our status.

Then... nerddom has to be externally verifiable by some metric, not a matter of what one seeks, or what one feels inside... not so?

 

Damnit Bluehead, I'll cut you in half if you skimmed through the "clumsy strokers" clause in my last post.

His counterpart is the mirror athlete.

His counterpart is an asshole mechanic whose only passion is shift gears and brake fluid.

His countepart is the middle classed housewife who is serving moussaka and ~caviar~ with her hair in a French roll as tight as she is.

In short, we've all gone through these phases and they are not restricted to one group of people. This is why we know them so well.

You know it, I know it. Its in the speech and mental aptitude.
The simplesse of looking down at a bee's waggle dance and seeing the analemma in it or at a vomit of numbers and finding beautiful patterns in the mess.

Most don't have this, consider this a 'metric'.

***EDIT**

And by the way, I edited out the 'you people' that made it seem as if though I was speaking of Swedishfish, for I wasn't. Its 'these people' or 'those people', a generality.

 

"Pescado"
i love it when you speak the foreign

"pseudonerd" ?
dear lord, no. there's a fashion everything these days! aaaah! is nothing sacred? soon we'll be seeing nun-chic.
since i've been spending so much time in my goggles, i will from this day forward dismiss anyone who thinks they are a nerd as a poser if they don't have red rings around their face.

i rehearse to be a rockstar. someday....someday.

 

Le Poissant de Swedeland:

Only following Blue's example- he called you *ahem* le poissant de Swedeland.

 

Gendy: So you're postulating two phenomena:

1) the social misfit, the one who doesn't know how to talk to people - by your description, one whose social interaction does not conform to the rhythm of the normal person - blurting things when they shouldn't, failing to answer or taking too long to think of a response. (I think this ignores physical carriage, which is a major factor - usually you can spot a nerd without taking the trouble to talk to them.)

2) the UnderStander, who sees patterns where others don't - where music, or physics, or mathematics take on the properties of a language to them, not intuitive but at least consistent.

And then saying these two things are linked? Need you have #2 to be a nerd?

 

A title of a Skunk Anansie song:

It takes blood and guts to be this cool, but I'm still just a cliche.

Kinda puts it quite concise who's the real nerd. One who thinks of oneself what that title says, is certainly not a true one.

 

Bluehead:

I'm thinking the proto-nerd gets better at 2 because of 1.

And its the fusion of both in one person that people recoil from or revile.


Roasamagika:

I have a tired out maxim for this, coined years ago by yours truly: Said it, not it.

 

So the simple clumsiness only inspires regular disgust, where the true nerd mindset, alien to normalcy, is enough to create true revulsion?

 

I hate to use this as an argument -- but English is only my third language, so I'm asking you to give the full sentence form of"Said it, not it."

Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

BBB: Wow, I think I had the wrong impression of you. If so, I apologize. When reading one of your earlier postings, I thought you had just found your dictionary. So, being somewhat of a smit, I threw in that bit about GWHunting movie. I did get a smile out of the student to student confrontation, because of all the pseudo intellectuals that one meets in the corporate world. I was testing you, Sir, which I not no right to do, and responded like a gentleman.

However, in my defense, your trashing Goethe and denouncing Socrates, did, in my skeptic lenses put you very near those who seemingly take a stand on something and then either deny the existence of, or if that is not feasable, then trash anyone in disagreement. This type of thing, to me, runs the same course as attempted political assasination and religious mumbo jumbo, I receive all to often on email. Is there not some where in the minds of these who wish to be oh so knowledgeable and known for their repartee, a place for disagreeing somewhat on some issues? If there should be such a one, is he then a nerd or an intellectual? If fairmindedness not cool? And all the digressions to funky little historical clips, just to say, "Hey, see, I read that too." Or, hmm, maybe my age is showing, do you think? Be kind. Just kidding.

 

Oops, I guess it should be BBH, rather than BBB.

 

gendanken.

gendanken gendanken gendanken gendanken...

*sigh*

And you still haven't said anything to rationally attack my arguments. All that you've done is throw examples of the fact that people are stupid. Have I denied that? On the contrary. Did you really think I would be surprised, dismayed, muted by the shock and awe of the groundbreaking revelation that Britney Spears is stupid? (And oh, how much contempt drips from your deliberate misspelling of her name!)

Let me repeat myself for what, the fourth time?

I'm not denying that people nowadays are stupid. I'm not denying that they're ignorant and don't care about culture. I'm simply pointing out a few facts.

1. First of all, the fact that, much in the same way that the change in our pockets represents a microscopic sum to you and I and yet would mean a fortune to a person form the third world, what little culture people have today is enormous compared to that of their ancestors. Yes, that amount is still microscopic, I give you that gladly, but you can't overlook all that has been accomplished.

I honestly laughed out loud when I read that quote of the jeans label, and I probably would've kept it as a memento like you did. That said, the stupidity of this label proves my point : in the 1600's, did people's clothes come with a label? No. Because they made the clothes for themselves, but also because they couldn't even have READ such a label! And even if they could, they couldn't afford to waste precious parchment on something as stupid as a jeans label.

You compare our days to some grand golden age where people loved art, debated philosophy with so much soul and passion that they would throw themselves in a brasier over the Nicomachean Ethics quicker than Romeo would over Juliette. But that past is fictitious! Whenever such a situation has existed it was among a microscopic elite, like the salons of European courts in the 18th century. And yet you go compare these lucky few to the entire, relatively uncultured world and go "Look! We've decayed! Bygone are the glorious days when you had to be an aristocrat to have even heard of Beethoven! Woe, woe of the dark ages we live in where you can just pick up a CD and listen to him whenever you want!" Your comparison is fallacious and unjust.

2. You think that we can teach culture to everyone, and I disagree.

I think it's a fact that we're all born with different gifts, but the proportion of what is innate and what is acquired by little children is a scientific mystery. For all intents and purposes however, the fact remains that most of us are hermetic to culture. Some people, no matter how hard they tried, earnestly chewing word after word of a book, simply can't be submerged by it in that delicious alchemy that all avid readers know and crave. We don't all have the capacity to be intellectuals.

3. Even if we could turn everyone into intellectuals, I don't think that we should.

Not everyone is smart? Good. Means that they have other gifts. Not everyone cares about culture? Good! Means they care about something else! I like this world where people aren't like me! I don't want people to try and be more like me, I'm the best at that already. I much rather love to see them be themselves!

Britney Spears is extremely dumb? So what? Of course she's nowhere near as smart as I (or perhaps my cat) am. But (and this may surprise you) I can't even dream to begin to dance as well as she does! I don't care about dancing all that much, just like she probably doesn't care about literature all that much. Britney Spears is who she is, and despising her for not being an intellectual is like hating a chair for not being a drape.

Of course you might hate that this girl is put forth as a role model, but people get what they deserve. If MTV promoted the hell out of Einstein, making documentaries about how he won the Nobel Prize with their shitty editing and annoying omnipresent background music, people wouldn't suddenly pick up physics books, they would just change the channel.

4. Thinking that we can turn everyone into smart, nice, friendly, selfless people is an utopia.

The huge progress of this era is that everyone has access to culture. If a kid wants to read Jack London, he can just walk in a public library, pick it up, and be whisked off to the polar circle. Why? Because those libraries are subsidized. Because he was taught to read by the school system, and none of those things existed only a handful of generations ago! Teachers should persevere in their efforts to make their students read. But should we be so appaled (or even surprised) that those efforts are well-received only by a minority?

Nope.

 

Allright [deleted] -

Get

The Fuck

Out

Of

My thread or [threat deleted].

All you are doing is reverting back to home base- who is despising Spears? You so dearly wish to turn this into a case of snobby little gendanken turning her teeny little nose up at the laity don't you?
Want to keep lauding pop culuture and its T.V. dinner? FINE- I'll have you know that in a globalized world cultures lose their identity in the push to make everyone equal despite difference. Of what use is pointilism to a blind man?

But watch you get stuck on that one, you brilliant wit you! Funny that of the 5 or 6 people that have shown up its only [deleted] that can't even get a **** point.

Feed on these:

"The nerds we're talking about here are the unsuccessful ones, I think - Too uncaring to dress properly, like Einstein, but without the successes of Einstein's career. Full of personal insight, like Feynman, but with nobody to listen or care. Outspoken and determined in their field of study, like Bohr, but often in a field of study that doesn't affect anyone, and without the resources to produce any worthwhile results." blue


"Not much time here so I'll just offer a quick observation. In agreement with gendanken, I note a distinct difference in the way intellectual ability is responded to in comparison to physical ability. If the response, as some would have it, is merely a reaction to elitism or arrogance one would expect the response to be similar. Yet the demonstration of athletic prowess is typically applauded while a similar display of intellectual prowess is publicly denounced. Meanwhile I find that the intellectual 'elite' are typically far more humble than the athletic 'elite'." Raithere

"The question is whether they are reviled for being INTELLIGENT, or whether they are just reviled for some combination of poor grooming and fashion sense, poor bearing, and poor social skills."

"Now, to reassert my claim, I believe that becoming a nerd is a reaction to being reviled, rather than the other way around as the Gend has claimed." Blue

PARTING SHOT: Fuck off

Rosamagika:

If one says they are something, then they are not it (applicable if statement is made seriously)
And so, "I'm the man" is usually heard coming from a hairy troglodyte with no brains. Said it, not it.

Bigbluehead:

Yes, something like that- but what I'm really getting at is the difference in treatment.

Jane loves "Friends" to a fault, she can chat and gossip about everything on televison down to a history and it is seen as a funny novely cute to be around.

But Joanna with the same passion for Freud's analysis of the rat man and the magic of Shakespeare or Nietzche is seen as an odd vice, and is avoided as if she had headlice.

Both these people have the same malfunction in their interactions with humans, yet one is more reviled than the other.

(concering also your question of why people find LOTR historically accurate- I found out after some discussions with people that they dont, so what are you talking about? Those that play Dungeons and Dragons?)

 

anyone with a passion for freud should be avoided like headlice

 

LeoDV:

Not that Gendanken cannot speak for herself; she can and does it quite well. So, offence, but do you not see that you are missing, or failing to address the essence of her argument? Now, maybe I am wrong. I was once!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rather than responding presumpuously, I will simply make comments and take the risk of having you both come back at me with "what the h....are you saying?"

I quote LeoDV, addressing Gendanken: "You compare our days to some grand golden age where people loved art, debated philosophy with so much soul and passion that they would throw themselves in a brasier over the Nicomachean Ethics quicker than Romeo would over Juliette. But that past is fictitious!

That is quite a mouthful, and I have to wonder just how seriously you meant it. My stars, in the days of Josepheus, in the days of Christ...(well, you may not accept that either existed, but humor me, so that you will at least know the times of which I speak), dying for something was honorable, and passion was admired, and almost necessary to have a desire for something so intense that one could rise above the threats to life and limb. I had to laugh when in Josephus, a man is quoted to have said that he would give his life for the
Senate, and from the way it read, he meant that literally. In some countries today, individuals are willing to give their lives seemingly willingly and seemingly without much thought. I have to think that you either meant more than you said, or that I am missing something.

I quote again: Whenever such a situation has existed it was among a microscopic elite, like the salons of European courts in the 18th century. And yet you go compare these lucky few to the entire, relatively uncultured world and go "Look! We've decayed! Bygone are the glorious days when you had to be an aristocrat to have even heard of Beethoven! Woe, woe of the dark ages we live in where you can just pick up a CD and listen to him whenever you want!" Your comparison is fallacious and unjust.

I get your point, I think; however, there being availability does not make us cultered. There is without doubt far more availability, but per capita, we show a sad picture, and even more so when we consider the availability. Surely, you can agree with me on this.

Three statements follow from your last post, Leo:

>You think that we can teach culture to everyone, and I disagree.

>We don't all have the capacity to be intellectuals.

> Even if we could turn everyone into intellectuals, I don't think that we should.

I commence with the last one: No, we cannot "turn everyone into intellectuals, but we can promote, as much as possible, a love for learning, a passion for knowing, and discipline. To me, (but, of course, I think intuition is a higher development than intellectualism), we can teach our children about these men and women who were exceptional, who had passion for learning, who had discipline, who were prolific writers of some value, who had special loves, besides bed partners, and so forth, they just might suspect that there is something in this life for them as well that is worthwhile. You surely must admit that sitting a kid in front of a TV, or shoving an Nintendo game in their hands, though we admire the technical ability it tood to develop these to their present height of admiration, is teaching them little about what to do with themselves!

Leo wrote: Not everyone is smart? Good. Means that they have other gifts. Not everyone cares about culture? Good! Means they care about something else!

In all due respect to you, not necessarily, and I know this for a fact. Some learn somehow to care about nothing. This is a sad truth, Leo.

Leo wrote: I like this world where people aren't like me! I don't want people to try and be more like me, I'm the best at that already. I much rather love to see them be themselves!

That is a wonderful statement.


LeoDV: Thinking that we can turn everyone into smart, nice, friendly, selfless people is an utopia.

And it is so good that you can appreciate people who are different, but all intellectuals are not smart, my friend. Further, culture, is a bit of a subjective word, as it means different thing to different folks specifically. Bull fighting is considered part of the culture of Mexico, boxing is part of our culture. I say ug to both. Culture is. This need not be taught, and perhaps this is the problem. Perhaps the words intellectual and culture are mixing things up.

LeoDV wrote: The huge progress of this era is that everyone has access to culture. If a kid wants to read Jack London, he can just walk in a public library, pick it up, and be whisked off to the polar circle. Why? Because those libraries are subsidized. Because he was taught to read by the school system, and none of those things existed only a handful of generations ago! Teachers should persevere in their efforts to make their students read. But should we be so appaled (or even surprised) that those efforts are well-received only by a minority?

I say yes. If a teacher cannot inspire the majority of the class, and inspire interest then I must argue that someone has failed to do the job.

Please believe me. I am not trying to pick apart your post, so if I seened to have scornfully jumped to some conclusion, that was not my aim at all. I just happen to have very strong convictions about promoting a hunger for learning. Passion is a great motivator, but we need wisdom to be our guide; therefore, we must--to have--wisdom, have knowledge. The very fact that many are well read, by no means should deceive us into thinking that these same ones have one spark of wisdom. Whereupon, if we prefer "not to be smart," or not to seek knowledge and wisdom, we leave ourselves wide open to having others think for us. Please consider this, and thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

pmt

 

I'd like to make two points:

1. The cultural situation is not much different today than it was centuries back: the *contents* are different, this is true, but the *ratios* are probably the same. What once were popular songs and dirges played by street musicians and remembered by people of the lower classes of social hierarchy, are today MTV etc.

What may be a bit confusing is that today, we seem to be having an overview of all history so far, and that works as form the 12th century are available as well as those from the 17th etc. But that doesn't mean that we're any more advanced in culture.
But the fact is, that popular culture of earlier days is not preserved, only bits of it.

We don't know what popular songs people were singing in the 12th century, we have only a few preserved -- and this is not enough to make an adequate picture of what popular culture was like back then. Same goes for other forms of culture. Just because it wasn't written down doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

Saying that we are culturally further evolved than people of the old days, has no sound basis -- we are comparing things that cannot be compared -- incomparable in the sense of which is better (" ") or more evolved (" ") than the other.

Some people today think that writing is such a cool thing and woe is the people of old days who couldn't write or didn't have computers.

But we have to observe things in their original contexts: the people of old didn't need to know to write, they didn't need computers. The whole technological situation was wastly different than today. So we can't just say that "we are more cultured today" than the people of old.
I think that the situation is of the same nature today as ift was back then, just the contents of culture are diferent.



2. Here's what Hermann Hesse thought of the biblical story of Cain and Abel -- from the book Demian:

Cain was something like a nerd. He and his family were different than the crowd: they were special somehow, they had "a mind of their own". The crowd didn't like that, so they put a stigma on them: the mark on Cain's forehead is the mark of being different than the crowd, and this differenetness was as obvious as if someone actually had a mark on their forehead.

Maybe Cain actually killed Abel, maybe he didn't. But the crowd didn't like Cain, they felt threatened by him and his family being different, Cain and his family made the crowd of the Abel kind look dumb, or uncapable, or simply uncool, because Cain was a guy with guts and character. So they had to get rid of him. They ascribed him sins they themselves were gulity of: primarily jelaousy.

And what is a better motive to expel someone than to charge him with murder? So they did.

The biblical story teaches that one should not be like Cain. The surest threat to make people follow this is the threat of being expelled.

It's one of the first nerd stories, alright.



P.S.
Gendanken,

A Bosnian saying has your thought of "Say it, not it" even more intensely expressed: "Run child, run! Beware of people who call themselves good people, beware of people who call themselves your friends!"

 

@@#$-@&^!!!

Calming down and now-
James:

Seems you've glossed over LoeDV's testament of [deleted].

This means he has threatened me [deleted].
This is not vulgar to you, maybe?
I would much rather hear your thoughts on the shunning of intellect than you showing up only briefly for a cursory edit on what you find to be my profanity.
You are a member here who's thoughts are always appreciated since you actually put thought into them- there are only a rare few like this around here.

PMT:

Something along the lines of my slant, but not quite-

I was only pointing out the differences in the love man had for his creations back then as opposed to now- read of Apasia and you can almost imagine Strindberg holding the words in his hand with a Thoric bolt in his eye, furious and angry that lessers are wearing his mantle. I was not even appealing to as far back as the Renassiance either, as that peon Leon would have it- unbeknown to Mencken, a friend saw him picking his head up from his typewriter once, tilt it back and let out an uproarious laughter over something he just wrote.
He is as recent as the 1900's.

This crude joy is a fusion with one's creation.

You read a similar account of 'fury' from a "modern" author and its only as if he's pissy its raining.

Cha!

Something the little pissant has yet to answer me:
How many buckets of water does it take to 'culture' wine if all one has is water?


Fish:

Anyone on birth control with a fat face should be boiled. Kidding.

Seriously, why?

Rosamagika:

Neat.

But its 'Said it, not it"

(and as for the Cain-nerd syllogism, Cain seems much too carnal or powerful for the parallel. He has murdered, he is jeoulus and canniving- he embodies evil, something feared and shunned for its cruelty, not its strangeness or eccentricity)