will you please serve the nuts?

more stars than in the heavens

Nicolas_Poussin_-_Bacchanal_before_a_Statue_of_Pan_-_WGA18284

You know the old hypothetical, useful at cocktail parties and the like: if you could invite any five fictional/historical/mythological/what-have-you people over for a dinner party, whom would you select, and why?  At some stages of my life, I would have invited five dashing, debonair types: Astaire, Grant, Nabokov, Waltz, Keaton, that kind of thing.  But now I think – perhaps because I’m in a slightly, um, different place these days – I’ve settled on an absolutely ideal (albeit completely different) dinner party.  Without further ado:

tumblr_inline_moykgfpSRu1qz4rgp

Hannibal Lecter(Mikkelsen edition)

This is a no-brainer, of course.  In fact, he would probably be the chef. (I would humbly insist on avoiding certain meats, as far as politeness allowed.) Mikkelsen’s Hannibal is a fabulous dinner guest: refined, intelligent, interested in a broad spectrum of human folly, devilishly funny, and not too hard on the eyes.  And while he may be putting us all…

View original post 767 more words

Advertisements

Treatise on Idiocy

TREATISE ON IDIOCY
Many people have misguided views on stupidity and idiocy. Most people do not understand what being an idiot really is, and as such, they think it is an easy feat to pull off. They may also believe that being an idiot requires no practice and as such, it is inborn. This last conjecture is true to some extent, as I must admit, but recent studies have revealed that for one to hone the fine skill of stupidity to sheer perfection, more than just inborn gifts is needed.
I must pay my respect to the author of “Bubba’s Laws of Intelligence” as it is the base inspiration for this work. I have borrowed from the premises of that well read scholar and I have agreed with his reasoning and thusly, I have come up with this treatise.
According to the scholar, he believes that stupidity is conserved, conductible and as such, it is latent, yet transferrable from one person to another. This latent stupidity can be increased, decreased, changed or morphed into any form, but just like Einstein propounded about matter, stupidity cannot be destroyed. It will still exist, no matter what is done to undermine it, expel it, eliminate it or consume it. It will still be there.
Talking about the transfer of stupidity from one body to another brings me to the topic for the evening. Idiocy.
Idiocy has been defined as the transfer of stupidity from one body to another, either through a permeable membrane, of a clear medium. I would prefer to represent this with the equation:
Ᵽ±µ↔∑ᴄ⁺ᾳ
Where Ᵽ equals the basic stupidity of the human, µ equals the influx or outflow of stupidity, c equals the constant of surroundings and ᾳ equals the increase in age and with it, the mounting affinity for crystallized stupidity. From this theorem, it is clear that the basic stupidity of the human being with an introduction of stupidity through the medium of idiocy has little or no variation from the constant material for stupidity that the environment provides and the crystallization of stupidity with age.
Now, transfer of stupidity (idiocy), can occur in various ways. One of the most prevalent is the Internet. The internet is the greatest transmitter of stupid information, and now, with easy access to it, we have a tsunami of information pillaging our senses. Thus, if the time variance is the only variable in the equation and we have a steady flow of symmetrical information, all test subjects will record positive on the counter.
Another medium of transfer is human interaction. Even though human interaction can still occur over the internet and social media, we still have a magnetic attraction towards other people with the same physically stupid traits as we do. The space time continuum of equilibrist stupidity will apply here, proving that where two humans with varying levels of stupidity engage in an intercourse of scientific stupidity, the latency of the stupidity is banished and the apparent viscosity of the human mind is reduced, thereby promoting an uninhibited communion of idiocy.
There are many other methods of transfer, such as social media, sport, etc., but these two that have been explained should suffice for the time being.
Now, this brings us to the concept of entropy. Entropy is the inverse relationship between the stupidity of a being and its diminishing intelligence. According to the author previously cited, the entropy of a system in an intellectual equilibrium is zero, as the intellect approached zero. This is where the social media would come into play, as it has been posited that the only deciding factor where the entropy of the system reaches zero is the number of Facebook friends it has. The latency of the equilibrist state is destroyed by the interactions the system has with the outside world, and as such, compare this to dye at the bottom of clear water, undisturbed. If shaken, well, you know the rest.
In conclusion, still on the matter of entropy, some systems have shown a profound ability to refuse the theorem posited by me and have seemingly become smarter than the average stupid person. This is rather unfortunate, for due to the concept of entropy, the wisdom or smartness they portray, does not affect they themselves but goes on a much wider scale. This is so because nature must have her way. Their smartness has found a way of telling on the rest of the populace and as such, for every smart person, a million stupid ones were born.
Thank you very much for reading.
Rhetor

Bubba’s Laws of Intelligence (and/or stupidity)

Great read

Ubiquitous Bubba's Blog

Zeroth law of intelligence: If two systems are in intellectual equilibrium with a third system, they must be in intellectual equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of intellect. The hypothesis is intended to allow the existence of an empirical parameter, the intellect, as a property of a system such that systems in intellectual equilibrium with each other have the same intellect. The law as stated here is compatible with the use of a particular physical being, for example a middle aged LARPer, to match the intellect of other beings, but does not justify regarding intellect as a quantity that can be measured on a scale of real numbers.

 First law of intelligence: Because stupidity is conserved, the internal stupidity of a system changes as idiocy flows in or out of it. Equivalently, people that violate the first law (liars) are impossible. Idiocy is the flow of stupidity from one person…

View original post 505 more words

Sacrifice

image

I have spent too much time in this maze/
To know I’ll not get anywhere, how I spend my days/
Pondering daily on how dearly I miss you/
And still wondering if you miss me too/

I tried to drown my sorrows in bottles of gin/
And keeping company with that sort of kin/
But I kept falling back to thoughts of you again/
So I picked up my pen to write a treatise on pain/

My progress thus far, hath got me thinking/
That I had been on the right path when I had been drinking/
So with a bottle in hand and a pen in the other/
I drew you this picture to read, if you bother/

My magic is gone away with you, Muse/
The lyrics of my music is naught but refuse/
So I sing to you, Siren of the briny blue/
Take my heart along, a sacrifice I give up to you/

-Rhetor

Ode To Lucifer

image

O Lucifer, I hail thee
The bright and morning star
The one enemy of divinity
Great Prince of Persia

Your tales are heard across the lands
And all men fear your ire
But to be held in God’s kind hands
Is all that you desire

You may be evil, black and cruel
Smell of nectar and sulphur
But only those with whom you duel
Know who your hate is for

Indeed, you must hate yourself
For that singular misdeed
Yet pardon not your princey self
For you have sown many an evil seed

Yet I pity you, my dear friend
Your damnation is all but had
I know that you will smile in the end
Till then, enjoy this ballad

-Rhetor

Creative Routines

Info We Trust

“We all have the same 24 hours that Beyoncé has” and its various iterations took the web by storm in late 2013 as the megastar became the figurehead of not only having it all, but being able to somehow do it all too.

How do creatives – composers, painters, writers, scientists, philosophers – find the time to produce their opus? Mason Currey investigated the rigid Daily Rituals that hundreds of creatives practiced in order to carve out time, every day, to work their craft. Some kept to the same disciplined regimen for decades while others locked in patterns only while working on specific works.

Creative Routines Poster

There are enough data to visualize a portion of the hundreds of creative lifestyles. Click the poster to discover:
Gustave Flaubert
Ludwig Van Beethoven
W.A. Mozart
Thomas Mann
Sigmund Freud
Immanuel Kant
Maya Angelou
John Milton
Honore de Balzac
Victor Hugo
Charles Dickens
W.H. Auden
Charles Darwin

View original post 216 more words

Nasty, Brutish and Short: Hobbesian Ethics and the Zombie Apocalypse.

path: ethic.

I was 19 when I read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.  Like most of my classmates, I was at first taken aback by the idea that people act out of self-interest, but I came to really appreciate the idea of that, and of social contracts and a strong leadership, which were the elements which saved us from the chaos of man in the state of nature.  The state of nature, in which the life of man would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’

My friends and I loved that description, ‘nasty, brutish, and short.’ We’d throw it into conversations and laugh the laugh of the philosophy geek.  

View original post 1,175 more words