Archive for the Category »World Affairs «

Satire’s Gods

By Benners-Fox Vail

Satire is without question a misunderstood art. It employs Irony as it’s bulwark and requires a sense of humor. It is often mistaken as Sarcasm, although a close ‘cousin.’

Satire requires Knowledge, Erudition and boldness and is usually dismissed as “yellow” journalism by its targets. And yet without it, we are left with the mundane status quo media, offered for popular consumption and designed as a disingenuous panacea for an already satiated mob.

What the f%$k was that?!

Satire is Truth not denied but elevated to an Art.

______________________

Other than Voltaire, two of my favorite Satirists are Ambrose Bierce and the Duc de La Rochefoucauld.

Here are some my favorite quotes from these monsters of Satire:

From “Reflexions ou sentences et maximes Morales”-La Rochefoucauld.

“Pity is often feeling our own sufferings in those of others, a shrewd precaution against misfortunes that may befall us. We give hope to others so that they have to do the same to us on similar occasions, and these kindnesses we do them are, to put it plainly, gifts we bestow on ourselves in advance.”

“There are various forms of curiosity: one, based on self-interest, makes us want to learn what may be useful, another, based on pride, comes from a desire to know what others don’t.”

“Suspicion on our part justifies deceit in others.”

“Humility is often merely feigned submissiveness assumed in order to subject others, an artifice of pride which stoops to conquer, and although pride as a thousand ways of transforming itself it is never so well

disguised and able to take people in as when masquerading as humility.”

“In every walk of life each man puts on a personality and outward appearance so as to look what he wants to be thought: in fact you might say that society is entirely made up of assumed personalities.”

From “The Devils Dictionary”-Ambrose Bierce

Battle, n. The method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue.

Alliance, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other’s pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third.

Ambrose Bierce.  Portrait by J.H.E. Partington.
Image via Wikipedia

Diplomacy, n. The patriotic art of lying for one’s country.

Religon, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot’s activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but “pervades and regulates the whole.” He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashion of opinion and taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a deadline.”

A little history here.

Bierce wrote his brand of cutting Satire around 1906. The first version of “Dictionary” was titled “The Cynics Wordbook.” This is a must read for Satirists.

La Rochefoucauld wrote the “Maxims” in 1665. It reads very much like “Dictionary.” I believe Bierce was a fan of La Rochefoucauld and ‘borrowed’ many of his definitions from the “Maxims.” In either case, these masterpieces of Satire should be read and enjoyed by anyone who identifies with the Inner Pragmatist!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark

The Decriticalysis of Joe’s Linguasta

“A Destructive, Subversive, Skeptical Analysis of the Notion of Extended Non-Logical Judgments by Talking Heads on the Inferred Personal Schemas Based on Limited Observation of Behavior Without the Inclusion of Causal Factors”

Or The Decriticalysis of Joe’s Linguasta

by Dewey Lovett-Ubet

“Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster is a maniac?” –George Carlin

“Damnit, I’m in a hurry…gotta rush to judgment!”—Elmer Fudd

I will address in this article, the practice by some educators of expressing unqualified judgments regarding the internal nature of people based on opinions derived from poor reasoning, limited samples of behavior and an ignorance of the causes of behavior.

(Note: This predilection to engage in character judgment without foundation, maybe due to a condition in academia known as Gigantis Egoistis—(dji-GAN-tis E-go-IS-tis), in which an instructor has at sometime in the past, acquired a parasite that occupies the Hippo-Campus region of the brain. We will address this phenomenon later in the paper.)

I will begin my argument by recounting a claim I heard while I was dreaming in a philosophy lecture. I was dreaming that Berkeley’s disembodied brain was channeling my professor’s lecture, who, as it turns out, was also dreaming of Berkeley.

For Real…although it does sound like Idealistic hearsay!

Is this true, you ask? Of course it is true… How else could any of this have happened?

The Claim to be Decriticalized, (Destructively Critically Analyzed):

Straight from Berkeley’s Brain: “I can tell that you are an arrogant, self-centered, solipsistic jerk by your behavior. And even though I don’t know you, have never spoken to you, I also know that you are a so and so because other people have said as much. Plus, it is also rumored, that you are guilty of practicing a singularly solitary, subversive and destructive type of philosophy!”

The Brain continues...”And… since you are what you do, not what you think you do, and it’s what other people think you are doing that makes whatever you are doing, really what you are doing, then what you are doing is not what you think you are doing but what I think you are doing.”

…If I remember my lessons correctly, this mess of linguistic pasta is called “linguasta” and has been around since the early days of Philosophy in Athens…but, I digest…

As you can readily see, this linguasta is an absurdly bad interpretation of a part of Alice’s Adventures that runs: “Be what you would seem to be”–or if you’d like it put more simply–”Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.0915_clip_image001

Now it is possible that our talking head Berkeley, who was channeling the talking head of my professor, who also in turn, could have been channeling Lewis Carroll during the lecture, meant to say what he was thinking but got confused by the feedback from Professor Joe’s own Qualia?

Makes perfect sense to me. So we’ll just call it all:  “Joe’s Linguasta,” and leave it at that!

The Decriticalysis of Joe’s Linguasta:

more…

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark