utopyr brings to my attention the opening pages of one of Terry Pratchett's humorous fantasy novels in which recent posts from joculum are reprised more or less verbatim, including a better formulation of a maxim I had been trying to figure out how to word: "Just because something is a superstition doesn't mean that it's wrong."
utopyr has observed that he writes things meant as jokes that other people turn into actually existing enterprises. Ones that work, at least when it comes to winning film festival awards.
And there is a longstanding custom in more habitually ironic parts of the world of encoding the most arcane wisdom in extremely funny folk tales, thus ensuring that it will be more or less accurately remembered (because otherwise the punchlines won't make any sense) and transmitted.
The problem is that in a fashion of which the late Jean Baudrillard would have approved and the still living Umberto Eco probably would still approve, by the time we get back round the world to Europe the wisdom has turned back into real jokes that are indistinguishable in style and content from the jokes that are not meant as jokes.
If you insist that you are saying something that is not true enough times, does that make it true?
I have noticed that the most insightful gurus of our time have also been outspoken atheists who sometimes have chaired Humanist Associations. They get the articulation of the stuff right, whereas the loosy-goosy New Agers get it reliably, predictably wrong.
Gee.
I'm just kidding.
utopyr has observed that he writes things meant as jokes that other people turn into actually existing enterprises. Ones that work, at least when it comes to winning film festival awards.
And there is a longstanding custom in more habitually ironic parts of the world of encoding the most arcane wisdom in extremely funny folk tales, thus ensuring that it will be more or less accurately remembered (because otherwise the punchlines won't make any sense) and transmitted.
The problem is that in a fashion of which the late Jean Baudrillard would have approved and the still living Umberto Eco probably would still approve, by the time we get back round the world to Europe the wisdom has turned back into real jokes that are indistinguishable in style and content from the jokes that are not meant as jokes.
If you insist that you are saying something that is not true enough times, does that make it true?
I have noticed that the most insightful gurus of our time have also been outspoken atheists who sometimes have chaired Humanist Associations. They get the articulation of the stuff right, whereas the loosy-goosy New Agers get it reliably, predictably wrong.
Gee.
I'm just kidding.