It rather looks as though what has been lost is some of my mental acuity! (At least, I think I used to have a fair amount.)
But this experience, too, seems to have been a useful one. For one thing, I went from "lost candy" to "lost innocence" and have started to think about mankind's ability to blind itself to fairly plain facts in order to suit its prejudices or other preconceptions. And you know, if you've been following my blog, I'm concentrating on political and religions "blinding." One thing I haven't clarified yet is my concept that a simple syllogistic schema is operative. I've labeled "syllogism" the example:
It's inconceivable that the president of a country like the U.S. could send Americans to die for a made-up or lost cause.But a syllogism consists of three statements, not two. What's the missing statement? (And how do the two current statements need to be adjusted accordingly to reveal the "blinding logic"?)
Therefore, George W. Bush hasn't done so.
I think I know, but as a quiz (or a puzzle to amuse those of you who belong to MENSA), maybe you'd like to take a stab at it? (I assume you know how to comment.)
Another useful thing about the "lost candy" is how great I felt when I discovered that it wasn't lost! I felt lighter. I felt as though some burden I'd been carrying had been lifted off me. I walked out of the library with a livelier step than I'd walked in with. The college girls looked even sexier! Made once, my day was made yet again.
And I got to thinking. I recalled how depressing it has been having George W. Bush in the People's White House. And I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Obviously, there are many millions who feel similarly put upon and dejected. And angry.
Well, then: How heavy a weight nationally will be lifted off the People of the United States when the Busheviks are defeated? It'll be huge. The Planet Earth might even heave a sigh of relief.
Very nice, Steve G! A clever and apt syllogism. And I particularly like how you include my long contention that Bush isn't legit. My two-statement version overlooks that point in order to concentrate on the blinding mechanism, which (I think you're right) your version doesn't seem to address. Since, by definition, a syllogism represents a valid deduction, the challenge of the syllogism is to convey the logical contradiction that constitutes the act of self-blinding. In my two-statement version, this is handled by the phrase, "It is inconceivable that...."
ReplyDeleteAnd your first comment reminds me that for a while I believed that someone in the airline industry had stolen my candy. Not only did my find in the library yesterday absolve the industry of that, but I am called upon to apologize for my allegation. Thanks for helping keep me honest.