The hippies are right

THINKING ABOUT “BITCH”: THE TRIPARTITE CONSTRUCT

No new bitches at the moment so I can reflect on the big picture, the ontology of Bitch itself. What do I mean by the ontology of Bitch? I mean the nature of its reality, what is it really all about. So what is the reality of Bitch? This will vary according to the intellectual capacity of the various bitchers. In my own case, however, I see Bitch as a tripartite construct. What does that mean? It means that it divided into three parts. So what are those parts? Let me explain.

PART I: MY AVATAR COLLECTION: This might well be seen as the anchor of my Bitch appearances, that in terms of which my comments, perhaps indirectly insofar as they set the tone, are framed. While usually of a historical nature, they are not limited to scrutiny of the past. You may rest assured that there is much more along that line but the avatar showing the whippets, “Alice” and “Daisy” was drawn from screen slides rather than just web-sized photos. This has initiated a technological breakthrough allowing a panorama view which I intend to use primarily for scenic shots – all mine, of course, no commercial reproductions. I had intended to show one this morning, but you will have to wait.

PART II: MY BITCH COMMENTARY: All my comments attempt, in one form or another, to unveil the philosophical dimensions of each bitch which are admirably suited to such an enterprise. By their very nature, the bitches embody a conflict of one sort of another and each conflict, where it is not completely trivial, embodies a philosophical dimension. I do this for epistemological reasons, specifically because it is my view that human beings are defined by their thought, by the quality of their reflection, by their minds. So we can see that there is an epistemological symmetry, a unity if you like, which structures my Bitch commentary. This was brought out vividly in my recent comment on Thoreau and the current misconception that he was some sort of “hippie.” Hippies, of course, never called themselves “hippies.” It is only a derogatory term curently employed by those given over to unrestrained materialistic consumption, a type which I am sure you will agree, abounds on this site. This leads me to the last (and least) of the tripartite construct.

PART II: DIALOGUE WITH OTHER COMMENTERS: With a few exceptions this is the least rewarding of the tripartite construct. The reason for this is easy to see. Because of their mediocre intellectual attainments most of the commenters do not deal in ideas but only in personalities which, for one irrelevant reason or another, they attempt but fail to rebuke the object of their wrath. Then there are those who engage in tedious descriptions of the shoddy objects of their preferred commercial consumption, those like the long-gone (and unlamented) “Waldo” or more recently, the cretinous “Willard.” Another one has just cropped up, one whom I shall refer to as “The Parasite” but that must wait for another time. There are, of course, those who have not even attained that level of sub-literate description but, lacking all thought, are reduced to posting banal attachments in the form of absurd cartoons from commercial photo-buckets or excerpts from nondescript popular rags. In neither case, of course, do I bother looking at them.

So there we are, an ontology of Bitch in three easy-to-read but, for the majority no doubt, not so easy-to-understand parts. In any case, I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have writing it.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THINKING ABOUT BITCH (II): “WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?”

Well, another day without new bitches so no new avatar. Instead I thought I would take up where I left off on my “Thinking About Bitch: The Tripartite Construct” (12/13, 9:17AM). As I have elsewhere pointed out, intelligence resides in the ability to make distinctons but in what form are distinctions to be found? Distinctions appear in the form of structure in which different aspects of the issue at hand are addressed. Indeed, structure and intelligence are co-extensive concepts: There cannot be one without the other. “The Tripartite Construct” embodied an instance of such structure, involving as it did Part I “My Avatar Collection,” Part II “My Bitch Commentary” and Part III “Dialogue with Other Commenters.” This morning I want to deal with Part II, the comments made on the various bitches themselves. (Are you folllowing my structure?)

The key sentence, at least for present purposes, is to be found in “Dialogue with Other Commenters” and goes as follows: “Because of their mediocre intellectual attainments most of the commenters do not deal in ideas but only in personalities which, for one irrelevant reason or another, they attempt but fail to rebuke the object of their wrath.” But what does that mean? It means what it says, that most of the commenters are unable to engage in a substantive debate of the bitch but instead attack the bitcher himself. Such an attack involves variations on the schoolyard taunt, “Who do you think you are?” (Are you following my structure?)

Now, what can be said about the commenter’s attack on the personality of the bitcher as embodied in the schoolyard taunt, “Who do you think you are?” What the commenter wants to demonstrate is that while the bitcher is hopelessly arrogant they, by contrast, are profoundly humble, that they make no claim to judge others. But wait! Even the assertion itself gives the lie to their assertion of innocence. Not only are they themselves judging others, i.e., the bitcher, but they simply assume that superior perspective required to pass such judgement. In other words, we have a major self-contradiction here. The commenter is simply assuming the powers s/he denies to the bitcher. (Are you still following my structure? Hang on, we’ll soon be finished!)

So, let’s have a look at this thread to see a couple examples of. “Who do you think you are?” Oh look, here’s one right off the bat! “Stop making i-phones? How about you stop buying them, huh Sport?” (12/12, 5:31AM) Get it? Who does the bitcher think he is? There’s a lot more but my favourite is, “Oh fuck off, OB. Who the hell are you to make judgements on what people buy and what money they spend buying what products?” (8:45AM) Who does the bitcher think he is? It is rather the commenter who will make the judgement on what people buy and what money they spend – they can buy and spend anything they want if you don’t mind – and not the bitcher. Who does he think he is? He can just fuck off. Get the idea?

Of course, there may be one or two who will have read this completely – forget Willard who lacks the required intelligence to understand anything – who will boringly demand of me, “Who do you think you are?” to which I will naturally reply, “I know who I am. Who do you think YOU are?”

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!

RSVPS

: Lumpy Ivan Sonofabitch (10:04AM)

Who do you think you are?

: Zappy Zap Zap (11:16AM)

“The modern understanding of intelligence also includes social and emotional intelligence among other concepts.”

Yes, the view that intelligence includes social and emotional intelligence in addition to that relating to the mind has been dubbed the theory of “Multiple Intelligences” and has been thoroughly eviscerated by John White of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. (You might want to Google him.) However, your reference to “other concepts” – what other concepts are there besides the intellectual, the “social” and the “emotional?” – is vacuous and so must be dismissed as just another Brain Fart.

Additionally, by posting your comment you have contradicted your own advice “to counter such behaviour with silence.” What is one to think of a self-contradictory Brain Fart? The mind boggles.

Now I see a new bitch has been posted so I must rush to post a new avatar.

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!