INNOCENTLY SEARCHING for protohistorical image of rock/cave art copulation, the e*sequitrist stumbles upon the deadly serious: the one-eyed woman of modern mediæval religion. Imagine a society’s leaders imposing on half the population public use of a single eye (because her two eyes will sexually overpower men’s feeble minds): despicable. Fifty lashes is in no way quaint or defensible or rationalisable; stoning to death unwordable. The source of the niqab narrative ranges widely on the subject of sexuality, tracking to the Prisoners’ Paradox (and superrationality and, of course [this being, after all, e*sequiturs], magical thinking and performative utterances (and felicity conditions) and on and on and on…), relating as it does, at the foundational level, to the question of which, if any, individual behavior is most conducive to survival and reproductive success. (It’s no coincidence that this question relates to game theory: you can simply skip everything and just play.) In other words, the case of Selfishness v. Altruism. To the*sequitrist, the answer to this question isn’t the answer (sorry, fellas, it doesn’t matter), but rather whether humanity and terra will best thrive when humans a) are buffeted by emotion-sodden chaos or b) consider our specieal long-term interests and impose bureaucratic stability. [Is the*sequitrist advocating totalitarianism? Rede on.]
Ironically, it would appear that totalitarianism has an apparent hypnotic appeal to those led. This nicely serves leaders, but sharply limits the prospects of “progress.” Compound this phenomenon with the brand of totalitarianism favored (not just any: this lot is picky!): Chaos Totalitarianism (C-Type Totalitarianism), in which rules of behavior are ironclad (thus Inflicted Totalitarianism, which term is, indeed, redundant), while the results of following them are dire to the extreme. Thus, under C-Type Totalitarianism (a primary example American “free-market” Transactional [C*pitalistic] C*rporatism, in which the Laws of the Land favour artificial persons), the majority of humans have wide, free choice of non-viable lethal consequences, and thus futilely eke, sicken and die in the most dire circumstances while violently demanding the rules be maintained. They claim that this is to ensure that their “choices” will remain, when their subliminal objective must be that fellow citizens neither escape nor gain perceived “advantage.” (Meanwhile, this from a literary agent: “[D]on’t send me political treatise disguised as fiction…” Jonathan Swift, John Steinbeck, George Orwell and a couple of dozen other unworthies need not apply.)
Nr. 104 >
* * *
Enhance your mind
As always, you are invited to rede the original e*sequiturs at http://www.esequiturs.com.
* * *