[lit-ideas] Re: Another Bush failure?

PS:
Except that Mike's comment is a completely gratuitous insult for insult
sake (which, if Mike needs to do it, I hope he understands why he needs to
do it) I do regret having hurt the trust level of the list. However,
people don't see WHY I did it, which has been explained and they don't care
that I have tried as best I could to rectify it.

So... why on EARTH, nine months later, are you still posting as Andy Amago? Are you playing some weird fantasy game?


There are 2 definitions for 'gratuitous': (1) "freely bestowed," from L. gratuitus "free, spontaneous, voluntary," from gratia "favor." -- first recorded 1656; (2) "uncalled for, done without good reason" -- first recorded 1691. I admit that my insult -- if, indeed, it was an insult -- was gratuitous as it was freely bestowed. However, I don't believe it was an insult. I wrote it as a humorous comment -- therefore, it was done WITH good reason, ergo, it was not gratuitous by the second definition. The insult in all this, if indeed there is one, is in Irene's continued use of a pseudonym long past any purported reason for it. Which leads me to believe that there are deep, unexamined psychological needs in Irene that are in urgent need of examination. I shudder at the thought of examining them myself; however, seeing as how Andy has no problem delving into everyone else's psyche, so shall I -- but with great caution. Disclaimer: I am not a real psychologist, but I play one on this List from time to time. And like all true players, I play, "not to win but to have fun" as Alexander the Great once put it. And was Alexander not the pupil of Aristotle? Yes, he was. Does that not then imbue play with great gravitas? Shouldn't Alexander then, as Aristotle's student, have known what was going on inside him, realized what his inner child was crying out for? Being Aristotle tutored, shouldn't Alexander the Great have been able to reconcile the alternating dotage and derision of his brutal and unpredictable father Phillip II? And shouldn't he have been able to integrate the unbridled ambitions and ruthless intrigues of his scheming mother Olympias into a healthy, loving, nurturing personality? Did he really need to kill his dearest friend, his soul mate, his next-to-self Cleitos in a drunken rage? Hmmm. Maybe so. It's hard to get at these answers. Mostly because we don't know the really pertinent questions. I know some among us think they do, and they thence have all the answers. But I'm not one of then. For instance, I don't know what question to put to Irene that will help us understand Andy. I wonder at Andy's verbal aggressiveness, his compulsion to weigh in on almost every issue, his tendency to pontificate, his off-hand dismissiveness of all who disagree with him as psychological cripples. I guess Irene just enjoys being a man. Nothing wrong with that. I do too. And I think I'd enjoy being a woman. Except for the menstruation and the hot flashes. Forget that. And having to deal with tedious lecherous men -- Christ, I'd rather kill myself.-- but, of course, there'd be some men I'd want to lust after me -- don't get me wrong. Given my givens, I think I might actually feel more plugged into existence as a woman. But what do I know? I know that I don't know what questions to put to myself as to why I do anything. Why do I kill my dearest soul mate (myself) in drunken rages? Who knows, who cares? In the end, we do what we do. But I do think there's one difference between Andy and myself and that is that I do know that I don't know.

Mike Geary
I, too, welcome Jack Spratt. Hope you enjoy chewing the fat. (ha ha) 


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: