The O'Palmer is looking for correspondants, writers, researchers, friends and collaborators. Get involved, Get in touch ...

Blowing in the wind

Here’s a thought. If ever you find yourself talking about men’s issues (or any other topic, for that matter), try to avoid getting trapped into specific items and stick to the overriding principle.

Keep in mind that  issues which affect males are valid. They do not need justification, and may not be valued in relative terms.

In other words, try to avoid being dragged into an argument ad infinitum. It leads no where and demonstrates a level of stupidity which is difficult to fathom. This is the type of discussion where one party expects the other to explain meaning, and then the meaning of that meaning, and so on.

It’s an easy trap to fall into, and explanation can only be given through example. You can provide as many examples as you like, but it still doesn’t prove anything.

One swallow doesn’t make a summer, it’s true, but how many swallows do? There is no answer to the question. It’s a discursive device to simply waste your time and energy.

Metaphorically, imagine the difficulty of trying to show and define a grain of sand. Then having achieved this, to identify other grains of sand, always with the possibility of an objection that it is in fact not sand, but gravel or something else. Regardless, by battling on, grain after grain, you can finally establish that there is a great amount of sand in a given area. Then, you are faced with demonstrating that this is, indeed, a desert, with all of the difficulties of definition and nuance which would be involved - is the Sahara a desert or simply a really, really big beach? Or if a recognized desert is hypothetically made smaller, at what point does it stop being a desert and become something else?

Yet, by stretching your imagination to breaking point, allow that it might be possible that you could finally argue, after such a Herculean endeavor, and say definitively that, yes, this is a desert.

What would be the point?

Language and definitions are always in flux and very soon, you are back with Sisyphus at square one. Furthermore, you are still no closer to explaining how the desert was created in the first place, whether it is good or bad and, if bad, how it might be rectified or prevented in the future.

Surely, these questions would be more useful.

No reviews yet.. be the first !

share your views