A Plea for a Science of Asininity

Mr. Ed has been called upon already, so it only makes sense--or at least pleases me--to call upon his cousin of sorts, Francis the Talking Mule.  I believe Francis came first.  Whatever god or demon it is that inspires us to make talking animals stars of books, movies, television and other forms of media and entertainments must have convinced us to use Francis before Ed, as Francis it seems was a product of the imagination of Americans in the 1940s and 1950s, and Ed of the 1960s.  And so Francis, paired with human stars like Mickey Rooney (above) and Donald O'Connor, would appear as, somehow, in the Army or the Navy, the Armed Forces being more popular or at least comfortably present to the mind in those decades than they were in the 1960s.  It's difficult to picture Mr. Ed as either on duty in Vietnam or marching on the Pentagon or protesting at Kent State or in Grant Park.

Now though this post has as its purpose a call for the study of asininity, Francis isn't entirely apropos as that word derives from "asinine" which in turn comes from the Latin asinus, meaning ass.  Strictly speaking, as a search of the sometimes useful Internet will reveal, a mule isn't an ass.  Donkeys are asses.  Mules are hybrids.  Breed a male donkey and a female horse and you get a mule.  Stubbornness is characteristic of the asinine, and both donkeys and mules are considered stubborn animals.  Because Asininity is the subject of this post, and I could think of no talking donkey that isn't a cartoon, I settle for a mule as my muse.

More than once in this blog, I've lamented over the vastness of our stupidity, taking us as a group. Well, as a species I suppose I should say.  I've speculated that stupidity is particularly widespread now, when it can be expressed immediately and transmitted instantly to others.  In other words, stupidity, now, can be flaunted globally.  Instead of isolated pockets of stupidity which could exist in isolation years ago, stupidity has spread like a virus throughout the world, via the Internet.

But I've come to wonder whether "stupidity"is an adequate word to describe what is being flaunted.  For we're not merely stupid anymore.  We're content to be stupid.  We may even be proud of our stupidity.  In a sense, we know we're stupid, or being stupid, but are stubborn in our stupidity.  We resist all attempts to enlighten and inform us.  They even make us angry.  Confronted with those efforts, we resist them just as much as we resent them.  

So, I think "asininity" better describes us.  The more we're told we're wrong and are challenged to provide support for what we think, or are shown evidence contrary to it, the more we insist we're right, and the less open to persuasion we become.  We're mulish.

An Internet search reveals that there already has been some study of stupidity, by psychologists in any case.  However, the types of stupidity that have been identified seem unintentional.  Asininity, I would say, combines with stupidity and ignorance an intent to be stupid and ignorant.  Of course, we would never acknowledge that we are stupid or ignorant, and so it could be argued that we're not intentionally so, but the intent arises on when our stupidity and ignorance are challenged in some sense.  Perhaps it's more a question of reckless disregard of evidence or argument contrary to our beliefs, but reckless disregard is a kind of intent, borrowing from the law, or at least equivalent to it in terms of liability.

Being a phenomenon, asininity should be subject to study and investigation.  It's certainly should be analyzed, as the stubborn persistence in stupidity and ignorance is worse even than those characteristic themselves, and more damaging.  It makes possible unending witlessness, the bovine acceptance of certain propositions as in effect invincible.  In essence, the end of the possibility of progress.

Perhaps causes of this condition can be identified.  The symptoms seem clear enough, as they're rampant in our society.  It's true such a study may be fruitless.  It's likely any cure would be through education, and asininity is prevalent, it would seem, in school boards here in our Glorious Union, and is being encouraged.  But even so, knowledge is more often good than bad.

 

Why Be Serious?

I was glancing through the headlines of articles in the online versions of two ostensibly serious and thoughtful news/political/cultural related magazines, on different sides of the spectrum, The New Republic and The National Review, and found myself wondering whether they or similar journals are read anymore, and if so by whom?

It may be a mere suspicion, but I think fewer and fewer people read them.  One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that some effort is required to read them.  We're lazy intellectually, and when simple, agreeable or disagreeable, opinions are available without effort on our part, why seek out any other?  Particularly when we may respond to them instantaneously if we wish in a similarly simple fashion, why look for an opinion we might have to think about while reading it or responding to it?  Why, indeed, read at all? There are people who talk incessantly about everything available to be heard and seen 24 hours a day.

Another reason we may avoid reading them is that we're sick of pundits, a reason I can understand.  Yet another is that we think ourselves quite capable of coming to our own conclusions and forming our own opinions, and don't need anyone to express them for us; not anymore.  We can, and do, express them in the vast universe of the Internet whenever we have access to a keyboard, or can establish a podcast.

It's difficult to be serious--to give anything serious consideration.  It's particularly difficult to give opposing opinions serious consideration.  It's even more difficult to think.  Seriousness is a burden, and one we can do without; one we may always have wanted to do without.  Now we can because we need not listen to anyone else for any reason to have confirmation of what we think we already know or is desirable or right, or evil or wrong.  We need not seek answers or information.  We know that we're correct because there are so many like us and we may find them and revel in our sameness and ignorance shared by so many throughout the world.

Certainly there's no need to be taught anything.  The Internet is the great leveler.  It's not necessary to be intelligent, or rich, or powerful, or influential, or widely-read or educated to be "published" or become immortal, to be available if not looked-for, as anyone can achieve these things, to cause concern or disturb or enlighten others.  There's nothing special about them anymore.  More and more, there's nothing special about anyone or anything.

Simply put, there's no reason to take thought, or speech, or opinion, seriously, and many reasons not to do so.  Other things may be serious; for example, money or the lack of it, or death, or good food, good health, comfort and ease.  Material things, in other words, as they're commonly called.  They're not readily available, and not even our ability to project ourselves into the immateriality of the Internet will satisfy our need for them.

Nothing to Say

 

Mr. Ed, pictured above playing chess with his companion Wilbur, is famous for never speaking unless he has something to say.  I emulate him, in this blog and otherwise, and so have not posted for some time.  I find that I have nothing to say, here, at this time.

This is because I know of nothing worth blogging about.  I've tried to find something that piques my interest or my ire, but have been unsuccessful.  What more is there to be said about the venality and stupidity of our politicians, their tolerance of a fatuous and corrupt con man, their willingness to exploit bigotry and ignorance, their hypocrisy, their sanctimony?  What more is there to be said about our national fetish for guns?  What more is there to be said of the narrowness and meanness of our jurists?  How often can one lament the fundamentally cruel and intolerant fundamentalism of the Christianity popular in our Great Republic?  The remarkable propensity of people to believe anything they encounter on the Internet they find satisfying or disturbing is certainly remarkable, but even that aversion to critical thinking, which seems omnipresent in these times, has become nothing to remark about.

These and other aspects of our society have become familiar.  They're commonplace.  They're to be expected, in fact.  What, indeed, would we be without them?  We wouldn't exist. What we see and hear and read in our media (including social media) is sad, even contemptible, but dull.  It's impossible even to be outraged any longer.  Only the professionally outraged express outrage, and that also has become a part of the background noise that is our culture. 

There are dangers involved in the expectation of stupidity and corruption, of course, and to their acceptance as normal.  Perhaps Dante should have devoted one of the Circles of Hell to the sin of Acceptance.  We saw enough of acceptance and indifference in the face of cruelty and the corrupt in the 20th century to cause us concern.  If we accept what we have, and treat it as inevitable, than we'll continue to have it.

In chess a player will resign when defeat is certain.  An aspiring Stoic shouldn't resign, though, as long as it's possible to be virtuous.  Perhaps virtue includes saying what's already been said.  So, not time to resign quite yet.