/gallery/albums/album310/aaz.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album219/GaudiPark_View12.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album73/DSC01352.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album311/IMG_0369.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album184/IMG_8565.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album25/aaw.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album304/acq.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album25/aap.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album23/abp.thumb.jpg
/gallery/albums/album300/aai.thumb.jpg

In the case that one does not share the same concern as another, the other may display an inclination for distress. The innocent fact that one does not explore the newest consumer products in a like manner to another should not be cause for an injury to pride, and should certainly not be interpreted by the light of deign. In the case to which I make reference, the other did not suffer to make any distinction of solipsism.

Neither should the fact that one wishes to extend their range of study in an uncharacteristic direction be a cause for alarm. One of the least expected and most revealing questions I was ever asked arose during a conversation regarding the books I read, and was posited thus: "Why would you read that?" The former being postulated as though the mere act of considering said book is well known to be profoundly ridiculous.

Painfully, the query was made with no notice by the inquisitor of their supercilious history, permeated by attempts to impede the intellectual growth of others by abasing their intellectual pursuits (ostensibly to maintain some antithetic hegemony on knowledge). The inquisitor had not read said book. Indeed, the inquisitor's fool reads no book.


Part of the series: Servetus

[ commentary :: the human condition ]

Last updated January 18, 2011