Aaron’s iconoclasm

I presented this paper at the Oneonta National Undergraduate Philosophy Conference years ago, when I was toying with the idea of going into Philosophy as a field of study. The idea didn’t pan out, but the paper did.

Constructing a Framework Over Reality:

A Relative View of Reality and Human Awareness

Aaron Eitan Meyer

The purpose of this paper is to construct a framework to superimpose over reality as we define it. This framework will provide a view of reality and human awareness as a series of variables, each interacting with each other constantly. This paper will be divided into three main parts. The first will deal with the concept of reality as being relative to a single human mind. The second area covered in the paper will be a definition and study of the variables that will define human awareness and knowledge in the framework given. It will not however, attempt to ‘solve’ for the variables, as there are limits. The third and final area covered in this paper will cover the concept of human awareness as an evolving mechanism, with potential to rise above innate solipsism. (I say innate due to the fact that humans tend to define themselves first.)

In order to make the concept of a framework easier to understand, picture reality as it is generally defined as a number line, with numerical integers on it. The framework being developed her may be viewed as a number line as well, but instead of numbers on it, there are variables, such as x, y, etc. and the origin is not the number zero, but the self. It must also be noted that the variables simply cannot be given numerical values, as tempting as that may be, since, as in mathematics, an equation with two or more unknown variables has no solution. A similar principle is in effect here, only we are dealing with awareness and reality, not simple quadratic expressions.

On the Universe as a Concept Relative to the Human Mind

The first thing that a human being claims to possess is a sense of self, that is, the knowledge that there is an ‘I’ in the world. The mind judges reality as it pertains to itself, that everything is defined as it pertains to the ‘

I.

’ The mind then constructs patterns of reality, which is a matter of perspective. Knowledge is judged against these perspectives of reality. In this framework, it must be noted that we are assuming that there is a self thinking these thoughts, since this entire scale being developed is relative to it, the mind must exist regardless, since this is a variable scale. In other words, even if the self does not ultimately exist, it is irrelevant here, as this scale begins with a self, even if that self is only existing as relative to this scale.

It must be noted too, that the variable values (to which, number values cannot be determined) are constantly shifting, in essence, the self is constantly changing itself. Still, we will treat it as a more or less continuous being, at least for the duration of this paper, as the premise of the paper is to create a framework, not to analyze any given definition of reality or existence.

As stated in the preceding paragraph and introductory paragraph, the self here is the beginning of this developing framework. In response to Descartes’ question as to whether the self even exists or not, as he posed in his Meditations, I may respond that this is a relative scale to the mind, so it exists on this scale regardless of all external factors. That is to say that everything is filed away on a scale of relevance to the individual, similar to value or importance. With the self being established, we may continue to define the reality of the self as being defined through the self, which is an evolving process as will be explained later on.

A young child defines people, places and things as they are in relation to the child, that is to say, that the child would define a friend’s house as being ‘close’ or ‘far’ from their own. Similarly, parents are defined as those whom the child feels closest to, as well as those presences who function as providers of all needs. Even as the child grows, and learns to define things in relation to each other, and not directly to themselves, that early trait is still there. Once a child learns about measurements, whether measures of time, (a child is very aware of their own age, i.e. “I’m three and a half years old,” and measure everyone else on that scale, i.e. “he’s only two,” and when the age number is beyond computing ability, the subject is simply referred to, if even considered, as ‘old’.) or measurements of length, such as stating that, “I am three and a half feet tall.” There too, everything as measured in relation to the child’s knowledge of what they are.

At a later age, that knowledge of measurements can be applied to purely external problems, such as the question, “ how far away is the moon from the sun?” In the framework being stated here, we will take this one step further. We will define everything as being relative to ourselves. An example would be that the school is two miles from my house. What defines my house? Where I live. People do this, at least subconsciously, anyway, so incorporating this into the framework is simple.

The next step in defining the framework, is to analyze human knowledge as a pattern. This coincides with David Hume’s statement that we cannot ‘know’ anything, that anything that is ‘proven’ correct can always be countermanded by a later experience, even after empirical evidence has supposedly ‘proven’ something. What we do is see patterns, such as that of the sun rising each morning. From our experience, the pattern is that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Were it not to rise tomorrow, what would occur would be that our definition of the pattern of sunrise was incomplete, and is now simply shown to have another wrinkle in it. Another way to imagine it is to view the pattern that follows: ———- There are ten dashes, so, following our knowledge of the pattern, the next symbol will be a dash as well. Were it to turn out otherwise, with a dot appearing as the eleventh symbol, then our definition and understanding of the pattern would simply change, incorporating the dot into our definition of the continuing pattern: ———-.. It is comparable to the example of the sunrise.

Statistical probability is not being discounted here, instead, I am merely stating that every type of statistical analysis is still a sort of Fundamental Question, with even the slightest probabilities possessing the chance to occur. This is only stating that probabilities should not be confused with absolute knowledge, or certainty, to be more accurate.

Now that knowledge has been defined as understanding (albeit perceived) of patterns, we will then continue to the next level. Even Hume stated that relations between ideas are verifiable, without having any effect upon the universe. The example given of what he called a priori knowledge is that of Euclidean geometry, which is absolutely accurate, as in it, concepts are defined by their relativity to others. Needless to say, right triangles are not to be found in nature. (Although we must admit that they could be, a la Hume…) That is to be irrelevant here too, as I will go so far to say that in this framework, we will treat our perceived patterns as knowledge, both for the sake of convenience, and for the fact that we are ultimately discussing a construct of a reality, not attempting to define it as reality itself, nor as absolute knowledge. To repeat what was stated earlier, the framework, or perspective being shown here cannot be placed into reality, much like a pair of glasses, it must be used as a telescoping filter, where the viewer is a step back from reality, and is cognizant of the fact that their instrument cannot be directly applied.

The prime caveat here is noting that our minds are in this as well, and this fact must be factored into the equation as well when attempting to utilize this perspective. It must also be highlighted that everything is constantly in a state of flux, so this too must be factored in. There is no way to judge the accuracy of these instruments either, for the same reason.

Regarding the possibility that reality doesn’t, I will give two related answers. The first is that it exists in this framework, as I define it, so it is a prerequisite for utilizing this perspective. If it is incorrect, well, that must be considered too when trying to utilize it. The second answer will be dealt with in the next section.

On the Definition of Variables, as in the Human Mind

What we will do here is present a definition of human self-awareness as a combination of variables. Symbols will be given to each factor, and mathematical equations used to approximate the relations between the variables. Here, addition and subtraction are the weakest form of correlation, followed by multiplication and division, and finally, by exponents.

The symbols for the factors will be as follows:

s= self-awareness, the sense of self, what a human is

c= consciousness, or the cognitive aspect of the mind

u= the subconscious, the aspect of our mind that is not directly accessed, only manifested

m= memory

e= the emotions, our emotional reactions.

v= the five senses, namely, sensory information

Using these terms, a human could be described by the formula: s=cvme/u, wherein the cognitive mind, sensory information, emotional reaction and memory are all affected by the subconscious   aspect of the mind. The end result of this is the individual’s sense of self. The reason that the u is not on the same line as the other factors is due to the fact that the others can directly and (comparatively) more clearly known by the individual as comprising who they define themselves as. The subconscious is something that works for the most part unseen, manifesting itself most clearly in dreams, not in reality. (The example of dreams is apt due to the fact that it is primarily pictorial representation of concepts, thoughts, etc.) Therefore, an individual with a very powerful subconscious would have a correspondingly low s score, meaning that they know what they are less than otherwise. In extreme cases, this situation would lead to psychoses, where the individual simply can’t define what reality is, due to the overwhelming, unseen and unknowable influence of the subconscious. Similarly, a lack in any of the other areas also takes away from the sense of self, as a faulty memory, or sensory deprivation do. The example could be a senile or visually impaired person, whose definition of reality is less complete than it could be, had they had a more complete set of variables. It was put to me by a professor that what I am describing is not unlike an “’epistemological card game,’ where the above individuals are not ‘playing with a full deck.’”

Hume’s definition of a human, with ideas being nothing more than faded reflections of sensory information, would look something like this: s= vm+c/e with c being a minor factor defined as being v/m, or the sensory information affected negatively by the power of memory, so that someone with a powerful memory would not have a need for a high cognitive score, as the memory’s information is sufficient to define reality without what Hume would describe as imaginary constructs.

Previously, Hume’s example of sunrise being only expected was given. Here, we will look at it from the standpoint of a variable. There are two major possibilities (this is within the framework, so we can limit the infinite possibilities to several major ones for consideration) either it will rise (S) or it will not rise (~S). Our experience tells us that the variable S (with it’s counter ~S) is as follows: SSSSSSSSSS_ According to this, we may assume that the probability of the next symbol being S is as absolute as possible. In effect, the variable S will occur no matter what, the question being will it appear as S or ~S? Probability and experience dictate that it will appear in its S form, but it is a two tailed problem, therefore, we must expect one of the two, but still consider that either one may occur. In this framework, we may treat everything as the preceding problem.

The proceeding paragraph was an example of a Fundamental Question. To restate, a Fundamental Question questions an aspect of reality, and is always two-tailed, where either possibility must be considered as being able to be correct.

(In other words, a concept similar to the Taoist concept that by defining something as good, it implies that there is something else that is less good, or, bad. Lao-Tzu, in the Tao-te-Ching has an alternative, action through inaction, where the ‘Master’ is a great judge because he/she does not judge, thereby avoiding the trap of two-tailed solutions to questions.) There is a third answer to a Fundamental Question, that the question itself is not possible, which can be determined. Hume only declared that we can’t know what is, but that we can know what is not, that is, that any ‘evidence’ that we have for the existence of something can always be proven false later, rendering nothing truly verifiable as an absolute.

Human Awareness as an Evolving Concept

Our view of reality is as we make it, that much is correct. However, we must agree that, if only in (and out of) the mind, there is an objective reality, as the framework appearing in this paper is trying to create. This objective reality can be defined as existing without the awareness or comprehension of it by minds. Therefore, we may state that, at least in this framework, a human’s sense of self, and definition of reality may be somewhat inaccurate when applied to the overview of reality as an absolute. (Albeit an absolute pattern of ever-changing variables.) people can be fooled, sensory information can be incorrect when viewed again later and compared to other information. An example of this is a hologram. At first glance, the hologram appears to be the real thing, according to visual information. It is only when touched that it is revealed to be nothing more than an illusion. (It might even be that we are no more than the equivalent of holograms, but since we are dealing with a set framework, it is irrelevant here, as we are simply dealing with reality as the self perceives it. As well, knowledge is inherently biased, as the sense of self demands that things conform to the reality already determined by the individual. This too can be countermanded later, when the self is made aware that it’s patterns were incorrect (ex. Expecting sunrise and then not getting it.) A good example would be the ancient belief that the Earth was flat, as far as anyone knew, reality dictated that it was flat, so their knowledge systems were bases around that fact. Every aspect of their science was predicated on the fact that their dwelling place was an ultimately level area, so therefore, the sky was a dome, the world had four corners etc.

Now that we have determined that there is some way for an individual’s sense of reality to be inaccurate, and that there may be another way to view things, we may investigate the very foundations of the framework. If reality is not relative to the individual, as stated previously, then what is the purpose of this framework, and, perhaps more importantly, am I not contradicting my definition of reality? The answer is as follows, every individual defines reality as it pertains to them, changing their definition only when external ‘evidence’ proves them wrong. (Of course this later information can be proven incorrect as well…)

But, if the self’s reality is the be all and end all, then there are two major problems, of which the fact that there should be no external factors is the first, external factors meaning phenomenon that exist apart from the self, that are discovered later. These factors would necessitate the self changing it’s own view on reality, thus these are called external because they are external to the individual’s sense of reality. That may be answered by stating that the self also creates even the so-called external factors, with understanding coming later but that leads to a second, and greater problem. The problem is that, if the self defines reality, how could it not know, accurately and absolutely, what reality is? (As well, as understanding everything in it) This may be answered in two ways, the first being that the subconscious does know, but as it is not a part of the conscious, understood mind, the individual merely doesn’t consciously know it. This answer is somewhat weak, as it states that a part of the whole (the subconscious) knows something that the whole (the self) does not.

The second answer is that there is an objective over-reality, and that the subconscious is not merely another factor in the sense of self, but a part of a larger whole, a collective unconscious, which links all of the self-aware beings into a single reality, against which their individual realities may be judged. This collective unconscious may be fooled as well, the example of predominant human beliefs later proven to be false, such as the concept of a flat earth. Therefore, even the subconscious as a collective does not create reality, but that it only perceives reality, similar to the individual mind. Therefore, there must be a purely objective reality beyond even what the collective unconscious gives us, as the collective must get it’s perspective from somewhere. The best analogy would be the ‘filled void’ of Buddhism.

It is possible that the universally believed, though misguided beliefs often found in humanity may not be the fault of the collective unconscious at all, but instead a failure in the process of transferring information from the totality (collective unconscious) to the component (individual subconscious) to the next level. (conscious mind)

Going back to the equation earlier for a human, that s=cvme/u, and the statements concerning an unbalanced and disproportionately specifically, let us examine them anew. The reason that the person in that example would be psychotic is not because they cannot tell the difference between reality and imagination, but that the problem is that the information filtering from the subconscious is very strong, torrential perhaps even, but it is then compared an contrasted with what reality is to the individual, who simply can’t reconcile the two. In other words, it is not that the information itself is flawed, but that it is filtered incorrectly, and thus cannot be reconciled with the individual’s cognitive mind.

Psychosis is not the only possible end result of this type of situation, if a person has the ability to conceive of reality as split, and if they understand that it may be their personal view of reality that is flawed, and if they possess the ability to let go of their conscious mind, temporarily, then they can make use of this gift. This is the reason that some people are madmen while others are seers. Part of the difference is cultural, but the other part is that some may be able to come to grips with this knowledge better than others may.

To form an equation of someone who can submerge their sense of self for a group sense of self, to ‘see’ through the eyes of their culture and society, we may state that:

s= the individual self discussed previously

g= the individual’s understanding of the collective’s information and the relation between realities

u= the individual’s subconscious

G= the individual’s ability to define their self as that of the group’s. Having the ‘I’ mean more than the individual.

In this equation, to have a high G score means more access to the power of the subconscious. The equation to define G reads as follows: G=gu/s What this means is that G is defined by a combination of knowledge of the collective, information from the preceding, and the individual subconscious, affected by the sense of self in such a way that having too strong a sense of self means that the individual cannot escape the confines of said self, and therefore cannot become Group-aware. Being Group-aware bestows a greater connection to the group’s reality perspective, allowing the individual to see beyond their own relativistic and distorted view of reality.

It must be noted here that the escape from the individual sense of self must be temporary, otherwise, there would be an individual no longer, but a being incapable of dealing with humans as a human, they would most likely appear to be catatonic, as they would have no way to relate to things such as emotions or senses.

Group-awareness is one step past the confines of the human mind, but it too is limited, as it is merely one sense of self being replaced by another, albeit larger and different, sense of self. The way to describe it would be to state it as the individual seeing through the eyes of their culture’s group subconscious. This is still not capable of viewing, much less creating, absolute reality, as it would still be encumbered by cultural biases and the sense of self, which would necessitate describing reality as perceived by something or someone, which, in turn, would make it less that absolute.

There is one more step towards perceiving reality as objective, independent of perception. (An example of this, which will not be dealt with here, would be imagining whether there is ever an instance without time. I will state that there are in fact are two ‘times,’ one of which is perceived time, which is measured, and therefore measurable, and objective time, which is not predicated as being relative to anything, such as planetary rotation or the speed of light.)

Reality is ultimately the same way. There is reality as we perceive it, which is measured by ourselves and our understanding of it, and reality as an objective entity, independent of us, though we are in it. It cannot be measured because there is nothing to measure it against. There is no sense of self in objective reality, a sense of self implies that there is something aside from the self. Objective reality is the totality of everything, there is no I, we, you, or us, in it, it simply exists, and it needs no definitive terms, nor can it even be described. Lao-Tzu was right, we cannot sense Tao or even imagine it, but it is there.

This was originally published at www.israpundit.com. It was also written prior to reading  Robert. H. Bork’s book Coercing Virtue, on the worldwide role of judges to defeat majoritarian democracy. Due to the latter, this may be revised and otherwise expanded.

A Constitution? Federalist Concerns

Aaron Eitan Meyer

            There has been talk of drafting a constitution for Israel. The underlying premise that Israel’s present system is inadequate is correct, but the proposed solution is unworkable. The brilliance of the American Constitution was not meant to be replicated, but designed to meet the challenges posed to a specific group of people at a certain time. That is not to say that the US Constitution is in any way outmoded, but that it cannot simply be imposed over the Israeli framework. That said, the underlying philosophy and political acumen that is embodied in the US Constitution may certainly be applied. In order to approach it properly, however, the text that must be turned to is The Federalist, by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. In it, they expounded the reasoning for the Constitution, and explained why the system was needed, and how it would work.

            A crucial point made in the Federalist is that authority must be derived from the people. It was not the states that were called upon to ratify the Constitution, but the people, as such. What has been lost, if it was ever present in Israel, is that determination. It must be the people who are the ultimate authority, not political parties, and not geographic blocs. This need not take the form of referendums, but at the very least, the people should be considered, and not merely through opinion polls.

            An additional essential point is that the people must be engaged. Every idea, every group is meant to be essentially co-opted into the national political sphere. By doing so, the individual groups are left less susceptible to the dangers of schism, which is ideal prey for foreign manipulators. In the US, this has meant that major cultural shifts have been incorporated in one form or another into the whole. The revolution of the 1960’s would be a prime example. In contrast, in

Israel, certain political groups are marginalized immediately, as a matter of course.

            There have been calls to limit the number of parties in Israel, by mandating a minimum of seats in the Knesset, for example. The Federalist called for the exact opposite. The way to prevent a tyranny of the majority is to increase the number of factions, not to have an opposing almost-majority. Specifically: “In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.” (No. 51) The present disengagement theory that is being forced through is a textbook example of the danger embodied.

            Another essential aspect of Federalism is the Separation of Powers doctrine. Often misunderstood as a system of checks and balances, it is a means to prevent consolidation of power by any segment or governmental branch. Certain powers are given to certain branches, with the stipulation that in these powers that branch is supreme. It is a matter of giving responsibility for something, and the necessary power to adequately meet the responsibility. The objects of power should limited, though not the power itself – which would be equally inefficient. By forcing each branch to pursue greater power, ambition is made to balance out the whole.

            “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” (No. 51) It is not merely personal ambition that is spoken of, but departmental desire for increased areas of control. The legislature cannot merely be an extension of the executive power, but must have its own distinct sphere of influence – unbeholden to the executive.

            The judiciary must also be given standing on a par with the other main branches. Otherwise, in matters of national and international import, their rulings would amount to nothing more than rubber stamps. This too has been seen in

Israel regarding the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Disengagement Plan. The judiciary must be able and obligated to apply the law, not according to the dictates of the dominant political party or coalition, but according to the law itself. In order to do so, it must not be reliant on the other branches.

            The utility of a constitution would be best served by setting forth an authority that does not stem from contemporary power balances, but from the supreme authority of any democratic nation – the people. According to the Federalist, the Constitution trumps all subsequent statutes and executive orders by virtue of the fact that its authority stems from the vote of the people, unadulterated and not filtered through years of legislative procedures. It would provide a binding authority far greater than approval ratings.

            The dangers of constructing a constitution at this time are manifold. Creating a viable constitution is extremely complex to begin with, and is made even more difficult in the case where a nation has been existent for decades. As well, the framers must be able to put aside their preconceived notions, idealistic as they may be, and concentrate on creating a pragmatic document. This was the supreme triumph of the Federalists over the anti-Federalists. Instead of floating lofty ideals and prophecies of ‘evolving societies’ the Federalists focused on human nature as it is, and proceeded accordingly. It makes a better sound bite when one cries for one’s ideals, but it is the pragmatist who will see his work last over centuries and beyond.

            Another potential concern is the makeup of constitutional framers. If American jurists are prominent, there is the distinct danger that the present conception of a ‘living Constitution’ will be incorporated – thereby inserting a fatal flaw directly into the constitution in utero as it were. By providing that later interpretation can selectively ignore even express clauses of the constitution, the document itself is severely compromised. The utility must be that laws and statutes be considered in light of the constitution, not according to contemporaneous philosophies that pay it at best lip service.

            In the end, a constitution based on the American model as planned by its Framers would be of incalculable value to Israel. However, it is a mirage. A major restructuring of the government would be necessitated, with power shifting dramatically. It is highly unlikely that the present political parties would be willing to cede some of their nigh-unfettered power, much less the Prime Minister’s office. What would likely emerge from a constitutional convention would be a document that would be a series of compromises aimed at maintaining the status quo. Therefore, pragmatism must dictate a complete opposition to any present plan of devising a constitution for Israel.

A demented little story I wrote about four years ago…

“Hello, Psychic Palmistry Incorporated. What would you like? Press 1 for Tarot Readings…”

Gloump punched the number one quickly, growing slightly out of breath as he did so. The recording switched to a rendition of the Four Seasons played solely by accordions. Gloump found himself starting to like the music when an operator came on.

“We’re sorry, your cards cannot be read, the balance of your call will be refunded to you in its entirety, and we hope that you will never attempt to give us your patronage again. If this is your second warning, please note that your personal aura has already accumulated enough negativity from our protective devices that you will be violently ill. We thank you for calling, and hope that you try our competitors.” With that, the phone went dead.

Gloump scratched his head in the cramped cubicle that served as his work-site office. The telephone seemed to be a little loose, and when Gloump gave a slight tug it came up into his hand easily enough, but sans the cord. Looking down, he noticed that the wire had corroded into some sort of gooey mess, steaming even now in the early morning air. The surprise was that Gloump never used the workstation after he did his job, so the fumes from his workplace couldn’t have gotten here, right? As he pondered, he noticed that the sun had risen. It was time for work.

Gloump was a slouched optical metaphor for a decayed walrus. He seemed simply to ooze from one place to the next, in ratty clothing that seemed simultaneously too large and too small. With his hair color visible only through mud and …other things, he might have passed for an ogre, had there been such things. Even so, he would have been different, a pasty, white, near albino under the filth. That is, however, a secret no matter what, since he never bathed in anything.

From his ‘office’ he entered the cavern. Even with his mask on, the fumes seemed to hit him right in the eyes. Inwardly he sighed a sigh of relief, for the bats were all asleep for once. He had already been involved in several fights with the flying rodents, boasting a record of 0-95-3. The three ties had simply been because he stumbled through the cavern into the grotto beneath, whereupon the bats had left screeching with silent laughter.

You see, Persinidan Igneolous Gloump worked for ‘Ammonia Second Away From Sterility,’ the number one cleanser on the market. He had the ever so sought after job of guano collection. Yes, Mr. P. I. Gloump got the pleasure of collecting the droppings of the several thousand or so bats that inhabited Graves’ Cavern. Whistling in a manner that would serve perfectly if one were to wish to discourage whistling totally, he shoveled the ammonia-laced poop into the waiting carts. After 5 hours he was done, and able to return to hovel sweet home.

The abode was one that would escape your eyes at first glance, and make you wish you had missed it again with your second. Aside from the fact that it was a mud hole masquerading as a chateau, the ammonia fumes from drying/damp/— clothes was enough to make an experienced manual organic waste compactor grimace in pain and suffering. Prealisbee Hiram Eftron Walinger was the exception to the previous rule. Make no doubt about it, his occupation as a MOWC was important to his immunity, but his limited sense of smell was in all likelihood the bigger help. Still, this did not quite explain why Walinger thought of the house as smelling better than his job. (For those who may be wondering, Manual Organic Waste Compactor is the job description for one who stomps on human refuse all day. No more graphic rendering needed here, let’s continue with our story.)

Gloump greeted his old, and only, friend with a nod and led him into the home. Inside, both men had room to sit on filthy, smelly mounds of earth. (?) Unlike Persinidan, Prealisbee was of average height and hair color, rather on the doughy side, but with thin legs. Along with the diseased walrus image, simply add a walking toadstool to the picture and you’ll get the idea.

The first thing Gloump did was to take off his reeking boots, by throwing them out one of the many ‘windows’ that dotted the walls of his hut. Contrary to the normal state of things, the odor level in the room remained constant, some seventeen degrees below bearable. Reaching into an alcove, he pulled out a battered deck of Tarot cards, and offered to deal Walinger a read.

“Hey Persin,” said Walinger, “when’d you ever get them cards?” In similarly mutilated English, Gloump, or Persin, answered.

“Well Prealy, I just kinda took ‘em from a store or somethin’ when I’s younger.”

The toadstool-ish one began to giggle, which began to annoy the walrus-like Persin. “What d’you think’s so funny, huh Prealy?” This said in a form of trumpet from Gloump.

“You, you, you heeheehee stole ‘em heehee Persin?” after saying this, Prealy collapsed into a shaking mound of high-pitched sounds roughly like drunken tittering.

“Um, I dunno, kinda, I guess,” answered the rather dull Gloump. “Izzat supposed to make a diff’rence?” When no answer seemed forthcoming from his now hyperventilating friend, he kicked Walinger in the rear. At last, Prealy said, “why’s I laughin’ like that?”

Now we must leave these two imbeciles to their (painfully stupid) games, and examine the situation from an objective stance. The story behind this little fable gone dumb, is that, as a lad, Gloump stole a deck of Tarot cards from the local fast food grocery store. Compounding his lack of sense, he continued to use the stolen items to predict his future. Needless to say, the negative energy released by his theft, and augmented by subsequent use of the cards, was more than enough to insure that he live a life suited for, well, him.

Now that Gloump’s condition is accounted for, we shall now turn to that of his friend and companion, “Prealy” Walinger, MOWC. The question that must be asked is how on earth did he manage to accumulate so much bad joss? Well, the answer here is somewhat more involved, so let’s just say that it involved several skunks, a stolen ouija board, and many irritated aardvarks.

And so we reach the end of our little demented fable. There is a lesson to be learned here of course, but it is not a totally useless one, unlike the two characters in the fable. That moral is that rotten fortune telling from a stolen object can land you in deep excrement. Now, isn’t that something everyone should know?