So.... here are some examples from Charlie's summer workbook, which makes mincemeat of our current political scene in a way that makes the religious right look like amateurs...
Don't forget that I warned you it would/could be incredibly vulgar...
And try to IMAGINE all the cartoons (back to that in a minute...) that I can't transmit in this post.
On the subject of Carla, OUR (he he) first lady, who is also a pop rock star (ew, yuckky...) :
Charity :
What charitable foundation does Carla donate her time to :
a) The Raoul Follereau foundation (against leprosy in the world)
b) The Association for the protection of small statured people
c) 30 million animal friends of small stature
d) Cocaine addicts anonymous
e) Cartooning for Peace
f) The Toulouse Stadium
(Sarkozy is under 5 feet 5 inches, and Carla, well Carla is one long legged poodle.)
Carla talks to "Liberation" (translate, Carla talks to the New York Times)
"Nobody has to espouse, or endorse the politics of his/her
a) daddy
b) uncle
c) husband
d) handbag
"I've always had the same.... even if I'm not really all that committed, politically speaking".
a) contradictions
b) convictions
c) constipations
d) methods of contraception
Mammouth (that's the top heavy, centralized educational system, designed to cement the Republic's identity that is leaking water like the Titanic these days...)
Darcos's secondary education reform proposes : (there is an educational reform for EVERY president and prime minister in this country...)
a) Exclusive use of spiral notebooks
b) the elimination of the bic four color pen
c) the restructuration of 10th grade into a 21 hour generalized system
d) mandatory school uniforms
e) the suppression of 13 500 teachers' posts
f) rewriting the words to the Marseillaise (OUR national anthem)
Xavier Darcos's (minister of education, philosopher) last book was :
a) Nietzsche, his moustache is ours
b) Nicholas, his reforms are ours
c) Plato, his cave is ours
d) Tacitus, his truths are ours
e) Spinoza, his axioms are ours
Last but not least, on the subject of prisons, a subject dear to Charlie's (and my) heart :
In order to keep the inmates from hanging themselves with their sheets, the penitentiary administration has decided to :
a) replace the sheets made of fabric with paper sheets
b) replace the sheets with straw
c) give ropes to the prisoners
d) replace the beds with coffins
e) sew a label in the sheets reminding prisoners that it is forbidden to hang themselves under penalty of ulterior prosecution.
That's all for now. Workbooks are a part of a cartoon culture in France which goes way beyond what you imagine in the States. EVERYBODY reads cartoon books in France, kiddies and grown ups too... Not the same content, of course.
Cheers.
Answers :
Raoul Follereau, husband, convictions, C + E, Tacitus, A
5 comments:
Quoi? (I apparently will always be your slowest student).
This Charlie thing is a parody of actual summer workbooks, not the actual workbooks themselves, correct? If not, French kiddies are far more sophisticated than I was at their age.
You're a firehose of statements that I want to argue with. I can't keep up with more than a few with my limited neural squirt gun.
1)Lacan... I took a shot at the wiki. I saw he was a big fan of James Joyce's Ulysses. I'd have a better shot understanding Hinduism.
2) Religion is a belief system. Darwinism is a belief system. Darwinism is not a religion. Religion requires a sapient, supernatural being with an intended order of the universe.
3) Dawkins asks fair questions about religion and the logic of his conclusions seems pretty water-tight. One of my favorite pieces of his writing brings up the weirdness of theists saying that without a god to oversee us we'd all become criminals. So in essence aren't the theists admitting that they want to behave badly and its only fear of punishment stopping them? Its all very disturbing to an atheist.
4) There are two versions of Blade Runner; one with narration and one without. And of course the die-hards bicker over preference. And whether Harrison Ford's character was also a replicant. Ooh la la.
Its seems there was something else, but I've now forgotton. Have fun on your trip, Thai.
Regrets, dink, but religion does NOT require a sapient, supernatural being... It tends to hinge on the idea that there is MEANING in the universe, but not necessarily that there is a sapient, supernatural being.
Modern (American) man is weighed down by extremely reductionist thinking on this subject.
Aristotle with his idea of prime mover (that takes me way back so I may be hazy...) is NOT into the idea of a sapient, supernatural being.
But IF you confuse the imaginary and symbolic dimensions of God, then you will not be able to see the symbolic nature of "him".
But this takes us into complicated domains that can be explored later.
"Meaning" to whom's perspective? If not a supernatural being's, then how is a religious belief system differentiated from a non-religious belief system?
But DINK, who says they have to be differentiated ?
If they have the same structure, then WHY must they be differentiated ?
On your other comments, dink :
I gave up on reading Lacan a long time ago. I have a negative transfer to Lacan, except the EARLY Lacan, which is understandable.
Dawkins has intellectually limited ideas about religion.
If yo were here he MIGHT be willing to tell us just how respectful the Jewish creation story is of man, and his capacities.
The point being that human beings have a natural psychological tendency to assume that when things go wrong they are being PUNISHED for SOMETHING by SOMEBODY.
They assume this in order to avoid the thought that THEIR acts have inescapable CONSEQUENCES.
It is much easier for the average person to think he/she is being punished than to admit the he/she is the AUTHOR of his/her ACTS, and as such, MUST endoss the consequences of them...
Human immaturity, dink. But if you CAREFULLY read the creation stories, the way that I doubt Dawkins has done, then it becomes apparent that "God" sticks man in front of the consequences of his acts, he does not stoop to punish him. How childish...
Now, you really can't indict the texts for man's eternal, childish tendency to look for a big person running around with a stick, can you ?
I don't think so. And this tendency vitiates Freud's theories, the way it vitiates Darwin's theories, and the way it has vitiated the biblical texts, and continues to do so...
As for Joyce's Ulysses, I slept all the way through this required reading...
Post a Comment