day 6

The only possible excuse for writing this story is that it is an answer to the observation of a performance I have been deeply engaged in as a stranger for some time. It can be stated plainly as hyper-bimbotic performance. If given a choice, I would choose to ignore the episodes completely. But my compulsion to philosophicise my encounters leaves me with little choice but to participate in an intellectual endeavour. Have I sufficiently excuse myself? I shall leave that to you to decide.

There is a creed mounted as plagues in many rooms of children which writes: Carpe Diem.
Not to mention the Zac Elfron and Twilight posters that form the tapestry of contemporary adolescence. Anything (one) can be idolized in our age. Any universal idea can be crowned by a tiara and we can champion them as talents, spokesperson and the icons of our new generation. Wait. Men are not easily convinced by philosophical theory unless proven by the life that informs such a message. I shall, hence, partake in such a life and see fit that my subject performs with admirable elegance, the act of being a bimbo.

If we take seriously the lines of words written above, then truly we have an issue that needs to be addressed. Admittedly, it is not of my concern if anyone is misquoted. The truth is, at some level, I have to write my analytical theory as universal. And the thesis is as follows:
If a person is a bimbo, it is actually due to his or her subtractive accumulation of factors that are not his or her own. To put it simply, one is not born a bimbo. One is also not a bimbo by choice. For the thesis to hold true, to put to test with effect a statement of intent to prove me right, I suggest we suspend our disbelief and consider the subject from a transcendental point of view.

The correlation that we are interested in then, is between the bimbo and the qualities or properties of the things that made him or her so. I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that it could be due to lack, that which an excessive need for substance to fill this absence is then profitable to the subject for the actions he or she makes. To remain in a transcendental point of view, the corelation is taken as a priori given. Between the person-in-itself and the thing-in-itself, there can be no self-dependency. To put it simply again, we can only know because there is a knowing involved that makes possible a (knowledge) relation. Hence, I propose this, in the comfort of my transcendental seat:

1. that bimbo X is in relation to factor A
2. factor A exists with or without the existence of X
3. but existence of bimbo X is only possible because factor A has played its part to induce a reaction from bimbo X; it made possible bimbo X

The task ahead, in the coming days, is to determined, then, what could possibly cause bimbo X to be bimbo X; and not person Y or Z.

Instead, let us muse about the definition of bimbo, which has an etymology that eludes me, as much as the actual relation I have of it is dubious. It is an eyesore. A word that I must first understand even before I could write the thesis proper. Is there such a word? Is there a meaning to it? Have we over-generalise it? Have we, in vanity, in order for us to make sense the mysteries of performance, make a fool of a person who is human, o so human? Have we no heart, no finite sense of what it means to be a human? O reckless gaze! we fathom the sun, o gorgeous sun, at your dawning, all those things illuminated we view with a conscious mastery. I know thee! That I can perceive you, impulsively I touch you, in the morning star that is invisible to our eyes. We, us philosophers on our arm chairs, peace be to us all, the demons of our yester-wars.