David and Erminia
Surely you are both correct?
a _stupid_ act is surely, although an act of folly sometimes, usually one
done without thought for the consequences. Like this response.
Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Back on Planet Earth + stupidity
> Erminia wrote:
>
> "Note on stupidity: etymologically (being Italian it comes easy to me, the
> etymology of words: I am not trying to intellectualise the matter), it
> comes from the Latin stupor (the being amazed). So to be stupefied, it is
> to be subjected to the effects of something amazing which causes stupor.
>
> But stupidity sprung out from the application of the term "stupor" to a
> psychiatric pathology, which resembles dementia, but it is not. It
> describes, in fact, my doctor-husband informed me this morning
half-asleep -
> a state of mental fixation (eyes fixing the void without responding to
the
> environmental stimuli) and emotional unresponsiveness.
> Stupid as an adjective derives therefore from this apathy of the mind,
> (therefore the term qualifies someone obtuse, slow in mind,
unintelligent, -
> and not "mad" in the sense of sized by folly, hyperactive, visionary -
> therefore the terms "stupid " and "stupidity" are not applicable to poets
> and poetry (mad and madness, yes)."
>
> Not quite so, I'm afraid. 'Stupid' is also applicable to acts, as in
> 'I/he/she/we/they did something stupid', and in that usage it does carry
the
> overtones of being 'seized by folly'.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> David Bircumshaw
>
> Leicester, England
>
> Home Page
>
> A Chide's Alphabet
>
> Painting Without Numbers
>
> www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erminia Passannanti" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Back on Planet Earth + stupidity
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:57:50 -0000, domfox <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> >The cerebral dominance of intellection is meat and drink to me.
>
> (first essential feature in selecting the mating male)
>
>
> >I expect the dominance of anything very much is inimical to poetry -
>
> Wrong, possibly. Poetry is the excercise of control of the language over
> the unconscious.
>
> >I'd like to pretend that I make up poems by choosing a subject and then
> >intellectualising extremely hard about it,>Dominic
>
>
> (to try to do things extremely hard seems to me a respectable behaviour).
>
> Note on stupidity: etymologically (being Italian it comes easy to me, the
> etymology of words: I am not trying to intellectualise the matter), it
> comes from the Latin stupor (the being amazed). So to be stupefied, it is
> to be subjected to the effects of something amazing which causes stupor.
>
> But stupidity sprung out from the application of the term "stupor" to a
> psychiatric pathology, which resembles dementia, but it is not. It
> describes, in fact, my doctor-husband informed me this morning
half-asleep -
> a state of mental fixation (eyes fixing the void without responding to
the
> environmental stimuli) and emotional unresponsiveness.
> Stupid as an adjective derives therefore from this apathy of the mind,
> (therefore the term qualifies someone obtuse, slow in mind,
unintelligent, -
> and not "mad" in the sense of sized by folly, hyperactive, visionary -
> therefore the terms "stupid " and "stupidity" are not applicable to poets
> and poetry (mad and madness, yes).
>
|