Monday, April 23, 2007

Ode Owed to Bethrick, Morgan, Enloe, Orthodox, et. al.

Inasmuch as certain detractors have engaged in discourse designed to feign prowess at belles-lettres elocution, it has become incumbent that a congruous rejoinder be promulgated. Pursuant to that end, and ignoring inherent recalcitrance, the manifestation of the foregoing proposition is inevitable. Ergo, we must engage in pandects respective of the nihil.

(Excurses: By nihil, one should not surmise nihilism, wherein the suffix negates the tenor of the body; the –ism smuggling non-nothing into the prime verbal delimitation, contra the autochthonous.)

Since most cerebral brigands require—nay, crave—the estimation and assessments of abstruse philosophers, we may adduce a few aphorisms from definitive authority. Namely, Beckwith Forester Adams, who gave a visceral portent in the form of a soliloquy directed at neo-panindocredelopathy: “Fortune never discloses errata before the acquisition of solecism.” (Viz. Martin: “Coextensive supplications obligate the onus.”; Epitome: “Monsters subsume only in tepid reliance.”; Socrates: “I drank what?”) Regardless, one may yet remain suspect of the exigency of the proposition. The thesis, however, is not subject to such adventitious contingency. Rather, Bethrick, Morgan, Enloe, et. al. needs be must divine the remainder of the scope, else they are ill able to evert the thrust of this passage.

The nihil is, ipso facto, a reductio ad absurdum (or mayhap, in these palliative repartees, an abductio ad absurdum). Accordingly: licentia est iustus a vox hodie. Or as Cyril may have rendered: λεξικό δεν βρήκε καμία λέξη. (But this, naturally, is mere speculation, as Cyril is renowned expounding hieroglyphically rather than in the Hellenistic vein.) Inasmuch as inquiry into infusing intimation internally will intrinsically impair intellectual inclination, it is imperative to forgo alliteration momentarily. Concordantly, this paragraph shall now engage its terminus.

While the unattainable nihil remains uncommunicative, we can empathize with Bethrick, Morgan, Enloe, et. al. and, perchance, lucubrate enlightenment. Until then, however, they continue to be oppugnant. I only desire that this sanguineness utopia continues awaiting our prognostication on the dialectic until all else be superseded: verily, the nihil of this post is its own exemplification.