Sunday, January 25, 2009

The dog's muse

You know what the difference between a painter or sculptor or whatever and a writer? Notice that I didn't just call the former "artist", because I consider writing to be an art. The difference is that where allegory comes naturally to the canvas, and metaphor to the sculpture, there is no such thing for a writer. Sure, you can write in tongues, but if no one gets it then what was the point? And if people do get it, then whatever it was you wanted to express without those thoughts being brought into the open is also lost. For example, if a painter is in a mood he'll paint a stormy sky, the ominous clouds interspersed with bolts of lightning and lashes of rains flying down to wreak a most terrible watery vengeance on the earth. And people will look at that painting and say, "Oh, that's nice. He must have been in a bad mood that day."
If a writer tries to express his emotions, he is hampered by those very emotions. He doesn't necessarily want to reveal what it is that upsets him, but without this catalyst how can he accurately portray his mood? His very ability to portray without revelation is rendered impossible.

Meanwhile, in other news, I'm back in Yeshiva in Morristown. Just kidding. No, (yes?) I'm in Morristown shteiging away like nobody's business (the Uncle Sam express), but I won't leave you hanging with the first paragraph. You want to know what prompted them. Well, I was sitting in zal tonight catching up on some Shm"ot and waiting for my chavrusa when the muse hit me. It was of course composed of all my previous experieces in life, as all muses must be, but it reflected most strongly my feelings of the last few days. Such a tempest, a fervor of emotion, enough to make one wish for the dry intellect of Athens or the cold calculation of Munich. And yet there can be much gain in emotion, much benefit to the swirling thoughts flying hither and thither, whirling 'round their intended target and attempting to make themselves foremost in the mind. At these times the admonition of Tanya is most useful, the knowledge that the mind controls the heart, and not the other way around.
It would also be useful to bring up the famous story of Aristotle, once we mention Athens, and his students finding him engaged in highly illegal activities with a horse. They questioned him regarding his behaviour, specifically because he had only earlier that day warned them against it himself. His reply? "This is not Aristotle", meaning that their was an intellectual soul, an Aristotle, and there was an animal soul, which wasn't Aristotle. And never the twain shall meet. Judaism teaches that this is the wrong way to look at things. We are humans, yes, complete with human characteristics and desires, but we also have something higher. All people have an intellect, a brain, an organ that can raise a person from his purely animal past and place him in a world that is governed by reason, not by passion. Jews have it even better, because we have a G-dly soul, quite literally a part of the living G-d. And this soul allows us to rise above the intellectual to allow G-d to penetrate our conscious and replace all that is finite with the infinite. Aristotle didn't accept that he could master himself. He refused to believe that the animal is man is not only shameful for the brain but also for the animal. For that is the difference between hiskafia and ishapcha. The former teaches us to repel all that is evil, but this is not enough. The latter teaches us to change that darkness into light. To make the animal soul itself recognize that there is no greater thing in the world than G-d. Allowing the animal free reign in its domain while the brain rules in its, as Aristotle wanted, is not a proper course of action. We were not brought into this world to satisfy our appetites, but rather to fulfill G-d's will.

And how as a writer am I doing this? Well, hopefully if you made it this far throught the quagmire that is my moralizing, you'll allow it to have the slightest of effects on you.

114 comments:

e said...

The beginning was cool. But the end got too religious. (Contrary to CA, MB"M and Tzvi Freeman, Judaism IS a religion.)

The Real Shliach said...

Sorry. It was the best at I could think of to wrap it up without getting into details.

Nemo said...

This Aristotle story has grown so many legs. Not surprisingly, the only people who have ever heard it are Lubavitch bochurim.

I don't doubt that Aristotle could have done those infamous acts, but until I see the story corroborated by a secular source, its veracity hangs in the balance.

The Real Shliach said...

As far as I can recall the story is mentioned by the Rambam somewhere. In any case, if you look in chassidus that quotes it, I'm sure you'll find a good non-chassidic source.

e said...

Is is quoted anywhere in chassidus? The most authoritative source I have is my sixth grade Rebbe, who didn't tell us what the horrible sin was.

e said...

Because all punchlines need to be in Yiddish, the rebbe said that Aristotle said, "Yetzt bin ich nisht Arist," which is kind of funny. I mean, Aristotle certainly did not speak Yiddish.

Rationally pious said...

The funny thing is when I heard the story on the tape I think the Rebbe said that he was eating a limb from a live animal. How funny is that? The Rebbe had a real sense of humor. How come no one talks about that?

Come on Nemo, why do you get so hung up on the details. Who cares if it really happened?

LE7 said...

This sort of post is why I started hanging around TRS in the first place back when the primordial soup was still a'brewin'.

Nemo said...

It certainly had to be something extreme and utterly perverse because homosexuality was acceptable, moral behavior in ancient Greece.

I'm sure I heard it repeated by a mashpia during my zal years.

TRS, since when do chassidic sources cite to non-chassidic sources?

Nemo said...

RP: it doesn't matter if it actually happened. I'm just remarking on the habit of our yeshiva educators (and shluchim) to say things to sound cultured and aware, when in reality it might just be promulgated by naivete.

Nemo said...

Maybe our friend Webjem can locate the said recording?

The Real Shliach said...

I believe it's brought down in the Tzemach Tzedek's Derech Mitzvosecha.

Nemo said...

Nu ....

The Real Shliach said...

Nu what? Go look it up yourself.

e said...

re: aristotle eating a limb from a living animal

Perhaps you're getting mixed up with the prophet who busted some king eating a live rabbit. (I also heard that story from my sixth grade Rebbe.)

LE7 said...

(Before I lose my fundamentalist status, I was joking about the primordial soup).

The Real Shliach said...

You mean this blog hasn't left it yet?

LE7 said...

Huh?

LE7 said...

Oooooooh. Funny.

Dovid said...

primodial soup, mmm, yummy

The Real Shliach said...

There's nothing like it in the world dear friend...it only happens at the beginning of time-a special soup, for special people, the time, for primordial soup is here.

LE7 said...

Huh? I was talking about abiogenesis here. (I'm soooooo mad I didn't get into Biology, it would give me even more sciencey-phrases to use...)

Dovid said...

LE7, so you're saying I won't find it on the menu?

LE7 said...

The Muse has struck. Maybe I have found my true calling. To open a cheesy kosher science theme restaurant in the Tri-State area. We can serve Primordial Soup, Evolving Baby Giraffes, RNA Roasted Chicken with DNA Duck Sauce...

Dovid said...

I can't be cheesy if you serve chicken and duck, better fleyshig

LE7 said...

Funny. Cute. Whatever.

Rationally pious said...

“Brought into the open is also lost”

There is subtlety in life. There are emotions that are deep; abandonment, guilt, and lack of self worth. These emotions are subtle and are expressed in very unique ways. Van Gogh did it with extreme colors and vivid caricatures. Mozart did it with music. Writers did it with metaphors and dreams. Words are all we have at the end of the day. We communicate to survive and thrive. We should use it to correct ourselves, allow other perspectives to permeate our being and existence,

“His very ability to portray without revelation is rendered impossible.”

Why? Please explain.

webjem said...

All that's beside the point. You're giving TRS a pass on his oh so bourgeois notion that painting is a literary art form. We've freed ourselves from the art of the European courts! Out with the old, in with the modern! Paint on canvas! Flatness! What you see is all you see!

Crawling Axe said...

What? I said exactly opposite.

I also heard only eating. But then it doesn’t make sense. While the mentioned does, somewhat. After all, horse is not a human…

The Real Shliach said...

Rationally pious: what don't you get? When I want to express hidden emotion in a painting, I paint it in. No one knows why it's there, or even if it's there. In writing however, any and all emotion must necessarily be explained. Otherwise, it makes no sense. Experience has taught me that readers don't like it when things don't make sense.

Webjem: what are you going on about?

Crawling Axe said...

One time I was visiting somebody in CH who’s close with my family back in the land. I told him about my difficulty of visiting my uncle, since my uncle only seems to talk about gashmius. This guy told me about Rashbi walking out of the cave.

I think a point is being missed here. Gashmius is ruchnius, but not automatically. That’s not the status quo — that’s the achievable goal.

Crawling Axe said...

RTS — what are you saying? Of course that’s not necessarily true.

Soid. And pshat is still there, so readers are happy. But soid.

The Real Shliach said...

I believe you mixed up conversations Mr. Crawling Axe. Care to explain?

Crawling Axe said...

One time the Rebbe was teaching Gemara in Paris. There was a shortage of Gemaros back then and there.

After a shiur, one student looked at the Gemara that the Rebbe was using to teach and saw that it’s a different mesechet.

The Real Shliach said...

Excuses, excuses.

webjem said...

A reference to the hilarious saga of art criticism and theorizing in the 20th century.

As to your point about the limitations of the written word: All good art depends on a mastery of the medium first, personal expression second. Sentimental, substandard writing is subject to all the same limitations of its art form as are painting, sculpture etc. Genius is rare. One must first know how to write, plainly and with out indulgence. "Style" comes later.

Enough nonsense. Take this truism from Chassidus (I paraphrase): Gilui l'atzmo he'elem l'zulas, gilui l'zulas he'elem l'aztmo. (Or something.) Portraying the inner workings of your soul, besides for being a gross debasement, is ultimately inauthentic. What's more, the more you reveal, the more accessible you attempt to make yourself, the further you get from the truth.

Makes you wanna just howl: Kookariku!

Why is that genuine? because the peasant boy just let it slip. He wasn't portraying anything.

This (premeditated expression of emotion), coincidentally, is the very definition of kitsch. Instead of arousing a true emotional response, it gratifies the viewer with his own capacity to realize that emotion.

Rationally pious said...

I don’t understand what you are saying.

You can write a poem or a metaphor with many layers. The same way you draw a work of art with many layers. Some just see the superficial aspects and some see deeper. Why is there a difference? You say writing is an art. That is the art; inscrutable emotions with dichotomies and the nexus of human spirit.

The Real Shliach said...

Webjem: that was a classic comment.
Rational Tzaddik: maybe I'm just really simple, but when I write that I'm depressed people generally expect a reason to accompany the statement of emotion. This isn't poetry here. Sorry. Maybe I'm just a bad writer.

LE7 said...

Wait, you're depressed? I totally didn't get that from the post.

The Real Shliach said...

Um. Um. Wasn't that obvious?

LE7 said...

I thought contemplative, self-critical maybe, but depressed? Seriously?

The Real Shliach said...

You think those things are born in a vacuum? Great art requires suffering.
My friends brother just called his wedding, or had it called, off. Three days before the wedding. If that was the only thing bothering me it would be worthy of depression.

LE7 said...

Ah, but it's all for the best. I have a cousin in motown kollel now. Married to a nice lubav girl. Originally he was engaged to a snag. Called off the wedding a week before. So, yep. All for the best.

Nemo said...

What are they going to do with all that food?

The Real Shliach said...

LE7: easy to say in hindsight. But you know what they say, don't comfort the mourner when their dead lie before them.
Nemo: and the family of ten, plus spouses and kids, who have tickets for a week?

LE7 said...

True, I guess my anecdote was inappropriate. I'll share it in a few weeks.

Nemo said...

Well, better now than later, right?

Crawling Axe said...

That’s a hilarious story.

The man saved his soul, and you worry about the food?

LE7 said...

Yeah seriously, canceling a wedding is nothing compared to divorce.

sarabonne said...

This has indeed been a most revealing and intruiging post.So sorry you're sad, try not to dwell on it. As you yourself said, mind over matter-ok not in such words but you catch my drift. Then again, I dunno if quoting chassidus will lift you abruptly from dark spirits. Try napping or eat a coca-cola gummy.
In regards of ART, well I've thought often on the subject and its many variations. Art I suppose is a presentable form of communication, whether it be lucid and abstract or clear and obvious. Writing is art, as is music, sculpture, painting, performance, etc. One of the risks of art however is that it is open to interpretation, thus giving free reign for someone to create a piece of, well, "garbage" and come up with some silly explanation. "Oh I put a thumbtack in the wall to make a point." Gee willigers aren't you brilliant. Hmmm, perhaps I'll just write blog on the subject.
My point is, no pun intended, that you should not get lost in the technical details, however important they are. The intellectual formula is there to refine, not choke you down.

Rationally pious said...

"What are they going to do with all that food?"

I can just "see" your eyes light up. Hilarious.

TRS,

You will learn that depression is nothing, its loneliness that stings like a b----

Nemo said...

Have you ever tried backing out on a wedding hall, caterer, band, etc.? It ain't pretty ... not three days before.

If the wedding was going to be at Oholei Torah, they may have even cooked the food already ... they may even have been saving it up specially from the last wedding.

sarabonne said...

And you don't need to suffer to create art, don't be a ninny.

Nemo said...

Sorry for my insensitivity, they don't call me prick for nothing.

farbrengen said...

BS"D
When you can focus a bit better, remember atvus vs. merrirus.

e said...

TRS: try fiction.

If you want to create art, without letting your readers know all about your private life, write fiction.

Now Joshua-style fiction, while it may ostensibly be art, is not the revealing-true-emotion-analogous-to-painting type of art. You're going to need to develop a new style of fiction.

Nemo said...

If all these Lubavitch bochurim talking about art wasn't flatulent enough, no we get a Lubavitch gal reminding us that she's just out of seminary in Israel with preachy tenets of chassidus. L-rd, save us from the vainglorious!

Farbrengen said...

BS"D
Nemo, I love how you make these ridiculous assumptions about me that are SO NOT TRUE.
But if this is how you quench your warped thirst of entertainment, let it be...

Rationally pious said...

Nemo you are on a roll tonight.

sarabonne,

Yes you do, either you are depressed and therefore see the real world or vice versa. One's art has to have something pertaining to the real world.

Farbrengen said...

BS"D
I actually love to hear things like that when I'm upset. Suddenly, it's like a flashing light saying "woah, focus here". Perhaps I'm not typical (or so I've been told), but all the same, it helps me to hear the obvious and already known, so why shouldn't it help others?

Farbrengen said...

BS"D
I actually love to hear things like that when I'm upset. Suddenly, it's like a flashing light saying "woah, focus here". Perhaps I'm not typical (or so I've been told), but all the same, it helps me to hear the obvious and already known, so why shouldn't it help others?

Nemo said...

Nah, I just wanted to state my opinion about the art convo without actually getting dragged in. You were like the Palestinian civilians ...

Farbrengen said...

BS"D
Okay, I cannot let you get away with that!
HOW DARE YOU EVEN COMPARE?!?
I understand the analogy, but please, what in your warped out thinking process brought you to such an unsettling deduction?!

Crawling Axe said...

I wonder how kosher are muses.

Nemo said...

What do you have against civilians?

Rationally pious said...

Farbi, chill out.

Nemo, you were never into art. You look the part though. What do you think? Art needs depression?

Nemo said...

Depression needs art.

sarabonne said...

Rationally Pious- Depression is getting lost in one's view of the world, a biased, semi-naive vision that is clouded. Reality? reality is not tangible, reality is truth, something infinite and unconfined by the limitations of this physical world, I obviously am speaking about G-d and all the spiritual elements.
One sees the world but does not see all of it. Depression arises from this ignorance. While true that crushing situations may bring out the essence of a person,it is certainly not the only means to do so.
You say it has to pertain to the real world, well there's more than just suffering. Sorry for being the optimist, its my nature.

Crawling Axe said...

TRS, do you know Dan Lewin?

Nemo said...

reality is truth

Oh no you didn't ... RP is going to destroy you for defining reality as truth. I'm sure as heck staying out of this.

sarabonne said...

Let me escape while I can; What we percieve is not reality.
There, am I in the clear?

Nemo said...

No.

Just want to let you know that when I had this conversation with him way back when, we were being driven around in a black suburban. We weren't being driven by the FBI, but the tension in the care made it feel like we were.

sarabonne said...

Well I'll just stroll on to bed then and hear the lecture another time.

LE7 said...

Who is RP?

I have to say, the level of discourse on the last few posts has been rather impressive. I feel a little left out.

sarabonne said...

Then you can take over, your vocabulary is vast and fear-inspiring. Especially on topic of primordial soup.

LE7 said...

Nah don't wanna. I like this impressive stuff. Keep going.

Rationally pious said...

sarabonne,

I am sorry you feel depression is a biased view. I think it is an objective view. The tough part of life is not being depressed by it. I guess it is one big circle we call maturity.

Reality is not what we perceive? Well I am not going into an epistemological argument which is a major debate. But all we have is what we perceive. We can fool ourselves from an evolutionary perspective but all we have is here and now. G-d by definition is an optimistic perspective.

Life is suffering. Judaism does not shy away from this. Very few find the utopia, very few have deep perception. We struggle like a child coming out of the womb. The world is a harsh reality. If you want to be an optimist, untruthful to yourself your whole life, that is your choice. I choose to face the truth even when it hurts.

Rationally pious said...

sarabonne,

The question you have to ask yourself is; do you fear ideas. Do you feel the fear of facing a life without meaning? Do you face the fear of having nothing, being alone? Do your face the fears of failure? Do you face the fear of realizing that we are an evolutionary machine? That we are not altruist, we are self serving animals? Do you face the tingling fear in your head when your head starts to deny you the thought process of contemplating that you are truly nothing? Facing ideas that destroy your perception of life is scary. I think people just avoid it. People avoid the topic of death. People are theist because they are cowards. They don’t truly believe but how do we expect man to let go of something so central to his character? Life is scary. Maybe you just don’t think enough. I am scared.

LE7 said...

Oh knock it off with all this negative intellectualizing RP.

Rationally pious said...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17359

Why be Rational.

Cool talk.

Yeah you are right, enough.

LE7 said...

I was just joking. Sorry. Keep going.

The Real Shliach said...

I'm very impressed here. A whole (relatively) intelligent conversation that I manage to sleep through.
Depression: yes, it's bad, bit when bad things happen, sometimes it's the easiest way to deal. And don't tell me that it's not the easiest way, because it is. Despite whatever mumbo jumbo you may have heard.
Nemo: pretentious conversation is flatulent?
Art: when you're content you have no drive to succeed.
Wedding: the latest is that the bride and groom may yet be reconciled.

LE7 said...

Wedding: Don't throw us bones like that, it makes, at least me, very interested.

The Real Shliach said...

From the little I can make of the situation, the bride and her family are mad at the groom for not telling them something, or for doing something, or maybe for not doing something-I'm not quite sure myself what the story is.

Crawling Axe said...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17359

Wow. I thought I associated with nerds. Aint’t nothing.

Crawling Axe said...

Obama’s election is return to rationality? Hmm…

(Anyway, I won’t start here…)

Crawling Axe said...

Sorry, can’t resist.

Thanks for that link. This was extraordinary. :D

Modeh B'Miktsas said...

"Reality is not tangible"

then what is, Sarabonne?

FIrst of all, Aristotle and the rabbit is not a uniquely lubavitch shtus. Snagdishe rebbeim use it all the time when a student wants to chas veshalom care about English or even worse, learn nach. To the best knowledge of every last historian and philosopher I've asked it is made up.

Since we are on the subject of deep philisophical pontifications, I will offer the working definition of reality. THis definition has eluded philosophers for millenia because once you have a working definition, epistemology and ontology go out the window along with their cushy academic jobs.

e said...

MB"M, you still haven't spelled out your working definition. Or was I too thick to catch it?

Nemo said...

E- yeah, I was thinking the same as I was reading it. MB"M, don't leave our famished and curious minds waiting.

Nemo said...

Modeh: according to http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_/philosophy_questions_1375.html, it is uncertain that Aristotle was even gay, which would not have been considered amoral in his time. If he really needed to get off, methinks he would have preferred human touch before resorting to carnal pleasure with rabbits, oxes and horses.

But hey, that's just my opinion ... who am I to argue with Gedolei Torah?

Modeh B'Miktsas said...

Oh. S**t. For only the fifth time in a month I spent a day actually doing something. I'm not used to it yet. The definition I was going to give was:
Reality is that which does not go away when when you stop believing in it.

Modeh B'Miktsas said...

He ate a live rabbit not screw it. (At least according to my rebbeim)

e said...

mb"m: Gut gezokt. Great definition.

e said...

Nemo, are you saying that the only cause of bestiality is repressed homosexual drives?

The Real Shliach said...

Definition: takeh, e is right. Good going modeh.

Bestiality: maybe some people just like it rough?

Nemo said...

No, actually, if you re-read it, I said nothing of the sort.

I said that if he was trying to release, their are more fulfilling avenues. According to that article, men in those days who needed to fulfill their sexual urges did it with other men. I highly doubt he, Aristotle, would have trouble finding a partner. If he did, he could always do what modern teachers do and seduce one of his pupils.

Bestiality, IMHO, is just highly freakish and unlikely.

Modeh: anyway, like I said, this story has grown legs. Or at least many a yeshiva bochur has let his imaginary mind run wild ...

Cheerio said...

e got it right - fiction. your other alternative is poetry, and you just don't seem like a poet to me.
it was nice to have some serious TRS posting. i usually show up for the comedy, but seeing the flip side makes this blog a heck of lot more interesting.
i am also beginning to feel like I should be reading a lot more philosphical tomes, and perhaps the dictionary in the bathroom, in order to keep up with the level of commenting that is going on here.
also - how would you... with the rabbit?!? ok, eww. thanks for making me even think about that.

The Real Shliach said...

You've read my fiction-Joshua. When my mother read that shtuff she started getting scared.
Yeah, when I'm depressed I take life seriously. Then I get even more depressed, because I'm taking life seriously. Then I take life even more seriously. It's a vicious cycle.

They claim he ate the rabbit. I think. I claim he obtained carnal knowledge of the horse. Much more realistic, I think you will agree.

Cheerio said...

nu, try something else.
i guess your mother knows you better, but i don't find Joshua all that frightening (and why haven't we seen him in a while, hmm?).
re:taking life seriously. just remember - life is essentially good. G-d is good, G-d is life, life is good.

Crawling Axe said...

Good enough for Russian empresses, good enough for Greek philosophers.

Who does the whole cutting limb from living animal thing anyway?

Crawling Axe said...

I just realized how the rabbit myth happened. The rabbi was telling a story to some 11-year-olds and didn’t want to go into the whole horse scenario, so he took the next mitzva (or aveira) over.

Cheerio said...

"good enough for russian empresses"?
educate me, cuz i have no clue what you're referring to.

The Real Shliach said...

Cheerio: some of Joshua was a bit disturbing, no? Anyway, you and EOW are the only people who like him. Perhaps at mimulo's...

Crawling Axe said...

I am talking about Catherine II (“the Great”) who liked her pork. And horses.

Cheerio said...

CA- please tell me you mean to eat. please.
TRS - perhaps slightly. but he was a fictional character. they're often better off if they're disturbing.

Crawling Axe said...

If you want to, I’ll say it. I can say a lot of things.

Don’t worry, she also liked men. Including the one who built Dnepropetrovsk (former Yekaterinoslav).

Cheerio said...

can you say it and mean it? or are you like the five year old in preschool apologizing for stealing the glitter from his friend, and then shoving him off the bench at the play table?

Crawling Axe said...

I can say it and sound like I mean it.

In actuality, both things we said are true. She also liked them for food (well, not horses, probably; but she probably bred them like all the other royal freaks, including today’s royal family).

The Real Shliach said...

I asked rabbi chaim schapiro what the source of the aristotle story was and he told me that he isn't a historian how should he know? then he said "who cares where you learn it from. learn it from bill clinton!"

e said...

Vindicated I am! The rabbit has nothing to do with Aristotle. Here's a quote from Nedarim 65a:

And also against King Nebuchadnezzar he rebelled, who had adjured him by the living God.6 What was [the nature of] his rebellion? — Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit.7 'Swear to me,' exclaimed he, 'not to reveal this, that it may not leak out!' He swore. Subsequently he grieved thereat, and had his vow absolved and disclosed it. When Nebuchadnezzar learned that they were deriding him, he had the Sanhedrin8 and Zedekiah brought before him, and said to them, 'Have ye seen what Zedekiah has done? Did he not swear by the name of Heaven not to reveal it?' They answered him, 'He was absolved of his oath.' 'Can then one be absolved of an oath?' he asked them. 'Yes,' they returned. 'In his presence or even not in his presence?'9 — '[Only] in his presence,' was their reply. 'How then did ye act?' said he to them: 'why did ye not Say this to Zedekiah?' Immediately, 'The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, and keep silence.'10 R. Isaac said: This teaches that they removed the cushions from under them.11

If y'all are curious what the footnotes stand for, check out http://come-and-hear.com/nedarim/nedarim_65.html

Crawling Axe said...

But where in this story did somebody doing an aveira say, “I am not X”?

Or, do you think that there was only one story with the rabbit in the whole Jewish religious literature and ethos?

e said...

Exactly my point that was. The rabbit-eating episode is unrelated to the Aristotle story.

e said...

OK. It is *possible* that Aristotle was busted doing the exact same think. But methinks it is more likely that people just got mixed up.