Discourse on Intercourse: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|confcall|}}[[Discourse on Intercourse]] is a well-intended though basically wrong-headed philosophical tract formulated by delusional Austrian librettist [[Otto Büchstein]] in the depths of dengue fever delirium in 1769. | {{a|confcall|}}[[Discourse on Intercourse]] is a well-intended though basically wrong-headed philosophical tract formulated by delusional Austrian librettist [[Otto Büchstein]] in the depths of dengue fever delirium in 1769. | ||
Outraged by [[René Descartes]] suggestion that the only indubitable thing in the universe was one's own existence as a [[res cogitans|thinking thing]], [[Büchstein]] attempted to deduce an entire multi-personal [[epistemology]] from the commercial inevitability of [[ | Outraged by [[René Descartes]] [[Discourse on the Method|suggestion in 1637]] that the only indubitable thing in the universe was one's own existence as a [[res cogitans|thinking thing]], [[Büchstein]] attempted to deduce an entire multi-personal [[epistemology]] from the commercial inevitability of [[conference call]]s. | ||
His logic was this: | His logic was this: all-hands conference calls must exist, since no-one in her right mind would make the idea up if she didn’t have to. So, since someone ''has'' made them up, [[conference call]]s must be a necessary fact of corporate life. | ||
On that predicate, it follows that as it is an ''[[a priori]]'' fact that a [[conference call]] must comprise more than one person (“a man cannot meet alone”, he quipped), to give effect to conference calls, the most basic irreducible ontology of the universe must contain ''multiple'' individuals. At least three, thought [[Büchstein]]: the “meetor” (which he regarded as an analog of Descartes “thinking thing”, or “[[res cogitans]]”), one “meetee” (which [[Büchstein]] characterised primarily as a talking thing (“[[res verbositans]]”) and, since transparently neither of these would willingly meet without some kind of compulsion, a third person (usually a [[management consultant]] or [[project manager]]) to force the meeting to happen and assign actions and timelines at its conclusion (an “action-assigning thing” or “[[res bossitans]]”). | |||
Furthermore, [[Büchstein]] contended, a universe in which [[conference call]]s necessarily exist is logically inconsistent with the continued presence of an omniscient, benign, omnipotent deity, so took this as an ''a priori'' proof of the non-existence of God. | |||
Revision as of 16:05, 2 April 2019
|
Conference Call Anatomy™
|
Discourse on Intercourse is a well-intended though basically wrong-headed philosophical tract formulated by delusional Austrian librettist Otto Büchstein in the depths of dengue fever delirium in 1769.
Outraged by René Descartes suggestion in 1637 that the only indubitable thing in the universe was one's own existence as a thinking thing, Büchstein attempted to deduce an entire multi-personal epistemology from the commercial inevitability of conference calls.
His logic was this: all-hands conference calls must exist, since no-one in her right mind would make the idea up if she didn’t have to. So, since someone has made them up, conference calls must be a necessary fact of corporate life.
On that predicate, it follows that as it is an a priori fact that a conference call must comprise more than one person (“a man cannot meet alone”, he quipped), to give effect to conference calls, the most basic irreducible ontology of the universe must contain multiple individuals. At least three, thought Büchstein: the “meetor” (which he regarded as an analog of Descartes “thinking thing”, or “res cogitans”), one “meetee” (which Büchstein characterised primarily as a talking thing (“res verbositans”) and, since transparently neither of these would willingly meet without some kind of compulsion, a third person (usually a management consultant or project manager) to force the meeting to happen and assign actions and timelines at its conclusion (an “action-assigning thing” or “res bossitans”).
Furthermore, Büchstein contended, a universe in which conference calls necessarily exist is logically inconsistent with the continued presence of an omniscient, benign, omnipotent deity, so took this as an a priori proof of the non-existence of God.