OK, Camille, you've changed the subject. You're equating wise with smart. The concept was not "are there wise or old souls in some children"; the statement was made that a man's small children WERE smater than him. I bow to your definition of wisdom and its appropriate assignation to certain children, yet I stand by my statement that "smart" denotes accumulation of information & ability to use it. C'mon, get real, a child hitting his best frind because HE got the green glass, or shoving a bean up his nose, or.... etc. How "smart" is that? Thor >Thor wrote: > > Be serious. CAPABLE of being smarter, yes. CAPABLE of learning more, > > faster, yes. But smarter denotes accumulation of information & ability >to > > use it. > >Well, I guess that drives a stake between your opinion on intelligence and >mine (and MW's). If intelligence is how many dates of famous battles you >can recite off by heart, how many times tables you can regurgitate, how >many A's you can get on your report card - then obviously the person who >has lived longer has the more information at his or her disposal. However, >true wisdom - that is, the state of being Wise (heck, `It's a Wise Child'!) >is something that I believe certain people are born with, an intangible >which cannot be eroded or changed from birth but just covered or uncovered. >I think this is the sort of intelligence Salinger intended us to believe >Seymour has - however, the innate difficulty in portraying such a hazy >value seems to have led him to plump for a more `worldly' wiseness for >Seymour. > >Camille >verona_beach@geocities.com >@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 >@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com