Re: Smart kids, (was Hapworth)
Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Sun, 23 May 1999 01:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
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