"How lines do point all straight ahead, and make so certain one is good. But exist all lines as such, or paint we beastly plans with blood?"

-- Andrej Wasir Luoto

You see, dry sarcasm, on its own, is more than enough to confuse even the most intelligent of observers. Prevalent institutional modes of self-certifying intelligence provide no surefire method for unpacking the dryness of dry sarcasm, because dryness is by its very nature indistinguishable from solemnity. This problem is closely connected to the problem of unpacking decorum; that is, what are the reasonable limits and limitations of interpersonal propriety? Where do we abrograte malignant protocol in order to avoid becoming dangerously conciliatory, and where do we subrogate subservience to ruthless etiquette with demands for humane respect?

With respect to the most intelligent of observers then, what is meant by the proscriptive description "intelligent"? Acculturation has taught the intelligent observer that they are most clever, but it has done this precisely because the observer has successfully internalized the culture's patterns and norms. The intelligent observer is admired for admirably observing and emulating those things the culture admires. Is this necessarily intelligence, or, institutionally speaking, might it indicate an overdeveloped habit for irrationalism? Is this the kind of social setup we believe will always lead to the cerebration or celebration of reflective, progressive, or critical non-standard social commentary? The answer protrudes. When speaking in any direction -- perhaps sideways or upwards -- the non-standard speaker is subject to "the bulging eyes of puppets strangled by their strings." Bulging is the correct word.

"What rises up from the threshold here? He! he! suffer him not! What does he want in this holy spot?"

You see, the question is: if the logic and presentation are not parallel, then are they arbitrary? Is their purpose random? What are mirrors?

What we mean to ask is: is the dry sarcastic a Rube?

Spare if we might, a moment for ourselves, away from our Goldbergian machinations. Where is the harm? Such devices comfortably house all that we already believe, and no harm can come of thinking in some other direction -- perhaps upwards or sideways. The true harm is more likely to be in deed. That is, the true harm is more likely to be inside of the cherished devices themselves than anywhere else.

Schlimmbesserung, my feral intelligentsia.

You see?