Applying The Law Of Silliness
In the previous post I provided a rationale and suggested a guideline for how much any person should indulge in silliness. On reflection I want to elevate that guideline from the status of a “suggestion” to that of a “law.” Like the Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Unintended Consequences, or the newest rage among laws, the Law of Attraction. I’m tempted to call it “Richards’ Law” in the hope that the name will catch on and forever tie me to this important principle (like Murphy), but I’ll be happy enough to let go of that presumption if the law becomes famous and does some good.
Here is the Law Of Silliness: you have the right to enough silliness to make an ass out of yourself, but no right to more silliness than God intended for you.
When searching for examples of how to apply the law I thought about two recent experiences when The Scout and I dropped in on a “metaphysical fair” at a local new age bookstore and shop. There were people in small booths and at tables promoting theories, practices, and tools such as Reiki, yoga, various forms of meditation, Egyptian Healing Rods, and small silk purses which were apparently designed to communicate to your otherwise loose change how important it is to you so that it might attract more money.
Before I go any further with this, I want to establish my credentials for having any opinion at all about how silly any of this might be. At various times in my life I studied the Tarot and the I Ching in some depth, and practiced yoga and Tai Chi. I hired a Feng Shui practitioner to improve the flow of chi in my home. I even ventured into a place that bears were known to frequent in order to harvest my own set of I Ching yarrow stalks. So I am not totally naive nor habitually dismissive of ancient wisdom traditions or of methods that are often referred to as “New Age.”
Back to the metaphysical fair. Two happenings seem ripe for testing the Law Of Silliness. First, I overheard a woman who was the proprietor at one of the tables tell another woman, presumably a prospective customer, that she was selling, “The tools of the Buddha.” I’m not 100% certain of this, but I suspect that the only “tool” of the Buddha was his breath, and maybe also a bodhi tree and a river. I didn’t look to see what the woman was selling, feeling oddly embarrassed about the possibility of intruding on what sounded like a con. I’m sure the woman’s assertion was sincere, but it still sounded like a con. I’d appreciate being enlightened about this if I am wrong.
Second, a young woman in a tiny booth sat at the feet of a seated male customer. She was manipulating his toes and speaking to him. A sign at the opening of the booth advertised “toe-readings.” I don’t know what else to say about this, except to note that toe-reading seems to have gained some traction; a Google search turned up more than 22,000 hits. I don’t know anything about toe-reading and, to tell the truth, I don’t want to know anything about it. I recognize that I am leaving myself wide open for accusations of “contempt without investigation.” I am OK with that.
Now, about applying The Law Of Silliness. First, it says that I have the right to engage with “tools of the Buddha” and toe-reading even if I am making an ass of myself when doing so, which I am pretty certain would be the case. One obvious corollary to the Law Of Silliness is that God has no problem with me occasionally making an ass out of myself. I’ll pass on the “tools of the Buddha” and toe-reading anyway because, second, I am about as certain as I can be that engaging with either of those two enterprises would constitute more silliness than God intended for me.
As for the “tools of the Buddha” woman and the toe-reader, whether or not they are making asses of themselves is fodder for an argument in which I have no interest at all. Whether or not they are engaging in more silliness than their respective Gods intended for them is none of my business. Nice! The Law of Silliness can lead to a place of acceptance.
We all have to figure these things out for ourselves, and I hope I have amply demonstrated how the Law Of Silliness can be a useful tool in doing so.
__________________________________________
Thanks for reading. Leave a comment >>
Tags: Acceptance, Buddha, God, Law Of Silliness, Silliness, toe-reading
[...] Riding On Dragons » Applying The Law Of Silliness http://www.ridingondragons.com/?p=2850 – view page – cached #Riding On Dragons RSS Feed Riding On Dragons Atom Feed Riding On Dragons » Applying The Law Of Silliness Comments Feed Riding On Dragons McCain’s Attitude A Turn-Off The Limits of Silliness — From the page [...]
There’s a special kind of “silliness” that I would add, Dick; the kind familiar to the court jester. This isn’t so different from your post last March. The jester’s silliness contains a truth that may be hard for the sovereign or the sovereign’s court (us) to hear. The silliness is a subversion and mask that makes a truth more palatable — and sometimes actually more penetrating. As a jester I may make an ass of myself in order to tell you something about yourself you need to hear. The joke has a point. The shadow version is a zinger across the dinner table that everybody but the recipient laughs at. The recipient broods and plots revenge. The more beneficent version helps us laugh at ourselves and continue to consider the message from the clever clown.
Silliness is similarly used in the story of the emperor who has no clothes. He makes an ass of himself so that we may all learn to be free of vanity and self-deception combined with power. I imagine one part of “what God intends” for silliness is exactly the wisdom coiled and waiting within the jest. The “wise fool” is one more of those archetypes that influence our collective lives. Perhaps Richards’ First Law of Silliness reflects that deeper source.
Well, but I’m just kidding, of course and I hope you didn’t take this seriously.
It seems to me that what you call the “wise fool” does stay within the limits of my law: willing and able to make an ass out of himself, yet doing what God intended for him–acting “on purpose.”
Your comment sent me scurrying to refresh my memory about The Fool, the first symbol in the Major Arcana of the Tarot. That brought on a new insight; that there is a silliness born of innocence (The Fool) as well as a silliness born of wisdom (the jester, the wise fool).
The former brand of silliness is the beginning of “The Fool’s Journey” from innocence to wholeness which is described by the sequence of images in the Major Arcana.
So, yes, it seems that my venture into the anatomy of silliness (there’s a book title) has “riding on dragons” written all over it! Thanks for launching the ride.