911 and 77 (21)
In the philosophical book "The Prophet" there is a major blunder, actually maybe two in a row. The author, Kahil Gibran, says something like:-
The first is that to be meaningful it goes like this
so he seems to have missed that point entirely and said a patently absurd nonsense instead. Then he compounds it with a ridiculous observation about the strongest link. I have quite a few words to say about this too.
There is no point in any chain having a strongest link as it's presence makes no difference to anything to do with the chain and in the life of the chain it's greater strength will never be tested, realised or appreciated for anything unless it leaves the chain and goes off and does it's own individual thing - that's why I started this website for example, but I digress, as is my wont, as you will note that I often tend to do which is actually what wonts are after all.
When any chains strength is tested or challenged then it will break. If it doesn't then use a more powerful machine. The point is that it will break at it's weakest link. So that's why non-aggressive people get bullied; join in (the chain) or leave 'cos otherwise the rest of the gang, the chain gang I suppose, will make you leave. That's more or less basic.
So the weakest link, to the totality and strength of any chain, physical or metaphorical, is the most important.
Similarly, in chess the weakest piece is the king but you lose the game if your king falls over.
That's life too, to some extent - unless you break free of all chains of course.
There is no situation that uniquely uses the extra strength that the strongest link has so you might as well just not have one and indeed you may never know if you ever had one in the first place. So that chain was probably made in China. Obvious really.
The strongest link's presence would be totally superfluous and wasted and I can tell you from experience that
he
it would be totally suspect from the start.
To make the point a little clearer. The sound of a tree falling on an isolated island with no living creature for thousands of miles around, probably, as a little aside, due to earlier atomic bomb tests having killed the living daylights out of even a cockroach, would present a far more useful contribution to the philosophical world than such a pointless link.
In fact it would be better if it were to be replaced by a link more matched to the others than for it to hang around with such a stereo typical bunch of manufactured, off the conveyor belt cloned and weak minded bunch of sheeple. In any case those other carbon copy
people
links probably have fascinatingly superior CVs anyway.
Moreover, in my own personal experience it is only these strongest links that stand on their own that are capable of grasping any simple idea that is not already a kind of thought-cliche; so why stick around huh.
Still, one has to acknowledge that these chains, most of which consist of links that are barely, if at all, stronger than the weakest link are what most people are truly attached to and a part of, for, isn't it also a fact that while each of us was born free and rates freedom highly, apparently, the truth is we are often bound like prisoners in chains that we ourselves create and maintain.
I know, I know, you just wear yours around your neck. The other popular use for them, historically, has been to flush toilets and to keep dogs where they belong. Did I leave anything out?
Paul E. Coughlin, March 2007
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
