Stupidity is considered non-banal because it has no limitations. Stupidity is unlimited, and unlimitedness favours craziness.

Wisdom is considered banal, because it must observe various limitations, for example laws of Nature or of logic. Wisdom is limited, and limitation favours madness.
Madness of wisdom and craziness of stupidity can be another very interesting topic worth profound and individual consideration.

The perspective of non-banality raises remarkably the attractiveness of stupidity. That’s why stupidity attracts so many people.

The perspective of banality reduces remarkably the attractiveness of wisdom. That’s why wisdom repels so many people.

Banality has many features. Not all are bad. Some are quite good.

Good features are less numerous than bad features, so all in all banality is considered bad, more bad than good.

Banality does not delight. Nor horrifies. Nor inflames extreme feelings. Nor provokes extreme opinions.

So, banality is wishy-washy, hence boring, according to an old and banal opinion.

Banality is not conspicuous, although we would exaggerate writing (and saying) it is unnoticeable.

Supposedly banality would like to be unnoticeable, then it wouldn’t have to feel ashamed of itself, but it’s not that easy. There is quite a lot of banality everywhere, too much to hide it, yet enough to blend into the scenery... What scenery? What can be and what is the scenery for banality? A very non-banal question.

Banality can be fascinating as well. Not only as a phenomenon. Every phenomenon is fascinating not only for a researcher who is studying this very phenomenon. A phenomenon is fascinating in itself.

Banality is based on repeatability and predictability. Hence it gives the feeling of stability and security. This is what is good in banality. Banally fascinating activities and their fascinatingly banal results.

There’s no need to write much about banality. Everybody knows what it is. Everybody would like to be non-banal, remarkable, wouldn’t they? Everybody considers themselves, overtly or secretly, non-banal. But it’s not like that. Everybody would like to differ from the others and be exactly the same. Does non-banality of stupidity is tantamount to banality of wisdom?

If stupidity is the opposite of wisdom, then all attributes of stupidity should be opposite to the attributes of wisdom, shouldn’t they? Is it so banally simple, or maybe it is a little bit non-banally tangled? The answer to this banally simple question is also banally simple: it is a little bit non-banally tangled.

Getting wisdom is painstaking. Mental and intellectual training is very painstaking, like getting the body fit. If we train zealously, we can expect some results. Getting the results is predictable, though the results themselves are not. Also unexpected discoveries are expected. The lack of expected and unexpected results is expected and predictable, too. And this is very banal. It just happens so, it is just like that. But the results themselves can be non-banal. We don’t know the result of an equation when we begin counting. If we knew it, we wouldn’t do counting. It means the banality of wisdom is really non-banal.

Stupidity is unpredictable. Stupidity surprises, likes to surprise. It’s not boring. It stimulates emotions. It needs no training. It is spontaneous, and spontaneity is appreciated very much, especially the imitated one.

Stupidity is dazzling. And dizzying. Can ravish. Delight. And so on. It has no sense to turn lecturing into listing.

It is quite surprising that the results of stupid actions are so easily predictable. More: they are known in advance.

Stupidity is very banal within its non-banality. Its unpredictability is perfectly predictable. Its excesses are boring, because they are very much alike, though everybody thinks they are unique and their routine remains unnoticeable. The span of the extremes stupidity moves in between is astonishingly small.

Non-banality of stupidity is ostensible.

Does it mean the banality of wisdom is not ostensible? No. It means the banality of wisdom is ostensible, too.

If stupidity was non-banal, would anything non-banal be stupid, too?

If wisdom was banal, would anything banal be wise, too?

These are not banal questions.

Let’s remember, commonness, or even omnipresence, is one of the main features of banality. While sparseness, rareness, is one of the main features of non-banality. This is in opposition to the commonness of stupidity and uncommonness of wisdom.

In spite of appearances wisdom is non-banal.

You want to be non-banal? Be wise.

But be careful. It’s dangerous.

It’s much safer to be stupid. To be banally non-banal within one’s own stupidity.



Lately I have read a book written almost two hundred years ago. This is one of the opening volumes of the giant cycle which, according to the author, was to describe the whole society of his epoch and country (other countries would probably need a bit different description, however the differences would refer to superficial matters). I don’t know if I read all volumes. I’m afraid my life is not long enough. Let alone this is not the only work of this kind. And he was not the only one who wanted to describe everything. He made this task less difficult having reduced everything to the human world which is in fact only a small part of the terrestrial world which is only a tiny part of the universe... But we are not going to analyse this problem right now, although it is not really as far from our considerations as it might seem. The book combines realism with fantasy. Well, it’s nothing wrong – fantasy is a vital and important part of the human world in any country and time. The history is quite simple, we could say and write “banal”, as though archetypical, because repeated in many other books, fables and tales written in different times, also in future. The virtuosity of the writer won’t cover this banality – virtuosity seems even too excessive, or maybe simple doesn’t suit to our contemporary taste. Nevertheless the style is not the point. Nor is the plot. The characters either. And the thorough analysis of social relations and human psyche. Something different is the point. Something apparently unimportant. Just a trifle. A young man, very well educated, even ready to devote himself to science (he wasted three of twenty five or six years of his life to write a huge philosophical treatise titled “The Theory of Will”), unfortunately plunged into all banal and unoriginal craziness of young age, suddenly and unexpectedly becomes the owner of a magic talisman. This is a patch of leather, a kind of shagreen, with a piece of calligraphy on it. The phrase tells that anybody who accepts the conditions of this “contract” will get the power of making his wishes real. However, every realised wish will cause the leather to shrink, and together with it his life will shrink, too. So, a classical, typical, banal devil’s pact. Of course the young man mocks the warnings of the old antiquarian and takes the leather. But very soon, almost at once, the leather makes his first wish uttered loudly real. It’s very easy to guess money is the point. Our hero is poorer than a beggar and even wanted to commit suicide having lost his last thaler in a gambling den. Now, in a twinkle of an eye, he becomes incredibly rich. Banally rich. Having learnt the horrifying power of the leather, and the curse of his fate, he imprisons himself in his huge palace and gives up all wishes and desires. This is a very interesting motif. It may seem that not banal. To be able to want nothing he fixed a very precise timetable, both for himself and his servants, to let everybody know perfectly well what they have to do, and thus to avoid any questions, otherwise his would have to make decisions and give orders which could possibly contain some shades of desires and wishes (for example today I would like to eat a crayfish soup). And now we touch the heart of the matter. We should expect much more from the man who spent three years writing an enormous treatise – unless we find he was training his will. Nonetheless somebody who had an intellect so well trained should have checked the leather and, knowing that its size and his lifespan were connected inextricably, uttered the following wish: “My dear shagreen, I want you to shrink never ever”. This would be really non-banal. Non-banally wise. And more elegant than the banal wish: “Make me immortal, please”.

Well. Once again banality and stupidity have won. Once again our hero plunges in love, this time reciprocated, which doesn’t save him but destroys since wishes and desires proliferate quickly. The fuddled mind can’t think clearly. Doubtful if it ever could.

The end of the story is banal and predictable – a different end would be sheer fantasy which had nothing common with allegory, symbolism or grotesque. The author should not be blamed for that. He only wanted to describe the world as it was.



<<<