from
 CHAPTER 0: THE HUGEST PIXIE-DUSTING
FAIRY THE TUTU COMMUNITY HAS EVER SEEN
or, THE TAO OF JEET KUNE DO
Hong Lieu

One of the bigger problems of which I have disagreed with the world-at-large lately is the notion of the scholar. The wizened sage. The guru. However or whenever you describe them, the intellectual posterity figures of every era have within them enough redeeming characteristics to accurately portray their person’s to cognitive facilities irrespective of era or any other superfluous notion. In other words, regardless of how or why you portray them, their central concepts remain. This person, this entity—I am not attacking them specifically. To be honest, I have no qualms with them whatsoever. I quite enjoy any sort of knowledgeable insight they may impart to me. Furthermore, I would go so far as to consider them authorities and bastions of pertinent information. However, it is their position as sole authority figures within the social intellect that I question. I know this may not sound like a horrible or particularly widespread problem, but it is serious and must be corrected. It is a problem that, undeterred and largely unnoticed of late, is beginning to grow ever more ominous with the passing of time. This is due partly to the recent trend of overspecialization and delineation with respect to fastidiousness. This phenomenon of unnecessary classification has led to quite the subjective interpretation of the terms “scholar” and “wise.” While this seems, in principle at least, a positive consequence whereby more members of the social “world-at-large” fabric could be represented metaphysically and ideologically, the effect of this increase in scholar-density has done nothing more than drive certain sections of the world-at-large to, rather than accept all as they wish to be, attempt to delineate and classify a subjective arbitrary standard for what is implied by a term such as “scholar” and other, less flattering words such as “hack” or “fitness celebrity.”