Posts, Pictures, and Pointless Ephemera
I have no bosses, and none of my bosses have bosses.
If every boss has a boss, then there must be a First Boss that has no further boss and bosses all things.Furthermore this First Boss must boss himself, so that there isn't an infinite regress of bosses, stretching out into eternity.
It seems that the first boss bosses all things.On the contrary, to the child's question 'does everybody have bosses?', it is said by the Father, 'No.'
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
No fight necessary!Not everyone has a boss, because the First Boss is a someone and does not have a boss. So the Father is correct, and there is indeed a First Boss who bosses all things. If there were, however, entities apart from the First Boss who by a rebellious and disorderly nature had no bosses, it would be necessary to bring them by whatever means necessary into the World Order and so under the governance of the First Boss.
Wait, now I'm confused. The First Boss is first and therefore has no boss. But the First Boss is also a boss, and therefore has a boss (herself,* but a boss nonetheless). Is there a meaningful reconciliation of this apparent contradiction?* A little sump'n for the ladies.
One might reject the claim that the First Boss bosses herself in order to escape this contradiction.However, I think that there are two different senses of "having a boss": having a boss distinct from oneself, and being one's own boss. Being one's own boss is a way of not having a boss, just as being one's own master means that one does not have a master.Does that sound acceptable?
If not a contradiction, an equivocation: 'boss' in the first question means 'boss other than one's self', while in the second it means 'boss as such.' Is the Father intentionally equivocal, to confound those without understanding?
Or there is no First Boss!!! It's all lies!! Lies!!
There is only The Boss.Bor-r-r-n in the U.S.A. I was bor-r-r-n in the U.S.A....