Our take on Lydia Forson's text on the Kennedy Agyapong controversy - Part 4

We shall conclude this four-part series by reinforcing the notion that the occasionalist argument, rather in some peculiar ways, tend to derationalize man’s natural compunction about readily admitting to or taking existential responsibilities for anthropogenic conundrums, shortcomings and weaknesses.

That element of derationalization defers mortal weakness, instead, to a higher transcendental authority whose proof of existential materialism lies quite beyond the limiting quantum of human imagination.

This occasionalist paradigm therefore tends to provide easy alibis for the divine formulation of clerical misogyny.

This hypothetical conclusion, we strongly believe, may not have easily or readily come to the reader by way of a casual or cursory perusal of her sophisticated, exquisitely-written text.

But it was right there in the pages of her text.

Indeed, hers was not a sophistical pontification per se but rather an exquisite formulation of logical soundness carried on the ever-flowing wings of rhetorical ornateness, of a discursive platform of intellectual fluidity.

Generally, then, a non-materialist approach to understanding human psychology is quite a sophisticated methodology, an idea to which Madam Forson may have unconsciously appealed regarding the central question of the occasionalist paradigm which, she, unfortunately, did not pursue to its fullest zenith of analytic maturation, rather choosing the easy route of the so-called “Principle of Parsimony.”

Yet, the idea of parsimony makes for an easy interpretation of the very concept of a non-materialist causation in human affairs and how this fits into the flowing gridlock of the occasionalist paradigm and that of its concomitant variable, mortal escapism from the encircling shackles of a non-materialist universe beyond the fluidized finite consciousness of human intellect.

Moving beyond the analytic shores of our simplistic arguments, therefore, let us just say it is also quite possible that the unnerving clarity of Madam Forson’s auctorial signature on questions of critical theory, cultural criticism, and feminist theory may not yet have even come across as worthy of digestion by and to the unrefined, uneducated mindset of Ken, who may not even subscribe to the occasionalist thinking.

For Madam Forson’s beautiful mind, like game theorist John Nash’s, is light-years ahead of Ken’s simple mindedness. At this point in time it is not even important or necessary if he does.

What is rather important to us is that he should provide supporting evidence for his sensational allegation, a submission we think will go a long way to clear his name as well as of charges that he is a sadistic, uncouth male chauvinist, a sexist and a misogynist who is not fit for any public office in the land.

Even if he had the evidence, the way and manner he went about its disclosure was diplomatically wrong.

It was not for the court of public opinion to adjudicate this serious matter on a sensational breach of public office.

When allegations about his vast source of wealth being sourced or traced to illegal dealings in narcotic drugs surfaces, Ken has forcefully resisted that and demanded evidence from his critics, detractors and enemies.

Why the double standards now?

It is not as if the burden of proof lies with Madam Osei. Quite the contrary!

What is more, as a legislator he has a moral responsibility to ensure that the public office does not become a political brothel by way of dubious sex-for-role exchanges.

Ken’s sensational allegation is a serious matter with serious national security implications for the future of our dear country.

Thus, we cannot and should not turn a blind eye to them, of the national security implications, and the more serious attention we dedicate to them, the better for all of us and for our dear country.

The country seems to be already on the verge of moral anarchy, in a festering mood of potential conflagration, namely, and thus any little shift in this relatively managed or controlled paradigm of potential conflagration toward popular angst and disaffection can burst our bubble of complacency and, possibly, set the stage for a grand tour of or return to the immortalized ashes of the Rwandan Genocide.

For now, though, the burden of proof lies with Ken and he must do well to answer to that burden of proof.

As for the hypocritical nature of our cultural politics of equalization the least said about it, the better. Fortunately for us, Madam Forson covered that terrain so well, so pointedly, like no other.

In the final analysis, we call for all progressive men of goodwill to join hands with our women to resist this misogynistic culture of ours.

It is only expedient that we reinforce the separation between religion and state, that we do away with political theology in our secular politics, and that our clerics tone down on their pulpitry of misogynistic rhetoric.

All hands on deck!

Let us all learn to follow the teachable example of Madam Lydia Forson, one of our beautiful actresses and public commentators, a glamorous and confident woman with a very sharp cast of mind.

She reminds us of the younger version of late rapper Tupac’s “Dear Mama”!”

Truly, Madam Forson is a beautiful mind cast in the mold of the movie, “A Beautiful Mind.”

End of series!