Cultural shift from “The Ugly Duckling” to “Lulu Is A Rhinoceros”

The cultural shift denotes, in part, going from the logical law of identity to the illogical assertion of self-identifying.

In other words, the law of identity affirms that A is A and so A is not non-A: a thing is that which it is, regardless. Regardless of whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, deny it or not, or are even aware of it or not—a thing is that which it is regardless of anything else, a thing is that which it is absolutely.

The shift has been from, say, a person being that which they are—man or woman, male or female (with historically a statistically very, very, very few suffering from genetic problems that would place them somewhere in between the binary)—to being that which they self-identify as being, regardless. Regardless of the three dimensional verifiably demonstrable facts.

The children’s stories The Ugly Duckling and Lulu Is A Rhinoceros are perfect examples of this shift.

The Ugly Duckling was written by Hans Christian Andersen and published in 1843.

The bottom line of the plot is that a duckling suffers abuse and sadness because it is considered ugly, it absconds, lives with wild ducks and geese until the flocks is hunted, it absconds, lives with an old woman but is mistreated by her other pets, it absconds, and on it goes.

Finally, it suffers a miserable winter living in a cave, has by now fully grown, eventually sees beautiful swans in the nearby lake, decides to join them risking more abuse, but is accepted, it sees its own reflection in the water and realizes that, as it turns out, it never was a duckling, it was a swan all along and so takes flight with the other beautiful swans.

Lulu Is A Rhinoceros was written and published by Jason Flom in 2019.

I am going to bring Dr. Phil McGraw into this because he has done much to popularize this book. His website has it that it is “A Book For Kids Who Feel Left Out Or Are Bullied Because of Their Looks Or Feelings” which is right in line with The Ugly Duckling.

Dr. Phil, “decided to test the book out on some seven-year-olds it got two thumbs up in a big way.”

This means that adults are concluding that if little kids—in single digits of age—approve then, by golly, it must be right and good. Sure, this is good research for heartless and soulless sales focus PR marketing but that is devoid of whether the story is cogent.

Sections of the book are read such as, “I am Lulu. What I am not is a bulldog. In fact, I am not a dog at all: I’m a rhinoceros. But the only thing I don’t have yet, that I really, really want, is my rhino horn.”

Well, Lulu is—on any demonstrable level—a bulldog and has no horn for that very reason. Thus, at the very, very least: the dog is very confused.

Lulu tells someone, “Hi I’m a rhinoceros,” the reply to which is, “You don’t look like one to me,” to which Lulu says, “If I only had my horn they would finally see the real me.”

Yet, that is not the real Lulu and the fact that it does not look like a rhino is a hint that it is not.

Thus, Lulu seeks to augment its body to give the false and merely outward appearance of being that which it is not, “Let’s try this ice cream cone” to simulate a horn. The law of identity tells us that a fake horn is not a horn.

At one point, Lulu is told, “We’re in the rhinoceros enclosure so of course you’re a rhino.” Yet, of course, this is incoherent. Merely being in a location does not change reality. What if Lulu jumps in a lake: would that make it a fish, a duck, or a swan?

Lulu meets “a tick bird” who explains, “every rhino has a tick bird and every tick bird has a rhino” to which Lulu replies, “Except for me that is. Well, I don’t have a tick bird.” That is another red flag: tick bird can identify rhinos and they confirmed that Lulu is not one.

One of the unsuspecting little kids noted, “I love the book because it’s loving people and accepting people.” Another said, “I love the book because it felt like the book was like loving us and like saying it’s okay you feel like that so we’ll let you be it.”

BTW: they were clearly led to reply beginning with, “I love the book because…”

Now, Flom got the idea for the book from at least two sources, “he says the inspiration came from a trip to South Africa” about which he notes, “a group of U.S. military veterans who are in Africa arresting poachers breaking up poaching rings saving the rhinos and the elephants…I got to get up close and personal with rhinos.”

Wait a minute: are U.S. military veterans able to actually identify rhinos and elephants or are their rhinos and elephants enclosures actually filled with dogs?

You see, the premise is true which makes his conclusion false: the premise is a very specific and demonstrable distinction between rhinos and elephants and dogs but Flom’s conclusion is that there is none—at least not in the realm of self-identification.

Now, having been “up close and personal with rhinos,” he should also have noticed that letting a little dog into the enclosure would have been potentially very dangerous if the rhinos got territorial or even rolled on the dog during play or while they were coating their bodies with dust/mud.

This is because Lulu is not a rhino no matter what it think and no matter how it augments its body to give the appearance of being that which it is not.

The other inspiration was well, here is how he describes it:

“I was on the couch with Lulu, my bulldog, and I was telling her about the trip…so I’m sitting there talking to Lulu, tell her about the trip she looks me right in the eye, doc, and she says, ‘Well, I’m a rhinoceros too.’

I said, ‘What are you talking about? You’re obviously a dog: you’re small and furry and you’re on my couch.’

And she looks me back in the eye and she says, ‘Well, can’t you see I have short legs, a big body and a flat head, I only run fast for short distances and I’m clumsy.’ And she says, ‘And I burp and snore and fart like a rhino: I’m a rhino.’

So I said, ‘Well, in that case let’s tell the story.’”

Second to not being an adult concluding that if little kids approve then, by golly, it must be right and good would be being an adult concluding that if little dog says it then, by golly, it must be right and good. Now, I have no idea if Lulu the dog is his occult familiar, or whether after such a long trip he was hallucinating, or whether this is just a tall tale (or, short tail) but such is what he claimed.

Thus, he set out to, “create a little hero for kids who feel left out, put down or bullied because the way they look the way they feel or the way they are.”

One key issue is, “If they look in the mirror which is, you know, the real key, they look in the mirror and feel different than what they see. This is something that they can relate to and see in their minds and it can be very cathartic for them to experience this.”

This is very, very, very important since there are diagnosed psychological problems such as body dysmorphia which denote just this: seeing verifiable evidence of what one is but denying it and option for what one things one is.

This violation of the law of identify used to be treated via therapy since it is clearly a form of delusion and leads to all sorts and levels of conflict—inward and outward—which stem from and result in cognitive problems, emotional problems, psychological problems, etc.

Yet, Dr. Phil stated, “I highly recommend it, I psychologically endorse it, I think it is great.”

That he can say, with a straight face and not a worldwide audience, that he psychologically endorses a book that encourages living in delusion by leaving a person, children, untreated and not have his license pulled instantly is utterly shocking and yet, indicative of the of the anti-science and anti-logic times in which we live.

This is part of why I wrote a book subtitled, “and a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology” because the psychiatric and psychological literature is very open about admitting that they have been changing diagnoses and treatment (or, forgoing treating that which they used to treat) not due to science, but due to socio-political activism.

It is utterly heartbreaking that a person would look into a mirror and have a conflict about what they see there at the fundamental level of having a clash of identities. Such people need love, prayer, and some sort of therapeutic assistance.

Encouraging such tragically conflicted people to accept delusion is no solution.

This denotes a fundamental cultural shift from a children’s story about how the resolution is to accept actual reality, to a children’s story about how the resolution is to accept delusion.

The Ugly Duckling is about an animal accidentally self-identifying as that which it was not—it did not know any better.

This case of mis-self-identification led to a lot of problems.

It was considered an ugly duckling compared to actual ducklings since it was not a duckling but was thought to be one due to its self-identification—and since it was not yet full grown and thus, not obviously identifiable as a swan.

The resolution of the crisis was that it came to realize and accept that which it really, actually, demonstrably, was and not that which it self-identified as being.

The resolution was that the self-identification matched up to the law of identity.

Lulu Is A Rhinoceros is about an animal accidentally self-identifying as that which it was not—it did not know any better.

This case of mis-self-identification led to a lot of problems.

It was considered an ugly duckling compared to actual ducklings since it was not a duckling but was thought to be one due to its self-identification—and since it was not yet full grown and thus, not obviously identifiable as a swan.

The resolution of the crisis was that it came to realize and accept that which it really, actually, demonstrably, was and not that which it self-identified as being.

The resolution was that the self-identification matched up to the law of identity.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.