My Sister of Wit and Humour,

I shall begin by giving you my thanks on a well-worded and clearly
well-thought post. My thanks are equally offered to Ryne for bringing
this subject to initial light.

That said, it is now my duty to offer an alternative to both of your
theories. Now, I must say that I agree with your words, Tiax, for a
refusal to act intelligently is in no way indicative of a lack of
intelligence, anymore than refusal to display love in public shows a
lack of love, or the refusal to laugh at a joke shows a lack of humour.
Indeed, the very statement that Denizens do not respond intelligently to
speech is an interesting enough logical leap as to warrant attention in
itself. Ryne, I must respectfully point out that the intricate and
infinitely complex Achaean language that we have been gifted with offers
an infinite combination of utterances. Let us assume that only a quarter
of these utterances are sensible ones (and I would be most grateful if a
mathematician would message me with what a quarter of infinite is). Do
you suggest that every possible combination, inflection and timing of
speech has been presented to each of the Denizens in the Realms? I would
humbly suggest that this is not so. Whilst I agree that the sheer number
of utterances that have been covered heavily suggest that your
hypothesis is correct, to state it as cold fact would be remiss of us.

But let us not be mired in such trivialities. Assuming that Denizens do
not respond to speech, and that this lack of response harks to a lack of
mental activity, we are still faced with Tiax's valid point that the
ethnocentric definition of intelligence is biased to the point of
uselessness, and into the frilly, pink hills on the other side.

Now, Tiax, let us consider your use of Humour as the distinctive factor
between us and the Denizens. I like it for a number of reasons. Firstly,
it is unfalsifiable. Consider the following example:

SYLVANCE: Why didn't you laugh at my joke? You don't possess Humour!
You're a Denizen!

TIAX: No... It just wasn't funny...

No more can I prove to you that something is funny can you prove to me
that that you did or did not find it so. Thus, your theory falls foul of
your own argument.

So now, I shall present mine own thought on it. Humour does not properly
fit the bill in our search for distinction, because Humour is simply a
small (if extremely important) facet of a much larger construct: Art.
Art is what seperates us from the denizens, for we possess it and they
do not. No, not art, not that piece of chalked rubbish that your
beautiful daughter brought home from nursery and forced you to hang on
your newly decorated wall, but Art, the thing that is above and beyond
all pieces of art, the very essence of Art and our very understanding of
it. Art is the appreciation of the whole, that the machine is greater
than the sum of its parts.

So, Sweet,
Sleep...
Sleet's Steep
'Neath Sleek Feet

Poetry or poverty? Rhyme or rubbish? Nuance or nonsense? You may choose
either or all of these definitions of that small piece, yet what is
important is that you can choose. You understand that whether or not the
words inspire ire or admiration in you, together they are more than just
words. My friends and Achaeans, all of us are Artists for we can
appreciate art and we possess and are possessed by Art. We have an
internalized understanding of the macrocosm and our small part in it,
and we are able (with great skill or pitiful lack thereof) to express it
externally. Do the Denizens possess Art? Personally, I would say that
they do not. And my argument is all the better, for it is unfalsifiable.

In Song and Service to Sapience and Selene,
Sylvance DeFleur

Penned by my hand on the 5th of Ero, in the year 408 AF.