People keep asking me what this post is about...
It's about me - my relationship with my brother; his wife.
It's about my role and place at work.
It's about all the close male friends I have and how the lines get blurred and despite this I stay on the right side of the line no matter how I might feel inside.
It's about me respecting said people and not naming them!!
It's about me accepting my life - and the way I have chosen to live it even if at times it is to my detriment.
It's about me saying - thanks to a song that I keep listening too - I am with you - whoever you are - reading this and who/whatever that makes you in my life.
On the whole I am content with my odd relationships - just moderately frustrated that when I go home and close the door there is always an overwhelming silence bar the voices in my head...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
name names, karoona - your readers want to know all the gory details.
Well this one does.
"I am with you - whoever you are"...it sounds like James Blunt.
Am I right?
if it a blurred line, how do you know when you are on the right side of it?
And what are your criteria for saying it is right? Moral? Aesthetic? Political? Mechanical?
Any more nude pictures coming up or do we have to keep wading through all this maudlin navel-gazing?
It is not Blunt. Ugh. Its Avril Lavigne which in hindsight is as bad - a adolescent with the words I relate too.. I'm a teen again.
In truth could've been that song or Naked or Complicated. But in light of certain other posts that seemed too obvious...
A known admirer - next time ur bored let me know and I'll send over the cd with the rest of the pix on...!!! Turbo comments!
But cheers for returning - the blog feels better already!
...and that's the beauty of the internet. Miles apart but close together. In keeping with the theme - far away, so close as U2 might say.
As for lines, they will be different for each and every one of us - we know when we've overstepped them.
And hey - navels rool!
when I asked you to name names I was not really thinking of the name Avril Lavigne but it is a start.
And please no U2 quotes - although I do like "Don't believe in excess / Success is to give / Don't believe in riches / But you should see where I live" from God part 2 (?) on Rattle and Hum, which is the only recorded instance of irony in a U2 lyric.
And lines are not different for each and everyone of baggy otheriwse morality would just be a matter of opinion which it plainly is not.
I do concur that navels - in particular the naked kind with a solarised effect do rule.
All the gory details?! You want me to out you?
All of you?
Ah, but we hadn't defined whether it's a moral line or not...
And you can indeed have your own moral standards and lines that differ from others. Surely morality is a matter of opinion - religious morals differ from secular morals.
it is not a matter of opinion that murdering people is wrong, baggy.
I fear you have been educated by the sort of right-on 60's teachers that have poisoned your moral development, along with those of so many young adults, with some sort of lazy post-modern, Derrida-esque relativism.
The only reason that standards can differ is that there is something to judge them against, which would not be the case if it was "a matter of opinion".
Maybe I need to re-draw my moral lines? I do not wish to cross any legal ones... mens rea and all that.
But I am liking the commenting dialogue/argument...!
Do pull up a chair Karoon!
...but, who imposes the standards against which we judge our morality? Someone's opinion of X at some point decreed Y was the baseline for a particular moral...
As the UK moves further towards becoming a permissive society the acceptable moral standards must have changed, and this can only happen if the majority is of the opinion that they should change.
So, yes, I'm basically arguing along the lines of moral relativism, but it doesn't mean I agree that an individual's morals can override all society's standards (which seems to be what you're implying - that would be an existential argument).
As for my being a victim of hippy poisioning I wouldn't fret too much. Generally I'm more formalist than relativist, but am of contradictory character, as Karrona will vouch. A lot of my morals sit more comfortably with the 1950's, probably due largely to the fact that I was taught just as much by my parents as my teachers, but was also happy to question their teachings.
Like Karoona, I've always felt that I'm slightly out of step and a little old-fashioned in many respects.
...but blimey, just exactly how old is a "young adult"?!
they are not imposed by anyone, baggy - they arise from the logic governing the use of the moral concepts rooted in our everyday language and actions. No-one decided that it was wrong to murder people, it just is.
This is a slightly caricatured way of putting it but it is along the lines of what I want to say - although hopelessly flaccid and lacking in rigour I accept.
I am not sure we are more permissive either -I think we just have a different way of talking about things from previous generations. I think I want to suggest that morality, like evolution, is horizontal.
Hippy poisoning did not just occur in the schools - its pernicious influence can be seen in all branches of society, baggy, so none of us are untouched. Even I have my weak moments and I am the most objectified person I know - or at least will be increasingly so, as I attempt to root out all subjectivity and become pure body - but that is for another comment entirely.
And I would say that adults are "young" until well into their 40s - this is one of our tragedies that we spend years being called adults long before we are such.
On a side note, I am very interested in what a formalist approach to morals would be - any clues?
Known Admirer please tell us more about 'pure' body...
Are you a magnet for the fairer sex?
a fridge magnet perhaps...
I shall comment on "pure body" but I am still developing the theory to fit the practice.
Post a Comment