Thanks to All
Thanks to everyone who added comments to the fucked up Wed blog. I don’t know what it is about Wed…Yes I do – it is the day of the week when I can not escape the fact that I’m in way over my head.
In response to Ms. Kaka – I’m working on the real monkey…to Mike K – even the unedited Star Wars scripts make more sense than this shit, so you’re totally right…to Elise – this stuff is supposed to hurt your head, your soul and don’t forget your ass…Josh – while I’m not convinced by your interpretation, what impressed me is that you were able to present a plausible interpretation of BGE in something resembling simple, declarative sentences. That’s far better than I did with my statement of the problem in the initial posting. What I’m not convinced by (maybe that’s too strong) – what I’m still not sure of – is what it means to “overcome” the old notion of good and evil – and, more to the point, what Nietzsche understands with respect to morality and “the individual conscience.” I keep thinking about Nit’s statement from the Birth of Tragedy: “Art, not morality is the true metaphysical activity of man.” (or some such stuff…). See, is this the “pure” notion of existentialism suggested in your thoughtful response – and if it is – why is so much attention paid to the “errors” of the past? Why talk about Socrates and the “Platonists”? Why talk about the Christians, the new Platonists and the ills they’ve brought to “good Europeans”? Why draw our attention to philosophy as such?
Anyhow, thanks to all for the help. It is comforting (somehow) to know that you guys read this crap and seemed to understand why I was confused. That is something like a start.
On another front – we had a great practice last night. This does not bode well for the show. Anytime we do well at practice the show following the great practice SUCKED (and we have a large n here – almost ten years worth of trial and fucking error). Fortunately we were wearing down by the end of our practice – the Old Pyle was kickin’ in.
In response to Ms. Kaka – I’m working on the real monkey…to Mike K – even the unedited Star Wars scripts make more sense than this shit, so you’re totally right…to Elise – this stuff is supposed to hurt your head, your soul and don’t forget your ass…Josh – while I’m not convinced by your interpretation, what impressed me is that you were able to present a plausible interpretation of BGE in something resembling simple, declarative sentences. That’s far better than I did with my statement of the problem in the initial posting. What I’m not convinced by (maybe that’s too strong) – what I’m still not sure of – is what it means to “overcome” the old notion of good and evil – and, more to the point, what Nietzsche understands with respect to morality and “the individual conscience.” I keep thinking about Nit’s statement from the Birth of Tragedy: “Art, not morality is the true metaphysical activity of man.” (or some such stuff…). See, is this the “pure” notion of existentialism suggested in your thoughtful response – and if it is – why is so much attention paid to the “errors” of the past? Why talk about Socrates and the “Platonists”? Why talk about the Christians, the new Platonists and the ills they’ve brought to “good Europeans”? Why draw our attention to philosophy as such?
Anyhow, thanks to all for the help. It is comforting (somehow) to know that you guys read this crap and seemed to understand why I was confused. That is something like a start.
On another front – we had a great practice last night. This does not bode well for the show. Anytime we do well at practice the show following the great practice SUCKED (and we have a large n here – almost ten years worth of trial and fucking error). Fortunately we were wearing down by the end of our practice – the Old Pyle was kickin’ in.
posted by edP | 7:28 AM
2 Comments:
To clarify:
Every time I read a book I interpret it to reinforce my beliefs. I think that everyone does this; at least I'm aware of it. If I'm not getting anything out of a text I'll just stop reading.
I'm sure that that's what I did with BG&E, so I think it's only fair to frame the discussion as "my beliefs".
I consider institutionalized ethics to be detrimental to happiness and success. These are abstract concepts implemented to control thought and behavior, and I'm not buying into it.
I believe that moral concepts are ephemeral in nature. The majority defines the concepts of right/wrong, appealing/repulsive, good/evil, etc. These constructs are not static, but rather, in a state of flux. It is the sociological "hive mind" that dictates these values. Different societies have different ethos, and if history had followed a different path our concept of these mores would be greatly different (as in Heinlein's "Book of Job").
I'm not a religious type, so I don't feel that any of the moral "laws" apply to me. I'm a self-centered prick, so everything I do is for my own benefit. I only associate with those I want to (or am being paid to) associate with. I don't kill because i don't want to pay the consequences. When I'm nice to people, I do so because it makes me feel good. I'm conscience of how everything I do is going to affect me. I don't consider if something is "good" or "evil" just if it's to my benefit or not.
For instance; Last night some yuppie-types pissed me off at the bar - I started a fight with them, then got THEM kicked out. That wasn't "good", but I have no regrets. I did it because I knew I could without repercussions. Does that make me a "bad" person? Well, probably. But it sure as hell doesn't bother me.
I'm an unapologetic social-Darwinist, existentialist, and all-around asshole. And that's how I like it.
It has served me (very) well.
---
Man, can I ramble on. I'll stop dumping trash on your e-lawn. It's just that I'm fascinated by this topic, and this seemed as good of place as any to spew my asocial opinion.
Q: Finally, regarding your bar example –starting the fight with the yuppies and successfully getting them kicked out of the bar: is this a blatant disregard for matters of good and evil – right and wrong – whatever…or is this just being naughty? Again, the difference seems to be important. Maybe I just want to get myself off the hook – because I do similar things – from time to time.
A: There ain’t nothing wrong with that. I just don’t think about it in those terms.
If I may focus a bit on this little nugget. It says so much...
The majority (society) says there is nothing wrong with yuppies being in Josh's bar. They are drinking where they wilt. But in Josh's circle of friends (us), yuppies stand for a lifestyle or code of conduct that is considered despicable. We simply don't share the same values. Josh shuns the values of society and hold the values of his group and/or self of higher regard and thrashes said yuppies. Society says "My word! Well I never!" but the sub-society in which Josh operates says "Huzzah! Our hero!" Even when he's naughty, he's nice.
BUT, we know yuppies to be big spenders. Does Josh do damage to the friends who work in his favorite watering hole by doing away with the foul young urban professionals? Probably not. There money's no good there. But I doubt this entered Josh's mind. Should it?
Finally, on the surface, the act of giving yuppies the boot is a self-serving act that merely makes Josh more comfortable at the bar he calls his second home. What may not be immediately apparent is ridding his sight of the striped shirt fools makes for a great drinking story - one which he may post to his blog, which brings him cheers and chuckles and generally makes him feel warm and efuzzy inside. Therefore, I suggest we talk more about shunning right and wrong and making decisions based on what makes for a better story.
Post a Comment
<< Home