We portray ourselves as happy in public to cause jealousy in the Other. That jealousy gives us the a posteriori joy we pretend to experience a priori. But the a posteriori joy is private, because to publicly enjoy that jealousy would attract widespread condemnation, and cause us to feel guilt.
My final assignment, originally thought to be due November 29th, turned out to be due November 21st. However, a peruse over the paperwork confirmed that I had simply mis-remembered the actual date of November 27th as the due date—meaning teacher had it all wrong and had to go by the paper she handed everyone. Hurrah.
Sidenote, I think I’m going to shoot my final assignment on film.
I’m also in dire need of a model(s) to collaborate with over a series of shoots for the next 3 weeks, so if anyone knows anybody in the GTA/Guelph-Tricity area, do tell.
Finished writing my lecture “What is Revolt?: A Fragment to Establish an Ethical Base for Revolution” in which I talk about (a) that “revolution” is not as controversial as anyone thinks, (b) why revolutions have failed in the past, (c) a new definition for “revolution”, and (d) ethical bases for revolutionary aims.
What’s your point about (C)?
…Re: (D) :
I think the fallacy of remaining “ethical” has to be completely overwritten.
The #1 argument, for example, against veganism being morally superior is that “animals are not equal to humans”. Asking “why not?” comes down to a series of subjective value claims and “objective” claims about their psychical capacities (abilities to feel pain, emotion, etc), providing justifications therefrom. These claims maintain such a position in order to remain morally consistent within that system of ethics.
I abandoned such an attempt some months ago. I see no position of moral continuity between condemning human murder and tolerating animal slaughter, though some people do. We condemn murder because, both logically and according to doctrine, no person can be proven deserving of that fate by another person. In short, all are equal, and their worth as such is affirmed with the invocation not to kill each other in recognition of that (and this can (dis)proven with all kinds of logico-moralo-legal theatrics to any extent you desire). Those logico-moralo-legal thearics are equally applicable to the animal kingdom, although such theatrics are now more easily applied when back with the ‘scientific’ ability to ‘measure’ such things as empathy, desire. joy in animals.
But animals appear exempt from this, and they must be, in order for one to claim it’s OK to kill them and remain morally consistent. If one abandons the attempt to remain morally consistent—which I have, wholesale—it amounts to admitting one is immoral and calls into question one’s code of ethics, which we all naturally seek to avoid. This raises my own question: Why do you believe an ethical basis of revolutionary action is necessary?
If we instead admit that we are being unethical—which, ironically, the Church was perceptive enough to recognize the necessity of providing a framework for—then what difference does the procession (through revolution…) make?
What makes the concept of moral exemption ironic is that, in seeking to avoid an ethical conflict through a self-serving delimitation of the ethical sphere, one has only cheated themselves of the opportunity to actually do right by the deed: in denying the ethical violation, one can never apologize for a misdeed because it was never viewed as wrong in the first place. Witness USA’s drone bombings; animal slaughter; abortion; fly killing; questionable arming of rebels partaking in civil war; police’s swiftness to react with deadly force; wiretapping. I’m not saying they’re morally equivalent—I’m saying they’re morally justified in the same way by whoever commits these acts because they’ve provided themselves an ethical framework for themselves which allows it.
The basic problem here is in allowing one’s self to violate those ethical horizons one sets; I violate mine all the time. Meat is murder, but as I’ve pointed out, I never claimed not to be partaking in murder.Nobody has challenged me on this point yet, because such things are sensitive and many friendships are lost or preserved over the matter, and that point will fall on deaf ears if you don’t consider meat murder (although I don’t know what it is—telling that there is no word for this).
The next irony is that even while there is massive enjoyment in breaking the rules and doing what one is not supposed to (id>superego injunction), this seems to genuinely not apply, and I suspect it is because of socialization and ideology. The obvious interest in maintaining this charade is that, when the state invades 2 countries and annihilates half a million people over the course of a decade, it would prefer not to be susceptible to moral enquiry. Such an ethical framework, however fragile it may be, must be in place in order to justify the action. Many are held to account by the State, but the State should never be held account by the many. (However, isn’t it an immense load off the shoulder when ceases to pretend to moral supremacy? When one genuinely no longer claims to be perfect? “Nobody is perfect” is often used to excuse mere mistakes, but never intentional harm.) This is one proviso that democracy never bothered worrying about, perhaps because ‘it’ subconsciously saw the perniciousness of such moral congruity: Democracy has always and only functioned with a very myopic regard for history, and a tenet like that would never let it unsee or forget past transgressions. Democracy’s real crisis would thus not be the “excess” of public participation, as the “elites” are said to fear, but would be in having atone for its sins. In this sense, God has not been dead since 1882—but rather since 1776.
A Conversation Last Saturday
Owner: Greg, you didn’t complete this past month’s test…
Me: Yeeeeah, I know. I just haven’t really been … involved here that much, y’know?
Owner: You can’t not do the tests. They have to be done.
Me: Well, you haven’t really provided the conditions to do them—we’re not scheduled with much overlap in shifts, they aren’t very long, and I’m only here twice a week. So.
Owner: If you don’t have time during your shift you can—
Me: I’m not doing them at home.
Owner: Other employees do them at—
Me: That’s not my problem.
Owner: OK, but they have to be done. I know you can do them. When they aren’t completed, it hurts my bottom line.
Me: [redacted], if you notice I’m not performing up to the standards, perhaps you should read it as a symptom of a broader problem.
Owner: … Just get them done. *leaves*
Me: Have a good one!
Q:So you would never see yourself having kids?
This is related to the post I just commented on, huh?
That’s not what I said. When I say “well, duh”, it means that people always have to excessively display outward appearances of happiness or contentedness in their decisions—especially with choices that are life-changing, unpopular, or otherwise come with some kind of stigma.
I know too many young moms. The binary difference between heaven/hell is collapsed when you become a parent—your heaven is hell and vise versa, in that there are so many sacrifices, challenges, and trials that you endure it causes constant questioning of your wisdom and future and kids’ futures. It reshapes your life from one you live to one you live for: having an existence de-centred from yourself completely changes the meaning of everything you do, and nobody can ever say with any confidence whether they’re willing to make that jump.
But it’s almost a moot point, because as every parent—except the utterly sociopathic—will attest, even the parents whose lives are in complete shambles and have no idea how to be parents, their lives effectively are their childrens’.
One goes from a great confused anarchic mass of desires and ambitions to one that is essentially a fascistic unification of those things oriented to one pursuit when they become a parent. With having all those eggs in one basket, it’s no wonder one feels a little at risk or insecure with their decision.
I had this idea to make a film about 2 soldiers conscripted into border-guard duty during the Cold War where it’d briefly follow the lives they’re instructed to live, officially as sworn enemies to the country on the other side—then someone sorta went and made a fuckin indie game on a similar premise. Bravo.