How could you probably
suggest that Fascist and barbaric dictate that all must be fair, before the
fact, in love and war? Must it not be MADE fair only AFTER the fact that these
heavy burdens are charged with the same dictates as the rest of Life is?
CLEARLY in a pursuit so engaging as love and sex only the most stringent moral
minds can be regarded as attractive and deserving, and I tire of that madness
that would haunt me otherwise. Nobody WANTS to be on the receiving end of this
injustice, so it is impossible to justify, ever. I never would submit to such a
conflict unless I were lied to prior to the fact. You cannot say that it is
justified because others seek only the same happiness which *I* seek, for it’s
clear that if my seeking this same happiness is just then they are INJUST by
inhibiting my own pursuit of it, and NO one can be justified in seeking it if
ANY one could ever be inhibited by the pursuit of it in the pursuit of it; that’s
just as mad as it would sound. The Categorical Imperative is not “treat others
in the way you THINK that they WOULD treat you, given power”, but “treat others
in the way that YOU DESIRE TO BE TREATED”. By that definition, yes: let me not
to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. True love cares little if the
woman is a bimbo or the man is a drug addict. It cares little if both sufferers
involved suffer from sheer delusion. If they’re happy, you can’t judge them,
yet no honest man or woman can be HAPPY leading a relationship which, by its
NATURE, causes strife, and to that same extent that we desire for our passions
to be VINDICATED by relationship, those same passions are VILIFIED, rightfully
so, when they inhibit the expression of an other’s passion. No two people can
bypass my rights and needs by some sort of emotivist conspiracy, and I will
NEVER be accused of harbouring their evil in potential form by those whose sins
are written all over their hands. The injured party must submit to no insult,
to add to injury, for being innocent and trusting, for one’s sole mistake to be
to trust, and for the fact that others, failing to atone for the mistake by
honouring the purity of the intent, to turn that same mistake towards lesser
purposes. What purpose could be lesser than a competition without the consent
of the competitors? What could be closer to rape? And what, fundamentally,
would be more repulsive to the sexual instinct in rational and altruistic
beings?? The injured critic is not blamed for one’s own misery, for no such
misery could ever have been self-inflicted. Criticism does not make for misery;
it barely even can be said that misery alone has caused it. Criticism is not
judged by the effect it has upon the critic, so how can the critic thus be
judged for the effect his criticism SEEMS to have upon him? Must we not conclude
that that same criticism was not the CAUSE of the misery, but rather that it
sought to remedy and to redress it? CLEARLY criticism must be judged not by
projection of “intent” upon the critic but a recognition of the critic’s TRUE
intent according to the facts which criticism has exposed in its responses to
injustice. What could be more moving, sympathetic, stirring or Romantic? After
all: those same Romantics who had deified Shakespeare knew that the purest of
heart was the unrequited lover, for in spite of total isolation, even from the
object of his love, he could pursue that love which did not alter when it
alteration found, which TRULY answered only to its own virtue and power,
knowing that consent was just conspiracy against its relatively noble nature. THAT
alone is fair in love and in war. Everything else is barbaric and absurd.
[({Dm.A.A.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment