My Three "Laws"
-
It has been some time that I wish to really write about the so-call Three "Laws" which I have formulated, and why I decide to adopt them for the time being. The first disclaimer for me, is that they are just "laws" or rules, you may call it, and they are not meant to be dogmatic or even be fixed for the rest of my life. These are not silly little principles which I have to abide at all times, but nevertheless, it keeps my sanity at check. Since I am not a very good guy, I need some rules to check my honour at times. Since rules are meant to be broken at times, I would perhaps end up breaking one of these laws but that does not mean I actively seek to break it. I will try to abide it at all times, and would break it if there is circumstantial reasons to believe that it should be violated. The second disclaimer is that I would say that I don't have a rational reason in writing these three laws, but perhaps stem from a personal perspective on my way of life.
Let me state the three laws in the following order and discuss about them individually :
Law 1 : Never go after attached or married women.
This law is straight-forward and obvious, and of course, not all men abide by it. Why do I adhere myself to such a law? The first and foremost reason, is personal : I do not want to see another guy feeling the same way as I did, when my ex-girlfriend was "snatched" away by another man. I know how it feels, and how much it hurts and pains me at that moment of time. In short, do not unto others if you do not want others to do the same thing to you. The second reason is more about being honourable since the Chinese has a saying that a gentleman should never take away a loved one from another. My self-reflection tells me that I am not a gentleman, but I just merely to try to keep myself in tabs.
Of course, there are so many occasions where I ought to violate my first law, because I have an unusual affinity with attached and married women, since they love hanging out with me or date me out casually, as I am mostly harmless to them. I feel comfortable with them around to guide and advise me. Well, many times, I feel tempted to break the first law, yet the living thought of bringing someone a horrible situation is still fresh in my mind, hence I decided not to do it, and in that aspect, I feel that my conscience is clear. It is perhaps a tragedy in a long run or a comedy in a short run, to never be able to impress single woman on the good side of me. I have given up trying in that light, and decided that all women whom I am to know in the future are attached. That saves a lot of trouble, trying to get away with blind dates which ended in disasters or in futile state.
Law 2 : Beauty x Brains x Availability = Constant
Well, this law is very analogous to Newton's 2nd law of motion, only with one catch : the interpretation of women. Originally, it was circulated on the net with the original equation : Beauty x Brains = constant, which suggests women are either bimbos, or they have brains but no beauty. I did not agree with that judgement, and decided to modify the equation with an additional factor called availability, since I have met women with brains and beauty but they are no longer or rarely available at that point of time when I met them. Of course, the hardest problem was to determine the value of the constant. Various estimates have been given by using population statistics arguments, but the attempts failed because it is very difficult to quantify them. Sometimes, I ponder if it is the inadequacy of intellect as one might put it which makes so many women worry too much over trivial things. I don't think so, and I believe it is the triviality of soul - they really care about little things than about big ones. I suppose that it is one of the cynical lessons one learns in regard to most women, that they care more (or as much) for a smaller picture than for a big picture. I don't think it is intellect which is lacking in them but proportion in desire.
Law 3 : What u give to a gal is never equal and opposite.
Sad but true, and be realistic. It does not work that way. I have learned that thru many failed attempts. Yet, I still prefer to be the one giving. As I put it, love is not about possessing but about devoting your heart and soul to someone. Sometimes, I seek not to compel, but I felt that I lost out a lot, because I was not insistent enough. Perhaps, the secret key in winning a gal's heart is to be insistence and persistence together. Still, I will try to do my best to court a gal as much as I can, until I know that she has hit the "attached" status. Hence this law is to tell myself that I should not expect anything from trying to court someone. Of course, no expectations would mean no disappointments.
------------------
"I wish that I could have the love of a woman who could come to my life, lift me from sorrow, depression and loneliness, and push me to higher heights. However, love is not about finding someone to relieve you, but love is about you devoting your heart and soul to love that someone, even if you know that someone do not love you the way you do."
- Prodigal
[This message has been edited by prodigal (edited 03 September 2000).] -
The 1st law is a good 1 as i believe in the saying "Do not do unto other what you don not wish others to do unto you",hhhehe
------------------
Makan begins with a drool, grows with a chomp, ends with a burp.When you were born, you were hungry and everyone around you was full. Live your life so that when you die, you're the one full and everyone around you is hungry.
~~~
Diablo 2 rockzzzzzz -
ahhhh, mr specialist...tsk tsk, did told you that you are officer material.Originally posted by moose:The 1st law is a good 1 as i believe in the saying "Do not do unto other what you don not wish others to do unto you",hhhehe
------------------
The heartless and souless fool. -
Yeah,but too bad SAF doesn't think that way,anyway i am flattered,but i know where i stand,so now i am only a petty officer,ahaha
------------------
Makan begins with a drool, grows with a chomp, ends with a burp.When you were born, you were hungry and everyone around you was full. Live your life so that when you die, you're the one full and everyone around you is hungry.~~~
Diablo 2 rockzzzzzz -
I totally agree with the 1st & 3rd laws.
For the 2nd law, I dun understand it.
Heeheehee :p :p :p :p
------------------
~ JuSt AnoTher StiNgrAy iN thE sEa ~ -
Well, Stingray,
The 2nd law is to disqualify the claim by most men that women have either brains or beauty and not both. Hence it is a statement that we can always find one with both, but whether she is available or not, is another question.
Hmmm, Revey still did not manage to catch u and make dinner....
yours,
Prodigal -
Dear prodigal,
It is always a pleasure to read your thoughts and debate with you on your theories. Rules and regulations, havenÂ’t you had enough of those over here or is it really so lacking over there that some semblance of order is needed? Live and let live, as I say and to hell with these self-imposition rules! They are meant to be broken and since someone snatches your gal away, you should do likewise to others too. As the saying goes, do not do unto others what you do not wish others to do onto you. The motto has changed to since others did shit to me, I shall did shit back to others. Welcome to the real world buddy. Mother Theresa sucks and Machiavellian rules.
Law 1 : Never go after attached or married women.
What a bull of crock. It has never deterred other man from straying or coveting his neighbourÂ’s wife and it should not be a hinder to you too! Remember, this is a very ruthless dog covet another dogÂ’s bone world. You will only lose out if you do play by your own rules and hey, THERE IS NO RULES! To the winner goes the spoilt and my dear friend, the winner will be decided by the gal involved Darwinism works best in humans and there is nothing more evolutionary than mating and choosing the right one. Go! Chase! Pursue! Hunt! The moral lies with the gal, she is the one that has to make her choice, and you donÂ’t. You are only following your instincts, genes and love. Nothing could be more wrong than that. The maxim is survivor of the fittest. Thus, I shall decree the first law as,
THERE IS NOBODY YOU CANÂ’T CHASE.
Law 2 : Beauty x Brains x Availability = Constant
This is the most annoying law. Why? Because it is so true! Beauty and brains, it is by right a rare occurrence, the rarer still if it is still left on the shelf. This is a very cruel world my friend, you must always treasure it when you nab such stuff. I did, long time ago and my self-destructive tendencies stepped in and boom, all over. Up to this day, I am still cursing myself and I wondered hard if I will ever self-destruct in front so horribly again.
One thing though, you forgot to factor in Lady Luck. One never knows.
Law 3 : What u give to a gal is never equal and opposite.
My dear friend, of course! There can never be an equal and opposite reaction AT THE SAME TIME! Such things simply doesnÂ’t happen or why you think the guy got to take cold showers all the time and the gal grumbling that he is always more interested in the plastic black and white balls than her pinkies. Simply put, there will be a time when she loves you more than you does her. And vice versa. The trick to such thing is remembering itÂ…that both parties are capable of such strong emotions.
What u give to a gal is never equal and opposite at the same time.
------------------
The heartless and souless fool. -
testing
-
james,
its true that if kant and nietzsche were plunked into the same boxing ring, the latter will kick the former's Categorical Imperative arse with his Ubermensch boot. nonetheless, might is not right, and it does not make abiding by such a 'law' wrong.
prodigal,
what if there is mutual attraction between you and an attached girl. she is in an unhappy relationship but chooses to remain in the relationship for reasons such as history with the guy, loyalty and long sufferingness? will you still think its right to abide by your 1st law?
and when you say 'never go after an attached or married woman' will you allow for unmeditated circumstance? do you think you have broken your law if a sexual act is committed without prior planning? -
hey Terence..you are back
-
Dear James~,
What an interesting parody and perhaps a counter-argument to my 3 "laws". Perhaps, it is interesting to note that the difference in paradigm seen in people of today vs the people perhaps not far, but in our parents time. Let me first made clear that the three "laws" are not laws, but merely a set of guidelines which I choose to follow. I am sure that you have your set of guidelines. As I have said earlier, rules are meant to be broken, and one must not look at this set of "laws" of mine as some form of dogma, because when something becomes dogmatic, one forgets the meaning on why it is there for the first place.
More or less, I think that only the counter-proposal to the first law seems justified. Because the 2nd and 3rd law are more like observations than making really it look like laws. The 2nd law is merely a corollary saying that in this world, there exist a woman with both beauty and brains and the 3rd law, the action-reaction is not equal and opposite. So, there is no contention for that either. Hence I viewed your attempts to counter the 2nd and 3rd law were pathetic, because the statements are invariably clear as descriptive observations about things around us.
Let me take a step back and go back to the first law again. There is a different reason on why people chose to do it or not to do it. I am very clear why I adopted it, because I don't want to let someone suffer what I have been thru. For one thing, I think that it is not a matter of morality, but a matter of karma and retribution. One could approach the first law in a version that goes like this. Since u can snatch a woman away from a man like this, it is also likely that someday she will run away with another man in the same light to u. I am sure that you are going to say that it's not going to happen to me, or advocate a seemingly cruel world out there. However, when we are subject to the situation, are we really ready to accept the reality. Some people say yes and some people say no.
Recently, I have a very interesting discussion with my friend on this first "law", since I am reviewing a possible hypothetical scenairo of a couple breaking up because of difference in education level, and the third party is possibly more suitable for the gal, and the gal in the scenairo knew it as well. An immediate consequence of the law, for me, is that I would not break a couple up, as the Cantonese have a saying which goes like "I would rather teach a father to beat his son in order to educate the son, than to break up a couple" or "Ning Jiao Ren Da Zi, Mo Jiao Ren Fen Ci".
Well, the lucky thing is that I am the observer, so my friend posed the question to me : are u going to facilitate the breakup and would do anything to allow it to happen at the price that it has violated your first law? Then I realized what he is trying to say, because when a law becomes too dogmatic, a person forgets why he started believing in it in the first place. More or less, it led me to re-evaluate my own principles and come to a conclusion. In my own capacity, I would not ask my friend to break up with her bf, even though I feel that she is not compatible with him (and note that I may be wrong in making that value-judgement). I would say that to stay or not to stay is her choice, even if I know what is best for her. That is the point, we cannot stop people from making their choices on what kind of life which they want to live.
It is like saying something like this, let me construct an hypothetical case. Suppose I am interested in this girl, for example, our dearest Daddy's Little Girl, since she has a horde of suitors going after her, and finally I met her in real life and unfortunately she was attached, because I was at the wrong time in the wrong place, I did not manage to win her heart. I could choose to use all kinds of dirty tricks to win her heart and break her up with the other guy. But the problem is when we are finally together, and when she sees that I am not really the person whom she wanted, it would be hurting to her.
To breakup a couple is very simple, but to be with the person u love then and truthfully is difficult. If people really believe in true love, why do people have to resort to such tricks to win a person's heart? It is no longer because I love her, it is more likely because I want to possess her, and take her as a plaything. Using Colette's most powerful flaming argument known as the archivist technique, I recalled that u also said something about woman not being a plaything in your thread about "The Art of Pursue". Honestly, if I have to resort to win a r/s like this, I would rather stay single, at least, I am accountable to myself and my conscience is clear. I may feel bad about why I never did it, and envy the couples walking in the street, kissing and doing whatever they pleased. Nevertheless, it is better the sorrow of doing something wrong vs the long and impatient wait. That is the spirit of true love, because u love her, you choose to let go.
I can bitch or whine to you about the terrible situation which I was in when someone did this to me, but I learned to see it in a different way as I spent the year going thru a recovery period. Sometimes, I do ask myself the same question, perhaps, she has lost the love for me, and after all the chain reaction happened and caused irreversible damages, I realized that now, if I am still going to say I did love her at that moment of time and perhaps now keeping her a part of memory of me, I think I should let her go as well, because in the same way, letting go also meant that I let myself go and not dwelling in the past. Perhaps, I might be an unlucky guy to have it happening to me again, and I don't know how I would react to it again, but at least, I know one thing, I never did anyone any wrong and I can still live my life without being fearful to my own sins. But using your Machievellian or Nietzsche reasoning, can you? I don't think so.
yours,
Prodigal -
bohemian,
Kant and Nietzsche doesn't need to get into the boxing rings to sort out their debate. Both probably can attracts gals with their fanciful ideals, whether they are married or attached. hell, if i am a modern Kant, i would most likely be shagging some barmaids at the local pub right now, not sprounting my love (or lack of it) agony here.
might is still everything. with power comes respectability...and women.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bohemian:
[B]james,
its true that if kant and nietzsche were plunked into the same boxing ring, the latter will kick the former's Categorical Imperative arse with his Ubermensch boot. nonetheless, might is not right, and it does not make abiding by such a 'law' wrong.
------------------
The heartless and souless fool. -
Well, Bohemian, my old friend,
*grin* Welcome back. Well, I would use a more modernized way to deal with James' statements on his might being right, by using Sokal's claim that an idea is irrefutable does not necessarily imply that it is true in the first place.
Let me tell u a story of mine, but perhaps, it provide my answer and perhaps it might not.
what if there is mutual attraction between you and an attached girl. she is in an unhappy relationship but chooses to remain in the relationship for reasons such as history with the guy, loyalty and long sufferingness? will you still think its right to abide by your 1st law?
and when you say 'never go after an attached or married woman' will you allow for unmeditated circumstance? do you think you have broken your law if a sexual act is committed without prior planning?
Years ago, I have met a girl who possessed what I wanted in my life. She has beauty and brains and she and I cliqued very well. However, there is a problem. A close friend of mine and I were both interested in her at the same time, but we hang out very well. Finally, she was having difficulty in choosing. But I figured out that she is happy with the other guy, giving that their backgrounds in terms of wealth (they both came from very rich families) are pretty similar. So I dropped out of the race. We still hanged out as good friends.
Until one day, the guy did something really wrong to the gal, by sleeping with another gal. They broke up and being the family friend, I have to counsel both of them. There was a night, where she drove me up to a hill, because she needed someone to talk to. So, I accompanied her, and we both started drinking. There was a point of time where something almost happened, and I could have been with her in the end. (I will leave u to imagine what happened). The ending is that, I was only high but not drunk, and I dumped her into her car, and took her keys, and let her rest inside while I slept on the bench outside the park. I would not tell u the remaining part of the story but what I did eventually was to patch them up together and they did get back because they loved each other, but there was always a time when I ask myself whether I should have violated my first law because I could have seized the chance and did something, and I chose not to. U may call me stupid and my answer is that I never regret what I did, because on some level, I did love her, and to love someone is not about possessing it. Hence more or less, I think that you know what my answer will be if it has ever reached the point where the gal is attached, since in this place, the gal was technically not attached at that point where something can be done.
Actually, I don't know the answer myself, because I am still searching for answers myself. Perhaps, someday, I might violate my first law because of what u proposed as a hypothetical example. That would mean that one, I am very sure that she is the One for me or two, I just loved her so much that I could not let go of her. Nevertheless, I still hope that I will not hurt the other guy in the process.
yours sincerely,
Prodigal
[This message has been edited by prodigal (edited 04 September 2000).] -
Dear prodigal,
Forgive me if my arguments lack coherency and sounds like I am stepping all over my foot. I am tired and it is near 0200 over here. I am sick and tired of everything the world has throw me in my miserable 23 years of existence and worst still, my tutor is asking me to write an essay on Marx, Engels and historical materialism. I still persist my Bismarck theory ALA by iron and blood, that it is either them or me. I will not suffer gladly what heaven, gods or destiny has thrown me and I will be dammed if others broke the rules on my expense.
Sorry pal, the cynic in me believes in selfishness. ItÂ’s me versus the world and I owe nobody any explanations for my actions. Any consequences of my actions are not predetermined. You never know until you tried.
cheerio
james
------------------Originally posted by prodigal:Dear James~,
What an interesting parody and perhaps a counter-argument to my 3 "laws". Perhaps, it is interesting to note that the difference in paradigm seen in people of today vs the people perhaps not far, but in our parents time. Let me first made clear that the three "laws" are not laws, but merely a set of guidelines which I choose to follow. I am sure that you have your set of guidelines. As I have said earlier, rules are meant to be broken, and one must not look at this set of "laws" of mine as some form of dogma, because when something becomes dogmatic, one forgets the meaning on why it is there for the first place.
More or less, I think that only the counter-proposal to the first law seems justified. Because the 2nd and 3rd law are more like observations than making really it look like laws. The 2nd law is merely a corollary saying that in this world, there exist a woman with both beauty and brains and the 3rd law, the action-reaction is not equal and opposite. So, there is no contention for that either. Hence I viewed your attempts to counter the 2nd and 3rd law were pathetic, because the statements are invariably clear as descriptive observations about things around us.
Let me take a step back and go back to the first law again. There is a different reason on why people chose to do it or not to do it. I am very clear why I adopted it, because I don't want to let someone suffer what I have been thru. For one thing, I think that it is not a matter of morality, but a matter of karma and retribution. One could approach the first law in a version that goes like this. Since u can snatch a woman away from a man like this, it is also likely that someday she will run away with another man in the same light to u. I am sure that you are going to say that it's not going to happen to me, or advocate a seemingly cruel world out there. However, when we are subject to the situation, are we really ready to accept the reality. Some people say yes and some people say no.
Recently, I have a very interesting discussion with my friend on this first "law", since I am reviewing a possible hypothetical scenairo of a couple breaking up because of difference in education level, and the third party is possibly more suitable for the gal, and the gal in the scenairo knew it as well. An immediate consequence of the law, for me, is that I would not break a couple up, as the Cantonese have a saying which goes like "I would rather teach a father to beat his son in order to educate the son, than to break up a couple" or "Ning Jiao Ren Da Zi, Mo Jiao Ren Fen Ci".
Well, the lucky thing is that I am the observer, so my friend posed the question to me : are u going to facilitate the breakup and would do anything to allow it to happen at the price that it has violated your first law? Then I realized what he is trying to say, because when a law becomes too dogmatic, a person forgets why he started believing in it in the first place. More or less, it led me to re-evaluate my own principles and come to a conclusion. In my own capacity, I would not ask my friend to break up with her bf, even though I feel that she is not compatible with him (and note that I may be wrong in making that value-judgement). I would say that to stay or not to stay is her choice, even if I know what is best for her. That is the point, we cannot stop people from making their choices on what kind of life which they want to live.
It is like saying something like this, let me construct an hypothetical case. Suppose I am interested in this girl, for example, our dearest Daddy's Little Girl, since she has a horde of suitors going after her, and finally I met her in real life and unfortunately she was attached, because I was at the wrong time in the wrong place, I did not manage to win her heart. I could choose to use all kinds of dirty tricks to win her heart and break her up with the other guy. But the problem is when we are finally together, and when she sees that I am not really the person whom she wanted, it would be hurting to her.
To breakup a couple is very simple, but to be with the person u love then and truthfully is difficult. If people really believe in true love, why do people have to resort to such tricks to win a person's heart? It is no longer because I love her, it is more likely because I want to possess her, and take her as a plaything. Using Colette's most powerful flaming argument known as the archivist technique, I recalled that u also said something about woman not being a plaything in your thread about "The Art of Pursue". Honestly, if I have to resort to win a r/s like this, I would rather stay single, at least, I am accountable to myself and my conscience is clear. I may feel bad about why I never did it, and envy the couples walking in the street, kissing and doing whatever they pleased. Nevertheless, it is better the sorrow of doing something wrong vs the long and impatient wait. That is the spirit of true love, because u love her, you choose to let go.
I can bitch or whine to you about the terrible situation which I was in when someone did this to me, but I learned to see it in a different way as I spent the year going thru a recovery period. Sometimes, I do ask myself the same question, perhaps, she has lost the love for me, and after all the chain reaction happened and caused irreversible damages, I realized that now, if I am still going to say I did love her at that moment of time and perhaps now keeping her a part of memory of me, I think I should let her go as well, because in the same way, letting go also meant that I let myself go and not dwelling in the past. Perhaps, I might be an unlucky guy to have it happening to me again, and I don't know how I would react to it again, but at least, I know one thing, I never did anyone any wrong and I can still live my life without being fearful to my own sins. But using your Machievellian or Nietzsche reasoning, can you? I don't think so.
yours,
Prodigal
The heartless and souless fool. -
Dear James,
I think that you need a good rest before coming back to this thread with better arguments. Actually, I think that you have put up an interesting and convincing case for the violation of first law. I do believe that human beings are selfish, like u, but perhaps, there is some part of me who still believes that there exist a very small spark of altruism in people which could allow them to move the mountains and change the way of the world. The question is not whether selfishness exist, but how it can be used to perpetuate the existence of Mankind and how it does not lead us to self-destruction in our own individual way.
Have a good rest... while I have to start packing and fly to Calcutta tomorrow... Will try to find a terminal in India to post here.
yours,
Prodigal
"Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get."
- George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman" -
Dear prodigal,
Perhaps, but such arguments will only revolve around personal beliefs and you do know what they say about freedom and liberty, as long as it is not my face you are swinging your fist at. Mills? You have yours and I have mine. You move your mountains with words and morals while I level it with lies and dynaMIGHT.
Have a happy trip in India and hope to hear from you soon.
cheerio
james.
------------------Originally posted by prodigal:Dear James,
I think that you need a good rest before coming back to this thread with better arguments. Actually, I think that you have put up an interesting and convincing case for the violation of first law. I do believe that human beings are selfish, like u, but perhaps, there is some part of me who still believes that there exist a very small spark of altruism in people which could allow them to move the mountains and change the way of the world. The question is not whether selfishness exist, but how it can be used to perpetuate the existence of Mankind and how it does not lead us to self-destruction in our own individual way.
Have a good rest... while I have to start packing and fly to Calcutta tomorrow... Will try to find a terminal in India to post here.
yours,
Prodigal
"Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get."
- George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman"
The heartless and souless fool. -
Originally posted by james~:
funny thing is, once i said to my friend, "hey, why am i the one who's supposed to make a choice? i mean i'm having the best of both world, i am having a good time here, why should i be the one to choose and decide?"
[b]Law 1 : Never go after attached or married women.
The moral lies with the gal, she is the one that has to make her choice, and you donÂ’t.
THERE IS NOBODY YOU CANÂ’T CHASE.
[/B]
and now that the ball is on my court you call for the morality in womanfolks, ha! it takes two to clap.... -
If you never bother to go after her,she won't have a choice to make between you and her bf in the 1st place,it takes 2 hands to clap,ehehe
------------------
Makan begins with a drool, grows with a chomp, ends with a burp.When you were born, you were hungry and everyone around you was full. Live your life so that when you die, you're the one full and everyone around you is hungry.~~~
Diablo 2 rockzzzzzz -
Well, james~,
I think you mix up principles with morality. Morality, to me, is just a social code which is conditioned by the society at that point of time. However, there are some values which people still adhere to. U c, despite I have my three "laws", I am also looking at the other side of the argument, and perhaps, give it some grey area to look at. A lot of times, in r/s, whether what happens or not, are complicated and not necessarily black or white. Hence, to me, your arguments just only expand the horizon of the framework which I tried to work on, and hopefully, find a hybrid system which is more adaptable. That is how Darwinism would work for a pragmatic idealist, by allowing the grey areas within a constrained framework. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it is still the gal who made the choice, not us.
Contrary to your perspective, I don't find myself in any case, having a lot of morals. My belief is that there are things which people should do and people should not do, and those things people should not do, are to hurt others while trying to pursue their own self-interests. But if there is no choice, then we should just do it, and care about consequences later. Words are merely cotton fabric.
When reading your argument, a quote from the movie "Soong Sisters" came to my mind, where Michelle Yeoh was telling Maggie Cheung why their sister should marry the "bad" guy (notice the quotation marks) : "Men are not distinguished by good and bad, but by strong and weak."
Have a good sleep....
yours,
Prodigal
"Words don't mean anything in the end, but action. Action is what keeps us alive and ongoing." -
james,
hmm, i'm not sure what you mean by modern kant shagging barmaids at local pubs. care to explain? (shit, don't tell me i've been reading the wrong philosophers. HA!)
"might is still everything."
so, in your book, are slavery, rape, pogrom, invasion and plunder ok? nietzche is attractive to all young readers but he seems to have skipped the entire enlightenment period.
prodigal,
interesting story. true, love is not about possessing, but moral codes (being socially constructed) inhibit human desires. human desires are not wrong and to supress them is unnatural. people find their necessary quota of pleasure from different things. some take pleasure from knowing they've abided by a moral code, some by physical pleasure. it just so happens the derived pleasure from moral codes is not sensual hence less gratifying to the senses than physical pleasure. but there are, of course, trade-offs between moral and physical pleasure. and anyone who has a conscience will be familiar with these trade-offs.
for me, i am led by beauty and the quest for the aesthetic. there is no wrong or right and to please the senses is to please the gods.
funeral,
hi...erm, who are you? do i have BO or something? how did you know i'm who you think i am? *sniff* -
Well, Bohemian
Funeral sounds like the old friend who is living near you. Perhaps, after conquering banks in UK, he is now into funeral parlour business...
As I put it always in many threads, love and lust belongs to Desire and Desire is always cruel. Actually, I don't find any pleasure in abiding by a moral code. Perhaps, I don't see the point of abiding by a moral code. I would put it clearly that I just do things which I am supposed and not do things when I am not supposed to. What I believe to be a choice, is that I don't wish to do certain things which could hurt other people and do what I must or should do. Perhaps, I begin to see that good and bad are merely labels and they don't mean anything to me.
For me, I am just led by my search for the One, and I don't see any need in believing in gods and anything else. A die-hard romantic is what I am. Actually, to make fun of myself, I would prefer to have a wish sometimes, to remove that desire to find someone in my life. It seems so much easier. I find that we should not need reasons to justify what things we do, sometimes, it is just instinctive and just do it. Some people always believe that I think too much, but perhaps, they did not know, I do much more than I think. Believe it or not, sometimes, I wish to yield to physical pleasure like one night stands but I just don't know why I could not bring myself to do it when there is such an opportunity. Afterall, I am a guy and I acknowledge the fact that I do have sexual desires too.
Like my next adventure, I just say that I will do it and now I am still not packed for tomorrow. I am not even in the frame of thought that I am flying there at all... Let's see how exciting this trip would be for me.
Till then.... Have a good time.
yours,
Prodigal
"I am always on my own, travelling and moving on the road on my own. Only for a very brief part of my life, the road was accompanied by people, who I loved once and remembered, and that they make this road of mine once memorable and happy, and still I wish to find the companion to go on the road again...." -
Bohemian,
Neither do I know what I am talking about. Too much caffeine in the wee hours of the morning sure can does havoc to your system. Love and philosophers intertwined to give me the image of shagging barmaids. Jung would have a field day with me. Asked my friends what nonsense Kant and Nietzche were sprouting and he answered me with one word, metaphysics. I am still looking for the answer.
Does power intoxicate Germans? You mentioned Nietzche as playing a large part in my thinking and I must admit I am partly swayed to the thinking of Hegel and his history of man. Napoleon might be the Frenchie who came close to unifying Europe but it was Clausewitz who termed the concept total war. Does might leads to senseless killings as you presumably linked to me? Is not craving for power wrong? I have been so downtrodden in my miserable life that I feel that the least I can do is to work for it, power that is. Ask the Jews how they feel about the Holocaust and ask their descendants the Israelis how they feel about oppressing the Palestinians 30 years later. I am sure their answer is quite similar to mine. They will rather have might then to face extermination again. I rather have might than be spit upon the rest of my life.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bohemian:
[B]james,
hmm, i'm not sure what you mean by modern kant shagging barmaids at local pubs. care to explain? (shit, don't tell me i've been reading the wrong philosophers. HA!)
"might is still everything."
so, in your book, are slavery, rape, pogrom, invasion and plunder ok? nietzche is attractive to all young readers but he seems to have skipped the entire enlightenment period.
------------------
The heartless and souless fool. -
ARGH!!!!! What a long thread..no patient to read it what-so-ever!!!
Anyways...my reply is...
I am beautiful...
I am smart...
I am bitchy...
I am exciting...
I am everything you looks for in a gal...
BUT...
I am attach!
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAA
PS: I am in a very foul mood now! ahhahaha so bear with all the conceited and arrogant remark!
------------------
I am (a) B.I.T.C.H.
[This message has been edited by NaiveGirl (edited 04 September 2000).] -
Well, NaiveGirl
I would hang out with you just fine even if u are attached. For all u know, I might even break my first law for you.
P/S : Know that u are in foul mood. *patpat and pass NG a box of chocolates* Just keep on going and I am sure that you will fine, will write to you from Calcutta. Smile, okie?
yours,
Prodigal -
Prodigal...
If can break one rule for me...I will make sure you break the other two also!
------------------
Float like a butterfly...Sting like a bee...