|
CuriousLord -> RE: "Earn Respect" (5/22/2007 12:14:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SDFemDom4cuck
There's an old saying about asking 100 different people their definition and you'll get 100 different answers. I don't think there is a simple answer to this.
I agree there's no simple answer, and that asking many people may yield many different answers.
Should one inquire about an object on a cordinate grid, one may receive many different answers. One might say, "It is (2,2)." Another might say, "It is (1,1)." Another might say "It is (-1,-1)." Yet another might say, "I agree with the person who says it's (2,2), only I think it's more (1.9,1.9)." A brighter mind might say, "It is at least line segment from (-1,-1) to (2,2)." One with a great view might say, "It is the line y=x." I would argue all but the last were only incorrent through omission. I would further argue more inclusive answers are more accurate.
It is with this arguement in mind I would encourage one to seek global answers- functions, as opposed to their instances.
Ironically enough, I write this to you as, to some degree (not to imply a lesser or greater magnitude), I respect your intelligence. By this, I mean to say, I concede to your intelligence in some instance. The particular instance is your ability to understand and comprehend. I need not act to spoon feed you a concept like I might others. I concede to your intelligence to do this- to interept it on its own. In this particular instance, convinence is one reason for this concession.
This concession, its nature, is what I would argue to be a universal nature of respect.
Being mathematicians, I am sure you are aware- though I state for the sake of others- that any function, in order to be global, must contain all components. If I am to claim that my definition is global, and make an arguement to it to a general audience, I must demonstrate how various extremes fall within it, should I hope my arguement to be successful.
Therefore, I will define "respect" as I have above.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
"Respect, proper, is to what degree, in what manner, and to what ends one might yield to another."
Mutual respect.
"Mutual respect" would be the respect shown for one person to another, and returned, for typical social interaction. (This is more of a reference to the idea than a definition of it.) I chose to lead with this example as both participants are equal, and my hint as respect being submissive may conflict with the prejustice against submission being displayed by those outside of generally submissive roles.
I'm quite fond of my last dorm roommate. Fellow rarely said a word. I didn't know his first name after two months of living with him. Most days, we said nothing at all. Stoic silence.
Yet, in the evenings, when one of us would turn in, yet the other was typing on a laptop or something else, he would, upon observing the other laying down in bed, pick up his laptop and go to the living room without a word. It worked both ways. This was a display of mutual respect.
In moving to the living one, one inconvinced himself for the other. He displayed submission towards the other. This was something of a mutual contract- hence its adoption.
In this case, the mutual respect between my former roommate and I refers to the willingness to concede minor acts for the significant betterment of the other- such as, allowing the other to sleep. This falls within the trial definition.
Respect for a superior
This may be seen as coming in two varities.
The first of which is respect for a leader's command. One submits to the rule or guidance of a leader- such as an order from a superior officer in the military or an order from a parent in one's childhood, or a boss's work order in the business place.
(Actually, my time just got cut short, so I'm not explaining this one or the rest as well as I'd have liked to. Just quick notes for consideration.)
The second is the respect for a leader's authority beyond that typically required- such as seeking out the leader's guidance, yielding to his guidelines, to some degree.
Respect for a subordinate
This is the respect a teacher might have for a student, a parent for a child, a boss for an employee, etc. While carrying general authority, this authority is not absolute. The will of the superior must yield to the will of the submissive in areas.
Such as, a teacher might wish to fondle a female student's breasts. However, he respect her not to, or respect the rule against doing so (as a matter of symantics), yielding to either her will not to or the rule not to. He does so to avoid penalties associated with it.
In ancient history, the Roman Empire was dominant over many lesser states that made it up. Particularly newly-conquered states. Such a state would have to pay taxes, or an unconquered counterpart might pay tribute. Similarly, a shop owner in a bad part of town might pay "protection money" to a local gang or crime organization. While the Roman Empire, gang, or crime organization may be superior, they often respect their subordinates. This respect is often in the range of lower magnitude.
Such as, the Roman Empire would respect the subordinate state enough that it does not rebel. Should it fail to do so, a costly rebelion may have to be put down and the Empire uneased instead of having simply been able to collect tribute money without the need to mobile an army, wasting resources and lives.
Respecting a social construct
One might respect the law. This respect may be to the extent of respecting the law's power and submitting to not violating it, or at least not to a degree at which one would suffer unjustifiable risk.
One might respect the law in a different way- respecting the law's basis in ideals, submitting to the logic or convictions behind the laws as opposed to simply their power to inflict damage.
Okay, time's up. Good to see you post again! Catch you later.
|
|
|
|
