|
DavanKael -> RE: This slaves struggle to share her position (10/31/2008 10:41:05 AM)
|
NZ--You know the good stuff when you see it: I know you're loving this discussion; it is soooo worth being late to take your shower! :> You do realize that your post earlier on in the thread was the first mention of honour, don't you? And, yes, you are absolutely right, imo, that honour is, in some ways, the antithesis of naiivetee. You are also correct that intent is huge. I believe that is what you were pointing out with your statement about sacrilege in not thinking through a commitment before making it, especiallyin a D/s or M/s relationship but, arguably, any relationship.
Hi, John----
You said: Setting aside the additional areas of understanding and agreement...
My reply: Yes.
You quoted me: quote:
ORIGINAL: DavanKael
As an example: if I promise to buy you your favorite kind of ice cream and I don't, I have failed to keep a promise to you. I have dishonoured myself, albeit, in the grand scheme of the universe, in a relatively small way however it is a dishonour as I have failed to keep my word and if I do that repeatedly, it can be cumulative and profound. Little chips across time ultimately carve large pieces out of a stone.
Then you queried: Is forgetfulness a dishonor? Some folks are simply scatter brains... easily distracted... over worked... or simply unable to recall what they had for breadfast this morning. I agree that such forgetfulness in a cumulative sense can cause others to think you unreliable. But dishonorable? In my own view, that would be a stretch as I hold "honor" to a higher standard.
My reply: Forgetfulness is a kind of disregard and, thus, imo, a small dishonour, yes. The inherence in the greater 'sin' as it were is that I promised to do it. Being an airhead doesn't excuse lack of honour or failing to keep one's promise. It means that person needs to work on those particular skills as they relate to others, imo.
No stretch for me: honour is foundational.
You quoted me: quote
To take it to a different extreme: I promise to care for your beloved pet cat of 20 years while you are out of town then I decide to run off to Atlantic City with some man for the week and break that commitment I made to you. I say nothing, I just run off. Your cat dies. Well, that's a huge dishonour; I have massively wronged you and the cat and there's nothing small about that transgression.
Then you asserted/queried: Here there is an element of choice... Atlantic city or the cat. And consequently I can consider the "wrong" choice to be dishonorable. Contrasted with the previous example where choice is not evident, and therefore there can be no right or wrong assigned to motivation (there is no motivation at all). Can dishonor exist in the absence of right or wrong, or a choice between them?
My reply: Both hold choices. Choosing not to put a promise, a commitment at the forefront is a commonality in each. There's an old Rush or Yes (I think) song that has the lyrics: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made achoice." Every action or inaction is a choice. Large or small, still a choice. I would argue that in each scenario, a wrongness exists as noted related to each scenario. Did I clarify how that is the case in each?
You quoted me: quote:
Could I argue that each is an error? Perhaps. Would I argue that each was an error? No way. I f*cked up, pure and simple, in one way, small, in another way, huge. I've still behaved with degrees of dishonor; I have failed, in each instance to keep a promise or commitment.
You stated: I would argue that each was fundamentally different as it relates to choice, as noted above.
My reply: I would argue that each is fundamentally the same in that they both relate to choice, also as noted above. ((This is a pivotal point in you and I reaching a meeting of the minds, me thinks))
You quoted me: quote:
Yes, in ways, if we are honourable people, we are forever stuck with our errors because a dishonour is like a scar on our soul, it is something that we carry with us for all time: just as with our victories or rightous acts, it becomes a part of who we are.
I think you are looking for me to cite something tangible and less esoteric, correct? I am not sure of a situation with which you can present me that I could not tell you what my own sense of honour would dictate but I invite you to give it a whirl if you wish.
You stated then queried: A dishonor that produces a scar on our soul wasn't the kind of lifetime "payment" I was talking about, but it's a good example of the "cost" applied to one's reputation. Which can, indeed, follow us around for a lifetime.
But an example more closely resembling what I had in mind would be making an honest mistake about someone to marry (since that example has been used previosly, and there are obvious vows of perpituity). Let's say no one has wronged another. There has been no violence, no infidelity. But it becomes obvious to both partners that they blew it... they married the wrong individual. And in having done so, they are certainly not living up to their vow to love one another till death do they part.
Does honor require that they "pay" for that mistake the rest of their lives and remain as a married couple? Would honor allow them to renegotiate their vows... maybe agree to an open marriage?
(As I write this I find Meatloaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" running through my head)
My reply: Honour and reputation are often quite tied. I'd rather be thought a hardass for my adherence to honour than a degenerate for my debasing there-of. I think that this is a complicated example, first and foremost. I will endeavor to answer it based on the limited information and from my own opinion. Honour could, depending on the people involved, be satisfied and/or stained via either of those courses. Maybe the marriage initially was a dishonour. I am not sure of the motivations of the people. I can say that as someone getting divorced, I think that failing to keep the vows in perpetuity (Not the vows the state gave us but the vows me made to each other, the intents, the promises) is an abomination and a dishonour. Did the marriage become something profane or at least sick to the point that it needed killing (After offering the opportunity for improvement, regaining of health, repair) and was that ultimately, in ways, the honourable thing to do: yes. Can those senses of honour co-exist. Yes. Does it create cognitive dissonance? For me, yes. I really did take "until death do us part" seriously (I'm an agnostic and I really did marry a soul mate); after being separated for over 13 months, I still can't say (or even think) 'ex-husband' without getting a pain in the middle of my chest. Is part ofthat related to honour: Sure is. Is part of me gone. Oh, yes. There are very few people that occupy that sort of space in my life (And they know who they are) and my honour is particularly necessary and inherent in dealing with them of all people and, if they become no longer a part of my life, I truly do feel a part of myself is gone with them, such is my dedication to them and the way(s) in which they matter to me.
(Since you're citing Meatloaf songs, I must counter with "I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)")
You quoted me: quote:
I am a pragmatist, albeit a philosophical one, so no, I'd not consider it a dishonour to be tempted mentally. We are human. I would consider it a dishonour to yield to that temptation through dishonourable action. I'd get all esoteric and jump the shark were I to argue that emotions and thoughts dishonour us (I take a more Eastern than Western approach here in some ways with not trying to suppress things that run through my head; I simply know that emotions and thoughts do not make any action other than that which I choose necessary; waiting is).
You stated then queried: I lived in Columbus, OH back in the mid 80's when a Brinks truck overturned on a downtown highway and over a million dollars was strewn across the road. Folks set upon the scattered cash, and before long it had all been scooped up and taken home. Interestingly, almost all of the money was returned by the following week. And while I have no doubt that some of those people thought they were doing the right thing by taking cash for safe keeping (believing the others to be ill motivated), I'm sure the majority took it home with the intention of keeping it, sat it on their kitchen table and stared at it for a long, long time while wrestling with their conscience.
They did more than think about taking the money, they acted on it. But they eventually returned it and refused offers of reward.
Were they honorable?
My reply: Hah, my ex- works for that company. I am surprised that so many people returned the money. You wouldn't believe the number of people who work within that field who steal tons of money and get away scott-free (Not my ex-; he couldn't care less about money) I wonder if it was honour (endogenous) or the feeling that someone would somehow know what they'd done and they'd get in trouble (exogenous). I could go off tangentially in a couple ofdirections on this one but will endeavor to stick to the direct point moreso. Imo, taking of money from a nameless, faceless entity that is insured for such losses is far less of a dishonour than breaking a commitment to/behaving dishonourably toward someone dear; it remains a dishonour but it is different. That having been said, them taking the money was dishonourable, their returning it was honourable. The guilt and not taking the money offered as reward would lead me to believe more in the whole exogenous reasons for return (Getting in trouble with the law, god, etc.) but that's merely a theory.
You quotedme as saying: quote:
I espouse and live by a personal honour code of absolute personal responsibility for what we do, especially when it affects others.
You stated and queried: I do as well, and I both require that my partner have a high sense of personol honor and that she have high expectations for me. And in turn, I require that she have a high level of personal responsibility, and apply it in ways that some think incompatible with submission but necessary to me for her to fulfill my wishes and expectations (ie: necessary to obey me).
My reply: Makes perfect sense to me. You take a partner, you make commitments to each other, you keep them. That is the honourable way to function.
You said: We're whittling it down, Davan. :)
John
My reply: I do believe we are, John. :> Happy Halloween, Merry Samhain, and all that good stuff!
Davan
|
|
|
|
