Apocalypso
Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/20/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally I respect a person with integrity, I also respect a person with honour. I believe that people should remain true to themselves as much as possible, with one proviso that this truth doesn't impact on another's right to remain true to themselves. This is the sticking point, the defending honour to the death and all that stuff to me can be going too far, that is why needless wars start. If we gave others the freedom to hold their own values, live and let live and all that. However honour for one is deemed often to be the right thing for all, that is where the problems start I would never ask someone to forsake their honour or integrity for me, however theirs may be a brand that does not match my own. In a shocking plot twist, I mostly agree with LillyoftheVally. It's perfectly possible for two people to have honour, within the dictionary definition of the word, yet the specifics of that may be very different and possibly opposed. My position here is something of a right angle to Malkinius' point. To start overusing analogies, in my experience of BDSMers, most codes of honour (and definitely Gorean) seem basically feudal to me. Kings and vassals. Samurai and their Daimyo. They're structured, hierarchal, centre round duties and obligations and pledges. All those kinds of things. Whereas my code of honour is a bit more rough and ready. It's the honour of the outlaws, the outcasts, the heretics. So it has various components that come from that. An unwillingness to discuss any issues in the gaze of outsiders. A preference for resolving issues internally. An attack on any being an attack on all. An antagonistic relationship with the mainstream. A core of autonomy for each, regardless of orientation. Applause for eccentricity. And some less positive traits. Honourable with something of a weakness in the morals department. The tendency to conflate means and ends. Seeing the world in binary terms. Seeing ourselves as "us" and everyone else as "them". A problem with compromising. Forgetting that destruction needs to have a point. (All honour systems come with negative issues. The more feudal model wlll always be hampered by stasis and the falliability of autocrats). Now, neither of those are outside any reasonable definition of honour. But they simply aren't compatible. Not because one is more honourable then the other. It's the age old, neverending struggle between chaos and order. (As, incidentally, is "New Leather versus Old Leather"). And it leads to different focuses within relationships. For example, I not only accept, but require a submissive to refuse to do what they're told if they sincerely feel that it goes against their personal integrity or sense of self. That would not be something that a Gorean would expect from his slave. (Hence I'm not a master and don't do TPE). And, similiarly, our hypothetical Gorean would not be right for any submissive I would be good with or vice versa. Defending integrity? Yeah, when it's needed. Which isn't that often. I am the cat who walks by himself and all places are alike to me. Within the boundries of common sense. I might not believe that the law has any moral right to affect my actions. But I recognise that it has the right of force to do so and I'm not going to go out of my way to pick a fight when I'm outgunned and outnumbered so heavily. (Now I wouldn't, anyway. When I was 18, it happened frequently). There's nothing dishonourable about picking your battles carefully, at least not for me. The only thing I'd query is the Voltarian view we should always leave others to follow their own honour. I'm only talking about the extremes here. But say we have a neonazi. Now, I can accept his views are genuinely held. I can believe that he has honour of his own type. I can even respect him, to an extent. But it's still the case that not only are our beliefs compatible, so are our very realities. And sooner or later that's going to mean something. And I fully intend to be the one still standing when the dust settles.
_____________________________
If you're going to quote from the Book of Revelation, Don't keep calling it the "Book of Revelations", There's no "s", it's the Book of Revelation, As revealed to Saint John the Divine.
|