|
JohnGalt -> RE: "a true master" (11/1/2004 9:50:05 AM)
|
Hello all,
This will be my last post on the topic. I have a theory regarding why this thread became so unusually volatile, and I must take full responsibility for it.
Grammatical issues of capitalization aside, I believe that the reason for the volatility of the thread is my use of the word 'true' and my tone of intransigence.
I hold a philosophy that there is an objective reality. Those words like good and evil, true or false, are not relative, soft, ambiguous concepts. I hold that asking "Who gets to decide what is 'good?'" is the equivalent to asking, "Who gets to decide the speed of light?" Truth, and good are not things that get to be decided, rather they are things to be discovered and understood.
The modern climate of "everything is ok, everything is relative, knowledge and certainties are impossible" is largely the intellectual offspring of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Kant holds that knowledge and reason are invalid tools, simply because your view of the world is shaped by your senses.
I hold with the Aristollean view, that there is an objective reality, that no amount of wishing or good intentions can change it, that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and that there are no contradictions. A contradiction is an admission of a flaw in either your worldview or your reasoning. The proper thing to do is revise either one until you’ve addressed the contradiction.
Words have specific meanings that are frequently lost in today’s politically correct environment where truth and accuracy are often sacrificed to protect someone’s feelings. I choose to use words as precisely as I am able, without regard to someone else’s offended sensibilities. This thread is a clear example of what can happen when such an attitude is displayed publicly.
In only one case, was the list in my profile questioned with sincerity. I replied in kind, citing examples, which I believe satisfied the questioner, as that line of challenge was dropped. The rest of the critical messages read, at their heart, "How dare you state that something is 'true'? Don't you mean ‘true for you?’" No. I don't mean 'true for me.' I don't claim to think for you, I don't require that you share my view, but I do not water down my observations of the universe, simply because they don't fit in the current social niceties.
There are absolutes, and far more of them than is currently fashionable to admit. No amount of wishing will change that boulder into a meal. Try to live by eating it, and you will starve and die. Your belief system doesn’t matter; the result is provably the same. All your religions, your evasive philosophies, your conscious unwillingness to face unpleasant facts conspire to rob you of the ability to deal with the world as it is. A is A, and it doesn’t matter if you acknowledge it or not, the reality remains unchanged.
The same is true of dominance and submission. There are rules, not decided by some person, not laid down by some spooky supernatural being, but rules of nature. If you're into breath play, and you deprive your submissive of oxygen for longer than her body can stand, she will die. If you deprive her of her emotional and intellectual needs, the same result occurs. My list doesn’t declare what the needs of the submissive are, simply that the master be aware of, and provide for them. Let me state it flatly, “A true master takes care of his submissive. A false, evil and wrong master ignores the needs of his submissive, and ultimately kills her body, or her spirit as a human being or both.”
If you want my reasoning behind inclusion of any of the items in my list, simply ask. If you can find flaws in the list, please, present them to me. I'm not threatened by other people’s evaluations. All I ask is that you be rational. "It feels wrong to me." isn't an argument. More often than not, it's an admission of being unwilling or unable to think the matter through.
I remain,
John Galt
|
|
|
|
