Rover -> RE: Showing you are a worthy Master (12/11/2006 4:59:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KCKitty I hope you'll pardon my "butting in", but I can see both points that are trying to be made here. If I may? It isn't so hard to understand if you look at it using different terms. Using an altered version of John's description above, let's see if this makes any more sense? In marriage a wedding ring is a representation, a symbol, devoid of any inherent "powers". Whereas to those who subscribe to the idea of matrimony, the wedding ring is imbued with the ability to transform a single woman into a wife. That does, however, lead to another series of questions as to whether the power in a marriage resides in the wedding ring or the official performing the ceremony, and whether those who marry believe in a certain amount of "mysticism" in which the wedding ring has magical qualities. Does that help? In case you don't see the analogy, before agreeing to marry (become a slave) a single woman (a free woman) has the freedom to make the decision and choose who to marry. Once the marriage has taken place and she has her wedding ring (collar), it isn't that she is no longer a woman or incapable of judging her mate, it's just that she is now a wife (slave) and has made vows. The deed is done and the time for judging is over. Her wedding ring (collar) does not change who she is, but it does symbolize her commitment. You're not "butting in", and thanks for your sincere contribution to the thread. To which I note the following: 1. I understand and appreciate your use of the words "slave" and "wife" as descriptive terms. And I might agree with you if it were not for the inconsistency in application. That is, a wedding makes a woman into a wife, and makes a man into a husband. But there is no similar correlation in Gor, in which a Master is a Master no matter if he has a slave or not. 2. It is illogical in the extreme to say that a Master is inherently a Master (ie: it is what he "is" not what he is "made"), but a slave is only made a slave by being owned. I can understand a philosophy that favors "nature" in the "nature vs. nurture" debate, or the "nurture" side in the same debate. However, I cannot begin to comprehend a philosophy that favors both "nature" (for Masters) and "nurture" (for slaves). How can anyone logically take both sides in a debate (well, other than John Kerry)? 3. We all have "beliefs" that are unable to be substantiated by fact or logic. In truth, they are often illogical and nonsensical (that's no knock against anyone, since it's true of us all). However, some people have difficulty accepting that we choose to believe in the illogical and nonsensical, and go to great lengths to fabricate logic and facts to suit in hopes of "proving" their belief. Not only does that fail in each and every instance, but it makes the purveyor look silly in the process. It takes a big man to simply state the truth.... it makes no sense, it's illogical, it has no foundation in fact, but I choose to believe it anyway. I have the same deep belief system in my religion. Anyway, that's my opinion. What say you? John
|
|
|
|