27 February 2008

the second

did i spell willkommen wrong? nice. maybe thats why im not doing too well in that class.

heres a question to think about for a while: turning the other cheek. when do we do this? are we to do this in the public or the private sphere (if i can use schmitt for a moment)? it could be said that jesus turned the other cheek only in the private sphere (though it is worth mentioning that the only stories we have of him come from the private area). even if we operate under the assumption that he did the ultimate turning of the other cheek by giving his life for humanity, i would argue that humanity is not necessarily the public sphere. i agree with schmitt when he says for a political action, to operate in the mode of a body of people united politically, there must be a foreign enemy, and since there is none to the body known as "humanity", this cannot by definition be a public group. so this explanation does not go anywhere to answer the questions do we turn the othere cheek to our public enemies. the greeks seemed to differentiate between the two, and as schmitt points out, some of the original translations of the bible refer to the greek word for private enemey, though you must take his words with a grain of salt as well. i don't believe everything he says, but i think his view on public and private are usefull in this case.

We generally assume, also, as related by Augustine, that we are only to do this to teach the wrong doer, show him the error of his (i will generally use this word, i mean his/hers and whatnot, to save time in the future; it will always be his when referring to a nueter meaning) ways. our self sacrifice to the betterment of others is a noble goal, one worthy of heaven. however this method of thinking is not without its own assumptions. it goes a long way in assuming that the wrongdoer plays by your rules. if he does not, if the moral codes do not line up in such a fashion, or if he has no moral guidlines whatsoever (make your own judgements on this, i intend to pass none. i see moral as cultural constructs serving as unwritten laws in order to facilitate group working of ancient peoples) the the point it generally moot. interesting to think about, and to try to apply. perhaps today, with a growing lack of dire consequences, it will become easier to turn the other cheek.

in other news:
i heard a question that i never wanted to hear today. the worst part about it was i didn't know the answer to it. i feel myself slipping into it, the quiet comfort and ease of self assurance. but what do i actually feel about it? is it going on because of its availability or because it is the right thing to do. i find more and more that i have trouble trusting in the whole situation, both on my end and on hers. i feel like i always have to hold back, never play my last card. if we want contintue with that analogy, i don't know if i could handle being trumped. it seems to me that to atually work in the way that i would want to i would have to shoot the moon (gosh darn that is annoying, im sorry for that little belch of shitty authorship). but in all honesty, i don't feel like i trust her or myself to make it work long term, and the stakes are much to high. i don't believe i can handle the risk.

and check this out:
http://xkcd.com/389/. awsome.

also, check out the new saxophone website ina and i have been putting together. it is very rudimentary, but it will work much better than the other one has this past year. gosh i love it when people in leadership roles shirk responsibility.


No comments: