nipplejesus
just a note to say, last night, i fell in love with nick hornby. utterly. all i read by him was a short story, with the unlikely name of "nipplejesus," but man alive, was that ever a great story. highly recommended, friends. very thought-provoking. i suppose i'll have to look into reading some of his novels now...
in other news,
relativism has bothered me for as long as i can remember. or at least since late elementary school. i remember being really bothered because i couldn't figure out what cute looked like. it seemed like everyone else i talked to could point out a cute boy or girl from a dozen paces, but i just didn't know what features i was supposed to be looking for. and even then, i remember thinking that everyone i knew had, if nothing else, moments of beauty. but i didn't want to make judgement calls. i don't like sometimes and it depends. i like always and for sure. i know this doesn't leave any room for things like grace and mercy; this would be a pretty harsh world if everything were absolute, but it'd be simpler too. like if there was in love and out of love. standardized levels of pain you could report feeling. the only thing that bothers me (off the top of my head) about this vision of mine of the way things should be is that to have absolute good, you have to have absolute absence of good. like, to have a standard for what is beauty, you need something to point to to say, this is not beauty. i'm not a big fan of that. but... but wouldn't it be great never to wonder if the feelings you have are feelings of love?
now i'm getting into serious philosophical territory that i don't really have the energy to get into right now. at least, that's where my mind has jumped from this train of thinking. you know, absolute good=God, and does there therefore HAVE to be an absolute not-God, logically?
or, if you're post-modernist, like most of society now, you could say nothing is absolute; everything is relative and therefore meaningless. maybe i shouldn't tack on the meaningless part. i guess that's not assumed, is it? anyway...
in other news,
relativism has bothered me for as long as i can remember. or at least since late elementary school. i remember being really bothered because i couldn't figure out what cute looked like. it seemed like everyone else i talked to could point out a cute boy or girl from a dozen paces, but i just didn't know what features i was supposed to be looking for. and even then, i remember thinking that everyone i knew had, if nothing else, moments of beauty. but i didn't want to make judgement calls. i don't like sometimes and it depends. i like always and for sure. i know this doesn't leave any room for things like grace and mercy; this would be a pretty harsh world if everything were absolute, but it'd be simpler too. like if there was in love and out of love. standardized levels of pain you could report feeling. the only thing that bothers me (off the top of my head) about this vision of mine of the way things should be is that to have absolute good, you have to have absolute absence of good. like, to have a standard for what is beauty, you need something to point to to say, this is not beauty. i'm not a big fan of that. but... but wouldn't it be great never to wonder if the feelings you have are feelings of love?
now i'm getting into serious philosophical territory that i don't really have the energy to get into right now. at least, that's where my mind has jumped from this train of thinking. you know, absolute good=God, and does there therefore HAVE to be an absolute not-God, logically?
or, if you're post-modernist, like most of society now, you could say nothing is absolute; everything is relative and therefore meaningless. maybe i shouldn't tack on the meaningless part. i guess that's not assumed, is it? anyway...