http://nicholaschim.bandcamp.com/track/as-long-as-you-come-first
the title of this post, and its earlier reference, comes from the dear fictitious character of Aramis, of the three musketeers' fame. oh pardon me it was Athos! dear nonetheless.
D'Artagnan related his adventure with Madame Bonacieux. Athos listened to him with perfect immobility of countenance; and when he had finished, -"Trifles, all that;" said Athos, "nothing but trifles!" That was Athos' expression."You always say trifles, my dear Athos!" said D'Artagnan, "and that comes very ill from you, who have never been in love."The drink-deadened eye of Athos flashed, but it was only for a moment - it became dull and vacant as before."That's true," he said quietly, "for my part I have never loved."
let's talk about Hart and Dworkin.
Hart thinks that you can describe a social practice by exclusive reference to social fact, in particular, that law is a set of rules which legal officials regard as binding. Dworkin thinks that social practices cannot be described by analyses which purport to find substantively neutral criteria such as these; he thinks that what law is must be interpreted based on grounds of law which are best justified by the political context of that society. in other words, notwithstanding what is posited law, what is "the law" must be re-interpreted in each context.
let's talk about love. is love a social practice? haha, whatever, right? anyway, it used to be i thought that love was basically something describable. you could identify key features, necessary criteria, of love, and whether or not something was love depended on the extent to which these criteria were fulfilled. you'd know when you were in love with someone, it just was, amazingly. like going through the looking glass. you knew it because it was special. you knew it because, and i love this quote, all the love songs made sense. you knew it because of that dreamy feeling thinking about the person you loved. you knew it because of the very awful and tense feeling of unease and selfish envy. so on and so forth. there's probably out there a large body of opinion what other criteria of love there is, or what the central concept of love is, e.g. sacrifice, but let's not go there.
the point is that until recently, and maybe still, i thought that love was something you intuitively knew was true about the way you felt about a person, and the implication of a positive identification was that you stuck to it, never changed your mind, stuff like that. if you found love, then you had to die trying. but maybe what is love is a continuing interpretive exercise, something which is posited love may not be love in a particular context that subsequently develops. in other words, if you thought you were in love, and you didn't think you were wrong to feel that way, or in continuing to do so, i guess there's no absolute obligation to that love is what i mean (to be conceptually correct, because the grounds of love have changed; note that obligation is a different question from identification). and i feel that's sad because what's love if that's it?
what would i say this is, interpretive relativism? haha, whatever. i guess the short reply to relativism would be that the concept of a social practice, and the grounds which justify an interpretation in central cases of that social practice, have a certain enduring sustainability, i.e. they do not sway with the times. this may be a substantive answer which does not meet the present categorisation challenge, but as Dworkin would say, substantive argument is really where it's at.
you know, i keep thinking, it's funny how i'm still alone. i don't feel the loneliness, and i really think that i'm happy to be alone. but it's funny how i'm still alone. considering all the things i am, it's preposterous, it doesn't make sense. a lot of times i feel conflicted about things like these, really. i'm the kind of guy that is probably pretty charming, but i'm afraid to be that way most of the time, and i feel deep down in my being that my talents, for want of a better word, are not for selfish gratification. and when it comes to liking girls, you could say i'm a choosy person, but i would say i know what i'm doing. anyway it just strikes me (strangely, more each day) as incredible, bemusing, that i'm still alone.
at the heart of it is the constant belief that i'm doing the right thing, that whatever it is i want to find, i will find it, or if not, then it must have been ordained as not. but sometimes at night lying down in bed i wonder if there's not a simpler answer to life and love; to let go of the things i believe in and to understand that i can find love and be happy in the normal way.
but the truth is that i'm afraid of being with the wrong girl. i'm afraid of a dawning realisation such as that, i think it would be terrible. i'm sure one can say, you can choose to love someone, come what may, but one could nonetheless say the reverse. don't you think life has too many examples of couples who weren't meant to be together? i can't think about it without having to wince. and i don't think i'm afraid for me, i think i'm afraid of making a girl like that sad. in other words, i don't want to screw it up. and where does that leave me? with this very conviction of mine that what i'm doing is right. i think i could see the circularity in it, but that wouldn't be fatal to the belief, i don't think. the cost of this general fear is some of my natural charm, but i guess this is no great loss.
anyway, i know when feelings tell me things, or when they start to hint. maybe i'm sensitive to the interpretive attitude. maybe being sure of something like love is too naive, insufficient, or incomplete. but thinking about things like this is sobering in a very dismal way. i guess i don't want the paradigm i believe in to change. but then, who would?
no sweeping exits, or off-stage lines,
could make me feel bitter, or treat you unkind.
wild horses, couldn't drag me away.
