Straw Poll? House Meeting?
ADDENDUM:
If the previous seems odd or audacious or concertedly annoying, please treat it as a straw poll.
Tell me, at least, about majority opinions and plans of action and how people should accomodate other people's viewpoints when an action that can either be performed or not performed is at the center.
Snaps, or boos-&-hisses, at least?
If there is a majority opinion, in keeping with Nunn's philosophy, I suppose that my entreaty has not "passed," and I will accept that and hope and plan for some other time of meeting.
Soon, soon, loves.
(But Oh Dear God. How I want to come!)
Love,
Your Shy-Crusading Songster.
If the previous seems odd or audacious or concertedly annoying, please treat it as a straw poll.
Tell me, at least, about majority opinions and plans of action and how people should accomodate other people's viewpoints when an action that can either be performed or not performed is at the center.
Snaps, or boos-&-hisses, at least?
If there is a majority opinion, in keeping with Nunn's philosophy, I suppose that my entreaty has not "passed," and I will accept that and hope and plan for some other time of meeting.
Soon, soon, loves.
(But Oh Dear God. How I want to come!)
Love,
Your Shy-Crusading Songster.
posted by goodbye, goodbye at 8:07 PM
12 Comments:
This is not a conversation I feel comfortable posting online. Send me your email adress if you desire an in depth response and my honest opinion.
But, in short, I have no objection to a sober Saturday and I completely respect your views (but I did not love how you approached the subject).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In light of the subject matter at hand, I am going to attempt to reply to two sets of propositions at once in what seems to be the most logically coherent way, and if at all possible, will attempt to develop the reason for my intentional withholding of rationale, if not neccesarily disclosing some partial indication of that rationale itself.
Andrei,
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your criticism, for there is absolutely nothing so fundamental in democratic/Post-Hegelian society than to challenge (and truly, there is no other accurate word) one's patterns of thoughts. More importantly, indeed, is to challenge the "fundamental" underlying notions/world tapestry/framework/point of view (which, in my case, would seem to be both a) familial b) regional and c) cultural--in this case, mainstream cultural [shudder]), if such things are used as the basis for belief.
However--I have previously articulated, and perhaps not to the best of my ability (again, I am new at staving off all superfluous language in hopes of a higher percentage of exchange between my mind and the outside world--in short, in pursuit of communication)I truly did not intend this sitation to be about my views, Doug's views, Lee's views, or anyone else's.
Since we have already shaken off the notion of offending anyone else, I am going to be quite blunt: your appraisal of my values and the fact that I have done nothing to substantiate my position fails to realize the point of the debate. It doesn't matter what I believe--in all honesty, I think it would have been a more demonstrative example if I would have given a completely "idiotic" or "fallacious" set of views (in your opinion, I may already have) because the fundamental brunt of my statement would remain the same:
regardless of what someone feels or thinks or says, if they have the will to articulate that they would like to be "accomodated" (and again, I am borrowing liberally from Lee's wording/defense, because he does a far better job of expressing the finesse of my argument than I have done), they should be.
And all consideration of the argument/opinion inside that bubble of the question is rendered irrelevant.
Of course, not foreverso.
And I do not intend it to be that way foreverso, because to do such would be to lodge my mind in the state of stubborn, lock-jawed infancy in which it has already been kept in many respects for an undue number of years. I am more than willing, if interest is generated and the concern is earnest and enthusiastic and still respectful--really, Andrei, none of us are as dumb as we may look and sound, and not everything in the world can or needs to be rationalized. I still hold that.--to venture to post my views on substances and some (cultural/anthropological) account of how and why I have come to hold them. Both elements are essential to a true understanding of a person, and in order to be able to effectively "judge" anyone.
And really, after all of the fatalistic literature I have stomached in the past year, I am really uncomfortable with the idea that that is anything that is within our domain to do.
I will tell you, as a precursor, that my personal propulsion against pot smoking is, on one level, really just that. The thought makes me sickened and seems wholly alien and bizarre, just as some individuals may feel innately propelled towards some other opinion--sickness at certain scents or the medical profession or certain acts of violence. We have all been sensitized in different ways, so maybe some of the more media-based reactions are more commonly held, but I think that I can safely say, in my case, that this development has been independent. I am largely uncomfortable with the idea of "innately" believing anything, since I am a humanist and all things can be traced to connections and I sincerely doubt that in whatever celestial/pre-cerebral realm we are floating before birth (and yes, I believe in Jungian mysticism/ the eternal efficacy of the human spirit as in not-bodies-not-just-rotting-matter) pot or any other societally-created "debate" was a factor. I have no other "innate" opinions, or have not yet run into situations which arose such strong reactions, and thus my inability to participate in many of our PubSpeaks discussions. I have philosophical, cultural, literary and aesthetic opinions, and am beginning to develop social ones, and this outspoken show of what may prove to be my "moral" opinions is alarming to myself, as well.
You can see, I hope, that I am attempting to play down the significance of my real reasons. I am first saying that they are of secondary importance to my request, because they are, and my apologies to you if you cannot follow such a clearly delineated structure of logical response. Second to that, I am attempting to bury them in the idea of "personal revulsion," because that is the one big Subjective thing in society that can't be shaken.
Again, Lee worded this quite brilliantly--
"People have different value sets, and all the rationalization in the world won't destroy a person's point of view on something if they see it in a different context than you."
I am sure that it seems like I have declined to state reasons because I am unable to. That is only partially true. I am by no means convinced that my "reasons" are correct, (yet), but again, I didn't want to muddy my argument with irrelevant strains.
As to pot, without listing a scrolling column of reasons, most of which would have absolutely no bearing on your life, one reason for my Knee-Jerk High-Holy Conservative-Christian Oh-God-My-Mother-Loves Me Midwesternism (it doesn't touch me anymore. Speak what you like!) is a rejection of escapist tendencies in the American culture at large. You might do well to remember my poorly articulated but earnest speech after Jimmy's Harry Potter presentation to see that such beliefs are in keeping with a bigger philosophical/critical framework that I have held for ages. I think that we, as Americans, in many ways, are running away from everything. Running away from cities, running away from impending environmental apocalypse, running away from the vapidity and degradation of our culture, running away from the downfall of the English language and the valorization of trash, and more importantly, running away from the ability to make judgments based on value, or one thing being innately better than another. Perhaps this is just the Golden Age of Democracy, but it sure as hell looks nothing like what Pericles had going over in Athens.
That said, I am interested in the idea of drug use because of what it reflects about streams of contentment and dissatisfaction in American culture. I believe, again, in some simplified version of Hegelian doctrine, and that society is changed by the avant-garde, or the individuals on the edge. And in this case, the drug users--the ones with brains, that have a developed and concerted reason for their actions--are that avant-garde. But I really do suspect that a good number of smokers just want to have fun. Or to forget. Or to lighten up. Whatever. But, like my theory on language, I believe that we shouldn't be just having fun, or forgetting, and we sure as hell shouldn't be lightening up.
People will.
It is what people do.
But a time comes when the individuals in society need to stop shirking away from responsibility and do something concerted to trace through the recesses of their mind to find and challenge the source of their discontentment (if not that, what?!) instead of following it through to the manner of escape.
And the emphasis on lightening up is really a fundamental one.
As you all know, that is just not something that I am disposed to do.
So that's just for starters.
Challenge away.
To Andrei and Lee and Intiya and Adam at Large,
Thank you all for handling this so well. If indeed my barometer of social acceptance is not so terribly skewed as it usually is, I want to say that it is quite incredible for me to be able to post unpopular views, but to still be respected and considered, even if each of you harbors objections to one or more of my tenets or methods of approach. Such is democratic intellectualism, yes?--coming to terms with the (sorry)fact that Others may be Flagrant and Blatant Idiots absolutely convinced of the rightness of their beliefs and logic!
And Lee, a very special expression of appreciation to you, because I know that this has always and shall probably always remain an issue of contention for us. I recognize that we are holding on to distinctly different views, both in the abstract and in terms of the application, so your development of some of my ideas and extended and immensely clarifying pursuit of reasons against the smoking of pot at Amy's on the days I will be there is extremely valuable. You argument is strident in that you have clearly refused to alter your beliefs (which is good. For now. We are still dealing in theoretics.) but still agree that logical requests for "accomodation" should be fulfilled. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I know that it would be fallacious to view what you have written as a defense, but your statement is, in the least, supportive of my initial proposition, which seems to indicate that for at least one person, I have not failed too miserably in approaching something potentially explosive & ugly correctly.
I would very much like to hear from any-or-all other TASPers on this matter--Doug and Amy especially, but also the opinions of the others who were not substance users at the time of TASP.
Love,
Jessi
Can I say something reallyreally divisive, just as a matter of curiosity, without being hanged/guillotined/verbally castrated for it?
What is so terrible about "holier-than-thou"? I know it is in keeping with the tradition of P.C. and the rights rhetoric/entitlement revolution of the Post Civil-Rights Age, but what about cultural and moral relativism and the "that works for me, but that's just my opinion" perspective?
I know that I played to this/articulared some of the abovementioned points in my various posts, but I just want to know why, if opposing one's views on someone else is so wrong, individuals (e.g. Andrei, in this convenient example) wouldn't be more willing to say "To hell with the drugs in New York!" entirely, since pot seems to be the active/obtrusive agent in this setting.
Should this be moved to a new blogpost? I do not want to make things too uncomfortably "heavy" and "serious" for anyone else.
But I would like to generate some debate concerning "holier-than-thou"...ism.
Love,
Jessi
Some of you already know my opinion. I don't smoke pot, and I usually don't care if other people do. If you want to smoke it, fine. Smoke it. As long as you're not stoned enough to fuck other people up.
If I went to NYC, I would have no reason to smoke pot:
1) I would have to pay $300 for a plane ticket to get there. $300 just to smoke some pot on the other side of the country?
2) I would be there for less than three days. How long does a high last for?
3) New York. In what other city would there be more to do?
4) TASPers. With what other kinds of people would there be more to do?
Basically--there's got to be better things to do (considering time and money spent) than to smoke pot.
I think it depends on how to look at this NYC thing:
A) If you see it as a personal vacation, then you shouldn't let other people fuck up your plans. You do what you want.
B) If you see it as a reunion, than you should try to be a little more accommodating and to consider others who are attending.
***an addition to Andrei’s evaluation of the effects of pot:
Although I have not smoked before, I have been around a fair share of potheads and my observation is: Some people react to pot mildly. Some people react to pot strongly. For some people it's like Andrei said: it just lightens the mood, no more. For others, it makes them utterly incapable of any coherent speech or thought. (same dosage)
I would also like to add that being around people when they're high is incredibly funny... for a while.
And also that the best time to play poker with someone is when they're high... heh heh.
i'm really really really really tired, and although i just read all of that, i'm not sure how much i processed any of it. my eyeballs are falling out of my head. i'll say more later.
actually, i have a lot of opinions on what has been stated here. strong opinions. but i would rather express them verbally, so if you're really and truly interested, call me. there are about...5 different aspects of the discussion here that i feel prepared to discuss.
actually, screw all that, here is my rant on escapism. i am going to refrain from attacking jessi, but try my best to make an argument for the value of escapism.
disclaimer: i am, have always been, and will continue to be a supreme escapist. why else would i immerse myself so completely into books, movies and other arts?
to start- escapism is not necessarily the social illness emerging from our weak culture. furthermore, i don't believe that the contemporary culture is nearly as degraded or vapid as many would have it. in every society, in every time period, there will always be critics that bemoan the downfall of culture. yet we, in the future, always praise those happy golden years, the bygone days. what we sometimes fail to realize is the fact that the same vapid, mainstream, idiotic culture existed in those times, as it does in ours. however, realize that we have an incredible amount of culture that is fantastic. we make wonderful every year (maybe not last year, but still, i digress). there are many, many, many wonderful writers and poets still producing work (joan didion for one, david foster wallace for adam). art is alive, no matter how many times we pronounce it dead. and someone will always pronounce it dead. that is the nature of the social critic, to root out the particular malaise THEY believe is destroying society, because something is always perceived to BE destroying society.
furthermore, please try to realize that people aren't always escaping from problems because they are afraid to face them. realize that most of us here have lived very privileged lives. we have never needed to escape from hunger, poverty, abuse, and true degradation. remember that during the great depression, people would save up money to go get a glimpse of shirley temple at the movie theater, not because they were afraid to face their problems, but because they were so miserable that even a tiny portion of happiness was necessary for survival. while it is true that there certainly are people escaping from issues that would better be faced, there are also people escaping from issues that they really, and truly, cannot solve. is you are miserable, then what is there to do but escape? why would you choose to let your unhappy situation destroy you? authors, filmmakers, etc, are often strong advocates of escapism. many of them began their lives escaping through the creation of their art. if we find it permissible to allow escape through creation, then why should we not escape through the enjoyment of this creation?
"the vapidity and degradation of our culture, running away from the downfall of the English language and the valorization of trash" are not the only things we run from, and are certainly not the most terrifying things that we run from. all of these things are certainly important, but compare these problems to the problems of a 9 year old girl that gets raped by her father every night, and who only feels even the slightest bit of happiness when she goes to hogwarts. why should we deny these people their right to happiness?
i realize i have exaggerated in some aspects, but this happens to be an issue very, very close to my heart. i, like countless others, am an escapist, proudly and without reserve.
I sorta agree with that.
However, I agree more with Andrei in that the said "NYC pot festival" would not really qualify as escapism...
right, well i'm not talking about that, just about escapism in general, and how we should not dismiss/denigrate it out of hand.
Ok, sounds good.
Post a Comment
<< Home