No matter where; of comfort no man speak:Shakespeare, "Richard II (Act 3 Sc 2)
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, our lives and all are Bolingbroke's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood
With solemn reverence: throw away respect,
Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,
For you have but mistook me all this while:
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?
What role do you play in life? Father? Mother? Son? Daughter? Are you this "role"? Or do you have other lives "outside" of it?
34 comments:
i don't think they are "roles", per se, proper roles...or "stations" as they were called. Now a proper station would be ... householder?
So i think the question should be, Can you be a householder and something else too (for instance an ascetic), or is that your sole "truth," your place in the world, from where all your duties, your responsibilities, your beliefs, your interests will ensue.
“If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict–and of tragedy–can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition.”
Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”
Some of us "choose" our roles and/or stations. Others have them thrust upon us. But once we accept our station, with regret, we pretty much play it out.
And so I am father/householder.
...but in ten years, who knows? Perhaps an ascetic "beach boy". ;)
Did i say they were not "roles"? What was i thinking? Of course, they are roles, but not in the sense that you meant, where they are incompatible with others, i.e., they are not "stations". You can be a father as well as a scholar. But can you be a householder as well as, let's say a revolutionary (to take a modern example)?
And so I am father/householder.
yes, you are. indeed. (Sorry, i had not seen your last two comments.) (As i beleive) A noble station and quite essential, too. ;)
But can you be a householder as well as, let's say, a revolutionary (to take a modern example)? (Nicrap @ 7:56)
...and yet, is there a conflict between the two (despite what Berlin says), or are they in fact complementary, as i seem to believe (especially with regard to the older householder/ascetic dichotomy)? that i think is the complete question, of whose importance i cannot lay more stress.
I'm sure that you are right. There are complementary and opposed/incompatible stations/roles. As a householder, I cannot be a "revolutionary" without placing my householder status in jeopardy. And yet, perhaps this is the action that the "times" demand.
:P
:PP
There are complementary and opposed/incompatible stations/roles.
...i must crave your indulgence, but are they really opposed? that's my corollary question (and one which i think is a very important one). It's true that your "truth" will ensue from your place in the world, i.e., the householder, and it is not be the "truth" of the ascetic...but is there an essential confict between the two, or are they really complementary? Are your duties and responsibilities as a householder in conflict with the duties and responsibilities of an ascetic? Or in fact you are both essential to the well being of the society and cannot exist one without the other? What are these duties, these responsibilities, moreover (though it is a separate question)?
p.s. In order to properly grasp my meaning (and that of my question), i suggest that you see it in the context of the so called "class wars" ...
You are right. The main thing is that you and i should exist, and that we should be you and i. Apart from that let everything go as it likes. (Rameau's Nephew. Diderot.)
I didn't mean to suggest that there was not a "generation from opposites". It is this generation that is necessary, that constantly renews, and creates the great "cycles" of history, and prevents "stagnation" and "death".
Ecclesiastes 3.
No, no. Sorry. Not that you were suggesting anything. I was separately pursuing a thought of my own. :)
I don't think I felt that I had a "role" until I became a mother. And then, after a little while, I felt smothered by it. Because I neglected all other "roles" and interests to the exclusion of motherhood.
In no particular order.... ;-)
mother
wife
friend
daughter
teacher
patient
student
care-giver
advocate
But I don't think that we are defined by the "roles" we play...
But I don't think that we are defined by the "roles" we play...
Do you mean there is a "back stage" where we are "ourselves"...or do you mean something else?
No, I mean that there is a part of me that doesn't fit into any category or role.
I think I am "myself" at all times. Sometimes it's socially acceptable, sometimes it's not (conventional / non-conventional). But even beyond that, there are moments when I am in between roles. Does that make sense?
FJ, does it make sense to you?
Can you define it, that unspecified part of ourselves? Or do you not see it that way?
What do I think? I think that there are times when you follow the dictates of your own Ego, and times that you must be "something else" for the sake of "others", and you let SuperEgo guide you in following a role. Without the presence of these "others" you would likely not "play the part".
(PS - I'm trying on a new outfit today) ;)
...and the role you play reflects the role you believe in... "good mother"... "mediocre mother"... or "bad mother"... as influenced by your Ego, current mood and just how others are reacting/interacting to your performance.
:P
SO yes, it makes sense to me... but I'm a bit "nutty" and don't claim to knowledge on the subject, except on how it feels to me.
SO yes, it makes sense to me... but I'm a bit "nutty" and don't claim to knowledge on the subject, except on how it feels to me.
----------
That's precisely what I was after, anyway! ;-) your personal experience is far more interesting than book knowledge.
Are you pulling a Ms. Doubtfire on us, FJ? Just avoid high heels and underwire bras, and you'll do fine.
Hardly a Mrs. Doubtfire. She was only one person. Mrs. Grundy represents much MUCH more. ;)
Oh, she's new to me. At least her name is. ;-)
Iy's always fun introducing a new character. ;)
Couldn't fool old FT though...
It's actually Fintann who cracked me up:
"Someone's posting here under multiple aliases but on the face of it doesn't appear to be FJ ;)
And be nice to Mrs. Grundy, she appears to work for NASA, that's not to say FJ couldn't work for NASA and be posting from work, but I have neither the time nor inclination to dig any deeper.
How the heck did I fall down this rabbit hole anyway?"
Thanks for the link. :)
He deleted half the conversation as well. He'll get his... ;)
FJ, you turn blogging into a sport like nobody else. ;-)
A guy's got to have some fun some time! ;)
People are so serious, otherwise!
Very true! If only we could all laugh at ourselves more often...
:-)
Post a Comment