Dawn | Tue Mar 25 02:27:41 2008 |
| Humanum Genesis Delio | |
|
Title: terrible (and very obscure) wordplay.
Resent musings: possible repeat - idea that it is a virtue to confront people when they're being "difficult", rather than to avoid such confrontation, in order to act as a guardian of society's values. Criticism(?): by so acting, one isn't guarding values, one is promoting certain ones. Reply: While that is true, that is not a criticism, as they are the same thing. Related: When an associate or friend makes a bad move, what is meaning of loyalty? When one has no ability to intervene directly in such situations and one is not sullied by association, in the general case, we might consider "sticking with" a friend making such decisions while honestly-but-carefully explaining why such a decision is wrong should the topic come up. Loyalty-in-friendships is more about commitment in one's choices (e.g. acting in ways that are compatible with the intent of others, e.g. sticking with a friend who makes a bad choice that cleaves social circles) than in one's judgement. Condemnation: those who would move from "sticking with" to "approving of the acts of" a friend - this steps beyond what loyalty should be and lessens one as a person. Of course, at some point a friend might commit such acts that would (or at least should) terminate a friendship - such things are presumably very rare.
Hoping for a nibble on the job fishing line. Ideally soon - while I'm feeling better, I still need to get out of Pittsburgh as soon as I can, both to avoid destroying my savings and to avoid the risk of things getting really bad again. In the meantime, "Lost in Translation" and the ending of "Serial Experiments: Lain" both still feel very relevant. | |