Sunday, June 18, 2006
apathetic or enlightened?
I'm wondering: am I enlightened or just apathetic?
Zen's latest post at Sir Humphreys asks if redefining the word marriage (to include gays) is OK, why not then redefine the word Maori.Why not indeed. I could care less.
Some people are saying that for two gay people to marry, and declare it a marriage equal to a heterosexual marriage is dangerously diluting the meaning of marriage. They get scoffed at for this concept that two gay people could somehow threaten a heterosexual marriage, by redefining the meaning of marriage.
So how could a Maori person say their Maoriness is affected by my desire to be recognised by the State as Maori? I am not hurting them in anyway, I am just requesting that the state recognise my wishes to have equal footing (recognition and legal) with other Maori, since I have a commitment to be Maori, and Maori is after all, the consequence of being born in NZ.
It is interesting because I was thinking of this, but couldn't be fckd commenting (apathetic). I was going to comment (but didn't - more apathetic) that:
My perspective is that most of the things that I value are not defined by the law. I know that's unusual and probably a result of me not caring what other people think. For example, I could care less if the University went around giving "my degree" away to random people. I suspect most people would care though, because they have worked hard and need some sort of outside recognition of their work and achievements. They see the official piece of paper as the degree, not what they have learned.
Is that like what you are saying? That you would like some recognition from society? That you don't want to give marriage away to the undeserving and unqualified and those that have not worked as hard as you. Because that would make your Marriage piece of paper meaningless?
That is why I don't think whether I have children or not would make a difference to my viewpoint - I don't care what society thinks of me and I don't need outside recognition for what I do. Maybe it's a personality thing.
It is like at work. They give out certificates to recognise hard work and people who do special things. I detest these certificates. They mean absolutely nothing to me and I hate having to waste time going to receive them. Receiving certificates and recognition is more likely to make me slack off (in order not to receive recognition) than to work harder.
So personally I don't care about most labels, laws and outside definitions, but I know that most people do. So if I don't care, why comment? Maybe it's because I like to make sure people realise that there are people like me and that not everyone thinks/believes as they do.
Zen's latest post at Sir Humphreys asks if redefining the word marriage (to include gays) is OK, why not then redefine the word Maori.Why not indeed. I could care less.
Some people are saying that for two gay people to marry, and declare it a marriage equal to a heterosexual marriage is dangerously diluting the meaning of marriage. They get scoffed at for this concept that two gay people could somehow threaten a heterosexual marriage, by redefining the meaning of marriage.
So how could a Maori person say their Maoriness is affected by my desire to be recognised by the State as Maori? I am not hurting them in anyway, I am just requesting that the state recognise my wishes to have equal footing (recognition and legal) with other Maori, since I have a commitment to be Maori, and Maori is after all, the consequence of being born in NZ.
It is interesting because I was thinking of this, but couldn't be fckd commenting (apathetic). I was going to comment (but didn't - more apathetic) that:
My perspective is that most of the things that I value are not defined by the law. I know that's unusual and probably a result of me not caring what other people think. For example, I could care less if the University went around giving "my degree" away to random people. I suspect most people would care though, because they have worked hard and need some sort of outside recognition of their work and achievements. They see the official piece of paper as the degree, not what they have learned.
Is that like what you are saying? That you would like some recognition from society? That you don't want to give marriage away to the undeserving and unqualified and those that have not worked as hard as you. Because that would make your Marriage piece of paper meaningless?
That is why I don't think whether I have children or not would make a difference to my viewpoint - I don't care what society thinks of me and I don't need outside recognition for what I do. Maybe it's a personality thing.
It is like at work. They give out certificates to recognise hard work and people who do special things. I detest these certificates. They mean absolutely nothing to me and I hate having to waste time going to receive them. Receiving certificates and recognition is more likely to make me slack off (in order not to receive recognition) than to work harder.
So personally I don't care about most labels, laws and outside definitions, but I know that most people do. So if I don't care, why comment? Maybe it's because I like to make sure people realise that there are people like me and that not everyone thinks/believes as they do.
// posted by suze @ 6:14 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Definitely enlightened, Suze.
I enjoyed writing the above post - I'm still thinking this thing through and figured, why think, when others can do it for me? Thus, posing questions that may generate debate all just to help me muddle through a few different angles. Is there any difference between the truly enlightened and apathetic?
If I knew the answer, I doubt I'd care.
But to answer your thought bubble above - I think our ability to communicate is extremely important, and a most difficult enterprise in any circumstances. A key mechanism for communication is through language. If language is constantly being redefined and used for political purposes, it plays havoc with people who just want to be understood.
Sure, there is some need for recognition, and I feel similar to you about labels etc, but I think this drive towards "equality" is over-riding the very important ability to discriminate.
How else can we exercise free choice, if we are not free to choose one thing over another, for whatever reason? It gets harder when discrimination is being actively stamped out by calling shovels spades, purple blue and possibly marriage a civil union.
Maybe we should all be called Bob?
I enjoyed writing the above post - I'm still thinking this thing through and figured, why think, when others can do it for me? Thus, posing questions that may generate debate all just to help me muddle through a few different angles. Is there any difference between the truly enlightened and apathetic?
If I knew the answer, I doubt I'd care.
But to answer your thought bubble above - I think our ability to communicate is extremely important, and a most difficult enterprise in any circumstances. A key mechanism for communication is through language. If language is constantly being redefined and used for political purposes, it plays havoc with people who just want to be understood.
Sure, there is some need for recognition, and I feel similar to you about labels etc, but I think this drive towards "equality" is over-riding the very important ability to discriminate.
How else can we exercise free choice, if we are not free to choose one thing over another, for whatever reason? It gets harder when discrimination is being actively stamped out by calling shovels spades, purple blue and possibly marriage a civil union.
Maybe we should all be called Bob?
'm still thinking this thing through and figured, why think, when others can do it for me?
Brilliant! ;)
If language is constantly being redefined and used for political purposes, it plays havoc with people who just want to be understood.
But language is constantly being redefined. I do it myself all the time. I don't think that is something you can stop. Although I agree redefining for political purposes is slightly different.
I think this drive towards "equality" is over-riding the very important ability to discriminate.
I actually agree about the importance of discrimination (yes I know I believe in contradictory things). But I also think that things will automatically balance themselves out. Perhaps people need to experience stupid things in order to realise that they are stupid and to choose not to have stupid things.
I get why people are anti gay marriage and don't necessarily want them to change their minds.
Maybe we should redefine "Bob:" only people who annoy me are allowed to be called Bob ;)
Post a Comment
Brilliant! ;)
If language is constantly being redefined and used for political purposes, it plays havoc with people who just want to be understood.
But language is constantly being redefined. I do it myself all the time. I don't think that is something you can stop. Although I agree redefining for political purposes is slightly different.
I think this drive towards "equality" is over-riding the very important ability to discriminate.
I actually agree about the importance of discrimination (yes I know I believe in contradictory things). But I also think that things will automatically balance themselves out. Perhaps people need to experience stupid things in order to realise that they are stupid and to choose not to have stupid things.
I get why people are anti gay marriage and don't necessarily want them to change their minds.
Maybe we should redefine "Bob:" only people who annoy me are allowed to be called Bob ;)
# posted by 
: 6/18/2006 09:56:00 PM
: 6/18/2006 09:56:00 PM << Home
