Monday, February 23, 2009

And from her head sprung a counciousness, fully figured and 8 arms wide

Recently I have been dwelling on the responsibility of the writer within the writing, as well as the obligation of a conciousness in society. 

I think I was prompted by these thoughts this morning when Bethe approached me and explained to me how she couldn't sleep last night and how she now has a concious and its the greatest thing in the world and she is so happy and I'm so happy for her, but I remember Ms. Bethe days before she grew this miraculous thing and she seemed full functional, but I also understand her happiness because I feel like everytime we as people are able to empathize with someone else we are showing a degree of humanity and becoming more interconnected with those around us, but how important is that really?

I feel like answering the question of how much humanity is enough humanity is a tricky one because along with not being humane enough we have being too humane which brings me to my lovely father.

This morning while in the car with my dad he began to talk about the presence of criminal rights in the united states. In his mind, the oppurtunity for a criminal to walk due to technical difficulties or some fault in the system is absurd.

Both extremems of humanity remind me of Albert Camus's The Stranger. In the novella, Mersault cares about the sea and having sex. He lacks a conciousness, and doesn't even really mourn his mother, who dies at the beginning of the book. Eventually (and you might not want to continue if you've never read and are all about the suprise of the novel) he goes to the beach and kills a man.

When he is put on trial the murder of the arab is largely ignored. Instead, the focus on Mersault cold nature, how he smoked during his mother's funeral, how he had sex only two days after, how he never cried. Here, Mersault is sentanced to death for his lack of humanity. Simulataneously though we are given the expectation that he will be given an appeal and walk because in the end his crime was not that bad and he still deserved to live.

The juxtopostion of the humane and inhumane in that novella always starteles me, and I definetly appreciate it, but its not the point of why I'm writing.

Sarah once told us never to read American psycho until we had a few sexual relationships because it was a novel written to hurt people and that writing contains the power to do alot of things. I believe this to. I think novels are like cigarettes, small, subtle, and ready to trap you. Some traps are good traps, but not all of them are. And I think something people commonly forget and need to remember is the that everytime you commit yourself to a book or to writing a story, poem, play you are allowing yourself to be trapped. Not everytime, but a lot of times, and its something I feel I need to be aware of, however I never do anything to prevent it .

Obviously responsibility is required with power or influence, but what about on a more personal day to day level?

Once I was playing risk with becca's brother and my family and he said "so you guys actually keep your truces?" I realize that theres no contract signed and even if there is it can be broken. its just a game. But to maintain trust is responsibility, and without that even basic relationships can't exist.

I feel like every human action is motivated by a risk. Like if I say hi to this person I am hoping they will respond, but if they don't I risk my social dignity. At the same time refusing to acknowlege/hold responsibility is the perfect no risk way to live, but inerently I regard it with great sadness which is maybe because alot of people believe that without great sadness there is no great beauty and I am beginning to think I disagree.

I am actually unsure where I am going with this, where this was supposed to go but recentally I have begun to wonder about weather I actually hold a duty the outside world for my actions, and if I do, how far that duty extends into my own nature.

Primarily with the situation I was thinking about tonight:

Person a and Person b are good friends and then stop talking. if Person c regards themself as friends of both a and b and c decides to bring b to a function that a will certainly be at, does person c have an obligation to inform both parties?

something to think about. 


No comments:

Post a Comment