Re: relative personal commitment to authors' "cosmic vision"
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 6 January, 2021 06:31PM
Good discussion, Cathbad. My comments, interleaved below...
Cathbad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's really funny how this works, too: each
> generation since maybe the early 20th C has deeply
> believed that the previous generation overlooked
> some very elementary stuff about life, thus
> missing out on life's fullest enjoyment. Simply
> put, we thought that they must have been stupid,
> when in fact they were simply more practical and
> more resigned to life as it seems to play out.
>
> Very true. But I also think the ground rules
> change as well. Promiscuity had far more serious
> consequences a hundred years ago - ie, rampant
> venereal disease, pregnancies etc - so
> understandably society was a lot more censorious
> about it, as it undermined social stability.
> It’s a lot easier to be liberal about sexual
> values in a culture in which (a) most STDs are
> curable & (b) contraception is widely available.
Well, that's true for sexual relations, but the differences were not primarily about sexual relations--they were about social responsibility and adherence to an existing code of conduct not so much for morality's sake (although often the counter-arguments were framed that way for simplicity), but over the individual's adherence to the social contract, as it had been commonly understood up to that point.
Take for instance the Vietnam war and the draft. My parent's generation had trusted leadership when they called the young men to arms, and drafted those who did not volunteer. They *believed* that it was the social responsibility of the young men to trust the judgement of the older men; concomitantly, it was the older men's responsibility to properly judge it the issue at hand properly required such a level of sacrifice, for the good of the entire society, as a whole.
In short, US culture was at that time much closer to a Confucian social system than it has evolved to today.
Too, the willing sharing of private property seemed somehow more correct and caring, but when, as a college student you either have little or nothing to share (as in my case), or your parents are supplying your material wants/needs, it's much different than 5 years later, when you are trying to wedge your way into independent adulthood, and can see by then that some of your contemporaries have no intention of ever having anything to share, but are more than happy to live, hand-to-mouth, on your level of generosity, and that of other caring and sharing and employed young adults.
But if we're talking about the Free Love movement--which is a sort of sexual socialism, if you think about it--where this blew up was not over morality--oh, no! It was over the predictable (now) fact that you could say with deep conviction, at age 20, that all individuals show be free to spontaneously choose sexual partners on a completely open basis. It was cool and hip to think and say this.
But--by god!--if you formed an attachment to a certain girl, and she turned around and blithely slept with your room-mate, this tended to test the living hell out of the proposition, which on the whole failed to pass the test in at least 8 out of ten cases.
Oddly, it seemed as if everyone was willing to share a plain girl, but the *really* premiums ones, well, not so much so.
And no, this supposition did not commonly include the idea of homosexuality. That came much later, and was not a part of the mainline early/mid 60s Free Love movement, as I understood it.
>
> Plus one generation often reacts against the next.
They *might*, but you don't see nearly as much of this in traditional societies. Again, Confucian cultures are the clearest example of what I'm saying.
> People might marry relatively late in life because
> they saw the downside of marrying too young, only
> to discover that marrying late in life has its
> disadvantages, too.
In my experience, those who purposely marry late are not doing so according to a plan or perception of any downsides, but more along the lines of deferring the idea of personal commitment.
My best old-time friend, my college room-mate, whom I remained close to until his recent death, married at 46 for the first time. While he could best be described as a 1980s hardcore LA womanizer of no small accomplishment, he was a deeply principled man. He realized that new women were to him like a trip to a candystore for a 4 year old with 2 dollars to spend: he was not going to be able to walk by the counter without trying some. Now while he was hell on some of his girlfriends, he saw no deep commitment that required his exclusive fidelity, but once married, he dropped the hammer on his former behaviors. Extirpated it, tout suite.
Me, I would have bet $1000 that he could not do this, but to the best of my knowledge, he did, although you could see the strain at times.
>
> Re CAS. I think CAS may have had a better
> temperament than HPL, but I also think he was
> luckier, despite spending most of his life in
> relative poverty. Also, his lifestyle is pretty
> representative of most artists I’ve known. That
> said, I don’t think poverty is a prerequisite!
Agreed.
Or maybe HPL was just *really* unlucky in a profound way, rather than CAS being lucky.
Good discussion, Cathbad!
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~