public morality

this is what i figured, and to whom it applies to, may it apply to him or her. to those people it doesnt apply to, make it not apply to him or her.

morality, as we see it on television, movies, played out on the political fields, standing witness to the courtrooms of law and everyday-life, is, to me, a big farce, just as the charitable intent of the law is farce. if we go back the heydays maybe something better could be said.

public morality, or immorality, is a farce. it's a big self-righteous creature. it accuses, it evades, it deflects, it hides.

see this piece of news: on one side exhibitionists parade their synthetic-ness at a public area. moralists are aghast. lawmen contemplate lawsuit. dirty old men slaver. intellectuals light their bulbs and point their finger up. the exhibitionists say: "it's art."

but it's horseshit. the whole kaboodle is nothing but a farce.

the moralists are up to their same old tricks. but it's more than that: it's easy enough to dismiss black-robed-white-collared folks, who having lost all forms of the vernacular, as inept and obsolete. this does not address the very hyprocrisy of moralists. and if such hypocrisy is addressed, then it shall be found out that this hypocrisy runs in the blood of the most intellectual of intellectuals.

the lawmen go to law. here, it is easy enough to admit that whatever is law becomes well enough to be left alone at that. but it holds no more credence from the other man-made law of the moralists we had just described.

dirty old men are dirty old men. they could care as much about public morality as with their own morality. hence, dirty - old - men.

intellectuals are the dangerous lot. they're the modern men and women who rationalise the bullshit so evenly you'd hate to call it medium well. the hard part about intellectuals is that no one thinks of them as hypocrites. it could be that they preach no value they do not follow. or possible, they have no value from which to preach from. or they just simply dont give a shit. but is that really so?

the idea is this: for every accusation and defense we make, for or against a public morality there is the premise that this is how morality is defined as a matter-of-fact. a few more generations of this and we would have dissolved the concept of individual morality for a public one, where the only thing wrong is the only thing we see acted upon by entertainers who are dying for attention because they cant live life without extravagant cellular phones and foreign cars.

the fray continues with know-it-alls steeped in countless and, in my opinion, meaningless arguments about how to go about implementing a social morality. we have detractors for every conceivable issue. we have debates for everything. we love to hear ourselves talk; we are pumped when we make logical connections, rationalisations, appeal to sources and references, cause goosebumps and stuff like that. that is the modern man's warm hypocritical blanket: his ability to justify the actions of others; yet he is without a clue how to repent of his.

the moralist's appeal to dogma, the lawman appeal to constituted law, the dirty old man's dismissal to lust, the intellectuals rationalisations, the exhibitionists brain-dead appeal for "art's sake" and "freedom of speech" - all red herrings for which they enjoy themselves chasing around.

to a newspaper article asking "what's wrong with the world?", chesterson responded "dear sir, i am." but that is forgotten. the modern man cometh.