So, a decent amount of stuff has happened in my life lately that I've been forced from my relatively care-free outlook into something a little more introspective.
I've been thinking how the whole aspired-to rockstar lifestyle applies to other aspects of my life: i.e. relationships. Part of me wants to be able to live that rockstar fantasy of being able to just sort of do whatever I want when it comes to girls, but who I am contradicts that. I was raised on respect for women and emotional responsibility, and through that developed a love of chivalry and the desire to live my life like that. It's a curious contradiction.
So many times, I find myself in situations that force me to decide which Brian I want to listen to: the rockstar Brian whose impulsive and does what feels good, or the chivalrous Brian who won't do something avoidable if it's gonna hurt other people. I feel that the answer, as usual, doesn't lie in either of the extremes but somewhere right in the middle, favorite haunt of the truth. (ASIDE: I believe in absolute truth.) The obvious answer to give is that the whole rockstar/chivalric knight personas each have their moment; it depends on the situation and other parties involved. However, something just feels missing from this solution.
I can't help but think that part of the appeal of the rockstar fantasy is living in a world without consequences, where no one expects you to do anything but act on impulse and essentially just satisfy your whims. However, living in such a world would be detrimental to the music I write; I always write what I feel, and it would lack depth if there were no consequences for my actions. Because I write from emotion, *SCREECHING HALT*
I would like to take this moment to assure everyone that I do not like or write emo music, except satirically. There's a different between writing a sad song and an emo song; a distinction which is starting to get lost in the modern music scene. Besides, emo is lame and not metal, and I'm manly and awesome.
*RESUME* Now I've lost track. Meh; was worth it. Manly AND awesome. *kills a swarm of angry bees with pure testosterone*
I think consequences are important to the emotions we feel. *NOTE: the following is purely hypothetical* Say I'm in a "romantic situation" with girl Z. Girl Z likes me and wants a relationship, but I, being the carefree rockstar that stereotype demands I be, am just looking for a bedwarmer for the evening. Now, in the world I live in now, if I followed through with the bumping of nasties, the consequence would be leading her on, and therefore hurting her when I told her that I wasn't looking for anything other than a squeeze. I'd feel like a piece of shit covered in douche-sauce. Ok, I just had a mental image of what douche-sauce would look/taste like and shall now be mentally scarred for the rest of my life. Back on topic.
In the world without consequence, she would understand perfectly that I didn't want a relationship, but be perfectly down for a tumble in the sheets. Here there's no consequences so I don't feel any emotion other than satiation. As odd as it may seem, the second scenario is completely repulsive to me.
Having to make choices, even about things I don't wanna think about, is something that I highly value, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. The need to restrain impulsiveness when it's going to cause pain is one of the things that makes one noble, a mon avis. As much as the hedonist, consequenceless rockstar stereotype lifestyle appeals to me, I don't think that's an aspect of it I want. Or at least not much.
I can't deny a taste here and there might be a little fun.
I mean, what?
*cough*
\m/,
Brian
Monday, August 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So,
I think you can do that, or some kind, of mix. As Chesterton said (and Chesterton's pretty much the greatest and a champion of chivalry),
" Thus, the double charges of the secularists, though throwing nothing but darkness and confusion on themselves, throw a real light on the faith. It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised celibacy and emphasised the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty gray. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour: not merely the absence of a colour. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colours coexistent but pure. It is not a mixture like russet or purple; it is rather like a shot silk, for a shot silk is always at right angles, and is in the pattern of the cross.
So it is also, of course, with the contradictory charges of the anti-Christians about submission and slaughter. It is true that the Church told some men to fight and others not to fight; and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not fight were like statues. All this simply means that the Church preferred to use its Supermen and to use its Tolstoyans. There must be some good in the life of battle, for so many good men have enjoyed being soldiers. There must be some good in the idea of non-resistance, for so many good men seem to enjoy being Quakers. All that the Church did (so far as that goes) was to prevent either of these good things from ousting the other. They existed side by side. The Tolstoyans, having all the scruples of monks, simply became monks. The Quakers became a club instead of becoming a sect. Monks said all that Tolstoy says; they poured out lucid lamentations about the cruelty of battles and the vanity of revenge. But the Tolstoyans are not quite right enough to run the whole world; and in the ages of faith they were not allowed to run it. The world did not lose the last charge of Sir James Douglas or the banner of Joan the Maid. And sometimes this pure gentleness and this pure fierceness met and justified their juncture; the paradox of all the prophets was fulfilled, and, in the soul of St. Louis, the lion lay down with the lamb. But remember that this text is too lightly interpreted. It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is -- Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? That is the problem the Church attempted; that is the miracle she achieved." (VI - The Paradoxes of Christianity - Orthodoxy)
Sorry, I was gonna say it in my own words, but I would've just messed it up... But pretty much the idea of not making a lukewarm compromise, but rather a smashing together of opposites... (being the hardestcore metalist rocker and holy man.
and on chivalry:
"Man is always something worse or something better than an animal; and a mere argument from animal perfection never touches him at all. Thus, in sex no animal is either chivalrous or obscene. And thus no animal invented anything so bad as drunkeness - or so good as drink." - "Wine when it is red" All Things Considered
I guess that's all for now. I hope it makes sense.
Pax Christi tecum, Nic Carvalho
I'd like to say I think that rockstar Brian needs to reconsider... You don't want to become famous - publish music online, and get your words out there, but the idea of being a rockstar these days means more than just playing shows.
You're not rockstar material my friend... I think you're awesome, but you're not self-destructive enough...
You're two inches away from me as I write this.
Post a Comment