leonardcohenforum.com

AlanM wrote:
>This could be your next T shirt, Geoffrey.
-------------------------------
well, i hope not, because i already have so much stuff here. currently going through an intense phase of sorting and packing in readiness for a move. needless to say there is extremely limited free time. if i do happen to get an hour here and there something could be posted, but at the moment it is impossible. people are in and out the whole time, i'm driving junk to the rubbish tip, businessmen and financial advisers phoning and arranging meetings to sign documents - it's no picnic. the positive side of it all is that i do like a challenge, so there's that
back when i can.

just to say i am still around, and still making pictures when time permits. stay cool!

Hey, Geoffrey,

I simply can't resist re-quoting the caption in your image which is my one and only mantra that I live my life by for the third time in this thread

https://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewt ... 83#p378483

Geoffrey,
I think most people are a bit that way at times and more so with how the world is these days. I agree with your words. Throughout my life, from childhood to this present day, I have tried to follow my one and only golden rule –
treat others the way you would like to be treated. It’s such a simple rule and so easy to remember but sometimes not so easy to adhere to. If every single person could even attempt to carry out this rule, what a wonderful world it would be!

and here -

https://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewt ... 85#p378685
Yes, I am a peacemaker and here is my one and only rule in life again https://www.leonardcohenforum.com/viewt ... 83#p378483

B4real wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 7:16 am ...Throughout my life, from childhood to this present day, I have tried to follow my one and only golden rule –
treat others the way you would like to be treated...

I rather like the Confucian version of the golden rule, which looks at the issue from a different angle:

“Never do unto others what you do not want them to do unto you,” or alternatively, "Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you."

Or, there is Kant's Categorical Imperative: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. In other words, don't do anything unless you'd want everyone else to do the same to everyone else.

The "christian" golden rule (do unto others...) has each person deciding how to act based on what they think is best for themselves, based on their own self-interests: basically, a person thinks, "this is what I want, and so this is what everyone else should want, too". That can be a problem if not all people want the same things, because we are all different -- some more than others -- and there are those who may not like having other people decide what's best for them! Also, masochists and others who enjoy being harmed and abused can happily and acceptably go about harming and abusing others based on the tenets of the christian golden rule.

The Confucian and Kantian versions, on the other hand, are asking a person to consider what is best for others, or best for all people collectively, thus taking into consideration the interests of people other than themselves when they are deciding how to act and behave, rather than simply imposing their own interests and desires onto others without considering whether or not those "others" would be receptive to their actions. In these two versions, not acting -- that is, the actions that one chooses not to do -- are as important, if not more important, than the actions that one actually does.

Mind you, in many or even most cases, the outcomes may be the same or similar, regardless of which version a person chooses to follow, but the two versions I have suggested give people a little more to think about, having a somewhat broader perspective. Food for thought!

thank you B4real. a mantra or rule is something i do not have, at least not consciously. perhaps understanding the difference between right and wrong is all one needs. i actually thought about this when anton chigurh asked carson wells "if the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" chigurh was a psycopath, of course, and maybe jesus hadn't considered that type of personality when he taught "treat others as you'd like to be treated!"
https://youtu.be/0U_FBHKYqRk?si=lB2--SIVFvLiaF_E
--------------------------------
thank you to LisaLCFan.
. . . the two versions I have suggested give people a little more to think about, having a somewhat broader perspective.

such a message as the one you posted today makes internet well worth paying for! i look forward to bringing this up when i next attend a religious meeting, something i do quite often - mostly because they frequently serve koldtbord at the end of their lectures. a girl once told me that i had misunderstood dylan's 'it ain't me, babe' song. she said that he was not rebuffing anyone, but was expressing his regret and disappointment that he was not the one she wanted. she said he wanted to be the one to open each and every door for her. well, this has nothing to do with jesus overlooking masochists when he preached, but just goes to show how a seemingly straightforward utterance can be interpreted in different ways. the message you wrote was excellent, and has been saved into one of my word files.
---------------------------------
geometric gentleman

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 12:33 am ...a girl once told me that i had misunderstood dylan's 'it ain't me, babe' song. she said that he was not rebuffing anyone, but was expressing his regret and disappointment that he was not the one she wanted. she said he wanted to be the one to open each and every door for her...

I think this may be an oversimplification of the song's meaning. I think that "he" is, in fact, actually rebuffing "her", directly telling her to go away, and "she" actually does want him, and is probably deeply in love with him. The problem is that he either cannot or will not be the kind of person that she wants. As he perceives it, she wants a loving, devoted, committed partner who will be there for her at all times, and he simply does not see himself fulfilling that role in a relationship (whether by choice or by personality). She may not be aware of the fact that he cannot be, or does not want to be, the kind of man she wants, because of how much she loves him -- she hopes and maybe even believes that he is and will be the devoted and loving companion that she desires (love can be blind...).

He may certainly feel some regret at not being able to be the kind of man she wants -- he might wish that he could be that sort of man, but he realises that he is not. By pushing her away, he is probably believing that he is sparing her future disappointment, for if they did have a relationship, he would never be able to live up to her standards. That would be hard for her, being with someone who may not reciprocate her feelings with the same degree of devotion, and perhaps it would also be hard for him, for it would be a constant reminder of his shortcomings in a relationship, for he would always see the trouble in her eyes due to his not being able to love her the way she wants to be loved. Thus, in this case, he is assuming that she will be better off without him, free to find another man who will be able to be the kind of person she wants.

Or, maybe he simply has no interest in having a serious relationship, preferring to have the freedom to come and go as he pleases, with whomever he wants, doing whatever he wants, without any commitment or responsibility to another person, and thus, his rejection of her is a choice that he is making because he does not want to be the kind of person she wants, and he is not even willing to try.

So, is his "it ain't me, Babe" declaration a callous shove-off by someone who just doesn't care, or is it a lament by someone who recognises his own shortcomings and wants to spare another person's feelings? Perhaps a bit of both: he may not know what he wants or who he is or how he wants to live, experiencing an internal struggle between a side of himself that wants to be the devoted lover, and a side of himself that wants no commitments, and being unable to reconcile these disparate elements of himself. Either way, "she" is going to be heartbroken, because the man she loves and wants to be with is not going to be with her, and she is not even being given a choice in the matter.

At least, that's my interpretation of the song, which may or may not be valid or accurate. Cheers!

wonderful response, lisa! will comment later.

i feel guilty at not replying properly, but my circumstances are a little special right now. my apartment is empty except for 'the bare necessities of life': a greatly depleted kitchen, a table with chair, bed and computer - plus a huge pile of boxes weighing about 30 kilos each.

i miss having time to be online or to make pictures, but things will improve. don't give up on me

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2024 12:11 am ...i feel guilty at not replying properly...

No need -- there are other things in life besides this place, I get diverted sometimes, too! Good luck with the move!

afghan girl

"I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward - you are only going to kill a man!" -che guevara

some recent pictures

today's lunch is tuna pizza. simply brush spicy sauce onto the crust, add tuna, red onion, sweetcorn, black olives and mozzarella before sprinkling basil on top. serve with garlic dressing and a glass of orange juice. stick it in the oven for about 15 minutes and . . . hey presto!

Leonard Cohen wrote: Remember me, I used to live for music.

the man who used to live for music

ballpoint pen

Thanks for all the new pictures, Geoffrey (your pizza looks good!).

I only have a photograph to post today -- an intensely colourful sunset I saw recently. Cheers!