Went to the city (New York city that is) today and a great deal of situation related thoughts began to brew. What is a man without a situation? Are we only as good as what we're placed into? Are the exceptions all that exceptional?
Look, I know this extends into the realms of the nature/nurture argument; tabula rasa or predisposition? Who knows? This is some real deep stuff, so it's not to be taken lightly. There was a homeless man with a microphone at Penn Station singing for cash (or coin-essentially currency). That same man on stage is a "star." Wasn't half bad either. How far do we allow situation to extend? I mean, this man is in a slew of situations; financial, present, past, public, internal-the list goes on. Is this man, without me, in the same situation? The answer seems to be a resounding no. But that seems strictly social. For instance if that same man feels internally indifferent with, or without, people than maybe it's only changing the situation for those who we see as "neutral" in the surrounding area. It sure was awkward for me when I didn't shell out cash for his performance, but what if he didn't give a damn and just kept on living his life? Got me thinking, maybe had I not been running for a train back to Long Island, would things have been different?
So I'll pose the question again: how far do we allow situation to extend its arms?
Hopefully not too far.
Like the nature/nurture debate you can't seem to give either too much leeway, otherwise you'll find yourself in a pit with other stubborn radicals. I don't believe too much in anything (somethings I do, don't get me wrong), and this seems to fall in that list: situation, to me, poses an endless number of implausible & indeterminable questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment