I started writing this as a comment over at Free Man's, and decided to post it here, for several reasons. One, I believe this. Firmly. I would say that this is the truest thing for me, other than balance and free will, both of which are kind of umbrella-ed under it. Secondly, I am obsessed with motherfucking donkeyball, and was waiting for an excuse to tie it in to something.
Sweet Jesus, when will people realize that answering a qualitative question is impossible?
The concept of self-imposed entitlement, betterness, one-ness…it’s bullshit.
There is no right or wrong in the world, no one way to accomplish anything. Not anymore. Then again I’m not sure there ever was. I feel like in the past there was a moral code applied to people’s lives by the leaders of society, and without being exposed to another way of thought, how is it even possible to understand different practices and perceptions, or even know they existed? We now have variety in everything. Food. Fighting. Love. Religion. Socks. Cell phones. Maybe not cell phones. Fuckers trying to give me shit I don't need.
With the advancement of technology, so came the abolition of black and white. With access to options, so goes access to minds. Everything is graying, subjective, with exceptions to every rule. Because it's damn near impossible to define the concept of "best."
Let's take basketball, because it's the IT thing right now, even though I've never really been a fan:
Harlem Globetrotters (exhibitionism and fun? Give the video a chance, they play football on the court)
Candace Parker (bitch is effortless)
Michael Jordan (total smooth cocky-baller. Wait until the one-minute mark. I think I held my breath.)
Donkeyball (Fuck. Yes. One of my best friends is a die hard fan, and prides himself on supporting "the oldest donkey basketball club in the world." I like to think of it has an homage to Christ and his love for hoops.)
So which is best? Pick one.
I know, I know, it's Michael Jordan. Whatever.
I'm sure that some of you are going to offer up suggestions for me on other basketball videos, other players to check out that are even better, and that's cool. My exposure is basically limited to those four things. Whether I choose to educate myself on the pleasures of basketball is my choice. I could do it easily, too, I could be a fucking expert by Sunday if I wasn't already devoting Saturday to P4C7. Internet and all that.
With all that information just floating around in the ether, ready to be plucked by anyone with a keyboard, we choose what we learn and each subject heavily influences our outlook, our morals. I am not as resilient as I think. Choosing to ignore something is just as important of an identity choice as choosing to embrace it.
The permanence and prevalence of choice amidst such a swell of diversity is proof. Choice is individual. More options means more contrast. Communities consisting of strongly similar individuals have limited choices.
And that is not a bad thing, it's not morally wrong to limit choices if you believe it's necessary. Limited choices can mean more decisive action.
I mean, I want everyone to behave a certain way and have the freedom of choice, and more importantly, I want them to want it.
But it is far more important that people are allowed to choose if they want the exposure of choice. I can't make them be me, and I never should. Does that make sense?
Like I said, there are exceptions to every rule.
Then again, I could be horribly wrong about all of this. There could just be a right and a wrong, and that's the way it is. It's all up in the air, like the internet. Damned elusive Answers. I like it that way, though.