With the recent arrival of spring I restarted one of my most cherished practices: through the cities in search of a human drama that encourages my reflection. This practice might seem reprehensible to a careless observer, but in my defense I will say that is supported by the highest moral authority. It would not hurt to remember that with God, who sees everything, started voyeurism.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the terraces are a good place to find this stuff, but if he fails you can always use parks: places where the transcendent gently mixed with the banal. In such a scenario could, just three days, witnessing a majestic example of tactical intelligence. Sitting on a bench a young couple mentenían a dialogue, whose prayers were so thoroughly that appeared to be spit action nitroglycerin.
Apparently the girl had brought her boyfriend to live together. This, slightly shocked because I knew it was a mining theme, trying to refuse. "But if we are at all times", "Independence is good that we have," what change, if we are right, "" I'm very manic and would not that we fight. " The girl neatly countered every objection: "We see the same but instead of being with me, stay with your friends," "Living together does not mean being dependent, they share", "Since we want, if we live together, we will be better", "If are incompatible'll find out in coexistence. It is high time for us to know further. "
the boy's face paled increasingly, his voice choked and his eyes lost in a thousand directions looking for a way out that never appeared. On the other hand, the girl showed impassively as each step was considered and the total control of the situation. It reminded me-I beg will pardon the metaphor, the way cats play with cockroaches before killing them. And this time was not long in coming, as negative to the faltering despite the counterargument of the boy tried to utter it, the girl let out a curt "you what you get is that you have fear of commitment." This silenced the small but stimulated my thinking.
I came to my mind the semantic frame theory of Lakoff. According to this language is not only the way we represent the world, but also finds its value. There are expressions, or ideas, a condensation implicit semantics that refers to a semantic framework in which meanings, memories and emotions are imbrincadas.
The thesis is strong because we are saying that words do not only refer to things but command us how we should relate to reality. Lakoff applies this theory in the field of political communication but also applies to the world of advertising art. Lakoff's model lets see how the features (policies, if any) struggle to impose a semantic framework (a worldly perspective, a way of understanding life, a stage, etc.) That is favorable to their interests or idelogía. Thus, Lakoff argues, the ideological struggle is in the language. The typical example. By party Republican tax is a state-organized theft, in contrast to Democrats, is an act for investment in yourself. We describe taxes as theft or self-defined images of the world investment and budgets radically opposed to those born different specific policies. If taxes are defined as handouts to the lazy or you are a selfish way of cooperation or we have a justification for one model or another of liberal democracy that draws on some emotional or evaluative components sedimented in language.
So the choice of words is no trivial matter, but determines how the battle will be fought. Thus, the principal policy objective of each faction will make use rivals language game that benefits them. After the immanent logic of the metaphor was responsible for convincing.
Well, that just happened before my eyes in the discussion of love. In that case, the expression "fear of commitment" was ideologically charged. It was the way in which the female placed the discussion in their field, thanks to the skilful management of male semantic framework. At bottom, this movement is calling him a coward, is becoming the issue of living with a partner in an act of courage and we all know that this is a the values \u200b\u200bthat are traditionally linked virility. We have here a fantastic stunt whereby women do what they want is macho. This argument deserves applause for its perfection.
recognize that what men do or stop doing what I do not care. But his intellectual inferiority, biologically and socially determined, awakens in me a feeling of compassion. So I will explain a discursive strategy to exit the fatal argument.
The boy would have to argue that there are moral reasons that push but refuse to compromise aesthetic and who knows but epistemologically! Indeed, it is not that the commitment is difficult or hard it is, quite simply, ugly. So, commit implies acceptance in future times a monogamous lifestyle. And this brings-everybody knows it but everyone is silent, that each individual in the couple will have to restrain the instincts and desires each time you see his spirit was troubled by the appearance of another being beautiful. Arguably, "because he found the love of his life, the individual renounces once and for all to fall in love again." Living together is not only to live in repression but live a lie, because it denies the existence of these impulses arising from foreign bodies and staged an world where sexual desire is directed only to the body of the beloved. Seen this way, defend the commitment is to beautify a lie. One might counter-
clarifying that "love is eternal while it lasts" and argue that there is no such terminal situation of repression as a couple may decide to switch. But if we accept that a new love is a valid reason for abandoning the family, then what is the point of commitment? Certainly
commitment-whatever their field of application, has a double face. Individuals requires a brave act of decision by which one delivers all his being to the devout observance of principles. Who does that is demonstrating great exercise self-control and courage, but the price of this heroic act is something tragic about it, while one mortgage their future actions to a past decision.
act on principle may seem brave and noble but it is both an act of surrender of liberty and denial of the various impulses that shape every emotional and rational. In summary, the commitment is not just a way of being a slave embellished a lie. Whoever has this statement certainly find the irony that a mechanism be convicted terribly liberating tear cynicism. This may seem small, but not to be confused with anything. For in a world on track in the "all-goes" postmodern cynicism is not a surrender to this logic dehumanizing, but the cry of despair. A cry that is both an expression of the consciousness of impotence and an indicator of an injustice.
