On The Relativity of Absolutes

On the day of the publication of the cartoon right below by Per Marquard Otzen, we were discussing whether the young understand allusions. Common denominators are tricky beasts; Kierkegaard after all diagnosed them as the tragedy of the cartoonist since he or she has to stick to the lowest ones in order to be understood.

Oh, but they do understand. The young. Per Marquard Otzen is actually one of their sources of inspiration for his many layered drawings playing with literary ideas and personas, which in turn set the mind of the beholder into play. 

Add to this his bold use of the line, as if thrown onto the picture plane with the hand gesture of the true master, sprinkling out Zeus, the champion of transformation in company with Kierkegaard, the never resting question maker. Each of them symbols on our many lives within our physical one, challenging who we are and never coming up with the one answer since we embody them all. They are necessary even for us to gain our freedom as humans. Including the unceasingly existentially challenged ducks of course. 

The very word to play on life and identities brought on a dialogue by Tony Daoud on the importance of not taking the very words that denote the either-or for their stated value and accept them as absolutes. And so it seemed just right bringing image and conditionals together:

Per Marquard Otzen, The Relativity of Identity; the prerequisite to achieve freedom: 
The right to have changing and composite identities.
December 3, 2014.


The NO and YES are the same depending on how, when, where and why we are using them.

NO to war, YES to peace...

NO to gin, YES to vodka...

NO to cocktails YES to shots...

NO to halal, YES to pork...

NO to rape, YES to sex...

NO to marriage, YES to love...

and so on...

But these samples could be transformed to another speech, like:

NO to gay marriage, YES to missionary marriage.

NO to darwin, YES to jesus.

NO to alcohol, YES to apple jus.

But since we spend our entire life accepting what's coming without noticing, and not daring or paying attention that we should sometimes say NO, the NO become a need for a period of time, the "all time-to everything" NO, 
like we are revenging all the "YESses" we said in our past (starting from yesterday past) willingly and unwillingly. 

It's a self defense mechanism against the YES, even the good YES, cause we know that we are weak to balance between the YES and NO, and naive to know the difference between the good YES and the bad YES and the good NO and the bad NO.

We have to choose between them; the YES all the time or the NO all the time, or else we will swing between these dangerous words like a ping pong ball, which I guess in medical terms is called schizophrenia. Some people choose the YES (unfortunately) simply because they are coward (safety zone, social security, monthly payment, uncertainty...)
 and others choose the NO as a revolt (fortunately). Even if it started in a shape of: nobody understand me, I hate my parents, I hate school... 
the dangerous part is to keep saying NO as I mentioned earlier "all time-to everything", cause it will become another kind of YES. 

The YES to who benefits the NO, who take advantage of it.
 The right way in my opinion is to make the balance between these to POWERS.

Say NO if you feel it, and you can apologize and change your mind.

Say YES if you feel it, and you can apologize and change your mind.

At least you had a chance once to say and do what you want even if it's a mistake. But it's your own mistake, and it's much better and sweeter than someone else's right.

The cartoon shown is courtesy of Per Marquard Otzen and must not be reproduced without his permission.

Popular posts