Sunday, January 5, 2020

12,440. RUDIMENTS, pt. 923

RUDIMENTS, pt. 923
(still working on that one)
Crusaders, and absolutists,
have always irked me. I
consider them unseemly.
Just because you are what
you call lactose intolerant,
let's say, you proclaim then
that : 'Milk is evil, its sale
should be stopped, it harms
babies and children, cows
are harmful to everything,
they pollute, they foul the
air with methane, they
consume for too much for
their relatively meager
output and need for care,
their environmental footprint
is far too large, what with
tractors and barns and farms
and gasoline and labor.' I'll
stop there, but all this because,
for you, milk represents a
problem? I don't get that.
Moral absolutes and the
sort of societal edicts they
produce are dictatorial and
way over done. Screeching
hordes lining the streets and
screaming their cause. Yes,
yes, it gives me pause. Some
people just don't know how
to draw the line.
-
I've seen plenty sorts of
masquerading evil in my
day; known a killer or two,
and heard of five or six others
I knew. Hearsay borders heresy,
sometimes. In certain parts of
the biker world, a killer would
get rewarded. Particular, special
tattoos, only they could have.
Certain rank and position within
the 'organization,' and a status
all their own. I always figured
murder to be kind of an absolute,
yes, but these fellows  -  once
the deed was done  -  they didn't
talk about it, nor did they usually
take it out on everyone else. The
act stands as its own theatrical
deed, and the less said the better.
Violence is a peculiar thing : It
only goes so far, and then it
too drops, dead in its tracks.
-
Sometimes the most normal people
around me have turned out to be,
in the end, the most abnormal  -
aberrant behavior which I'd have
never predicted. Bikers were the
best examples of this, but for a
lot of then I'm sure some sort of
drugs or speed were always
accountable for the behavior. I
never was real sure where to go
with these club guys, and the
others to, for anything might at
any time, break out. One time, in
Manville, NJ (yeah, weird name)
I knew a guy with the big Jersey
club; he'd been bugging me for
a bit, about money and tickets
and stuff (forced sales for their
events, money to one turned in
whether tickets were sold or not).
No matter, after a long time of
congenial relations with him, he
shows up one afternoon in Manville,
at some bar, and shoots a young
guy, kills him, who was sitting
across from him with a girlfriend.
Dinner, drinks, whatever. The
reason for this was that the guy
had on  a 'support-shirt' for the
'other' club not yet much, back
then, welcomed in NJ. So weird.
I'd have not expected it. Last I
knew, he was still in prison.
15 years now or more. You can't,
I learned, go solely by what your
nose detects. Odors can be well
concealed, and other things
always lurk. This is just one
example  -  anyone reading these
chapters will know I've covered
5 or 6 other such instances.
In order to make such a decision,
to kill, one has by necessity to
have made a decision in the
direction of absolutism : The
'shoot-me-dead' ethos, or shoot
'them' dead anyway.
-
What I'm saying, I think, is, 
in going back to that opening 
sentence, the forceful stupidity 
of being absolute about anything. 
It's a bit like the haze between the
subjective and the objective. Like
when a businessperson of whatever
stripe utters something ridiculous,
like 'Nothing personal, just business.'
Whatever that is really supposed
to mean (many times I've noticed
it was just a cover for having to
implement something difficult or
uncomfortable to someone else,
like 'We have to let you go'), what
it really shows is the way business
cannot be trusted. Whether it's seen
as 'objective' or 'subjective,' the idea
behind a transaction of such nature
is the extremism of taking one
or the other stance. Subjectively,
on the side of the divide, the 
individual could say, 'I'm cutting 
you a break, it's an insider thing.'
Or, more usual, they fall on the 
other side where the absolute of 
straight objectivity 'forces' them to
implement something. 'I'm sorry, 
it can't be helped, I have to
charge you that, there's no way
around it....' etc. The entire thing
is a shadow-game between people.
That's what 'money' does  -  money;
which is an intellectual concept
only; something agreed upon for
which to play the death-dice over.
(You can bet, however, in the
throes of the fierce battle, White
Bull did not utter to General
Custer those famed words: 
'Nothing personal; just business.' 
Native Americans didn't have
that concept.
-
Those things were all work-day
items I had to learn along the way.
I remember the first time I heard
'The shit's gonna' hit the fan,' I
didn't know what it meant.  My
co-worker Bill, at NJ Appellate
had gotten wind of something
I'd done, and he pulled me aside
to say the story was out and to
be careful today because 'When
Ron (the boss/owner) gets in,
the shit's gonna' hit the fan. Which
meant I had it coming. Nothing
personal, just business?
-
I always played a soft hand;
wasn't much good at cracking
whips or acting stern. I always
rolled. Even when raising a
son, I did the right moves, the
entire Dad deal, and it all worked
well, but at heart I never cracked
a whip, a harsh sentence, or any
of that stern stuff. Just couldn't;
it was never in me. A person is
what they are. Like when I 
mentioned that Andy Bonamo 
guy  -  he was about as true to 
himself as could be; everything
was apparent. I felt I knew
exactly about him from the
first few moments. But in his
case it wasn't a good thing.
-
Do you want to balance men
against women in this category?
I was always much better with
the female aspects  -  there
seemed always a lot less 
manipulation going on, fewer
of the underhanded, plotted,
malicious things that men 
always seemed up to. I
recognized that right off to  -  
never worried over it, never
had identity problems with
it  -  but it always jumped out
how that categorical difference
was forcefully present. (That's
a paradox, they way I just
phrased it). But what's weird
now is how present-day
Society enforces the claim that
there is, and can not be, any
differences between the two,
whether surmised, implemented,
or acted upon. The straitjacket
of absolutism here once more has
taken the fore. I'm still working
on that one. And I'm guilty of
a lot of it, too. I know.

No comments: