"I am for no master nor moral persuasion. I am for myself. What your yearning soul, madam, might mistake for loyalty to person or Purpose is merely a firm and, aye, principled determination to accept responsibility only for myself and my own actions."
What would be your response, in terms of how you interpret this character's philosophy?
"I am for no master nor moral persuasion. I am for myself. What your yearning soul, madam, might mistake for loyalty to person or Purpose is merely a firm and, aye, principled determination to accept responsibility only for myself and my own actions."
What would be your response, in terms of how you interpret this character's philosophy?
I would say I don't really agree that accepting responsibility for oneself is the same as loyalty to person or purpose. I'd say while it's common to try to simplify things or unify disparate ideologies under one banner its unnecessary, and conflates things that need not be conflated.
"I am for no master nor moral persuasion. I am for myself. What your yearning soul, madam, might mistake for loyalty to person or Purpose is merely a firm and, aye, principled determination to accept responsibility only for myself and my own actions."
What would be your response, in terms of how you interpret this character's philosophy?
Well the first part is a somewhat tricky statement or at least lends itself to being tricky.
I am for no master nor moral persuasion. I am for myself.
This has two facets, that being that this person is as noted for their Self yet does not exalt or imply any elevated posture of such, saying they are for no master or moral persuasion includes the speaker.
The Self is either exalted, diminished or just accepted. This statement is one of just acceptance with enough sense of Self protection to keep it intact. Defensive measures will be applied but no regal throne will be commissioned.
It speaks to humble personal recognition which is why the statement of being for ones' Self was a required part, to denote that recognition as a point of foundation. If the first part of the statement was all that was made it'd be possible to imply a neutrality that encompassed even the Self.
What your yearning soul, madam, might mistake for loyalty to person or Purpose is merely a firm and, aye, principled determination to accept responsibility only for myself and my own actions.
The label of "yearning soul" is saying this "madam" is looking for some kind of bond, which appropriately suggests why the first statement was necessary in the first place. Heading off the sought bond before it occurs or before too much effort is put into creating it or removing it. When someone closes the book right off the bat which is what happens here they're seeking to firmly and completely stop any effort being made on or towards their behalf.
The rest of the quote from 'might' onward is the why, the definition, the reason. It's granting the knowledge of why so as to avoid any entanglements and to avoid any further efforts being made. There's nothing to read into the reasoning that isn't stated in the first part. It's just an expansion of the initial statement and perhaps depending on predicament/sentiment, a warning.
It is a different version of Patrick Mcgoohan's famous line from the Prisoner:
I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. I resign.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"I am for no master nor moral persuasion. I am for myself. What your yearning soul, madam, might mistake for loyalty to person or Purpose is merely a firm and, aye, principled determination to accept responsibility only for myself and my own actions."
What would be your response, in terms of how you interpret this character's philosophy?
The issue is that some of us have a rather expansive definition of "self."
I would say I don't really agree that accepting responsibility for oneself is the same as loyalty to person or purpose. I'd say while it's common to try to simplify things or unify disparate ideologies under one banner its unnecessary, and conflates things that need not be conflated.
Well the first part is a somewhat tricky statement or at least lends itself to being tricky.
This has two facets, that being that this person is as noted for their Self yet does not exalt or imply any elevated posture of such, saying they are for no master or moral persuasion includes the speaker.
The Self is either exalted, diminished or just accepted. This statement is one of just acceptance with enough sense of Self protection to keep it intact. Defensive measures will be applied but no regal throne will be commissioned.
It speaks to humble personal recognition which is why the statement of being for ones' Self was a required part, to denote that recognition as a point of foundation. If the first part of the statement was all that was made it'd be possible to imply a neutrality that encompassed even the Self.
The label of "yearning soul" is saying this "madam" is looking for some kind of bond, which appropriately suggests why the first statement was necessary in the first place. Heading off the sought bond before it occurs or before too much effort is put into creating it or removing it. When someone closes the book right off the bat which is what happens here they're seeking to firmly and completely stop any effort being made on or towards their behalf.
The rest of the quote from 'might' onward is the why, the definition, the reason. It's granting the knowledge of why so as to avoid any entanglements and to avoid any further efforts being made. There's nothing to read into the reasoning that isn't stated in the first part. It's just an expansion of the initial statement and perhaps depending on predicament/sentiment, a warning.
It is a different version of Patrick Mcgoohan's famous line from the Prisoner:
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!