Friday, April 06, 2007

For some reason which I can't justify, I always thought that I'd begin leaving posts after I fly off in Sep. Probably it's for that stunning dramatic after-taste bolstered by the imagined geographical segregation :) (Yes I have had all that planned out) The fact is against popular belief, I do check back to the blog pretty frequently, albeit a furtive observer. However, Jiaho's last circumlocatory post left me with no choice but to break through that self-imposed barrier of reservation :P (sorry bro, I need a springboard to get me started... gotta sacrifice you)

It seems that the topic latched on pretty well to our primal instincts :) Everything contributed earlier made perfect sense, but the beauty of it all is that EVERYTHING makes sense, and there's still so much more to this meaty subject. It's more than an individual's principles, values or his/her biological components ticking against his/her will (Brain VS Pants). It's about the responsibility an individual holds to society at large, or in other words, the social contract that binds all of us as minute little gears, nuts and bolts in the massive machinery of a functioning society.

I am positive that all will agree with me when I say one's free to do whatever he/ she wishes to do as long as that action doesn't infringe on the right/s of other/s in this tight-knit society. I can choose to home in on looks, to pump weights, to intravenously plug myself to a protein shaker 24 hours a day, to subject every inch of observable skin patch to Botox as long as I'm doing it out of my own will and while at it, not harming any 3rd party in the process. Extending the logic, if one chooses to make choices based on perceivable appeal, that is his/ her freedom, the society can't do much about it as there is noone else he has to be accountable to other than himself. The situation only gets tricky if that choice involves the well-being of a 2nd human being.

Hereby referring specifically to Siying's initial post, it is ultimately an issue of whether this individual should be held accountable against a subsequent choice (ie. break up) made when it runs contrary to the first one (ie. initial proposal for courtship). To some level, I will agree that he/ she has to be responsible. But how exactly are compensations made when it involves emotions? If there is such a thing as a gauge to the amount of emotions that has to be paid back, then I would say by all means. However if there is such a thing, then love wouldn't be as electrifying wouldn't you agree? :)

Ultimately we have to admit that we're smack in the middle of the cliched 'grey area', the bottomline being you having to be accountable to your own decisions and choices made. If you take a closer look, this isn't a subject on external appeal VS internal appeal, bosom VS brain, reproductive need VS moral righteousness etc etc. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE has the liberty to procrastinate on that and come to his/her own conclusion on what he/ she deems as definitive in the selection of a soulmate. The question here is about whether a responsibility has to be borne in the event that someone gets hurt (and I hope you realise that even 'hurt' is immensely difficult to define much less to be measured against a benchmark of some sort). It would have been a yes if only you can come up with a way telling me how :)

Hope it provides some food for thought. And btw, it's my birthday today :D

Tensai23 rocking off at 11:13 PM

***