Laying down the non law

Question1-300x300She was confused. She knew what she believed. But she could not say why she believed and hence stuttered when she tried to lay down the law. Which invitation should one honour? The one that Mum has promised to go to months ago, on the tacit understanding that Son would go as well? The one that was a family party, in celebration of a family milestone? Or the one that has suddenly appeared on the horizon, the one which has the appeal of youth and adventure?

She was clear on what she wanted. The promise had been made, and one did not draw back from one’s promise. He was equally clear. The promise may have been made, but it had not been made by him, and his absence would barely be noticed. On the other hand, his presence at the do of his own choice would be of great note, to him and to his buddies.

In the process of laying down the law, she was bothered by her own lack of clarity on why she wanted her adorablescent to do as she bid. What was the reasoning she could give which would make it as inescapable to him as it was to her? Why did one have to honour a choice one had not made, and sacrifice a choice one would love to make?

It is the done thing to accept and adhere to the invitation that has come to one first, a law accepted by one and all. The only reasoning behind this being that this is the code of the gentleman. But such codes change over time, do they not? Does this mean that the time has come to revisit this code as well, just as many other codes are being re examined and realigned in the swiftly changing dynamics of the twenty first century? This is the era where self love is the proclaimed new religion, and selfishness is still anathema; the juxtaposition of the two causing much anguish over shifting frontiers of socially acceptable behaviour.

Where does selfishness end and self love begin? If it is true that above all, to one’s own self one must be true, then the code of honouring one commitment over another because it was made earlier, may not always end up being true to oneself. What, then, takes precedence, one’s sense of one’s dignity, or one’s commitment to oneself? But then, is not even dignity a product of times, cultures, and current philosophy? And is not one’s commitment to oneself the true determinant of one’s code?

Which is it?

image credit:

3 thoughts on “Laying down the non law

  1. Stumped… hmn…
    Being able to move moment to moment, I would peg.
    Eventually, I would choose based on what I want, yet that ‘wanting’ is affected by multiple things…
    There has got to be light at the end of the tunnel!!!

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s